DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 6, Issue 265, 5 April 1917, Page 4 (Supplement)

DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS.

In a general way, most people know what is meant by the term "diplomatic relations." They are aware that the term is used to cover the customary I official methods of intercourse between civilised nations in times of peace. They understand, too, that the agencies through which this intercourse is carried on are the Foreign Offices of the various Powers and their accredited representatives abroad. When, however, they are told, for example, that President Wilson, of the United States, nas broken off diplomatic relations with , Germany, they arc likely, with only such genera"! knowledge, to be at a loss to understand the exact significance of his act. What precisely are the relations that he has severed 1 J What is the practical effect of the severance? What, if any, its moral implication? To answer these and similar questions, a writer who has made a study of the subject tells us it is necessary first of all to glance at the historical development of what are now technically known as "diplomatic relations" in international law. He points out, that "diplomatic relations" in the modern sense, like international law itself, are a comparatively late growth, their real beginnings dating only from the 15th century of our era, in Euro>>3. For a considerable time after that they existed ouiy in embryo. In ancient times, of course, there were heralds and envoys, sent from one Stat© or tribe to another, for special purposes, usually to present some demand or to threaten war. These were almost universally treated with something of the respect that attaches to the Ambassador of to-day, but otherwise there was no recognition of the fact that States as such had mutual rights and obligations. It is the recognition of mutual rights and obligations, together with the establishment of tne principle that all independent Staled within the family of civilised nations are equal as touching their sovereignty, that has made possible the present-day system of diplomatic relations. Under the Roman Empire, with its claim to universal sovereignty, there could, of course, be no community of equal sovereign States. The idea of a superior to whom all States were legally subordinate, lasted on long after the fall of the Western Roman Enip're. The international overlordship was then held to bo vested either in the Germanic Holy Roman Emperor or in the Pope, or in the two acting together as tho temporal and spiritual vice-gercnts of Heaven. When the growli of vigorous national Governmcn'.s came about, the conception of the one Christendom subject to Pope and Emperor received a scries of shocks which culminated in the overthrow of the Pope's universal spiritual supremacy at the Reformation, and of tho Emperor's temporal authority over even the German princes at the Peace of Westphalia in 1643. During the Middle Ages the intercourse between the peoples of Europ© was comparatively slight, less than during the best days of the Roman Empire, and consequently there was little need of negotiations between Governments. Diplomatic missions were only occasional Incidents. Envoys were sent to do some special work, and wnen it was done they returned home. There were no regular "diplomatic relations." With tho Renaissance came a revival of learning and an increase of trade. Peoples awoke to the knowledge of the world beyond their own immediate bor. dors, and their activity was further encouraged by the discoveries of new lands east and west by Columbus and other navigators. More and more subjects lor negotiation arose. Governinonts found that they had to resort more frequently to the practice of sending envoys, and gradually they realised the necessity of keeping permanent ambassadors at foreign Courts. Tho astute and crafty Louis XI. of France is reputed to have been the first monarch to do so. His mam purpose was to have a trusty servant at the seat of Government in neighbour Btat~s, in order that, he might obtain accurate information as to what was going on there. Besides his regular ambassadors, he used also to send on quasidiplomatic missions persius of lowe> rank—nis barber, for example—who did not receive public recognition, but Worked secretly. Louis XI. -vf s doubtless responsible to a large extent for tho disfavour with which other sovereigns at first regarded the presence in their dominions of permanent ambassadors, but soon all the leading States perceived the advantage to be derived from these official channels of intercourse and information. In Mary's reign, for instance, we find resident French, Spanish and Venetian ambassadors in England. Elizabeth had permanent ambassadors at some foreign Courts, and received resident ambassadors at her own. In the following century, the 17th, the practice had become general, and before that century closed it was looked upon as the regular and necessary method of official intercourse between nations. As the complexity of international business hi. eroas d, the work of embassies and ligations was multiplied, and in course oi time a whole hierarchy of diplomatists was called into being, consisting ol several classes of "ambassadors," ci heads of missions, and of several clas.-es of assistants attached to their suites—secretaries and attacnos. Among the latter aij now not infrequently commercial, military and naval, as well as purely diplomatic, attaches. The duties and privileges of these resident diplomatists, together with the observances- connected with their offices, are ••nib died in international law, or fixed by rules of international etiquette ii courtesy that an- almost as binding among civili-od nations as rules of law. Resident diplomatic ropresentalive= became, too. th.n immediate official "chiefs'' of the consular officers, whos;> duties except in special «re not strictly diplomatic or inter-

national, but commercial and national. Consuls are, generally speaking, mercantile agents of a State in foreign countries. They are expected to protect the trade of tne State, to vindicate its merchants, perform for its subjects all such acts of a public notary as may be required, settle as far an possible their differences, obtain redress for them if they are wronged, relieve distressed seamen, and keep their home Government informed of commercial facte. Unless he is specifically invested with diplomatic powers, a consul cannot as such treat, as the head of a mission can, with the Government of the country in which lie exercises his office. The office of mercantile consul dates back to the Italian trading communities of the 12th century. Other trading communities and States adopted it, and it had become general in the 16Hv century, when permanent diplomatic missions were beginning to b3 established. Strictly speaking, "diplomatic relation-,'' do not include the ordinary routine work of consular officers. Consuls may go on exercising their functions in spite of a rupture of "diplomatic relations," but they will be great'y handicapped by the absence of a diplomatic "chief." who can treat with the central Government of the country. For instance, a consul may find that one of his nationals has suffered injury, and cannot obtain redress in the courts or from the local authorities. It would then be his duty to report the matter to tiie ambassador or Minister at the capital for diplomatic action. When diplomatic re'ations are severed lie cannot do this. He could, of course, report it to his home Government, but that Government would have no direct means of negotiating the question. It will thus be seen that a breach ot diplomatic relations between two countries may seriously affect the comfort and security of the citizens of the one count.-y resident in the other. It also stops that early interchange of ideas about any subject of dispute which prevents a little difference from becoming an acrimonious quarrel. In addition, it of course brings to a standstill all the multifarious daily work that is transacted between a diplomatic mission and the Foreign Offi.ce of the country to which it is accredited. The practical inconvenience resulting from it is so obvious that no great Power would think of lightly bringing it about. Besides the practical inconvenience, there is another point to consider. The early distrust of permanent embassies has with time changed to a feelins that the right to send them, the Right of Legation, as it :s called, is one of the most important signs of the inclusion of a State in the family of sovereign independent civilised nations. Denial of the right, apart from tb.3 practical inconveniences, is really as deadly an affront as | one great Power can offer to another. It was in that way that Great Britain showed its moral condemnation of the execution of Louis XVI., and the chief Powers of Europe their horror at the assassination of King Alexander and Queen Draga of Serbia. If it has any meaning, President Wilson's action is a strong moral condemnation of Germany—a declaration that so long rs she continues her career of submarine piracy she is unfit to enjoy the privileges accorded to members of the family of civilised nations. It is a decree of outlawry promulgated by the great- ' est of the neutral Powers —almost the only one that dare risk bearding the international bully.