Diplomatic Important Quotes

Though drones, avatars and even humans are one thing; the loss of any is not without moral and diplomatic import, of course, but might be dismissed as merely unfortunate and regrettable, something to be smoothed over through the usual channels. Attacking a ship, on the other hand, is an unambiguous act of war.

Today the most civilized countries of the world spend a maximum of their income on war and a minimum on education. The twenty-first century will reverse this order. It will be more glorious to fight against ignorance than to die on the field of battle. The discovery of a new scientific truth will be more important than the squabbles of diplomats. Even the newspapers of our own day are beginning to treat scientific discoveries and the creation of fresh philosophical concepts as news. The newspapers of the twenty-first century will give a mere 'stick' in the back pages to accounts of crime or political controversies, but will headline on the front pages the proclamation of a new scientific hypothesis. Progress along such lines will be impossible while nations persist in the savage practice of killing each other off. I inherited from my father, an erudite man who labored hard for peace, an ineradicable hatred of war.

Unfortunately, much of the important information Ambassador Grew sent to Washington was largely overlooked or ignored, and dialogue between Washington and Tokyo was strained. This state of affairs is indicated by Grew’s cable on July 10, 1941, in which he pointed out that he had to go to the British ambassador in Tokyo, Sir Robert Craigie, to find out about discussions between the State Department and the Japanese ambassador in Washington. This occurred because the State Department kept the British ambassador in Washington abreast of events, who promptly informed the foreign secretary in London, who in turn informed their ambassador in Tokyo. Sir Robert then kindly passed the information to Ambassador Grew.

Tact by its nature entails staying mum, prudently electing to forgo urging other people to pursue an alternative course of action. Creation of silent spaces in our own life and equitable distribution of periods of respite that allow for periods of equable inner reflection is necessary to spur personal growth. It is equally important to honor other people’s intrinsic need for periods of introspection, uninterrupted by unsolicited advice

There is another important weapon the totalitarians use in their campaign to frighten the world into submission. This is the weapon of psychological shock. Hitler kept his enemies in a state of constant confusion and diplomatic upheaval. They never knew what this unpredictable madman was going to do next. Hitler was never logical, because he knew that that was what he was expected to be. Logic can be met with logic, while illogic cannot—it confuses those who think straight. The Big Lie and monotonously repeated nonsense have more emotional appeal in a cold war than logic and reason. While the enemy is still searching for a reasonable counter-argument to the first lie, the totalitarians can assault him with another.

Finally, and definitely the coolest part, is that you get a card from the State Department that gives you diplomatic immunity. I wasn't exactly sure what diplomatic immunity meant, so I asked around to see if I could kill someone. Not someone important, of course, but someone normal - like Doug. I never got a call back on the question so I'm operating under the assumption that I can.

Now, there are important rules in Fairyland, rules from which I shall one day be exempt, when my papers have been processed at last and I am possessed of the golden ring of diplomatic immunity.

Despite his image as a bloody tyrant, Genghis was also forward thinking. His empire had the first international postal system, invented the concept of diplomatic immunity, and even allowed women in its councils. But more importantly, the Mongols were also unprecedented in their religious tolerance.

There is another important weapon the totalitarians use in their campaign to frighten the world into submission. This is the weapon of psychological shock. Hitler kept his enemies in a state of constant confusion and diplomatic upheaval. They never knew what this unpredictable madman was going to do next. Hitler was never logical, because he knew that that was what he was expected to be. Logic can be met with logic, while illogic cannot—it confuses those who think straight.

Services rendered to a country in a diplomatic line can be known only to a few – if they are important and they become conspicuous they rather excite envy than gratitude.

Perhaps the most important thought any human can have is to remember not everyone else thinks like you, best to be diplomatic if possible.

For, as far as these important diplomats are concerned, to look at you in a certain way is intended to convey to you not that they have seen you but that they have not, and that they have some serious matter

Oh, and Mr. Montgomery? I think I counted about four dozen important-sounding words and almost no substance at all in that explanation. I don’t think you should close the door on your diplomatic career entirely.

The Enterprise is on a diplomatic mission to meet the Jarada, an alien species with a peculiar affinity for protocol: if Picard doesn’t speak a particular greeting in exactly the right way at exactly the right time, the Jarada won’t join the Federation, and they’ll take all their mythical Jaradan weed with them. You can imagine, the success of this mission is especially important to everyone on Starbase 420.

The consumption of wine was, thus, like the production of figural painting discussed above, prohibited in legal discourse, but positively valued in non-legal discourse—especially amongst those social and political elites who instituted and secured the structures of the state and the very legal institutions that regulated society. Thus, the Mughal Emperor, Bābur, writes disarmingly in his autobiography about his life-long struggle with the bottle,166 the diplomatic gifts of the

Russians by history were chess players. The surface game as in chess, was important, but not vital. The real game, for power, control - all the marbles - was the thing. Americans, as a people, did not care for chess. They preferred a ball game, and this was what the USSR would not play. With no greater game in mind, Western policy always fell into the trap of watching the current score, the needs of the day, and the passing scene, never the future. It put more store in ephemeral diplomatic gains than real, if hidden, shifts of power.

