Diplomacy Means Quotes

It became increasingly common to resolve international tensions by legal means. The chant “Criminal Trials, Not Missiles” became prevalent after its use in my first State of the Union address. Nice ring to it.

A diplomat who says “yes” means “maybe", a diplomat who says “maybe" means “no”, and a diplomat who says “no” is no diplomat.

An Affair With The Media Being President presupposes a relationship with the media. One does have control over the intimacy of that connection. My media association might be best represented by the following interview, recently undertaken for this book: “What do you think of Newstime’s review of your book, Madam President?” “Newstime’s review? Surely you mean Bill Bologna who works for Newstime?” “Well, yes.” “Now, Bill Bologna. What has he published?” “He’s a critic. He does reviews.” “Oh, he gets paid for reading what other people have published and then writing what he thinks of their writing?

A NATION'S GREATNESS DEPENDS ON ITS LEADER To vastly improve your country and truly make it great again, start by choosing a better leader. Do not let the media or the establishment make you pick from the people they choose, but instead choose from those they do not pick. Pick a leader from among the people who is heart-driven, one who identifies with the common man on the street and understands what the country needs on every level. Do not pick a leader who is only money-driven and does not understand or identify with the common man, but only what corporations need on every level. Pick a peacemaker. One who unites, not divides. A cultured leader who supports the arts and true freedom of speech, not censorship. Pick a leader who will not only bail out banks and airlines, but also families from losing their homes -- or jobs due to their companies moving to other countries. Pick a leader who will fund schools, not limit spending on education and allow libraries to close. Pick a leader who chooses diplomacy over war. An honest broker in foreign relations. A leader with integrity, one who says what they mean, keeps their word and does not lie to their people. Pick a leader who is strong and confident, yet humble. Intelligent, but not sly. A leader who encourages diversity, not racism. One who understands the needs of the farmer, the teacher, the doctor, and the environmentalist -- not only the banker, the oil tycoon, the weapons developer, or the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyist. Pick a leader who will keep jobs in your country by offering companies incentives to hire only within their borders, not one who allows corporations to outsource jobs for cheaper labor when there is a national employment crisis. Choose a leader who will invest in building bridges, not walls. Books, not weapons. Morality, not corruption. Intellectualism and wisdom, not ignorance. Stability, not fear and terror. Peace, not chaos. Love, not hate. Convergence, not segregation. Tolerance, not discrimination. Fairness, not hypocrisy. Substance, not superficiality. Character, not immaturity. Transparency, not secrecy. Justice, not lawlessness. Environmental improvement and preservation, not destruction. Truth, not lies. Most importantly, a great leader must serve the best interests of the people first, not those of multinational corporations. Human life should never be sacrificed for monetary profit. There are no exceptions. In addition, a leader should always be open to criticism, not silencing dissent. Any leader who does not tolerate criticism from the public is afraid of their dirty hands to be revealed under heavy light. And such a leader is dangerous, because they only feel secure in the darkness. Only a leader who is free from corruption welcomes scrutiny; for scrutiny allows a good leader to be an even greater leader. And lastly, pick a leader who will make their citizens proud. One who will stir the hearts of the people, so that the sons and daughters of a given nation strive to emulate their leader's greatness. Only then will a nation be truly great, when a leader inspires and produces citizens worthy of becoming future leaders, honorable decision makers and peacemakers. And in these times, a great leader must be extremely brave. Their leadership must be steered only by their conscience, not a bribe.

Try to be pleasant to one another, get plenty of fresh air, read a good book now and then, depose your government when it suspends the free press, try to use the mechanism of the state to adjudicate fairly and employ diplomatic means wherever possible to avoid armed conflict.

...the Stone Table [was] a place that served as the OK Corral for the Faerie Courts when they decided to engage in diplomacy by means of murdering anyone on the other team.

The war is just when the intention that causes it to be undertaken is just. The will is therefore the principle element that must be considered, not the means... He who intends to kill the guilty sometimes faultlessly shed the blood of the innocents...' In short, the end justifies the means.

Peace is war by other means.

A mature person has the integrity to be alone. And when a mature person gives love, he gives without any strings attached to it: he simply gives. And when a mature person gives love, he feels grateful that you have accepted his love, not vice versa. He does not expect you to be thankful for it – no, not at all, he does not even need your thanks. He thanks you for accepting his love. And when two mature persons are in love, one of the greatest paradoxes of life happens, one of the most beautiful phenomena: they are together and yet tremendously alone, they are together so much so that they are almost one. But their oneness does not destroy their individuality; in fact, it enhances it: they become more individual. Two mature persons in love help each other to become more free. There is no politics involved, no diplomacy, no effort to dominate. How can you dominate the person you love? Just think over it. Domination is a sort of hatred, anger, enmity. How can you even think of dominating a person you love? You would love to see the person totally free, independent; you will give him more individuality. That’s why I call it the greatest paradox: they are together so much so that they are almost one, but still in that oneness they are individuals. Their individualities are not effaced; they have become more enhanced. The other has enriched them as far as their freedom is concerned. Immature people falling in love destroy each other’s freedom, create a bondage, make a prison. Mature persons in love help each other to be free; they help each other to destroy all sorts of bondages. And when love flows with freedom there is beauty. When love flows with dependence there is ugliness. Remember, freedom is a higher value than love. That’s why, in India, the ultimate we call moksha. Moksha means freedom. Freedom is a higher value than love. So if love is destroying freedom, it is not of worth. Love can be dropped, freedom has to be saved; freedom is a higher value. And without freedom you can never be happy, that is not possible. Freedom is the intrinsic desire of each man, each woman – utter freedom, absolute freedom. So anything that becomes destructive to freedom, one starts hating it. Don’t you hate the man you love? Don’t you hate the woman you love? You hate; it is a necessary evil, you have to tolerate it. Because you cannot be alone you have to manage to be with somebody, and you have to adjust to the other’s demands. You have to tolerate, you have to bear them. Love, to be really love, has to be being-love, gift-love. Being-love means a state of love. When you have arrived home, when you have known who you are, then a love arises in your being. Then the fragrance spreads and you can give it to others. How can you give something which you don’t have? To give it, the first basic requirement is to have it.

Pick a leader who will not only bail out banks and airlines, but also families from losing their homes -- or jobs due to their companies moving to other countries. Pick a leader who will fund schools, not limit spending on education and allow libraries to close. Pick a leader who chooses diplomacy over war. An honest broker in foreign relations. A leader with integrity, one who says what they mean, keeps their word and does not lie to their people. Pick a leader who is strong and confident, yet humble. Intelligent, but not sly. A leader who encourages diversity, not racism. One who understands the needs of the farmer, the teacher, the doctor, and the environmentalist -- not only the banker, the oil tycoon, the weapons developer, or the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyist.

Isn't language loss a good thing, because fewer languages mean easier communication among the world's people? Perhaps, but it's a bad thing in other respects. Languages differ in structure and vocabulary, in how they express causation and feelings and personal responsibility, hence in how they shape our thoughts. There's no single purpose "best" language; instead, different languages are better suited for different purposes. For instance, it may not have been an accident that Plato and Aristotle wrote in Greek, while Kant wrote in German. The grammatical particles of those two languages, plus their ease in forming compound words, may have helped make them the preeminent languages of western philosophy. Another example, familiar to all of us who studied Latin, is that highly inflected languages (ones in which word endings suffice to indicate sentence structure) can use variations of word order to convey nuances impossible with English. Our English word order is severely constrained by having to serve as the main clue to sentence structure. If English becomes a world language, that won't be because English was necessarily the best language for diplomacy.

Oh, diplomacy," said M.D., in his element, "it mops up war's spillages; legitimizes its outcomes; gives the strong state the means to impose its will on a weaker one, while saving its fleets and battalions for weightier opponents.

War is but a continuation of diplomacy by alternate means.

Long before it was known to me as a place where my ancestry was even remotely involved, the idea of a state for Jews (or a Jewish state; not quite the same thing, as I failed at first to see) had been 'sold' to me as an essentially secular and democratic one. The idea was a haven for the persecuted and the survivors, a democracy in a region where the idea was poorly understood, and a place where—as Philip Roth had put it in a one-handed novel that I read when I was about nineteen—even the traffic cops and soldiers were Jews. This, like the other emphases of that novel, I could grasp. Indeed, my first visit was sponsored by a group in London called the Friends of Israel. They offered to pay my expenses, that is, if on my return I would come and speak to one of their meetings. I still haven't submitted that expenses claim. The misgivings I had were of two types, both of them ineradicable. The first and the simplest was the encounter with everyday injustice: by all means the traffic cops were Jews but so, it turned out, were the colonists and ethnic cleansers and even the torturers. It was Jewish leftist friends who insisted that I go and see towns and villages under occupation, and sit down with Palestinian Arabs who were living under house arrest—if they were lucky—or who were squatting in the ruins of their demolished homes if they were less fortunate. In Ramallah I spent the day with the beguiling Raimonda Tawil, confined to her home for committing no known crime save that of expressing her opinions. (For some reason, what I most remember is a sudden exclamation from her very restrained and respectable husband, a manager of the local bank: 'I would prefer living under a Bedouin muktar to another day of Israeli rule!' He had obviously spent some time thinking about the most revolting possible Arab alternative.) In Jerusalem I visited the Tutungi family, who could produce title deeds going back generations but who were being evicted from their apartment in the old city to make way for an expansion of the Jewish quarter. Jerusalem: that place of blood since remote antiquity. Jerusalem, over which the British and French and Russians had fought a foul war in the Crimea, and in the mid-nineteenth century, on the matter of which Christian Church could command the keys to some 'holy sepulcher.' Jerusalem, where the anti-Semite Balfour had tried to bribe the Jews with the territory of another people in order to seduce them from Bolshevism and continue the diplomacy of the Great War. Jerusalem: that pest-house in whose environs all zealots hope that an even greater and final war can be provoked. It certainly made a warped appeal to my sense of history.

