Since appearing, the League of Nations has been the gateway of diplomacy since 1919. Before the league of nations Old diplomacy or traditional diplomacy was the usual political intercourse between governments.
Ambassadors or ministers were given tasks as both intermediaries and informants. As an informant, the ambassador or minister had to talk about the internal conditions of the country he was in. As an intermediary, ambassador or minister he had to present the interests of his hosts and the country he was in.
It was and still is a very prestigious job to be a diplomat. Diplomats of traditional diplomacy often came from a good, well-mannered schools. Although a criticism of such diplomacy could be that only rich people can become diplomats. Also, the Old diplomacy had characteristics of being behind closed doors and secret. They usually held conferences between great powers in Europe.
There were two international conferences in 1899 and 1907 in the Hague which changed the course of international diplomacy.
Critics charged that the conferences were a failure and the implementation of the “Hague System” was prevented by the war but some of its elements can be seen in the League of Nations.
There was another organisation created after the outbreak of war in 1914. A group of prominent public leaders such as William Howard Taft, founded the League to Enforce Peace in 1915. The League to Enforce Peace pressed for the submission of future international disputes to arbitration and for sanctions against those countries who refused to submit their disputes to the pacific settlement. Citizens in Great Britain organised other similar organisations, like the League of Nations, which were in the interests of the Fabians. They were many other organisations developed also.
It purely says that League of Nations were a victim of Old Diplomacy. I do think the old or traditional diplomacy has a contemporary relevance judging by the outcome of United Nations.
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/E/league/leaguexx.htm
Dear Thediplomacyway, I have a question to ask.
ReplyDeleteDo you think it is wrong to ask the diplomats to be well-educated, highly skilled, with the best behaviour possible, and from a stable, rich family with good contacts and reputation?
I have always believed a diplomat serves to represent the country, just as to flatter the government he deals with. The person from a good background, who has been always trained to bring in new ideas in a diplomatic way, who knows how to gain and use the knowledge, the one who behaves properly and is naturally familiar with the protocol is – in most cases – highly possible to have credibility.
Regards the ambassadors, they are welcomed and honoured especially when they show how familiar they are with the local culture, language, habits, history. The governments are willing to cooperate with intelligent people who are believed to bring about progress, they even let them alter the policies they are about to impose (or at least ask for their advice if the law is linked to the foreign policy).
Your post made an impression that being a diplomat carries a lot of responsibility. It does, indeed. Diplomacy is to either avoid military conflict, or ameliorate the way states cooperate when trying to resolve one. So whose shoulders would you give that burden on? Me, I would opt somebody from Ivy League Schools, well-trained, well-educated, open-minded, who knows the power of money. I would try to make sure the person is highly skilled and would use a wide range of possibilities to prevent my country from conflicts, as well as would do his best to maintain a good reputation of the country on the international stage.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI would like to comment on the fallowing:
"It was and still is a very prestigious job to be a diplomat. Diplomats of traditional diplomacy often came from a good, well-mannered schools. Although a criticism of such diplomacy could be that only rich people can become diplomats."
Although, I would agree with this view of diplomats to some length. I do agree that diplomatic role is prestigious, it requires a good preparation, which, I think, develops all the way through education together with individual qualities. In this matter, I don't recognise the fact suggesting in favour of the wealthy. It comes to individual values that matters. We can find many examples of numerous diplomats, heads of country, leaders of individual comities, etc., who come from labour/middle class background, and I have never seen that individual from aristocratic class would present society in better, fairer ways than those who come a long way, with struggles ahead and wider practical understanding of the real world issues. Maybe I am wrong, and Daemian can try to prove it, however, diplomacy is much more than a prestigious title!
In this blog is very much written about the role and personality of an ambassador.
ReplyDeleteSome statements are true. For example, diplomat should be well educated, with a good manners etc.
However, there are missing some necessary virtues and abilities, such as honesty, ability to listen, to be a good companion and have good relation to women and pleasures but avoid to be under their influence and do not lose his heart.
Furthermore, a diplomat should speak a few languages, to know history of the country where he/she is sent and to understand and accept their culture.
In addition, he/she should be skilled in politics, history and to be a professional in diplomacy.
I do not agree that League of Nations was a victim of Old Diplomacy.
Although this institution failed in some cases, it was a good base and source of experience for the United Nations.
In my opinion, in this blog are missing other aspects of 'old' diplomacy which have contemporary relevance.