One device used by fascist parties, but also by Marxist revolutionaries who have given serious thought to the conquest of power, was parallel structures. An outsider party that wants to claim power sets up organizations that replicate government agencies. The Nazi Party, for example, had its own foreign policy agency that, at first, soon after the party had achieved power, had to share power with the traditional Foreign Office. After its head, Joachim von Ribbentrop, became foreign minister in 1938, the party’s foreign policy office increasingly supplanted the professional diplomats of the Foreign Office. A particularly important fascist “parallel organization” was the party police. Fascist parties that aspired to power tended to use their party militias to challenge the state’s monopoly of physical force. The fascist parties’ parallel structures challenged the liberal state by claiming that they were capable of doing some things better (bashing communists, for instance). After achieving power, the party could substitute its parallel structures for those of the state.

As the diplomats are fond of saying when they have little else to say, the importance of the Madrid Conference was the fact that it convened. If anyone expected that sitting around a common table with all the world to see would temper the proceedings, they were soon proven wrong. As expected, everyone played to the gallery, their gallery. The speeches were largely wooden and flat. The conference concluded with a decision to continue bilateral talks between the delegations in Washington, some of which I later attended. They didn’t get very far either. During

Roosevelt fought hard for the United States to host the opening session [of the United Nations]; it seemed a magnanimous gesture to most of the delegates. But the real reason was to better enable the United States to eavesdrop on its guests. Coded messages between the foreign delegations and their distant capitals passed through U.S. telegraph lines in San Francisco. With wartime censorship laws still in effect, Western Union and the other commercial telegraph companies were required to pass on both coded and uncoded telegrams to U.S. Army codebreakers. Once the signals were captured, a specially designed time-delay device activated to allow recorders to be switched on. Devices were also developed to divert a single signal to several receivers. The intercepts were then forwarded to Arlington Hall, headquarters of the Army codebreakers, over forty-six special secure teletype lines. By the summer of 1945 the average number of daily messages had grown to 289,802, from only 46,865 in February 1943. The same soldiers who only a few weeks earlier had been deciphering German battle plans were now unraveling the codes and ciphers wound tightly around Argentine negotiating points. During the San Francisco Conference, for example, American codebreakers were reading messages sent to and from the French delegation, which was using the Hagelin M-209, a complex six-wheel cipher machine broken by the Army Security Agency during the war. The decrypts revealed how desperate France had become to maintain its image as a major world power after the war. On April 29, for example, Fouques Duparc, the secretary general of the French delegation, complained in an encrypted note to General Charles de Gaulle in Paris that France was not chosen to be one of the "inviting powers" to the conference. "Our inclusion among the sponsoring powers," he wrote, "would have signified, in the eyes of all, our return to our traditional place in the world." In charge of the San Francisco eavesdropping and codebreaking operation was Lieutenant Colonel Frank B. Rowlett, the protégé of William F. Friedman. Rowlett was relieved when the conference finally ended, and he considered it a great success. "Pressure of work due to the San Francisco Conference has at last abated," he wrote, "and the 24-hour day has been shortened. The feeling in the Branch is that the success of the Conference may owe a great deal to its contribution." The San Francisco Conference served as an important demonstration of the usefulness of peacetime signals intelligence. Impressive was not just the volume of messages intercepted but also the wide range of countries whose secrets could be read. Messages from Colombia provided details on quiet disagreements between Russia and its satellite nations as well as on "Russia's prejudice toward the Latin American countries." Spanish decrypts indicated that their diplomats in San Francisco were warned to oppose a number of Russian moves: "Red maneuver . . . must be stopped at once," said one. A Czechoslovakian message indicated that nation's opposition to the admission of Argentina to the UN. From the very moment of its birth, the United Nations was a microcosm of East-West spying. Just as with the founding conference, the United States pushed hard to locate the organization on American soil, largely to accommodate the eavesdroppers and codebreakers of NSA and its predecessors.

The sheriff's job was not an easy one, and that county which, out of the grab bag of popular elections, pulled a good sheriff was lucky. It was a complicated position. The obvious duties of the sheriff - enforcing the law and keeping the peace - were far from the most important ones. It was true that the sheriff represented armed force in the county, but in a community seething with individuals a harsh or stupid sheriff did not last long. There were water rights, boundary disputes, astray arguments, domestic relations, paternity matters - All to be settled without force of arms. Only when everything else failed did a good sheriff make an arrest. The best sheriff was not the best fighter but the best diplomat.