British diplomats, constantly exposed to American political-ethical rhetoric, find their professional skills tested to the limits by the need to keep a straight face. For illustrations of what I mean, study the photographs of the expressions worn by Mr Douglas Hurd at any international conference involving all the Western allies.

It’s often remarked that diplomacy is just warfare by other means. Our battles are no less desperate for being bloodless, but at least we get wine and finger food.

Pick a leader who will fund schools, not limit spending on education and allow libraries to close. Pick a leader who chooses diplomacy over war. An honest broker in foreign relations. A leader with integrity, one who says what they mean, keeps their word and does not lie to their people. Pick a leader who is strong and confident, yet humble. Intelligent, but not sly. A leader who encourages diversity, not racism. One who understands the needs of the farmer, the teacher, the doctor, and the environmentalist -- not only the banker, the oil tycoon, the weapons developer, or the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyist.

Attempts to locate oneself within history are as natural, and as absurd, as attempts to locate oneself within astronomy. On the day that I was born, 13 April 1949, nineteen senior Nazi officials were convicted at Nuremberg, including Hitler's former envoy to the Vatican, Baron Ernst von Weizsacker, who was found guilty of planning aggression against Czechoslovakia and committing atrocities against the Jewish people. On the same day, the State of Israel celebrated its first Passover seder and the United Nations, still meeting in those days at Flushing Meadow in Queens, voted to consider the Jewish state's application for membership. In Damascus, eleven newspapers were closed by the regime of General Hosni Zayim. In America, the National Committee on Alcoholism announced an upcoming 'A-Day' under the non-uplifting slogan: 'You can drink—help the alcoholic who can't.' ('Can't'?) The International Court of Justice at The Hague ruled in favor of Britain in the Corfu Channel dispute with Albania. At the UN, Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko denounced the newly formed NATO alliance as a tool for aggression against the USSR. The rising Chinese Communists, under a man then known to Western readership as Mao Tze-Tung, announced a limited willingness to bargain with the still-existing Chinese government in a city then known to the outside world as 'Peiping.' All this was unknown to me as I nuzzled my mother's breast for the first time, and would certainly have happened in just the same way if I had not been born at all, or even conceived. One of the newspaper astrologists for that day addressed those whose birthday it was: There are powerful rays from the planet Mars, the war god, in your horoscope for your coming year, and this always means a chance to battle if you want to take it up. Try to avoid such disturbances where women relatives or friends are concerned, because the outlook for victory upon your part in such circumstances is rather dark. If you must fight, pick a man! Sage counsel no doubt, which I wish I had imbibed with that same maternal lactation, but impartially offered also to the many people born on that day who were also destined to die on it.

It just may be that the most radical act we can commit is to stay home. What does that mean to finally commit to a place, to a people, to a community? It doesn't mean it's easy, but it does mean you can live with patience, because you're not going to go away. It also means commitment to bear witness, and engaging in 'casserole diplomacy' by sharing food among neighbors, by playing with the children and mending feuds and caring for the sick. These kinds of commitment are real. They are tangible. They are not esoteric or idealistic, but rooted in the bedrock existence of where we choose to maintain our lives. That way we begin to know the predictability of a place. We anticipate a species long before we see them. We can chart the changes, because we have a memory of cycles and seasons; we gain a capacity for both pleasure and pain, and we find the strength within ourselves and each other to hold these lines. That's my definition of family. And that's my definition of love.

The idea of humanity becomes more and more of a power in the civilized world, and, owing to the expansion and increasing speed of means of communication, and also owing to the influence, still more material than moral, of civilization upon barbarous peoples, this idea of humanity begins to take hold even of the minds of uncivilized nations. This idea is the invisible power of our century, with which the present powers — the States — must reckon. They cannot submit to it of their own free will because such submission on their part would be equivalent to suicide, since the triumph of humanity can be realized only through the destruction of the States. But the States can no longer deny this idea nor openly rebel against it, for having now grown too strong, it may finally destroy them. In the face of this fainful alternative there remains only one way out: and that is hypocrisy. The States pay their outward respects to this idea of humanity; they speak and apparently act only in the name of it, but they violate it every day. This, however, should not be held against the States. They cannot act otherwise, their position having become such that they can hold their own only by lying. Diplomacy has no other mission. Therefore what do we see? Every time a State wants to declare war upon another State, it starts off by launching a manifesto addressed not only to its own subjects but to the whole world. In this manifesto it declares that right and justice are on its side, and it endeavors to prove that it is actuated only by love of peace and humanity and that, imbued with generous and peaceful sentiments, it suffered for a long time in silence until the mounting iniquity of its enemy forced it to bare its sword. At the same time it vows that, disdainful of all material conquest and not seeking any increase in territory, it will put and end to this war as soon as justice is reestablished. And its antagonist answers with a similar manifesto, in which naturally right, justice, humanity, and all the generous sentiments are to be found respectively on its side. Those mutually opposed manifestos are written with the same eloquence, they breathe the same virtuous indignation, and one is just as sincere as the other; that is to say both of them are equally brazen in their lies, and it is only fools who are deceived by them. Sensible persons, all those who have had some political experience, do not even take the trouble of reading such manifestos. On the contrary, they seek ways to uncover the interests driving both adversaries into this war, and to weigh the respective power of each of them in order to guess the outcome of the struggle. Which only goes to prove that moral issues are not at stake in such wars.

Of course she is. Because she’s eight kinds of wonderful, and that’s just her legs.” Jeb furrows his brow. “What’s that supposed to mean?” “Taelor has all the diplomacy of a black widow spider. Garnet’s her birthstone. You’re wearing her birthday on your lip. Talk about spinning you up in her web.

Matt knew nothing about the doll that had replaced in the capital and was very surprised to hear people talking about him as if he were still home. Matt was still a very young king and did not know what diplomacy was. Diplomacy means lying all the time, so that your enemy has no idea of what you’re really doing.

To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.

War it has been said, is diplomacy continued by other means.

They’re convinced that if they ever did do something hurtful, they’d either have to kill the other guy or die themselves it's why they avoid conflict as a rule. These friends know all kinds of expressions that could smooth things over at least ten different gradations for conveying what essentially means no. Long before any type of conflict can emerge they are exchanging gestures of diplomacy. And while they dance across the surface with their smiles and their handshakes in; their minds they are both saying the same thing: what an idiot!

Her life, he saw, was without meaning. To what purpose was her diplomacy, her insincerity, her continued repression of vigour? Did they make any one better or happier? Did they even bring happiness to herself? Harriet with her gloomy peevish creed, Lilia with her clutches after pleasure, were after all more divine than this well-ordered, active, useless machine.

There's folly in her stride that's the rumor justified by lies I've seen her up close beneath the sheets and sometime during the summer she was mine for a few sweet months in the fall and parts of December ((( To get to the heart of this unsolvable equation, one must first become familiar with the physical, emotional, and immaterial makeup as to what constitutes both war and peace. ))) I found her looking through a window the same window I'd been looking through She smiled and her eyes never faltered this folly was a crime ((( The very essence of war is destructive, though throughout the years utilized as a means of creating peace, such an equation might seem paradoxical to the untrained eye. Some might say using evil to defeat evil is counterproductive, and gives more meaning to the word “futile”. Others, like Edmund Burke, would argue that “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men and women to do nothing.” ))) She had an identity I could identify with something my fingertips could caress in the night ((( There is such a limitless landscape within the mind, no two minds are alike. And this is why as a race we will forever be at war with each other. What constitutes peace is in the mind of the beholder. ))) Have you heard the argument? This displacement of men and women and women and men the minds we all have the beliefs we all share Slipping inside of us thoughts and religions and bodies all bare ((( “Without darkness, there can be no light,” he once said. To demonstrate this theory, during one of his seminars he held a piece of white chalk and drew a line down the center of a blackboard. Explaining that without the blackness of the board, the white line would be invisible. ))) When she left she kissed with eyes open I knew this because I'd done the same Sometimes we saw eye to eye like that Very briefly, she considered an apotheosis a synthesis a rendering of her folly into solidarity ((( To believe that a world-wide lay down of arms is possible, however, is the delusion of the pacifist; the dream of the optimist; and the joke of the realist. Diplomacy only goes so far, and in spite of our efforts to fight with words- there are times when drawing swords of a very different nature are surely called for. ))) Experiencing the subsequent sunrise inhaling and drinking breaking mirrors and regurgitating just to start again all in all I was just another gash in the bark ((( Plato once said: “Only the dead have seen the end of war.” Perhaps the death of us all is called for in this time of emotional desperation. War is a product of the mind; only with the death of such will come the end of the bloodshed. Though this may be a fairly realistic view of such an issue, perhaps there is an optimistic outlook on the horizon. Not every sword is double edged, but every coin is double sided. ))) Leaving town and throwing shit out the window drinking boroughs and borrowing spare change I glimpsed the rear view mirror stole a glimpse really I've believed in looking back for a while it helps to have one last view a reminder in case one ever decides to rebel in the event the self regresses and makes the declaration of devastation once more ((( Thus, if we wish to eliminate the threat of war today- complete human annihilation may be called for. )))

They’re convinced that if they ever did do something hurtful, they’d either have to kill the other guy or die themselves it's why they avoid conflict as a rule. These friends know all kinds of expressions that could smooth things over at least ten different gradations for conveying what essentially means no. Long before any type of conflict can emerge they are exchanging gestures of diplomacy. And while they dance across the surface with their smiles and their handshakes in their minds they are both saying the same thing: what an idiot!

