1914] on The Foundations of Diplomacy 7 



a similar stock. It is an inverse and perverse rendering of the 

 sound and truly aristocratic Latin principle, AUis si licet, tihi non 

 licet, which it transforms into. Si aliis non licet, tibi licet. It tends 

 towards social, moral and political anarchy. It is not on such a 

 basis that the greatness of a nation can be founded or maintained. 

 Signs of reaction against the narrower interpretation of Realpolitik 

 are to-day visible even in Germany. The leading German pedagogue. 

 Professor Rein, of Jena University, whose name is honoured by 

 educationalists the world over, dealt not long ago with the problem 

 of " Education to political judgment " (Die Woche, Heft 6, 1913), 

 and insisted upon the need for education of the ethical will of 

 the nation. He analysed with penetrating insight the doctrine of 

 modern German politicians that moral elements have no place in 

 international intercourse, and that the ruthless application of force 

 or guile is the only task of the diplomatist. " What would it profit 

 us," he exclaimed, " if we Germans should gain the whole world and 

 lose our own soul ?" 



The tendency of modern diplomacy, or rather of the Govern- 

 ments for which it works, to pursue a policy of interests will, 

 unless checked, reduce foreign affairs to a level little higher than 

 that of banking, and statesmen to the level of concession hunters. 

 No community, however enlightened, no public feeling, however 

 generous, can be expected to grow enthusiastic over or spontaneously 

 to support so mean a conception of foreign policy. I am inclined to 

 attribute much of the present indifference towards foreign affairs to 

 this progressive degradation of diplomatic endeavour. The only 

 recent instance of diplomatic action having been inspired by a 

 principle apparently higher than that of immediate separate advantage 

 was during the Balkan wars of 1912-1913, when the Great Powers 

 subordinated, for a moment, their individual cupidities to the avowed 

 object of keeping the peace amongst themselves — a policy which 

 resulted largely in acceptance of the claims of the least unselfish and 

 most bellicose of their number. And even this result was speedily 

 compromised by the readiness with which, when occasion offered, they 

 one and all proceeded to barter their decisions, jointly sanctioned, 

 against separate advantages promised them from a quarter which had 

 reason to violate those decisions. 



It has been said that a diplomatist is a man sent abroad to tell 

 lies for the benefit of his country. The definition contains an 

 element of truth, inasmuch as it indicates that foreign affairs are 

 conducted in a rarified moral atmosphere in which ordinary notions 

 of right and wrong, truth and untruth, lose much of their validity. 

 There are doubtless unwritten rules and traditions that regulate the 

 diplomatic game. A downright official lie is deemed reprehensible, 

 especially when it is found out ; then, a dozen ambassadors in- 

 dignantly exclaim, " On n'est pas menteur a ce pointy Deceit is 

 admissible provided it be decently masked. Blundering falsehood is 