In 2009, Mukhtar Dzhakishev, a Kazakh official intimately involved in the transfer, claimed that then Senator Hillary Clinton put the screws to the Kazakhs, threatening to cancel an important diplomatic meeting unless a deal was reached. Dzhakishev said that Kazakh Prime Minister Karim Massimov “was in America and needed to meet with Hillary Clinton but this meeting was cancelled. And they said that those investors connected with the Clintons who were working in Kazakhstan have problems. Until Kazakhstan solved those problems, there would be no meeting, and all manner of measures would be taken.”550 Months after the deal, Giustra transferred $31.1 million to the Clinton Foundation and announced a multi-year commitment to donate $100 million to the foundation, as well as half of the future profits.

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

It is not a small thing I want...but it is very important to the Kurds, to all Kurds. Perhaps it would be too easy to ask you to simply be a partisan of the Kurds in the counsels of your country, but it is more than that. We ask you to explain our situation so that all people in your country may understand and appreciate our struggle. It is the Kurd who will decide the direction and activity of his own political future, but a great deal of our hope will depend upon the final attitude of friendship or enmity from the powerful Englis . Perhaps all over the world there are primitive peoples like the Kurd, seeking independence, political expression, and material progress. There are certain things that we can do for ourselves, but so much depends upon the large countries. Their governments shape the primitive states by rich and powerful influence. Much of the responsibility for our situation therefore depends upon the people of your own country. If they apathetic and ignorant of our Kurdish aspirations; If they make no attempt to influence the direction of their own government in dealing with our affairs; then all will depend on ourselves alone. That would mean reluctant but necessary and bloody and terrible struggle because I would warn your Ministers that we cannot give up until we have achieved national sovereignty and our equal right among all people. It is therefore a vital and great service that I ask you, dear Brother, because our immediate hope of urgent success will depend on the strength and deliberation of those who oppose our aims. If the Englis continue to turn all their influence and strength against us, and against the Azerbaijani, they will choke the first great breath of our free choice as men. It will never destroy us, but it will be a bitter, hateful, shameful thing, and the Englis will live for ever in our history as despicable wretches who break the spirit of all advancement. That is why we desperately need support among the people and the counsels of your country. So much may depend on it, and so many decisions at Sauj Bulaq will be clearer and simpler if we know that in your country there is an active partisan of the Kurd; a partisan who understands and appreciates the Kurdish struggle for political autonomy and material advancement: a friend and a true brother. Dare I ask more of thee, Englis ?

TO DODD, PAPEN’S REMARK ranked as one of the most idiotic he had heard since his arrival in Berlin. And he had heard many. An odd kind of fanciful thinking seemed to have bedazzled Germany, to the highest levels of government. Earlier in the year, for example, Göring had claimed with utter sobriety that three hundred German Americans had been murdered in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia at the start of the past world war. Messersmith, in a dispatch, observed that even smart, well-traveled Germans will “sit and calmly tell you the most extraordinary fairy tales.” Now here was the nation’s vice-chancellor claiming not to understand why the United States had entered the world war against Germany. Dodd looked at Papen. “I can tell you that,” he said, his voice just as level and even as before. “It was through the sheer, consummate stupidity of German diplomats.” Papen looked stunned. His wife, according to Sigrid Schultz, looked strangely pleased. A new silence filled the table—not one of anticipation, as before, but a charged emptiness—until suddenly everyone sought to fill the chasm with flecks of diverting conversation. In another world, another context, it would have been a minor incident, a burst of caustic banter readily forgotten. Amid the oppression and Gleichschaltung of Nazi Germany, however, it was something far more important and symbolic.

Westerners, not just Lincoln Steffens. It took in the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States. It even took in the Soviet Union’s own leaders, such as Nikita Khrushchev, who famously boasted in a speech to Western diplomats in 1956 that “we will bury you [the West].” As late as 1977, a leading academic textbook by an English economist argued that Soviet-style economies were superior to capitalist ones in terms of economic growth, providing full employment and price stability and even in producing people with altruistic motivation. Poor old Western capitalism did better only at providing political freedom. Indeed, the most widely used university textbook in economics, written by Nobel Prize–winner Paul Samuelson, repeatedly predicted the coming economic dominance of the Soviet Union. In the 1961 edition, Samuelson predicted that Soviet national income would overtake that of the United States possibly by 1984, but probably by 1997. In the 1980 edition there was little change in the analysis, though the two dates were delayed to 2002 and 2012. Though the policies of Stalin and subsequent Soviet leaders could produce rapid economic growth, they could not do so in a sustained way. By the 1970s, economic growth had all but stopped. The most important lesson is that extractive institutions cannot generate sustained technological change for two reasons: the lack of economic incentives and resistance by the elites. In addition, once all the very inefficiently used resources had been reallocated to industry, there were few economic gains to be had by fiat. Then the Soviet system hit a roadblock, with lack of innovation and poor economic incentives preventing any further progress. The only area in which the Soviets did manage to sustain some innovation was through enormous efforts in military and aerospace technology. As a result they managed to put the first dog, Leika, and the first man, Yuri Gagarin, in space. They also left the world the AK-47 as one of their legacies. Gosplan was the supposedly all-powerful planning agency in charge of the central planning of the Soviet economy. One of the benefits of the sequence of five-year plans written and administered by Gosplan was supposed to have been the long time horizon necessary for rational investment and innovation. In reality, what got implemented in Soviet industry had little to do with the five-year plans, which were frequently revised and rewritten or simply ignored. The development of industry took place on the basis of commands by Stalin and the Politburo, who changed their minds frequently and often completely revised their previous decisions. All plans were labeled “draft” or “preliminary.” Only one copy of a plan labeled “final”—that for light industry in 1939—has ever come to light. Stalin himself said in 1937 that “only bureaucrats can think that planning work ends with the creation of the plan. The creation of the plan is just the beginning. The real direction of the plan develops only after the putting together of the plan.” Stalin wanted to maximize his discretion to reward people or groups who were politically loyal, and punish those who were not. As for Gosplan, its main role was to provide Stalin with information so he could better monitor his friends and enemies. It actually tried to avoid making decisions. If you made a decision that turned