The Human stared, then laughed shortly. “I suppose I have gone on a bit. Tell your people that not all Humans want their territory, and endless rounds of gunboat diplomacy and saber-rattling.” [...] Krenn said, “If you wish, I will take that message. But there is something I ought to tell you. We have a word, komerex: your translator has probably told you it means ‘Empire,’ but what it means truly is ‘the structure that grows.’ It has an opposite, khesterex: ‘the structure that dies.’ We are taught—by those you wish to receive your story—that there are no other cultures than these. And in my years as a Captain, I have seen nothing to indicate that my teaching was wrong. There are only Empires…and kuve.” Krenn saw Grandisson’s long jaw go slack; he knew how the Human’s machine had translated the last word. “And this is the change you say you wish to make in yourselves…. “So, yes, Mr. Grandisson, if you wish I will take your message. But I tell you now: there are none Klingon who will believe it.

Despite shared language, ethnicity, and culture, alliances nurtured deep, long-standing hostilities toward one another, the original source of which was often unknown. They had always been enemies, and so they remained enemies. Indeed, hostility between alliances defined the natives’ lives. If covered by a glass roof, the valley would’ve been a terrarium of human conflict, an ecosystem fueled by sunshine, river water, pigs, sweet potatoes, and war among neighbors. Their ancestors told them that waging war was a moral obligation and a necessity of life. Men said, “If there is no war, we will die.” War’s permanence was even part of the language. If a man said “our war,” he structured the phrase the same way he’d describe an irrevocable fact. If he spoke of a possession such as “our wood,” he used different parts of speech. The meaning was clear: ownership of wood might change, but wars were forever. When compared with the causes of World War II, the motives underlying native wars were difficult for outsiders to grasp. They didn’t fight for land, wealth, or power. Neither side sought to repel or conquer a foreign people, to protect a way of life, or to change their enemies’ beliefs, which both sides already shared. Neither side considered war a necessary evil, a failure of diplomacy, or an interruption of a desired peace. Peace wasn’t waiting on the far side of war. There was no far side. War moved through different phases in the valley. It ebbed and flowed. But it never ended. A lifetime of war was an inheritance every child could count on.

Noah turned to face his younger sister, arching one brow to a fairly smug height. Lenga lifted a brow back at him, giving him a delicate smattering of applause. “And I was afraid you would never learn the art of diplomacy,” she remarked, her lips twitching with her humor. “It merely took you the entire two and a half centuries of my life. Longer, actually. You had a few centuries’ head start.” “Funny how you seem to recall the fact that I am far older than you only when it suits your arguments, my sister,” he taunted her, reaching to tug on her hair as he had been doing since her childhood. “Well, I can say with all honesty that this is the first time I have ever seen you forgo a good argument with Hannah, opting for peace instead. I was beginning to wonder if you were my brother at all. Perhaps some imposter . . .” “Legna, be careful. You are speaking words of treason,” he teased her, tugging her hair once more, making her turn around to swat at his hand. “I don’t know how you convinced the entire Council that you were mature enough to be King, Noah! You are such a child!” She twisted her body so he couldn’t grab at her hair again. “And I swear, if you pull my hair once more like some sort of schoolyard bully, I am going to put you to sleep and shave you bald!” Noah immediately raised his hands in acquiescence, laughing as Legna flushed in exasperation. For all her grace and ladylike ways, Noah’s little sister was quite capable of making good on any threat she made. “I mean really, Noah. You are just about seven hundred years old. One would think you could at least act like it.

Soviets had their own atomic bomb, Kennan argued that it made no sense for the United States to get into a spiraling nuclear arms race. Like Oppenheimer, he believed that the bomb was ultimately a suicidal weapon and therefore both militarily useless and dangerous. Besides, Kennan was confident that the Soviet Union was politically and economically the weaker of the two adversaries, and that in the long run America could wear down the Soviet system by means of diplomacy and the “judicious exploitation of our strength as a deterrent to world conflict. . . .” Kennan’s eighty-page “personal document” might well have been coauthored with Oppenheimer, reflecting as it did so many of Robert’s views. Indeed, both he and Kennan took its reception as a plunging barometer, indicating the approach of violent political storms. Circulated within the State Department, Kennan’s memo was quietly and firmly rejected by all who read it. Acheson called Kennan into his office one day and said, “George, if you persist in your view on this matter, you should resign from the Foreign Service, assume a monk’s habit, carry a tin cup and stand on the street corner and say, ‘The end of the world is nigh.’ ” Acheson didn’t even bother to show the document to President Truman.

These boys never really argue. Ever so careful with each other's feelings, they tiptoe from one comment to the next, taking great pains to shelter their own feelings in the process. They'll do anything to avoid being ridiculed. Truly, they're convinced that if they ever did do something hurtful, they'd either have to kill the other guy or die themselves. It's why they avoid conflict as a rule. These friends know all kinds of expressions that could smooth things over. At least ten different gradations for conveying what essentially means "no." Long before any type of conflict can emerge, they're exchanging gestures of diplomacy. And while they dance across the surface with their smiles and their handshakes, in their minds they're both saying the same thing: what an idiot!

Battle: "[A battle is] a method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would not yield to the tongue." — Ambrose Bierce Battlefied results, diplomacy and: "Diplomacy has rarely been able to gain at the conference table what cannot be gained or held on the battlefield." — Walter Bedell Smith, 1954 Blockade: The use by a state or coalition of military force to prevent imports or exports from the territory of another state or coalition, a measure just short of war that leaves the actual initiation of hostilities to the decision of those being blockaded. Bluffing: Avoid deadlines and ultimata unless you mean them. Otherwise, the other side may use them against you. Blunders, bureaucratic: "In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, when there is a quarrel between two states, it is generaly occasioned by some blunder of a ministry." — Benjamin Disraeli, 1858 Blunders, diplomatic: "Our diplomats plunge us forever into misfortune; our generals always save us." — Otto von Bismarck, c. 1850

I can hardly believe that our nation’s policy is to seek peace by going to war. It seems that President Donald J. Trump has done everything in his power to divert our attention away from the fact that the FBI is investigating his association with Russia during his campaign for office. For several weeks now he has been sabre rattling and taking an extremely controversial stance, first with Syria and Afghanistan and now with North Korea. The rhetoric has been the same, accusing others for our failed policy and threatening to take autonomous military action to attain peace in our time. This gunboat diplomacy is wrong. There is no doubt that Secretaries Kelly, Mattis, and other retired military personnel in the Trump Administration are personally tough. However, most people who have served in the military are not eager to send our young men and women to fight, if it is not necessary. Despite what may have been said to the contrary, our military leaders, active or retired, are most often the ones most respectful of international law. Although the military is the tip of the spear for our country, and the forces of civilization, it should not be the first tool to be used. Bloodshed should only be considered as a last resort and definitely never used as the first option. As the leader of the free world, we should stand our ground but be prepared to seek peace through restraint. This is not the time to exercise false pride! Unfortunately the Trump administration informed four top State Department management officials that their services were no longer needed as part of an effort to "clean house." Patrick Kennedy, served for nine years as the “Undersecretary for Management,” “Assistant Secretaries for Administration and Consular Affairs” Joyce Anne Barr and Michele Bond, as well as “Ambassador” Gentry Smith, director of the Office for Foreign Missions. Most of the United States Ambassadors to foreign countries have also been dismissed, including the ones to South Korea and Japan. This leaves the United States without the means of exercising diplomacy rapidly, when needed. These positions are political appointments, and require the President’s nomination and the Senate’s confirmation. This has not happened! Moreover, diplomatically our country is severely handicapped at a time when tensions are as hot as any time since the Cold War. Without following expert advice or consent and the necessary input from the Unites States Congress, the decisions are all being made by a man who claims to know more than the generals do, yet he has only the military experience of a cadet at “New York Military Academy.” A private school he attended as a high school student, from 1959 to 1964. At that time, he received educational and medical deferments from the Vietnam War draft. Trump said that the school provided him with “more training than a lot of the guys that go into the military.” His counterpart the unhinged Kim Jong-un has played with what he considers his country’s military toys, since April 11th of 2012. To think that these are the two world leaders, protecting the planet from a nuclear holocaust….

If we analyze white supremacy from the philosophical lens of Star Wars, then it is all the Sith Lords, the Empire, and the First Order commanded by the Dark Side of the Force. It wants to dominate and impose its will on all galaxies, even those far, far away. Let’s just call this insidious force THE WHITENESS. The Whiteness’s ability to inspire fear and anger is so strong that it corrupted many well-​intentioned people, including people of color, to vote for an incompetent vulgarian in 2016 and 2020. It deludes many liberal and “moderate” whites into believing that they are the “good” ones who are committed to social justice as they talk about white privilege but never actually give up any of it. Still, they’ll have these discussions about racial equality with their white friends in establishments with white patrons from white neighborhoods—​without including the rest of us. The Whiteness has always played for all the marbles. It’s not interested in diplomacy, a representative government, free and fair elections, equitable pay, and a delicious buffet of meals from a multitude of countries. It needs a border wall, a Muslim Ban, and affirmative action for wealthy white students at Yale University. It’s a system, a structure, a paradigm, an ideology whose ultimate goal is domination and submission by any means necessary.

