WOMEN IN DIPLOMACY.

Dunstan Times, Issue 3137, 2 October 1922, Page 7

WOMEN IN DIPLOMACY.

(Bv Cecilia Hill.) A woman has been appointed secretary to the Bulgarian Legation at Washington—a diplomatic post. "She can speak languages and has considerable political experience." So runs the announcement, the first formal recognition of a power that mail! has freelv used for his own ends, whether good' or evil, since the days of Lelilah or Semiramis; since the first cave man went out to kill, and left the woman with no'other weapon. 1 ill gradually man himself became a child, a simple, clumsy creature when in a woman's hands. And how else but by diplomacy does she manage children, servants, butcher? She is born to it, even in a cottage. So much for nature. Hut how about the hothouse flower? What is this "Diplomacy" as used in high places.-' The Imperial Dictionary answers, the science'of art of conducting negotiations between nations." So there is a greater responsibility; it is a question of degree. Essentially, there is no difference.

What are a diplomatist's necessary qualifications? I speak m ignorance, but I amagine, firstly, an intimate acquaintance of the language oi the country to which ho is accredited; secondly,'a knowledge of its history (not only of modern times, but stretching back to its ethnology, its legends, the verv well-springs of the race) ; thirdly, familiiarity with its geography and natural resources; and in all these subjects woman starts at an advantage, 'in that languages, history, and geography are better taught in girls schools than in boys'. Then 1 suppose he must study international law, which would be dull, but not insurmountable, and economics, which should interest the modern business woman. By general reading by travelling, and by mixing with her fel-low-creatures should she not be able to gain "considerable political cxperiHevond this technical equipment a diplomatist, even at the lowest rung of the ladder, must have good manners, tact and charm- natural adjuncts ol a woman ! What arc the objections then to woman in diplomacy? That she is emotional easilv swayed, and cannot keep a secret. All exploded fallacies! Great women are not indisereet. "Diana of the Crosswa\s" was written by a man. Did Queen Elizabeth divulge secrets? Did Madame de Maintenon? Or Maria Theresa ? Or Catherine of Siena ? Or, in recent times, Madame de Nivikofl, Kussia's Ambassaor to Mr Gladstone? 1 can imagine women as deadly antagonistsl and hard as steel in the interests of their country. Moreover, judging by recent history, man as ;t diplomatist would seem to have lost some of his freshness. His powers seem slightly dulled. Suppose

woman took her place officially at Washington, The Hague, or Genoa ? she would bring a patriotism just as keen and yet compatible with loyalty to allies. Would her eye lie less keen than a man's to discover shuffling and intrigue? Is not a woman's rectitude at least as unshakable as man's? In any case, a woman will work for righteousness and peace. If years ago there had been women working as diplomatists in Europe, when 1914 came there might have been- no war.