About G.R. Berridge

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far G.R. Berridge has created 119 blog entries.

British Diplomats on Brexit

14 February 2019

It’s always been blindingly obvious but it needed saying again, and has just been succinctly stated once more by more than 40 former, senior British ambassadors and high commissioners in a letter to Theresa May, Read more.

British Diplomats on Brexit2020-06-03T15:31:42+01:00

Writing update

26 August 2018

I am putting the finishing touches to a very short book called The Diplomacy of Ancient Greece. Read more.

Writing update2020-06-03T15:37:40+01:00

Donald Duck could have got Kim to Singapore

13 June 2018

Out of sheer despair, I have been silent for a long time on Trump’s new style of ‘diplomacy’, as well as on the dangerous clowning of Boris Johnson at Britain’s Foreign Office. Read more.

Donald Duck could have got Kim to Singapore2020-06-03T15:39:41+01:00

Enter the Stupid Party, Exit Diplomacy

27 November 2017

John Stuart Mill called the nineteenth century Tory Party in England the ‘stupidest’ party but he would probably not have hesitated for long in abandoning this relativistic statement as too charitable to its modern, Brextremist variant. Read more.

Enter the Stupid Party, Exit Diplomacy2020-06-03T15:41:53+01:00

Death of author of WHAT DIPLOMATS DO

12 November 2017

I record here, belatedly, the death in September of my friend, Sir Brian Barder, former British diplomat and author of one of the best books on diplomacy. There were very good obituaries of him in the British press and to these I added a lengthy personal footnote on the University of Leicester website. Having discovered in April 2023 that it is no longer there, I paste it in here, with just a few corrections:

Long obituaries of Sir Brian Barder, former senior ambassador and Honorary Visiting Fellow of the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Leicester, have already appeared in The Guardian (2 October 2017) and The Times (12 October 2017). These provide good accounts of his most important postings and his taxing post-retirement service on the Special Immigration Appeals Committee. Drawing on a long friendship and scholarly collaboration with him, I shall, therefore, confine myself to filling in some of the gaps. Before proceeding to this I shall, however, say this about his diplomatic career. Its highpoint – rightly emphasised in both obituaries – was his time as ambassador to the vicious, pro-Soviet Ethiopian government at the time of the great famine in the mid-1980s, when he correctly assured London that it was safe for RAF planes carrying aid to land despite the absence of official clearance and his need to rely on local knowledge and the view of a high-level contact that it was ‘almost’ certain that they would not be fired on. Anyone still believing the nonsense that the need for a shrewd diplomat on the spot has been made obsolete by jet airliners and direct electronic communications between governments would do well to brood on this episode.

Neither of the long obituaries mentions the long association of Brian (‘I’ll drop the “Sir” if you’ll drop the “Professor”’) with the University of Leicester. This is perhaps in part because his association with us was not by any means as deep as he would have liked. The reason for this was that, shortly after his appointment – in the heroic days of Leicester’s Centre for the Study of Diplomacy – he fell off his bike while riding in London and severely injured a knee. This required an operation and I believe it was the best part of two painful years before he was properly mobile again. Nevertheless, before this happened he spoke to my own students and, in much more recent times, addressed larger audiences at the University. On his last visit, which followed publication of his What Diplomats Do (Rowman & Littlefield, 2014), I have it on good authority that he also had the rapt attention of colleagues at lunch with stories of his years at the Moscow embassy in the early 1970s. These years were particularly tense because it was at this juncture that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office expelled from London 105 Soviet intelligence officers with diplomatic cover, and brought down on the British mission the inevitable retaliation, including physical intimidation.

Diplomacy in general was not the only point of overlapping interest that Brian had with the Department of Politics at Leicester; another was South Africa. We had begun to develop this as a teaching and research subject when Jack Spence became Professor of Politics and head of department, and is still very much alive in the department today. Brian had been head of Southern African Department at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 1978 until 1982.

As well as having a brilliant mind, Brian Barder was a kind and generous man, and I shall always be grateful for his guidance. Despite his many important retirement preoccupations, he took great pains to read and comment carefully on every draft I sent him, which is why I dedicated to him the fourth edition of my own textbook on diplomacy. He also agreed readily to be an editorial consultant on all three editions of our Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Diplomacy, and in this capacity not only marked up the entire manuscript but also sent us dozens of long, trenchant, tightly argued but unfailingly polite emails on individual entries. This sort of communication, I learned from another source, had legendary status in the Diplomatic Service and actually had a name: the ‘bardergram’. As a tribute to him, and which I am proud to say he enjoyed, I drafted the following entry and included it in the preface to the first edition:

bardergram. An ambassadorial *telegram which is at once robust and graceful. As well as being pithy in expression, the bardergam is sometimes passionate in tone, not always short and usually fired in salvos. It ends typically with the following: ‘I await your homicidal riposte.’