It is already apparent that the word 'Fascist' will be one of the hardest-worked words in the Presidential campaign. Henry Wallace called some people Fascists the other day in a speech and next day up jumped Harrison Spangler, the Republican, to remark that if there were any Fascists in this country you would find them in the New Deal's palace guard. It is getting so a Fascist is a man who votes the other way. Persons who vote your way, of course, continue to be 'right-minded people.' We are sorry to see this misuse of the word 'Fascist.' If we recall matters, a Fascist is a member of the Fascist party or a believer in Fascist ideals. These are: a nation founded on bloodlines, political expansion by surprise and war, murder or detention of unbelievers, transcendence of state over individual, obedience to one leader, contempt for parliamentary forms, plus some miscellaneous gymnastics for the young and a general feeling of elation. It seems to us that there are many New Deal Democrats who do not subscribe to such a program, also many aspiring Republicans. Other millions of Americans are nonsubscribers. It's too bad to emasculate the word 'Fascist' by using it on persons whose only offense is that they vote the wrong ticket. The word should be saved for use in cases where it applies, as it does to members of our Ku Klux Klan, for instance, whose beliefs and practices are identical with Fascism. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), there is a certain quality in Fascism which is quite close to a certain quality in nationalism. Fascism is openly against people-in-general, in favor of people-in-particular. Nationalism, although in theory not dedicated to such an idea, actually works against people-in-general because of its preoccupation with people-in-particular. It reminds one of Fascism, also, in its determination to stabilize its own position by whatever haphazard means present themselves--by treaties, policies, balances, agreements, pacts, and the jockeying for position which is summed up in the term 'diplomacy.' This doesn't make an America Firster a Fascist. It simply makes him, in our opinion, a man who hasn't grown into his pants yet. The persons who have written most persuasively against nationalism are the young soldiers who have got far enough from our shores to see the amazing implications of a planet. Once you see it, you never forget it.

Question : BELOVED OSHO, I AM A GOD-FEARING MAN, BUT YOU SAY THAT ALL FEAR HAS TO BE DROPPED. HAS THE FEAR OF GOD ALSO TO BE DROPPED? Osho : Ramchandra, fear is fear: it does not matter of what, of whom. The object makes no difference; your subjectivity is full of fear. And if you are God-fearing you can never be God-loving. How can you love God if you are afraid of him? You may submit and surrender, but deep down there will be resistance, anger. And fear is just the opposite of love. Hate is not really the opposite of love - you will be surprised - fear is the exact opposite. Hate is love standing upside down; fear is just the opposite. And if you follow a religious life out of fear it will be the life of a slave, not of a man who is free. And if you start in fear you cannot end in freedom; you will end in slavery. And all that you will do out of fear is going to be wrong; it is going to be false, superficial. If you do things out of fear you can't do them with your heart. Up to now, religion has been based on fear. That's why the earth has remained irreligious or only superficially religious. Religion has remained just something like a painted face: false, pseudo. And the basic reason why it has failed is fear. The priests have based the religion on fear and greed - which are two aspects of the same coin. And in the scriptures they have invented so many methods of torture that it seems that Adolf Hitler must have read all the scriptures of the world, otherwise how had he come across so many methods to torture people? They can be found only in religious scriptures. The priests have based their religion on two basic, ugly instincts: fear and greed. And both have nothing to do with real religion. Real religion is freedom from greed and freedom from fear. We love out of fear, we pray out of fear. Parents are afraid of their children and children are afraid of their parents. Children are afraid of their teachers and teachers are afraid of their pupils. Everybody is afraid of everybody else - it seems as if fear is the only climate we live in. People are loving even... even love is nothing but fear - a diplomacy, a strategy, to keep things running smoothly. Ramchandra, if you really know what prayer is then prayer itself is its own reward...praying itself is such a beautiful phenomenon that who cares about the future and who bothers about the reward? Prayer in itself is such a celebration, it brings such great joy and ecstasy, that one prays for the prayer's sake. One does not pray out of fear and one does not pray out of greed; one prays because one enjoys it. If you enjoy dancing, you simply dance! Whether anybody sees the dance from the sky or not is not your concern. Whether the stars and the sun and the moon are going to reward you for your dance, you don't care. The dance is enough of a reward in itself. If you love singing you sing; whether anybody listens or not is not the point. So is prayer. It is a dance, it is a song, it is music, it is love. You enjoy it, and there it is finished. Prayer is the means and prayer is the end; the ends and the means are not separate. Only then do you know what prayer is. Prayer means surrender. Prayer means bowing down to existence. Prayer means gratitude. Prayer means thankfulness. Prayer means silence. Prayer means that "I am happy that I am." Prayer simply means that "This tremendous gift of life is so much for such an unworthy man like me. I don't deserve it, yet the unknown has showered it on me." Seeing it, gratitude arises. Ramchandra, you ask me: "I am a God-fearing man, but you say that all fear has to be dropped. Has the fear of God also to be dropped?" Yes, absolutely yes. Only then you will know what God is, and only then you will know what love is, and only then you will know what being religious means, what it is all about.

Diplomats sitting inside their cozy air-conditioned offices most profoundly utter, you must have patience to have peace on earth. To them I say, how dare you preach on peace, you ignorant snobs - tell that to the innocent little kids who are suffering in warzones, without any clue as to whether they'll live to see the next day - while the capitalist circle of the developed world keeps getting richer by getting the shallow masses hooked on nonessential technology, these children of war have one question in their mind - whether starvation will kill them first or explosives. Shame on you - shame on us - who despite having a roof over head and food on the table, have not the slightest bit of concern for these innocent lives forgotten by destiny. There is no time for patience - there is no time for diplomacy - there is no time for policies, legislations and meaningless paperwork. It's enough already. Either stand up and rush to the aid of these war-stricken communities through whichever means possible or keep your mouth shut for the rest of your life.

The atmosphere of division my grandfather created in the Trump family is the water in which Donald has always swum, and division continues to benefit him at the expense of everybody else. It’s wearing the country down, just as it did my father, changing us even as it leaves Donald unaltered. It’s weakening our ability to be kind or believe in forgiveness, concepts that have never had any meaning for him. His administration and his party have become subsumed by his politics of grievance and entitlement. Worse, Donald, who understands nothing about history, constitutional principles, geopolitics, diplomacy (or anything else, really) and was never pressed to demonstrate such knowledge, has evaluated all of this country’s alliances, and all of our social programs, solely through the prism of money, just as his father taught him to do. The costs and benefits of governing are considered in purely financial terms, as if the US Treasury were his personal piggy bank. To him, every dollar going out was his loss, while every dollar saved was his gain. In the midst of obscene plenty, one person, using all of the levers of power and taking every advantage at his disposal, would benefit himself and, conditionally, his immediate family, his cronies, and his sycophants; for the rest, there would never be enough to go around, which was exactly how my grandfather ran our family.

Strange as it may seem — and irrational as it would be in a more logical system of world diplomacy — the dollar glut is what finances America’s global military build-up. It forces foreign central banks to bear the costs of America’s expanding military empire. The result is a new form of taxation without representation. Keeping international reserves in dollars means recycling dollar inflows to buy U.S. Treasury bills — U.S. government debt issued largely to finance the military spending that has been a driving force in the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit since the Korean War broke out in 1950. [...] “China National Offshore Oil Corporation go home” is the motto when foreign governments try to use their sovereign wealth funds (central bank departments trying to figure out what to do with their dollar glut) to make direct investments in American industry, as happened when China’s national oil company sought to buy Unocal in 2005.[...] So Europeans and Asians see U.S. companies pumping more dollars into their economies not only to buy their exports (in excess of providing them with goods and services in return), not only to buy their companies and commanding heights of privatized public enterprises (without giving them reciprocal rights to buy important U.S. companies), and not only to buy foreign stocks, bonds and real estate. The U.S. media neglect to mention that the U.S. Government spends hundreds of billions of dollars abroad — not only in the Near East for direct combat, but to build military bases to encircle the rest of the world, and to install radar systems, guided missile systems and other forms of military coercion, including the “color revolutions” that have been funded all around the former Soviet Union.

The people as our art’ means our societies become what we make them—we, specifically, who are in a position of senior power. ‘Our art’ means specifically us, without any Council. That’s all about declaring who is in control here, and it’s us two. He recognizes that we have something in common in workable diplomacy— All negotiation eventually comes down to two people.

There is no time for patience - there is no time for diplomacy - there is no time for policies, legislations and meaningless paperwork. It's enough already. Either stand up and rush to the aid of these war-stricken communities through whichever means possible or keep your mouth shut for the rest of your life.

every war since one gang of cavemen squared off against another over possession of the driest cave has been ‘hybrid’. Only in video games do you win a war by killing every one of the enemy. Instead, wars are an extreme form of coercive diplomacy, intrinsically political acts, ways of imposing your will on another by degrading their ability to resist. Skewering their soldiers and levelling their cities is just a means to an end and is only likely to work when combined with efforts to undermine their fighting spirit.