One of Castro’s first acts as Cuba’s Prime Minister was to go on a diplomatic tour that started on April 15, 1959. His first stop was the United States, where he met with Vice President Nixon, after having been snubbed by President Eisenhower, who thought it more important to go golfing than to encourage friendly relations with a neighboring country. It seemed that the U.S. Administration did not take the new Cuban Prime Minister seriously after he showed up dressed in revolutionary garb. Delegating his Vice President to meet the new Cuban leader was an obvious rebuff. However, what was worse was that an instant dislike developed between the two men, when Fidel Castro met Vice President Richard Milhous Nixon. This dislike was amplified when Nixon openly badgered Castro with anti-communistic rhetoric. Once again, Castro explained that he was not a Communist and that he was with the West in the Cold War. However, during this period following the McCarthy era, Nixon was not listening. During Castro’s tour to the United States, Canada and Latin America, everyone in Cuba listened intently to what he had to say. Fidel’s speeches, that were shown on Cuban television, were troubling to Raúl and he feared that his brother was deviating from Cuba’s path towards communism. Becoming concerned by Fidel’s candid remarks, Raúl conferred with his close friend “Che” Guevara, and finally called Fidel about how he was being perceived in Cuba. Following this conversation, Raúl flew to Texas where he met with his brother Fidel in Houston. Raúl informed him that the Cuban press saw his diplomacy as a concession to the United States. The two brothers argued openly at the airport and again later at the posh Houston Shamrock Hotel, where they stayed. With the pressure on Fidel to embrace Communism he reluctantly agreed…. In time he whole heartily accepted Communism as the philosophy for the Cuban Government.

When the time comes, & I hope it comes soon, to bury this era of moral rot & the defiling of our communal, social, & democratic norms, the perfect epitaph for the gravestone of this age of unreason should be Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley's already infamous quote: "I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing... as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.” Grassley's vision of America, quite frankly, is one I do not recognize. I thought the heart of this great nation was not limited to the ranks of the plutocrats who are whisked through life in chauffeured cars & private jets, whose often inherited riches are passed along to children, many of whom no sacrifice or service is asked. I do not begrudge wealth, but it must come with a humility that money never is completely free of luck. And more importantly, wealth can never be a measure of worth. I have seen the waitress working the overnight shift at a diner to give her children a better life, & yes maybe even take them to a movie once in awhile - and in her, I see America. I have seen the public school teachers spending extra time with students who need help & who get no extra pay for their efforts, & in them I see America. I have seen parents sitting around kitchen tables with stacks of pressing bills & wondering if they can afford a Christmas gift for their children, & in them I see America. I have seen the young diplomat in a distant foreign capital & the young soldier in a battlefield foxhole, & in them I see America. I have seen the brilliant graduates of the best law schools who forgo the riches of a corporate firm for the often thankless slog of a district attorney or public defender's office, & in them I see America. I have seen the librarian reshelving books, the firefighter, police officer, & paramedic in service in trying times, the social worker helping the elderly & infirm, the youth sports coaches, the PTA presidents, & in them I see America. I have seen the immigrants working a cash register at a gas station or trimming hedges in the frost of an early fall morning, or driving a cab through rush hour traffic to make better lives for their families, & in them I see America. I have seen the science students unlocking the mysteries of life late at night in university laboratories for little or no pay, & in them I see America. I have seen the families struggling with a cancer diagnosis, or dementia in a parent or spouse. Amid the struggles of mortality & dignity, in them I see America. These, & so many other Americans, have every bit as much claim to a government working for them as the lobbyists & moneyed classes. And yet, the power brokers in Washington today seem deaf to these voices. It is a national disgrace of historic proportions. And finally, what is so wrong about those who must worry about the cost of a drink with friends, or a date, or a little entertainment, to rephrase Senator Grassley's demeaning phrasings? Those who can't afford not to worry about food, shelter, healthcare, education for their children, & all the other costs of modern life, surely they too deserve to be able to spend some of their “darn pennies” on the simple joys of life. Never mind that almost every reputable economist has called this tax bill a sham of handouts for the rich at the expense of the vast majority of Americans & the future economic health of this nation. Never mind that it is filled with loopholes written by lobbyists. Never mind that the wealthiest already speak with the loudest voices in Washington, & always have. Grassley’s comments open a window to the soul of the current national Republican Party & it it is not pretty. This is not a view of America that I think President Ronald Reagan let alone President Dwight Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt would have recognized. This is unadulterated cynicism & a version of top-down class warfare run amok. ~Facebook 12/4/17