Brian more than once described himself as ‘a card-carrying pedant where use of the English language is concerned.’ A loose word was not to be found in anything he wrote and he was always careful to use the correct word, although by the time I knew him this was second nature. Some of this reflex he developed while drafting speeches for Hugh Foot when the latter was British permanent representative at the UN in New York in the mid-1960s. For example, Foot disliked the use of ‘of course’, a phrase which Brian had used too often in his drafts. ‘If something is obvious,’ Foot asked him, ‘why do you have to say so?’ I know this because the same advice was gently passed on to me. Such was Brian’s joy in language that he became a ‘major contributor’ to R. W. Burchfield’s New Fowler’s Modern English Usage, as will be seen in the Acknowledgements to the third edition (Clarendon Press, 1998).

Brian was a life-long member of the Labour Party, except for an interlude towards the end of his diplomatic career when he judged it professionally inappropriate. In fact his whole life was a master class in how to juggle firm left-wing views with diplomacy in the employment of a liberal-democracy with a strong tradition of non-partisan civil service. In his retirement his politics came to the fore, chiefly in the form of letters published regularly in The Times and The Guardian, frequent articles in Labour List, and website blogs. He was an eloquent, forensic and persistent campaigner for civil liberties (which he saw his own party threatening) and for a federal solution for the UK as the answer to the agitation for Scottish independence. He was a great defender of international law and the United Nations, and strongly disapproved foreign military interventions that lacked Security Council approval; he made no secret of the fact that he regarded Tony Blair as ‘a war criminal’. His last great crusade was against Brexit, which he regarded as sheer lunacy. He had supported Ed Miliband for the Labour leadership, and was an early cataloguer of what he regarded as Jeremy Corbyn’s long list of disqualifications for being prime minister.

Brian died of pancreatic cancer, aged 83, on 19 September 2017. There was no funeral because, public spirited as always, he had decided that his body should be left to medical science. Nor was there a memorial service – just a party to celebrate his splendid life.

Death of author of WHAT DIPLOMATS DO2023-04-13T17:12:41+01:00

The Summer Capitals of Europe, 1814-1919

(Routledge, 2017), 342pp (incl. index). ISBN: 978-0-415-79245- (hbk); 978-1-315-21170-1 (ebk)

This is an original work, meticulously researched, rich in detail, and written in a clear and – here and there – refreshingly pungent style. Soroka is a Russian scholar but at ease in English.

The Summer Capitals begins with over 100 pages devoted to a detailed description of the spa towns of Europe in the nineteenth century: where they were, what ‘cures’ and accompanying facilities they offered (including daily routines and the special characteristics of their water), who patronised them, why they multiplied, and how and why their character changed – from inaccessible, rustic, medicinal retreats providing bizarre regimes and awful food to sophisticated resorts like Baden-Baden, Biarritz, Carlsbad, Ems, Gastein, Homburg, Monte Carlo, and Plombières, with luxury hotels, gourmet restaurants, concert halls, cocottes and gigolos, casinos, racetracks and other entertainments, together with stations for the new railway trains. For the developed spa in the middle and later decades of the century, the cures they offered were still usually taken but for many of their patrons they were not the chief reason for their visits. And it is in these individuals – especially monarchs (often incognito), government ministers and diplomats – that the author is mainly interested in the second part of her book, which is called simply ‘Business of Europe’. Here, she gives much attention to the political purposes behind the spa visits of the Russian czars, Metternich, Bismarck, Napoleon III, Iswolsky, Cavour, Gorchakov, Salisbury, Hardinge, William I, Queen Victoria, Edward VII, and Sazonov, among many other important figures.

Spa cures are shown by the author to have provided excellent cover for informal diplomacy; in fact, in the second half of the nineteenth century there was probably none better. They were the height of fashion, so members of the European aristocratic class were expected to take them regularly; anyone who counted could therefore be met discreetly at a spa and as if ‘by chance’ (p. 133). The opportunities for such encounters – contrived or otherwise – were the greater because there were so many spas to choose from and because in the summer and early autumn (winter on the Riviera) cures usually lasted for weeks and were often repeated annually. The spas were also readily accessible for the rich, even from St Petersburg, and provided an abundance of suitable accommodation. And, like all settings for informal diplomacy, they exposed the participants to fewer risks of unwanted publicity and time-wasting protocol than the more formal gatherings of the great powers of Europe. The result of these many assets was that in quiet times the spas were ‘valuable places for gathering and exchanging information and for various European leaders to get to know each other’ (p. 318). And at critical junctures, as in the case of those occurring during the complex and dangerous preliminaries to the unification of Italy and Germany, when the usual diplomatic channels could be too slow and unreliable, they provided opportunities to seek or confirm alliances and warn or put out peace feelers to potential enemies. It was at such times, argues the author, that ‘the value of spas as diplomatic centres peaked’ (p. 318). But at all times, as she adds, spas were safe places to start diplomatic rumours because, with so many statesmen in residence, ‘it would be almost impossible to trace it to the source’ (p. 11). And they were also useful to monarchs who wished to deal with their foreign counterparts without the constraining attendance of their ministers.