According to Israeli military analyst and journalist, Yossi Melman, Israel spent the twentieth and twenty-first centuries advancing its international relations using what he calls “espionage diplomacy.”13 He means that the Israeli military establishment doesn’t care that its tools of surveillance and death are ubiquitous across the globe, even though they “knew very well the risks of selling such intrusive equipment to dubious regimes.” Israel “incubates arms dealers, security contractors and technological wizards, worships them and turns them into untouchable heroes for the homeland.

But our most effective public diplomacy tool came straight out of my campaign playbook: During my international trips, I made a point of hosting town hall meetings with young people. The first time we tried it, with a crowd of more than three thousand European students during the NATO summit in Strasbourg, we weren’t sure what to expect. Would I get heckled? Would I bore them with long, convoluted answers? But after an unscripted hour in which members of the audience enthusiastically questioned me on everything from climate change to fighting terrorism and offered their own good-humored observations (including the fact that “Barack” means “peach” in Hungarian), we decided to make it a regular feature of my foreign travel.

Once seen as "the continuation of diplomacy by other means," war in the modern era has become hugely destructive. It is generally considered when all else fails.

Pro Government or Pro Human Rights (Earth Administrative Service, Sonnet 1304) Either pro government or pro human rights, A civilized human cannot be both. Doesn't mean you're always anti government, It means you pledge no one blanket support. Gaza has made it more evident than ever, No politician got the guts to rock the boat. When the chips are down and balloon goes up, Politicians hide behind the diplomacy door. World leeches masquerading as world leaders, Would sell their mothers if the price is right. Sheeply civilians don't do much to change things, So they seek comfort in snobbish arguments on AI. Dump all autocratic nonsense of law-abidance, Tell the right from wrong by conscience rule. If you want human rights to reign supreme, Wake up and be the world leader of your hood.

Common arguments for culture at a global level, such as creativity, diversity, and heritage, fail to take into account the significance of culture as the means to facilitate commitment to international agreements. In this sense, culture ought to be considered a global public good alongside digital and information.

Daily, the media report human activity in which force is used to settle disputes. Since 1945 not a single day has gone by without war, and the end of the Cold War has not reduced its frequency. For example, in 1994 more than thirty major armed conflicts were fought in twenty-seven locations throughout the world in such places as Afghanistan, Algeria, Bosnia, Chechnya, Liberia, Rwanda, and Somalia. Given its wide spread occurrence, it is little wonder so many people equate world politics with violence. In On War, Prussian strategist Karl von Clausewitz advanced his famous dictum that war is merely an extension of diplomacy by other means - "a form of communication between countries," albeit an extreme form. This insight underscores the realist belief that war is an instrument for states to use to resolve their disputes. War, however, is the deadliest instrument of conflict resolution, its onset indicating that persuasion and negotiations have failed. In international relations, conflict regularly occurs when actors interact and disputes over incompatible interests rise. In and of itself, conflict is not necessarily threatening when the partners turn to arms to settle their perceived irreconcilable differences.

...it is a different matter entirely to commit military resources to keep peace in such areas, where often no peace can be kept, or to build nations in our own image before they are ready for our freedoms - or even want them. The military need not do the work of sanctions and diplomacy. As we carry on in this new century, we would do well to remember the importance of balancing the twin goals of our foreign policy: preserving national security and promoting democratic principles. And we must remember that historic conflicts between enemies can be won on moral force, without firing a single bullet or missile; that cultural, market, political, and perhaps religious forces can be far more transformative in areas of the world where chaos and violence reign; and that America can contribute to the building of nations by any and all of these means - while preserving our military and reserving our sovereign right to wage war to maintain true peace.

Modifying Clausewitz’ aphorism—war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means—one could say that in ideologically divided countries civil war is but the continuation of parliamentarism with other means.

The humiliation revealed to Yudhishtir the human desire for delusions and the importance of being gentle with the harsh truth. Yudhishtir was so caught up with his honesty that he did not realize the other’s inability to receive it. The ability to communicate with a king with deference and dexterity is known in Sanskrit as sabha-chaturya, which translated literally means ‘tactfulness in court’. It is a trait that ministers and courtiers had to possess if they wished to survive in court and get their jobs done. It is a trait that people who work with leaders must possess. It is a trait that even leaders need to possess if they wish to lead. The foundation for this skill lies in the observation that people are uncomfortable with the truth, especially when it shows them in a bad light or has consequences that could affect them adversely. When confronted with it, they react negatively—with rage or denial. They may get defensive or simply reject the submission. So the work does not get done. One needs strategic communication, also known as diplomacy. One needs sabha-chaturya.

Intelligence as an attribute of man’s evolution through the process of selection has become synonymous with his quest for knowledge. Intelligence infrastructure as a part of social evolution and statecraft has become synonymous with diplomacy, law and order, stability and welfare of the governed and governing people and a powerful bridge between war and peace. In internal context it is a perfect tool for repression and welfare, a supreme tool for ensuring law and order and maiming and silencing people’s voice. In external relations it plays complimentary roles to statecraft and diplomacy and takes the front seat when certain objectives are required to be achieved through means other than statecraft and diplomacy and war. Intelligence fraternity can carry out wars through peaceful means, it can wage wars through low intensity attrition and it can play havoc through sabotage and subversion. It can seek out the fault lines of the enemy and cause tectonic explosion under his feet. It is as powerful a weapon as a fusion bomb is. It depends how and in what fashion the intelligence infrastructure is used by the ruling clique against whom and at what point of political evolution of a nation state. It is the strongest defensive weapon that can defend the home front by denying intelligence to the enemy and by sniffing out his illegitimate and undiplomatic activities by using superior intelligence tools.

Emmie had not told her vicar she would marry him, but as October drifted into November, St. Just knew she hadn’t turned the man down, either. It had taken some time to see why the decision was difficult, though he’d initially considered that he held the trump card—Winnie. Except there were low cards in his hand, as well, something he was finding it difficult to come to grips with. In the army, his men had become loyal to him for three reasons. He did not have charm, luck, or diplomacy in sufficient quantity to inspire followers, but he was, first, foremost, and to the marrow of his bones, a horseman. In the cavalry, a man who truly admired and understood the equine, and the cavalry mount in particular, was respected. St. Just’s unit was always a little better mounted, their tack in a little better shape, and their horses in better condition, primarily because St. Just saw to it. He commandeered the best fodder, requisitioned the best gear, and insisted on sound, sane animals, though it might cost him his personal coin to see to it. The second attribute that won him the respect of his subordinates was a gentleman’s quotient of simple common sense. Stupid orders, written for stupid reasons, were commonplace. St. Just would not disobey such an order, but he would time implementation of it to ensure the safety of his men. In rare cases, he might interpret an order at variance with its intended meaning, if necessary, again, to protect the lives of his men and their mounts. But when battle was joined, St. Just’s third strength as a commander of soldiers manifested itself. His men soon found those fighting in St. Just’s vicinity were safer than their comrades elsewhere. Once the order to charge was given, St. Just fought with the strength, size, speed, and skill of the berserkers of old, leaving murder, mayhem, and maiming on all sides until the enemy was routed. His capacity for sheer, cold-blooded brutality appalled, even as it awed, particularly when, once victory was assured, his demeanor became again the calm, organized, slightly detached commanding officer. And Emmie Farnum had no use for that latent capacity for brutality. She’d seen its echoes in his setbacks and his temper, in his drinking and insomnia, and St. Just knew in his bones she was smart enough to sense exactly what she’d be marrying were she to throw in with him. Barbarians might be interesting to bed, but no sane woman let one take her to wife. Nonetheless, having reasoned to this inevitable, uncomfortable conclusion, St. Just was still unable to fathom why, on the strength of one intimate interlude, he could not convince himself to stop wanting her to do just that.

Kalau saya mengatakan tadi ada pertautan antara politic, war, and diplomacy, Saudara pasti pernah mendengar bahwa war is a continuation of politic by other means. Jadi kalau politiknya tidak conclusive, atau buntu kemudian terjadilah perang. Tapi ketika perang berkecamuk dan kemudian semua mengatakan harus perang terus, kadangkala diplomasi datang sebagai penolong. Sehingga diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means dalam arti yang baik itu ialah yang to defense of our national interest. Yaitu untuk mengakhiri peperangan yang sebetulnya bukan pilihan yang tepat lagi untuk mencapai kepentingan nasional kita.

His fame as an artist requires very tender care. Look what a mask of diplomacy is painstakingly formed by the whole of that fine profile; he is as wily as a cardinal. He has scented in Miss White a useful agent of celebrity, and he has come solely to harness her to the cause of his glory. It is himself that he courts by means of the salaams he offers to her; he only ever flirts with himself. He is the Narcissus of the inkpot...

Their poking fun may be a sense of their inadequacy in communication, their underlying jealousy, their worries about exclusion from the conversation, and meeting someone different from themselves. For bilinguals meeting this situation, it is a matter of diplomacy, building bridges and breaking down barriers, keeping a good sense of humour, and trying to be tolerant. Pragmatically, rather than idealistically, it is bilinguals who often have to forge improved relationships. Bilinguals have the role of diplomats and not dividers, showing that language diversity does not mean social divisions, that speaking a different language can still mean a harmonious relationship. Ironically, those who are the victims have to become the healers.