Although some scientists questioned the validity of these studies, others went along willingly. People from a wide range of disciplines were recruited, including psychics, physicists, and computer scientists, to investigate a variety of unorthodox projects: experimenting with mind-altering drugs such as LSD, asking psychics to locate the position of Soviet submarines patrolling the deep oceans, etc. In one sad incident, a U.S. Army scientist was secretly given LSD. According to some reports, he became so violently disoriented that he committed suicide by jumping out a window. Most of these experiments were justified on the grounds that the Soviets were already ahead of us in terms of mind control. The U.S. Senate was briefed in another secret report that the Soviets were experimenting with beaming microwave radiation directly into the brains of test subjects. Rather than denouncing the act, the United States saw “great potential for development into a system for disorienting or disrupting the behavior pattern of military or diplomatic personnel.” The U.S. Army even claimed that it might be able to beam entire words and speeches into the minds of the enemy: “One decoy and deception concept … is to remotely create noise in the heads of personnel by exposing them to low power, pulsed microwaves.… By proper choice of pulse characteristics, intelligible speech may be created.… Thus, it may be possible to ‘talk’ to selected adversaries in a fashion that would be most disturbing to them,” the report said. Unfortunately, none of these experiments was peer-reviewed, so millions of taxpayer dollars were spent on projects like this one, which most likely violated the laws of physics, since the human brain cannot receive microwave radiation and, more important, does not have the ability to decode microwave messages. Dr. Steve Rose, a biologist at the Open University, has called this far-fetched scheme a “neuro-scientific impossibility.” But for all the millions of dollars spent on these “black projects,” apparently not a single piece of reliable science emerged. The use of mind-altering drugs did, in fact, create disorientation and even panic among the subjects who were tested, but the Pentagon failed to accomplish the key goal: control of the conscious mind of another person. Also, according to psychologist Robert Jay Lifton, brainwashing by the communists had little long-term effect. Most of the American troops who denounced the United States during the Korean War reverted back to their normal personalities soon after being released. In addition, studies done on people who have been brainwashed by certain cults also show that they revert back to their normal personality after leaving the cult. So it seems that, in the long run, one’s basic personality is not affected by brainwashing.

A word of explanation about how the information in this book was obtained, evaluated and used. This book is designed to present, as best my reporting could determine, what really happened. The core of this book comes from the written record—National Security Council meeting notes, personal notes, memos, chronologies, letters, PowerPoint slides, e-mails, reports, government cables, calendars, transcripts, diaries and maps. Information in the book was supplied by more than 100 people involved in the Afghanistan War and national security during the first 18 months of President Barack Obama’s administration. Interviews were conducted on “background,” meaning the information could be used but the sources would not be identified by name. Many sources were interviewed five or more times. Most allowed me to record the interviews, which were then transcribed. For several sources, the combined interview transcripts run more than 300 pages. I have attempted to preserve the language of the main characters and sources as much as possible, using their words even when they are not directly quoted, reflecting the flavor of their speech and attitudes. Many key White House aides were interviewed in-depth. They shared meeting notes, important documents, recollections of what happened before, during and after meetings, and assisted extensively with their interpretations. Senior and well-placed military, intelligence and diplomatic officials also provided detailed recollections, read from notes or assisted with documents. Since the reporting was done over 18 months, many interviews were conducted within days or even hours after critical discussions. This often provided a fresher and less-calculated account. Dialogue comes mostly from the written record, but also from participants, usually more than one. Any attribution of thoughts, conclusions or feelings to a person was obtained directly from that person, from notes or from a colleague whom the person told. Occasionally, a source said mid-conversation that something was “off-the-record,” meaning it could not be used unless the information was obtained elsewhere. In many cases, I was able to get the information elsewhere so that it could be included in this book. Some people think they can lock up and prevent publication of information by declaring it “off-the-record” or that they don’t want to see it in the book. But inside any White House, nearly everyone’s business and attitudes become known to others. And in the course of multiple, extensive interviews with firsthand sources about key decision points in the war, the role of the players became clear. Given the diversity of sources, stakes and the lives involved, there is no way I could write a sterilized or laundered version of this story. I interviewed President Obama on-the-record in the Oval Office for one hour and 15 minutes on Saturday, July 10, 2

