The Danger of Talkativeness

Former Ambassador JH Selfe

Translated from Afrikaans

Diplomats are people who are people who are never to say the wrong thing – even to the extent that if someone makes a mistake, he will often hear that what he had said was “undiplomatic”.

 In his professional career, and especially when he is serving abroad, the diplomat must naturally be very cautious, because it is always possible that if he is at a social function or any gathering of people in public, there may be a hostile journalist or tale-teller within hearing range listening in to every word; and if he says anything to the detriment that such a person could use, or rather misuse, to his country’s detriment, it is no use to claim that the remark was not official, or made in his private capacity.

A diplomat is simply always “on duty” and the “private” story is no excuse, unless he tells a journalist something explicitly “off the record”. The best advice is rather to listen than speak. In fact this applies elsewhere in diplomatic life, because then the chances are better that you will not say anything “undiplomatic”.

Yet it does sometimes happen that an experienced diplomat can make a mistake like this by saying a word or two too many. It also happened with me, and in fact in our own country when I already had a lot of experience and should have known when to stop talking. The occasion was a cocktail party held by Lord Dunrossil, then First Secretary at the British Embassy, and attended by many Cape Town party-goers. At a certain stage after an hour or so and having downed a few drinks I found myself in the company of a group of guests including Mr JJJ Scholtz. He was then chief political writer of Die Burger newspaper.

The others moved on and for a while the two of us were alone. He then asked me what sort of person this Mr Burger was whose appointment as Ambassador in Brussels had just been announced (1961). Now I knew Albie Burger very well, better than most of my colleagues, because I had served with him, or rather worked under him, for my first three years abroad.

They included difficult times just after the War, but one could always count on his helpfulness and co-operation. For this reason and also others I had a very high opinion of him and did not hesitate to praise him and expressed the opinion that this was a very good appointment. I added that this was not the usual single ambassadorial post, as the Ambassador in Brussels was also responsible for our relations with Luxembourg and with the new European organisations such as the European Economic Commission and Euratom. I was convinced that this person could carry out these duties well and would provide the necessary prestige to our relations with Belgium itself, which was after all one of our “countries of origin”.

Now that was the answer to Mr Scholtz’s question and I should, of course, have stopped there – it is another cardinal principle to say no more than you are asked. But no, this experienced diplomat had something else to add, along the following lines:

“And speaking of our countries of origin, it is odd to me that in the Netherlands which in that respect is the closest and most important for South Africa, we are prepared to appoint someone directly from politics. Mr Rust is probably a loveable old ‘omie’, but certainly no diplomat.”
To which Mr Scholtz immediately replied:
”Man you are dead right. He is my father-in-law.”

Well, no official secret had been exposed, nothing of international importance, but for me personally what I had said could just as well been something of that nature. I felt so ashamed! Mr Scholtz just laughed and indeed congratulated me on my  description which was spot on. He also never as far as I know, mentioned this in any article, but for several months I had a new insight into the fate of Damocles of old!

Published in the Meintjeskop Courier, Volume 1/1996.