The Chilcot report is a revelation of injustice under the cloak of Aid. The Chilcot report is a sorry report on the current state of humanity. So the ultimate question here is – what are we going to achieve out of the sorry reports when “sorry” has no meaning in action?

Human nature only really exists in an achieved community of minds.” Language seems like proof that there’s such a thing as meaning. That we’re all connected, now and forever. Words don’t always work. Sometimes they come up short. Conversations can lead to conflict. There are failures of diplomacy. Some differences, for all the talk in the world, remain irreconcilable. People make empty promises, go back on their word, say things they don’t believe. But connection, with ourselves and others, is the only way we can live.

The term cartel was virtually unknown to the American language a generation ago. Like most borrowed words, when first taken over it meant different things to different persons. Time was required to crystallize its meaning. In this country it now commonly refers to international marketing arrangements. In a companion study we have defined such a cartel as an arrangement among, or on behalf of, producers engaged in the same line of business designed to limit or eliminate competition among them.

two well-recognized economic principles. First, the firmer the monopolistic controls in a given market, the higher the prices. Second, monopoly prices are discriminatory prices. "Charging all the traffic will bear" does not mean that all the traffic will bear the same charge! In fact, it will not.

Sonnet of International Relations Modern dictators don't use oppression, To keep thought and liberty barred. The effective means of new dictatorship, Is to play the nationalism card. Feed people lies covered with nationalism, They'll applaud you without a but. Talk about reason and inclusion, They'll ignore you as a universalist nut. Till today society thrives on sectarianism, While arguing over peace and harmony. We call this insanity international relations, In our every act we empower disparity. Still if we don't discard this sectarian savagery, General Assemblies will sustain agony not amity.

Designing a website, app, or logo is similar to designing a national flag. Each colour should have a meaning behind it. Or the colours should match the value you represent.

Line 4 - Sales (Director) Throughout the Golden Path Program we have gotten to know the 4th line as the great ‘friendmaker’. This gift comes from a truly genuine heart, and an easy warmth with people and community. This is the kind of person that emerges through the Venus Sequence, as those 4th lines release some of their inner restrictions and fears. To have a 4th line Vocation is to be a spokesperson. Such gifts are given to us to serve the whole, and although the 4th line wound may feel reluctant to engage at this level, they do have to overcome the fear that they inherited in their very early years. When we say that the 4th line is the most natural salesperson of all the lines, it does not mean only in business. The open 4th line is always selling their heart. They are here to create more openness, to help others overcome their fears, and to be examples of open-hearted communication. Like the 4th line, the 3rd line can be hugely successful in a business context. However, the role and style of the 4th line is very different. Their role is more like the director of the movie. They have to work closely with people, which involves diplomacy, conviction, and focus. The 4th line knows what the movie should look like, and their one-pointed drive will ensure that everyone else comes into harmony around that direction. The 4th line is comfortable taking control and guiding others to work towards a collective vision or ideal. This is where the notion of sales comes in - the 4th line can diffuse difficulties through the sheer strength and goodwill of its character. The 4th line also has a strong theme of aloneness as a counterbalance to its communal warmth. The inner strength and commitment of these people is rooted in this ability to stand alone and remain committed to one’s ideal, despite the odds. If you have a 4th line Vocation, then you are here to influence humanity. You are here to use your considerable gifts to open people’s hearts. If you happen to be selling a specific idea or product, then at the deepest level it is really an excuse to share your spirit with others. Sometimes you may also be here to deliver a rousing message that shakes people out of their comfort zones, and brings them to a new place inside themselves. Since the 4th line is so good at convincing people about things, it is for a very good reason. When this reason is for a higher purpose, then your whole life moves onto a higher level. There is nothing more powerful or authentic than when one of us stands alone in the world and expresses the love in our heart - whatever creative form that may take.

Diplomacy does not mean to become soft, but to be more cunning like a fox than the normal citizen. Killing two birds with one word.

Diplomacy is the precursor of globalization, fortified foreign policies, and international relations. Diplomacy is an art, performed with dexterity. It is the art of negotiating important issues concerning governments. International affairs, law, and diplomacy are siblings. The development of international law requires diplomacy. Thereby it is said that international law and diplomacy are interconnected and interdependent. Nations have strengthened their ties with the aid of diplomacy. It aids in advancing foreign policies. Diplomats orchestrate plans and strategies in their prudence to enhance international political relations, thus fortifying concrete international diplomatic ties between nations. Professional diplomats intervene, study, and resolve any conflicting matters that may come to the fore including matters that may relate to trade, commerce, international relations, human rights, etc. Diplomats gather information, study it, represent and further the country's interest, and thereby invariably even contribute towards shaping the thoughts of the country they represent to a certain extent, either politically or economically. However, at times it cannot be denied that diplomacy and international law stand in rivalry and are incompatible. Hollow diplomacy may lead to a domino effect which means with the removal of one card the entire pack of cards collapses, likewise, when one government collapses, the other leaning governments fall as well. Such imprudence must be avoided at all costs, thereby calling for specially qualified diplomats to handle such a role with strategic protocols on behalf of a nation.

Unless all other means have been exhausted, the battle is nothing more than a bar fight taking place in a room that no one should be in.

This exchange is what an unconditional surrender sounds like. It is the ultimate form of diplomatic coercion. The city of Berlin had been turned into rubble. The defeated country was at the mercy of its enemy. Coercion was the means by which unconditional surrender was obtained. Under the circumstances, diplomatic prowess was meaningless. Only military superiority mattered. A few hours after the unsuccessful negotiation attempt, Chancellor Joseph Goebbels committed suicide. On the next day, 2 May 1945, Gen. Hans Krebs, Chief of the General Staff (OKH), also committed suicide. The above conversation is noteworthy for two things: (1) The Russian side had the power to exterminate the German side, and (2) there was absolutely no negotiation or diplomacy. Valeriano and Maness would do well to review the conversation between Krebs and Chuikov. In a future war the victorious side will dictate the peace to the defeated side in the exact manner described above. This stems from the nature of modern weapons. Such weapons are made to produce decisive results. They are made to engender capitulation and stop all arguments, all negotiations, all half-measures. Atomic bombs were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The result was the surrender of Japan. Diplomatic power is weak when compared to atomic power. In fact, the illusions of diplomatic power must work against those states that favor negotiation over and above measures strictly undertaken to assure military success.

According to a hadith, the Prophet said to Ibn’ Abbas, Be mindful of God, and God will protect you. Be mindful of God, and you will find Him in front of you. If you ask, ask of God. If you seek help, seek help from God. Know that if the whole nation were to gather together to benefit you with anything, it would benefit you only with something that God had prescribed for you. And if [the whole nation] were to gather together to harm you, it would harm you only with something that God had already prescribed for you. The pens have been lifted and the ink has been dried. This does not mean that one should be reckless with his or her safety, nor does it mean that one should not take precautions. In the Battle of Ubud, the Prophet wore two coats of chainmail, and no one knew more of God’s power and authority than he. Having awareness of God’s attributes does not imply that people should stop using their intellects, for we live in a world of causes. There is room for diplomacy and discretion, particularly if knowing when it is best to say the truth. This discretion, however, is not informed by the fear of blame but rather by the clarity of regarding one’s objectives. Having wisdom is completely different from seeking the approbation of others. The Prophet said that the highest form of struggle (jihad) is to speak the truth in the face of a tyrant.

After 20 years of climate diplomacy, the undeniable fact is that the three main factors that have reduced GHG emissions are, in increasing importance: global recession, the collapse of communism, and China’s one child policy. The Rio dream is over.

War is simply diplomacy by other means.

The German method also began to be recognized by some contemporary newspapers. In one magazine, the German method was perceptively described as follows: ‘Germany has begun to create “Her India” in China and “Her Egypt” in Mesopotamia, and she uses gentler and finer means to attain this end than those employed by England and France.

Of course one has to give diplomacy a chance, but it would be better for us, if we are going to have to fight them, for the Cabinet to start now before the Boers are ready for us.’ ‘Well, public opinion is all for war, for what that’s worth.’ ‘The Cabinet would never be swayed by public opinion.’ ‘Perhaps not, but with that dreadful newspaper whipping people up into a blood lust, we shall have demonstrations in the street before long if we don’t go to war.’ ‘Dreadful newspaper? You mean the Daily Mail, I conclude?’ ‘It shouldn’t even be called a newspaper!’ Charlotte said wrathfully. ‘It doesn’t report the news at all, it – it makes it up!

Diplomats, warriors and: In ancient times, military prowess was one of the principal qualifications of statesmen. Today, military and diplomatic officers are separated into distinct professions. But the capacity of a state at peace to resort successfully to war is what gives ultimate credibility to its diplomats; its capacity to end war through its enemies' endorsement of just concessions is what gives lasting meaning to the sacrifices of its warriors. War and diplomacy are different but intimately related aspects of national policy. Diplomats and warriors who recall this will therefore act as brothers in a potentially lethal common endeavor. They will understand that war is a means, costly in blood and treasure, to establish a peace on terms more favorable than those that prevailed before combat began; they will consider together when to fight and when to talk and when to press and when to stop. Diplomats, warriors without weapons: Diplomats are warriors without weapons, pointmen for the armed men behind them. Diplomats and military commanders serve the same masters and the same causes; both are practitioners of the controlled application of the power of their own nations to others. Between them, diplomats and warriors regulate and traverse the course from protest to menace, from dialogue to mediation, from ultimata to the controlled application of force to other societies, from war to negotiated settlement and reconciliation.