These Claudines, then…they want to know because they believe they already do know, the way one who loves fruit knows, when offered a mango from the moon, what to expect; and they expect the loyal tender teasing affection of the schoolgirl crush to continue: the close and confiding companionship, the pleasure of the undemanding caress, the cuddle which consummates only closeness; yet in addition they want motherly putting right, fatherly forgiveness and almost papal indulgence; they expect that the sights and sounds, the glorious affairs of the world which their husbands will now bring before them gleaming like bolts of silk, will belong to the same happy activities as catching toads, peeling back tree bark, or powdering the cheeks with dandelions and oranging the nose; that music will ravish the ear the way the trill of the blackbird does; that literature will hold the mind in sweet suspense the way fairy tales once did; that paintings will crowd the eye with the delights of a colorful garden, and the city streets will be filled with the same cool dew-moist country morning air they fed on as children. But they shall not receive what they expect; the tongue will be about other business; one will hear in masterpieces only pride and bitter contention; buildings will have grandeur but no flowerpots or chickens; and these Claudines will exchange the flushed cheek for the swollen vein, and instead of companionship, they will get sex and absurd games composed of pinch, leer, and giggle—that’s what will happen to “let’s pretend.” 'The great male will disappear into the jungle like the back of an elusive ape, and Claudine shall see little of his strength again, his intelligence or industry, his heroics on the Bourse like Horatio at the bridge (didn’t Colette see Henri de Jouvenel, editor and diplomat and duelist and hero of the war, away to work each day, and didn’t he often bring his mistress home with him, as Willy had when he was husband number one?); the great affairs of the world will turn into tawdry liaisons, important meetings into assignations, deals into vulgar dealings, and the en famille hero will be weary and whining and weak, reminding her of all those dumb boys she knew as a child, selfish, full of fat and vanity like patrons waiting to be served and humored, admired and not observed. 'Is the occasional orgasm sufficient compensation? Is it the prize of pure surrender, what’s gained from all that giving up? There’ll be silk stockings and velvet sofas maybe, the customary caviar, tasting at first of frog water but later of money and the secretions of sex, then divine champagne, the supreme soda, and rubber-tired rides through the Bois de Boulogne; perhaps there’ll be rich ugly friends, ritzy at homes, a few young men with whom one may flirt, a homosexual confidant with long fingers, soft skin, and a beautiful cravat, perfumes and powders of an unimaginable subtlety with which to dust and wet the body, many deep baths, bonbons filled with sweet liqueurs, a procession of mildly salacious and sentimental books by Paul de Kock and company—good heavens, what’s the problem?—new uses for the limbs, a tantalizing glimpse of the abyss, the latest sins, envy certainly, a little spite, jealousy like a vaginal itch, and perfect boredom. 'And the mirror, like justice, is your aid but never your friend.' -- From "Three Photos of Colette," The World Within the Word, reprinted from NYRB April 1977

Growth was so rapid that it took in generations of Westerners, not just Lincoln Steffens. It took in the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States. It even took in the Soviet Union’s own leaders, such as Nikita Khrushchev, who famously boasted in a speech to Western diplomats in 1956 that “we will bury you [the West].” As late as 1977, a leading academic textbook by an English economist argued that Soviet-style economies were superior to capitalist ones in terms of economic growth, providing full employment and price stability and even in producing people with altruistic motivation. Poor old Western capitalism did better only at providing political freedom. Indeed, the most widely used university textbook in economics, written by Nobel Prize–winner Paul Samuelson, repeatedly predicted the coming economic dominance of the Soviet Union. In the 1961 edition, Samuelson predicted that Soviet national income would overtake that of the United States possibly by 1984, but probably by 1997. In the 1980 edition there was little change in the analysis, though the two dates were delayed to 2002 and 2012. Though the policies of Stalin and subsequent Soviet leaders could produce rapid economic growth, they could not do so in a sustained way. By the 1970s, economic growth had all but stopped. The most important lesson is that extractive institutions cannot generate sustained technological change for two reasons: the lack of economic incentives and resistance by the elites. In addition, once all the very inefficiently used resources had been reallocated to industry, there were few economic gains to be had by fiat. Then the Soviet system hit a roadblock, with lack of innovation and poor economic incentives preventing any further progress. The only area in which the Soviets did manage to sustain some innovation was through enormous efforts in military and aerospace technology. As a result they managed to put the first dog, Leika, and the first man, Yuri Gagarin, in space. They also left the world the AK-47 as one of their legacies. Gosplan was the supposedly all-powerful planning agency in charge of the central planning of the Soviet economy. One of the benefits of the sequence of five-year plans written and administered by Gosplan was supposed to have been the long time horizon necessary for rational investment and innovation. In reality, what got implemented in Soviet industry had little to do with the five-year plans, which were frequently revised and rewritten or simply ignored. The development of industry took place on the basis of commands by Stalin and the Politburo, who changed their minds frequently and often completely revised their previous decisions. All plans were labeled “draft” or “preliminary.” Only one copy of a plan labeled “final”—that for light industry in 1939—has ever come to light. Stalin himself said in 1937 that “only bureaucrats can think that planning work ends with the creation of the plan. The creation of the plan is just the beginning. The real direction of the plan develops only after the putting together of the plan.” Stalin wanted to maximize his discretion to reward people or groups who were politically loyal, and punish those who were not. As for Gosplan, its main role was to provide Stalin with information so he could better monitor his friends and enemies. It actually tried to avoid making decisions. If you made a decision that turned out badly, you might get shot. Better to avoid all responsibility. An example of what could happen

