To answer the question at stake, however, it is important to understand who a diplomat is and what are some of the expected qualities he/she must possess as a representative of his/her country in a different jurisdiction.

According to Dictionary.com, a diplomat is “a person appointed by a national government to conduct official negotiations and maintain political, economic, and social relations with another country or countries.”

In this regard, the main functions of diplomats are representation, negotiation, promotion of friendly relations, protection of the interests of citizens living abroad, and information gathering, analysis and distribution.

Harold Nicolson (1998) listed the qualities of a good diplomat as: “Health, rapidity of understanding, patience, comparative sanity, great physical endurance, charm, no class prejudice up or down, immense curiosity, a neat manner with maps and papers, industry, accuracy, the power to ask inconvenient questions at the wrong moment, intimacy with the private secretaries of one’s own plenipotentiaries, the good taste to disguise that intimacy, the habit of looking upward and not downward when one does not know the answer to a question, courtesy, ability to type and fix carbon papers, acquaintance with economics, cleanliness, sobriety, cheerfulness, statistics from sources never mentioned, some proficiency in architecture and literature, capacity of enduring long dinner parties, honesty,  faculty of speaking well some foreign languages, no consummate belief in the immediate wisdom of the people or the press, a good memory, truthfulness and a complete sterilization of all human vanity.”

However, in performing these functions against the backdrop of the listed qualities of a diplomat, Henry Wotton painted a different picture of a diplomat to be “an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country.

A statement, Tom Fletcher and Omar Al-Bitar (2017) begged to differ, which I vehemently throw my support vividly behind them.

In their argument, the best diplomat knows when to say anything or when not to say everything. In the construction of their argument, they referred to the role a diplomat to that of a negotiator and claimed that no decent negotiator starts negotiating by laying down all his cards on the table. This is to suggest that, in negotiation, you live or die on your reputation, as to whether you will to be trusted or not. Hence honesty has and still remains one of the qualities a diplomat.

Herve’ Alphand buttressed this point to say a diplomat is a person who can tell the truth to anyone in a government to which he is accredited without offending him and offending anyone in his own government.

For instance if a diplomat becomes concern with human right abuses in receiving country, he or she can just go out condemning the government of failing to protect its citizens, nevertheless, in a “fine tone”,  the government could be praised in areas he is performing, then proceed to encourage him to improve upon human right issues of the country.  This is important in order not to mar the relations between the two countries.

It can be concluded that truthfulness is key in diplomacy, however, it must be done with politeness and in a manner that would not offend the host country although the truth has been laid bare.

Winston Churchill in supporting truthfulness of a diplomat, said: “Diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions.”  Thus the truth must be told but in a calculating and conjure manner and the key is using diplomatic language, a reason some refer to diplomacy as a soft weapon. 

Henry Wotton’s assertion might not even fly in this era of digital age, where information can easily be accessed within a space of time. For instance during the peak of the Coronavirus outbreak, there were reports alleging that Africans were being ejected from their homes and also being prevented from buying from shops in some Chinese provinces while others’ passports were even seized.

Imagined when the Ghana’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the Chinese Ambassador to Ghana for questioning over the matter and he lied for the good of country that such was not happening. That would have been disastrous, because videos evidence flooding social media would have perhaps proved otherwise. So in order not admit or denied the claims, Ambassador Shi Ting Wang promised that the Chinese government will investigate the matter at the Guangzhou Province and bring to book the perpetrators. Case closed.

What of he also lied about the said investigation?

It is my view that if Ghana had the interest to pursue the matter to the latter, the truth might be unearth.

In this case, one may also argued that does truthfulness make nonsense of the Oath of Secrecy. I do not think so because Fletcher and Al-Bitar made it clear that the best diplomat knows when to say anything or when not to say everything. Fact checking is now the name of the game, therefore, one must be courteous with his/her answer by not giving out the secret nor telling a lie.  

In summary, Nicolson provided what qualities a diplomat must possessed and never made mention of lies. Winston Churchill also engraved the tactical approach of a diplomat in putting across his information irrespective of how much it hurts yet it will be accepted wholeheartedly. Therefore, it is my opinion that Henry Wotton assertion cannot hold water.

By Bernice Bessey (student)

Source: [http://www.diplomatmagazine.eu/2019/12/01/qualities-of-a-good-diplomat/ ] [https://eda.ac.ae/docs/default-source/Publications/edareflectiongooddiplomatenglish.pdf?sfvrsn=2}