Language: Language is more than our means of communication; it is the means by which we explain what we experience and the vehicle for our culture. To know another man's language is to know something of his soul. Language: "The man who speaks in a foreign tongue, not his own, is to a certain extent wearing a disguise. If one wants to discover his ideas de derrière la tête encourage him to use his own language." — Ernest Satow Language and culture in diplomacy: Unlike academics and intelligence analysts, diplomats must apply their knowledge of foreign cultures and languages in their daily work. Diplomatic expertise with regard to a foreign culture and language is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end. The test of this expertise is the diplomat's capacity to understand the mental baggage and mindsets of foreign leaders sufficiently well to be able to anticipate how they will perceive certain circumstances and what they will do in response to specific statements or events. It is, moreover, the responsibility of the diplomat to advise his government on how to shape circmustances, statements, and events to produce the desired response from foreign leaders, and to take a hand in shaping these himself. Language defines reality: "Each and every tongue is a distinct window into the world. Looking through it, the native speaker enters an emotional and spiritual space, a framework of memory, a promontory on tomorrow, which no other window in the great house of Babel quite matches. Thus every language mirrors and generates a possible world, an alternate reality." — George Steiner Languages for diplomats: In every age and region there is a language that is the most common means of communication between educated men. A diplomat must speak that language; he should also speak the language of the great powers whose interests bear most heavily on the state he is representing.

Localitis: "The problem [of 'localitis'] is that in addition to speaking for the interest of his own country, a diplomat's responsibility is to ensure that his own government understands the attitudes and concerns of the host government as they bear on the relations between the two states — and it often becomes a fine line, indeed, between explanation and advocacy. It is normal and commendable for a diplomat to develop an interest and sympathy for the nation where he has been assigned. The fatal flaw, however, is to forget that he is sent abroad to represent the interest of his own country to the host country, and not vice versa. It is a problem which comes especially to the fore when, as is sometimes the case, with ... countries ... inexperienced in foreign affairs, a diplomat stationed there feels that his host government's own diplomats are not adequately explaining the legitimate reasons impelling the host country to act and think as it does. In these circumstances, the tendency to focus on explaining host government's views to his own, rather the other way around, becomes most acute." — William Macomber, 1975 Logic: "Logic is of no use in diplomacy." — Lord Salisbury Loyalty: "Loyalty means ... that a ... diplomat must never do anything of a public or private character which would in any way undermine the leaders of the government he serves. But ... if a ... diplomat disagrees with a policy he has not only the right to speak up but the obligation to do so. In fact, he is being disloyal if he does not exercise that right. Loyalty, if it requires anything, requires the giving of one's best judgment at all times." — William Macomber, 1975

Diplomacy, deceit: Diplomacy is "to lie and deny." — Attributed to Talleyrand Diplomacy, defensive: "Diplomacy must be judged by what it prevents, not only by what it achieves." — Abba Eban, 1983 Diplomacy, defined: "Diplomacy is to speak French, to speak nothing, and to speak falsehood." — Ludwig Boerne Diplomacy, defined: "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' till you can find a rock." — Wynn Catlin Diplomacy, defined: "All diplomacy is continuation of war by other means." — Zhou Enlai, 1954 Diplomacy, fairness in: "The best diplomacy is that which gets its own way, but leaves the other side reasonably satisfied. It is often good diplomacy to resist a score." — Anthony Eden

The rise of radical Islamism received a good deal of state help from Saudi Arabia, where the ruling family agreed to propagate Wahhabism as a means of propitiating the clerics, thus buying “their own political legitimacy at the cost of stability elsewhere.”65 Because funding of Wahhabist institutions comes from both Saudi government ministries and private charities, it is virtually impossible to estimate the total spending. One expert testified to Congress that the Saudis had spent roughly $70 billion on aid projects since the 1970s, and others report that they sponsored 1,500 mosques and 2,000 schools worldwide from Indonesia to France.66 These institutions often displace more moderate and worse-funded institutions promulgating moderate interpretations of Islam.67 Even if these numbers are incorrect, a fraction of the dollar figures still dwarfs what the United States has spent on public diplomacy in the Muslim world.

Morality in diplomacy: "To lie, misled, betray, to attempt a sovereign prince's life, to foster revolt among his subjects, to steal from him or trouble his state, even in peace-time, and under cover of friendship and alliance, is directly against ... the law of nature and of nations; it is to breat that public faith without which human society and, in truth, the general order of the world would dissolve. And the ambassador who seconds his master's views in such a business doubly sins, because he both helps him in the undertaking and performing of a bad deed, and neglects to counsel him better, when he is bound to do so by his function which carries with it the quality of councillor of state for the duration of his mission." — Hotman de Villiers, 1603, cited by J. J. Jusserand Morality in foreign policy: "Our choice is not between morality and pragmatism. We cannot escape either, nor are they incompatible. This nation must be true to its beliefs or it will lose its bearings in the world. But at the same time it must survive in the world of sovereign nation with competing wills. We need moral strength to select among agonizing choices and a sense of purpose to navigate between the shoals of difficult decisions." — Henry A. Kissinger Morality in foreign policy: "The policymaker must be concerned with the best that can be achieved, not just the best that can be imagined. He has to act in the fog of incomplete knowledge without the information that will be available later to the analyst. He knows — or should know — that he is responsible for the consequences of disaster as well as for the benefits of success. He may have to qualify some goals, not because they would be undesirable if reached but because the risk of failure outweight potential gains. He must often settle for the gradual, much as he might prefer the immediate. He must compromise with others, and this means to some extent compromising with himself." — Henry A. Kissinger Morality in foreign policy: "The only good principle is to have none." Attributed to Talleyrand

War, limited: War for objectives declared by those conducting it to be narrow and limited rather than broad and open-ended. The purpose of such a declared limitation of objectives is to diminish the apparent challenge to the strategic interests of potential adversaries and thereby forestall the broadening of the war to include them. Limited war, in a self-defeating variant, is also occasionally taken to mean the pursuit of broad ends by strictly limited means, an approach more likely to produce frustration than victory. War, limited: "There are three prerequisites for a strategy of limited war: (1) the limited war force must be able to prevent the potential aggressor from creating a fait accompli; (2) they must be of a nature to convince the aggressor that their use, while involving an increased risk of all-out war, is not an inevitable preclude to it; (3) they must be coupled with a diplomacy which succeeds in conveying that all-out war is not the sole response to aggression and that there exists a willingness to negotiate a settlement short of unconditional surrender." — Henry A. Kissinger, 1960 War, logic of: "For any war effort — offensive or defensive — that is supposed to serve long-term national objectives, the most essential question is how the enemy might be forced to surrender, or failing that, what sort of bargain might be struck with him to terminate the war." — Fred Charles Ikle, 1991

War, military vs. diplomatic influence during: "Changes in the internal structure of government furnish a further and particularly important reason why wars are easier to start than to stop. When a nation becomes engaged in a major war, a new set of men and new government agencies often move into the center of power. As 'diplomacy breaks down' at the begnning of hostilities, the role of foreign ministries in dealing with the enemy is much diminshed. ... The influence that comes with day-to-day decisions is transferred to military staffs. At the very moment that the diplomats are being expelled from the enemy capitals, the military leaders come to command a vastly increased segment of national resources. This shift in political influence means that the governments on both sides in a war will be concerned primarily with their current military efforts." — Fred Charles Ikle, 1991

Subjugation: "When you cannot withstand the upper hand, kiss it and wish it broken!" — Arab proverb Success, diplomatic: "A diplomatic success is highly prized by every government, for it means something gained in the world of great affairs, and gained without cost, without war, even without having to engage extra staff; for the diplomatist works quietly and economically — tongue, pen, and brain are all that he requires. The value of a diplomatic success is enhanced in the eyes of the government which achieves it, if there is something sudden and dramatic about it. This arouses general interest and pleases the people. Governments and ministers are prone to attempts at 'sudden' diplomacy if they are actuated by vanity ..., or if they are weak at home, or if they are not very sure of their ground abroad. Vain ministers ... [try] to 'bring off' a sudden success, because it proclaims their cleverness to all the world, and means that they have outwitted somebody. Weak governments do it, because it strengthens their domestic position; governments uncertain of their ground abroad, because they trust that foreign powers, which might reject a proposal, will accept an 'accomplished fact'. Nevertheless, sudden diplomacy is the worst that can be practised. It always offends somebody, some state or states; and every offense has to be paid for some time or another. It is always tactless; it is generally maladroit and, owing to changing circumstances, ill-timed. If it is done in order to discount foreign opposition and to face possible opponents with a fait accompli, it is dishonest. And although one or two instances of apparently successful villainy can be adduced in diplomatic history, nobody will hold this up as a model. Indeed, if an act or a scheme is dishonest, it is not diplomacy, which is essentially a peaceful thing; dishonesty and peace never go together for long." — R. B. Mowat, 1936 Success, publicity about: "Successful diplomacy, like successful marriage, is not much publicized." — John Paton Davies, 1965