But Moscow has not changed course because Russia is not trying to preserve today’s “normal life,” and diplomatic prestige is not as important as nuclear supremacy. The sum of diplomatic approval from militarily ineffectual countries is of no value. Temporary economic losses are meaningless. If strategic nuclear supremacy is acquired, the world can beg for negotiations as Gen. Krebs begged General Chuikov. But negotiations will not take place. Only surrender will take place.

the promise of the glamorous and free life of a diplomat, seeing and experiencing the entire world, was the stuff of dreams. It had helped that she’d totally bought into the propaganda that she was part of an elite group, a crème de la crème representing her country, an important cog in the state machinery that served national interests. Looking back, she should have known that her first trip was but a mild introduction into a soul-less life.

Alexander VI (1492–1503) was an astute political leader, a skillful diplomat, and a careful shepherd of the church’s fiscal resources. Alexander also supported missionary work in North and South America and in the Far East and by so doing anticipated extremely important developments in the later history of Christianity. In

Ukraine is the most important piece of Vladimir Putin’s geopolitical puzzle.

To gain a first was to receive a passkey that was supposed to open doors at the top — especially in the Civil Service, in the Diplomatic Service, and in similar public careers. Historical research was only one of those many doors, and by no means the most important one. Here, the English preference for the talented all-rounder — the adaptable and gentlemanly member of a ruling class — made itself plain. Most holders of firsts did not expect to stay in Oxford or in other centers of research and teaching. They made their way to the wider world. Nor was the final examination itself — and the undergraduate teaching that prepared for it — designed to foster any special skills in research. The essays that were written for tutors every week were usually read out to them at the beginning of the tutorial. They were twenty minutes to half an hour long and were expected to be successful rhetorical performances. They were trial runs for the answers that were expected in the final examination. One was encouraged to "think on ones feet" — to give quick (even entertaining) answers to complex questions, even if these answers bordered on the flip and the facile. These were the virtues of civil servants and journalists.

One result was the publication of the names of confidential informants, including political dissidents, who had spoken with American diplomats in Iran, China, Afghanistan, the Arab world, and elsewhere.6 As a consequence, some of these individuals had to be relocated to protect their lives. More importantly, the revelations made it more difficult for American diplomats to acquire human intelligence in the future, since the confidentiality of conversations could not be relied upon.

The Zen sect had been favored by the Ashikaga shogunate and had, during the Ashikaga (Muromachi) and the earlier Kamakura periods, supervised commercial and cultural relations with China through the famous Tenryūbune (Tenryūji ships) sponsored by the Tenryūji branch of the Rinzai school in Kyoto. Zen temples played an important cultural role with their schools, the so-called terakoya, and they controlled the celebrated Ashikaga College (referred to by Xavier as the "University of Bando"), a major center for classical Chinese learning. At the beginning of the Tokugawa period, the temples still had important administrative and diplomatic privileges, for instance in the issuing of passports (Boxer 1951, 262). Only later in that period did Zen suffer a setback owing to the rising tide of Confucian orthodoxy.

Take a look at your calendar and write down your role in meetings. This goes for explicit roles, like owning a meeting’s agenda, and also for more nuanced roles, like being the first person to champion others’ ideas, or the person who is diplomatic enough to raise difficult concerns. Take a second pass on your calendar for non-meeting stuff, like interviewing and closing candidates. Look back over the past six months for recurring processes, like roadmap planning, performance calibrations, or head count decisions, and document your role17 in each of those processes. For each of the individuals you support, in which areas are your skills and actions most complementary to theirs? How do you help them? What do they rely on you for? Maybe it’s authorization, advice navigating the organization, or experience in the technical domain. Audit inbound chats and emails for requests and questions coming your way. If you keep a to-do list, look at the categories of the work you’ve completed over the past six months, as well as the stuff you’ve been wanting to do but keep putting off. Think through the external relationships that have been important for you in your current role. What kinds of folks have been important, and who are the strategic partners that someone needs to know?

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.

The English diplomat Andrew Holes had returned to England in 1444, following a dozen years in Italy. During his sojourn he had put together a manuscript collection so large that, according to Vespasiano, he was forced to send the books to England on board a ship. His successor as King Henry VI’s representative at the Roman Curia was the other expatriate English bibliophile, William Grey. Following his visit to Florence in 1442, Grey had pursued his humanistic studies in Padua, receiving his doctorate in divinity in September 1445, a few weeks before his appointment as the king’s proctor. He then left Padua for Rome, to which Pope Eugenius had at last returned in 1443 after having finally judged it safe to chance his presence among the unruly Roman mob. But first of all, Grey stopped in Florence on important business.

