Diplomatic Language

Since the days of Leibniz and Molotov, "diplomat" has dropped off as a profession that hopeful mothers want for their sons. Nobody studies at Princeton to become a diplomat. Everybody who's anybody would rather be an investment banker. But diplomacy is as important as ever. Yes, there are fewer countries than in 1648, but far more than in 1900. Someone has to do the negotiation, so I'm sure there are still ambassadors (and not the fake, political appointee kind) somewhere.

If there are, is diplomacy still messed up? Presumably, the main requirement in becoming a diplomat is the ability to recognize your country's interests, and go for them, whatever it takes. Getting confused, flustered or fooled is positively the worst thing you could do as a negotiator. In a country of 300 million, I am sure a thousand people possess the character necessary to make excellent diplomats.

Then why are diplomatic language and manners so, well, diplomatic? Assuming the opposing side's foreign office is as well trained as yours, they're not going to be swayed by flattery, euphemism, embassy dinner parties, insults, nasty language or even being spat on. These are intelligent people, right? When you're conducting public diplomacy, of course, all bets are off. When Bismarck published the Ems Dispatch, he knew the effect it would have on the French public. But the public can't be expected to understand diplomacy. Foreign ministers should know better. Don't they mentally strip the flowers out of the flowery language?

It's all just words people. Keep your eyes on the prize.