The spas were more or less finished off as cloaks for informal diplomacy by the First World War and when one considers what has been going on at Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump’s plush bolt-hole in Florida, it is probably just as well. It is in fact difficult to think of diplomatic settings in the modern world analogous to those of the nineteenth century spas of Europe, especially for high-level meetings between the representatives of unfriendly states. The annual opening of the UN General Assembly each September has similarities but it provides no ‘cover’ story and is in any case soon over. There is, I suppose, the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum at Davos, but this provides no cloak either and is similarly brief. Both of these settings are also the focus of great media attention. Other than the super yachts and private islands of the super-rich, the nearest parallel is perhaps provided by the funerals of heads of state and government, about which I have written elsewhere. These ‘working funerals’ might be irregular as well as lasting for no more than a few days but at least they provide a genuine cover and are of proven diplomatic value.

Marina Soroka’s book will perhaps be of more interest to international historians than to historians of diplomacy, although – as I hope will by now be evident – it contains food for thought for the latter as well. International historians will be better judges of the impact of spa diplomacy on nineteenth century events but I think she makes a strong case. The structure of some of the chapters is a little meandering but other than that I cannot fault it. I regard it as a first-rate contribution to the diplomatic methods of the 100 years before the First World War.

Post script: Sinan Kuneralp (Isis Press, Istanbul) has just pointed out to me that the title of this book is a ‘bit misleading’ because it could be taken to be a reference to ‘official’ summer capitals; that is, those to which in a few states the government itself (together with the diplomatic corps) would retreat in the summer. He gave me the example of San Sebastian in Spain. However, I’m not aware of any other European states where, in the age before air conditioning and refrigeration, summers were so hot that governments moved elsewhere altogether – as opposed to going partly on holiday – in that season.

The Summer Capitals of Europe, 1814-19192019-10-14T20:28:36+01:00

Curing the Sick Man: Sir Henry Bulwer and the Ottoman Empire, 1858-1865

(Republic of Letters: Dordrecht, 2011) ISBN 9789089790569, pp. 269 incl. index

This is the first book of a very promising young historian. Laurence Guymer, who is head of the Department of History at Winchester College and a research associate in the School of History at the University of East Anglia, has produced a biography of Sir Henry Bulwer that successfully challenges the conventional account of this colourful mid-Victorian figure. It also raises the question of how ‘diplomatic success’ is judged.

Bulwer was the British ambassador at Constantinople who immediately followed at that post the most famous British diplomat of the period, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe (formerly Stratford Canning). Partly because Stratford was in some respects a hard act to follow, partly because Bulwer was wrongly judged in Britain to be ‘pro-Ottoman’, and partly because he could not resist advertising his extravagance and philandering, pressure for his recall had been mounting for some years before he was finally forced to surrender his position in 1865. But emphasis on pulling off ‘diplomatic triumphs’ or achieving ‘influence’ with the government to which an ambassador is accredited, both of which were characteristic tests of the successful tenure of a post in the nineteenth century and both of which Bulwer is usually thought to have failed, is misplaced. This is because influence might be used too heavy-handedly and before long prove counter-productive, while eye-catching displays of diplomatic virtuosity might not be required if the conflicts requiring them are not allowed to mature – if, in other words, they are quietly nipped in the bud. In fact, the only important test of ambassadorial success is the obvious one: the extent to and price at which they secure the objectives of their governments’ policies, taking into account the obstacles they face. And on this test, as Guymer convincingly argues, Bulwer passed well – if not with flying colours because neither his cogently argued opposition to the capitulations nor active support for the British ‘concession-hunters’ who fell on the Ottoman Empire after the Crimean War chimed with thinking at home (he was in both regards ahead of his time), while his too-public private life caused embarrassment. Nevertheless, an experienced and shrewd diplomat, Bulwer followed the main theme of his instructions, which was to keep things quiet in the Ottoman Empire with a view to prolonging its life and keeping great power relations (not least with the French) on an even keel. He achieved these results despite confronting difficulties not experienced by his illustrious predecessor, particularly the much reduced need of the sultan’s government for British support against Russia following the czar’s defeat in the Crimean War.

Guymer’s biography of Sir Henry Bulwer is properly detached, analytically sophisticated and exhaustively researched. I recommend it most warmly.

Curing the Sick Man: Sir Henry Bulwer and the Ottoman Empire, 1858-18652019-10-14T20:28:36+01:00

Trump and Putin: that ‘secret meeting’ at the G20 dinner

19 July 2017

Even the most cautious headline – ‘previously undisclosed meeting’ – describing the informal conversation between the American and Russian leaders during the dinner for the G20 summiteers and their spouses in early July suggests that it was in some way extraordinary. Read more.

Trump and Putin: that ‘secret meeting’ at the G20 dinner2020-06-03T15:46:37+01:00

In defence of the House of Lords

7 March 2017

Once more the House of Lords, the ‘upper’ chamber of the British Parliament, has shown itself to be on the side of common decency, not to mention economic prudence. Read more.

In defence of the House of Lords2020-08-04T07:39:38+01:00
Go to Top