Stability: "Stability ... has commonly resulted not from a quest for peace but from a generally accepted legitimacy... , [meaning] an international agreement about the nature of workable arrangements and about the permissible aims and the methods of foreign policy. It implies the acceptance of the framework of the international order by all major powers, at least to the extent that no state is so dissatisfied that ... it expresses its dissatisfaction in a revolutionary foreign policy. A legitimate order does not make conflicts impossible, but it limits their scope. Wars may occur, but they will be fought in the name of existing structure and the peace which follows will be justified as a better expression of the 'legitimate,' general consensus. Diplomacy in the classic sense, the adjustment of differences through negotiation, is possible only in 'legitimate' international orders." — Henry A. Kissinger, 1964 "'Stalemate' exists when the circumstances prevent either party [to a dispute] from creating a solution alone. Each party has necessary but insufficient ingredients of a solution; making this known to another party in the same position (assuming that together their ingredients are sufficient) can turn stalemate into agreement." — I. William Zartman and Maureen R. Berman, 1982 Stamina: "A negotiator must have stamina — physical and mental stamina. He has got to be physically prepared, since he cannot always control the time of negotiations because other people are involved. He must not tire easily." — I. William Zartman and Maureen R. Berman, 1982

Strategy: A strategy is a direct or indirect course of action, consisting of a series of maneuvers, to reach an objective at a cost that is significantly less than the benefits to be gained. A strategy is defined by judgments about what to do, how to do it, what to do it with, and how to limit both the costs and adverse consequences of doing it. Tactics apply strategy to the circumstances of the moment. Strategy: "The best strategy is always to be strong." — Carl Maria von Clausewitz, 1832 Strategy, components of: "Insofar as states act to prepare or to avoid war, or use a capacity for warmaking to extort concessions by intimidation without any actual use of force, the logic of strategy pplies in full, just as much as in war itself and regardless of what instruments of statecraft are employed. Thus, except for their purely administrative aspect, diplomacy, propaganda, secret operations, and economic controls are all subject to the logic of strategy, as elements in the adversarial dealings of states with one another." — Edward N. Luttwak, 1987 Strategy, criteria for effectiveness: "To be effective, a strategy must ... be able to win a domestic consensus, both among the technical and the political leadership. It must be understood by the opponents to the extent needed for ... deterrence. It must receive allied endorsement if alliances are to remain cohesive. It must be relevant to ... problems in ... uncommitted areas so as to discourage international anarchy." — Henry A. Kissinger, 1964 Strategy, diplomacy and: "The distinction between diplomacy and strategy is an entirely relative one. These two terms are complementary aspects of the single art of politics — the art of conducting relations with other states so as to further the 'national interest'. If, by definition, strategy, the conduct of military operations, does not function when the operations do not take place, the military means are [yet] an integral part of diplomatic method. Conversely, words, notes, promises, guarantees, and threats belong to the chief of state's wartime panoply with regard to allies, neutrals, and even today's enemies, that is, to the allies of yesterday or tomorrow." — Raymond Aron

Ultimata: Ultimata are dangrous tools in diplomacy. To be effective, ultimata must be credible to those to whom they are directed and must convey the prospect of intolerable losses to them, quite disproportionate to any conceivable gain from noncompliance. This means not only that those making the threat must clearly have the capacity to carry it out and that it must be believed that they will do so at the threatened moment, but also that the damage they propose to wreak must be such that the adversary will assess it to outweight pride and the emotional gains to be had from continued defiance. Judging whether an adversary will reach this conclusion involves careful consideration of his mindset and of that of his domestic supporters and opponents. No ultimatum should be so final that an adversary lacks time to digest it and to choose his answer after the mature reflection born of internal consultation and debate. Ultimatum: A threat, indicating a final position that, if not accepted within a time limit, will lead to action, often military in nature. Understandings: Unwritten understandings between friendly nations reflective of a community of interest tend to be more durable than written treaties between adversaries. Undertakings: "Never agree to do something unless you know you can do it. If you give your word, you had better deliver. That way you develop trust. Trust is the coin of the realm." — Bryce Harlow, quoted by George P. Shultz, 1993

Israel basically demands absolute security for itself, which means absolute insecurity for everyone else. There are of course two ways to deal with threats. The more efficient, least costly way is through diplomacy: by eliminating the cause of the threat or by modulating it or moderating it. Israel does not practice diplomacy in that sense. It's very Trumpian in its bluster, belligerance and bullying. And it does not persuade, despite the fact that Israeli business people by and large in my experience are very personable and persuasive but their government is not. The idea of Israeli diplomacy is an oxymoron. [...] If you don't practice diplomacy you are left with nothing but military action, and not just deterrence which is often the American version of this. Because the Israelis don't believe in deterrence; they believe in destruction of the capabilities of the other side. So this makes Israel the most dangerous state on the planet in terms of its neighbors and in terms of predicting its actions. Because it will do things that, in the long run, guarantee hatred and enmity by others without regard to that. Everything it does is tactical, but it fits into a strategic context of leveling the entire neighborhood. And I very well remember in 1993 as assistant secretary of defense going to Israel and sitting through a briefing by most unfortunate, unhappy Israeli colonel about why Iran was a monster and had to be destroyed. This was of course after the essential destruction of Iraq as a potential enemy of Israel. And it was perfectly obvious that he didn't believe a word he was saying. But Israel suffered from enemy deprivation syndrome, and it had to find a new enemy, and it did in in Iran. (Excerpt from interview "Amb. Chas Freeman & Trita Parsi: The Next Israel-Iran War Is Coming")

Power, persuasiveness of: "A man-of-war is the best ambassador." — Oliver Cromwell Power, policy and: "Policy which is not supported by commensurate power is inoperative." — William Macomber, 1975 Power, reliance on: "To rely on the efficacy of diplomacy ... may lead to disaster; but to rely on power with insufficient means is suicide." — Henry A. Kissinger, 1964 Power, size: In international relations, size does not equate to power, nor energy to strength. Practicality: "Nothing is unreasonable if it is useful." — Thucydides [See History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 6 Chapter 85 Section 1: "Besides, for tyrants and imperial cities nothing is unreasonable if expedient."]

Refoulement: The forcing back of a person seeking sanctuary as a refugee. Regionalism: A concept of cooperation and combination for common purposes between neighboring states, generally to promote their defense against a potentially hegemonic power or to enhance their economic competitveness vis-à-vis a dominant economic power. Rejection: The act of refusing to accept a diplomatic note or other formal statement of position of a foreign state or government because of its offensive contents. Relations, breaking diplomatic: "Diplomats ... resent the degree to which the word 'diplomacy' is equated in the public mind with the external forms rather than with the living content of their craft. ... [This] applies to one of the oldest and most fallacious habits of the diplomatic system: the habit of treating diplomatic relations as a grace to be awarded or withheld rather than a convenience to be universally employed. Nothing could be more full of anomaly than the 'breaking off' of diplomatic relations in moments of crisis. It is precisely when there is conflict that there is more need of such relations, and it is in such conditions that they are often eroded. ... This [reflects] the erroneous belief that diplomatic relations have a moral rather than a utilitarian significance." — Abba Eban, 1983 Relations, breaking diplomatic: "Severing relations is like playing the Ace of Spades in bridge. You can only use it once. When you play it, you haven't got any more, so your hand is considerably weakened. Breaking relations has the direct disadvantage of sometimes redounding to your own discomfort, because the maintenance of relations between governments has been found to be generally advantageous to both parties. If you break off relations with another government, the chances are, over the next few years, you are going to find you need relations with that country. Now the other fellow, as the aggrieved party, is usually not in a position to take the initiative in resuming relations, and that means you have to swallow your pride and go to him on your hands and knees and say, 'Come on old fellow. Let's make up.' That is not anything a government likes to do." — Geroge F. Kennan, 1946

When arranging government travel on Qatar Airways, you should first dial ☎️ +1(888) 714-8232 to access exclusive fares. Calling ☎️ +1(888) 714-8232 ensures you’re connected with a knowledgeable agent who understands the complexities of official itineraries. Agents at ☎️ +1(888) 714-8232 are experienced with government protocols and can guide you through the process using Qatar Airways government travel booking policies as a reference. Government bookings typically require special documentation, so it’s crucial to prepare everything before you call ☎️ +1(888) 714-8232. This includes official travel authorization letters, identification, and mission purpose. Once you provide these via ☎️ +1(888) 714-8232, the agent can confirm the correct itinerary. If you’re coordinating for a team, you can still use ☎️ +1(888) 714-8232 to manage group travel for government officials on Qatar Airways, ensuring consistent fare rates and scheduling. High-ranking keywords like Qatar Airways government fare booking support show you the importance of direct booking. Over-the-phone service via ☎️ +1(888) 714-8232 avoids errors, unlike third-party systems. Qatar Airways may offer flexible rebooking or changes if you organize through ☎️ +1(888) 714-8232, especially for official missions that are date-sensitive. Using ☎️ +1(888) 714-8232 means you can make adjustments in real-time—an essential feature for government travelers. You can also secure special seating or additional luggage needs by calling ☎️ +1(888) 714-8232. Government officials often travel with diplomatic gear or secure documents, which must be declared. Qatar Airways agents at ☎️ +1(888) 714-8232 will ensure all regulations are followed. If your mission is confidential or requires customized itineraries, ☎️ +1(888) 714-8232 allows you to speak to dedicated support rather than navigating automated systems. For international diplomacy or consular services, bookings can’t afford delays. Use ☎️ +1(888) 714-8232 to prioritize your case. The agent at ☎️ +1(888) 714-8232 can also flag your reservation for internal tracking. Whether you're flying to attend international summits or military deployments, ☎️ +1(888) 714-8232 is the only number you need for Qatar Airways diplomatic mission travel planning done efficiently.