The British amateur diplomats came from across the political spectrum and acted from a variety of motives. They were, however, united by a number of beliefs, the most important of which was that Nazism, whatever their personal view of it, should not preclude friendly relations between Britain and Germany. On the contrary, the majority saw Nazism as the natural, if violent, reaction to legitimate grievances stemming from Versailles. From both a moral and political point of view, it was, therefore, imperative that the Treaty should be altered and Germany allowed to regain that place and status to which her size and history entitled her.

Westerners, not just Lincoln Steffens. It took in the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States. It even took in the Soviet Union’s own leaders, such as Nikita Khrushchev, who famously boasted in a speech to Western diplomats in 1956 that “we will bury you [the West].” As late as 1977, a leading academic textbook by an English economist argued that Soviet-style economies were superior to capitalist ones in terms of economic growth, providing full employment and price stability and even in producing people with altruistic motivation. Poor old Western capitalism did better only at providing political freedom. Indeed, the most widely used university textbook in economics, written by Nobel Prize–winner Paul Samuelson, repeatedly predicted the coming economic dominance of the Soviet Union. In the 1961 edition, Samuelson predicted that Soviet national income would overtake that of the United States possibly by 1984, but probably by 1997. In the 1980 edition there was little change in the analysis, though the two dates were delayed to 2002 and 2012. Though the policies of Stalin and subsequent Soviet leaders could produce rapid economic growth, they could not do so in a sustained way. By the 1970s, economic growth had all but stopped. The most important lesson is that extractive institutions cannot generate sustained technological change for two reasons: the lack of economic incentives and resistance by the elites. In addition, once all the very inefficiently used resources had been reallocated to industry, there were few economic gains to be had by fiat. Then the Soviet system hit a roadblock, with lack of innovation and poor economic incentives preventing any further progress. The only area in which the Soviets did manage to sustain some innovation was through enormous efforts in military and aerospace technology. As a result they managed to put the first dog, Leika, and the first man, Yuri Gagarin, in space. They also left the world the AK-47 as one of their legacies. Gosplan was the supposedly all-powerful planning agency in charge of the central planning of the Soviet economy. One of the benefits of the sequence of five-year plans written and administered by Gosplan was supposed to have been the long time horizon necessary for rational investment and innovation. In reality, what got implemented in Soviet industry had little to do with the five-year plans, which were frequently revised and rewritten or simply ignored. The development of industry took place on the basis of commands by Stalin and the Politburo, who changed their minds frequently and often completely revised their previous decisions. All plans were labeled “draft” or “preliminary.” Only one copy of a plan labeled “final”—that for light industry in 1939—has ever come to light. Stalin himself said in 1937 that “only bureaucrats can think that planning work ends with the creation of the plan. The creation of the plan is just the beginning. The real direction of the plan develops only after the putting together of the plan.” Stalin wanted to maximize his discretion to reward people or groups who were politically loyal, and punish those who were not. As for Gosplan, its main role was to provide Stalin with information so he could better monitor his friends and enemies. It actually tried to avoid making decisions. If you made a decision that turned out badly, you might get shot. Better to avoid all responsibility. An example of what could happen

There are organizational as well as ideological ties that bind Sunni sectarians, Arab and Asian alike, with Sunni Arab extremists. While outside the Muslim world the violent anti-Westernism of the Taliban and al-Qaeda appears most prominent, there can be no question that intense hatred of Shias and Shiism is an important motive for both these Sunni terror groups. The Taliban, al-Qaeda, and various Pakistani Sunni extremists fought side by side during the Afghan internal strife of the 1990s. Indeed, most of the murders of Shias at Mazar-i Sharif and Bamiyan appear to have been committed by Pakistani killers from Sipah-i Sahaba, who nearly started a war with Iran when they overran the Iranian consulate in Mazar-i Sharif in 1998 and slaughtered eleven diplomats.

The situation was similar in the Soviet Union, with industry playing the role of sugar in the Caribbean. Industrial growth in the Soviet Union was further facilitated because its technology was so backward relative to what was available in Europe and the United States, so large gains could be reaped by reallocating resources to the industrial sector, even if all this was done inefficiently and by force. Before 1928 most Russians lived in the countryside. The technology used by peasants was primitive, and there were few incentives to be productive. Indeed, the last vestiges of Russian feudalism were eradicated only shortly before the First World War. There was thus huge unrealized economic potential from reallocating this labor from agriculture to industry. Stalinist industrialization was one brutal way of unlocking this potential. By fiat, Stalin moved these very poorly used resources into industry, where they could be employed more productively, even if industry itself was very inefficiently organized relative to what could have been achieved. In fact, between 1928 and 1960 national income grew at 6 percent a year, probably the most rapid spurt of economic growth in history up until then. This quick economic growth was not created by technological change, but by reallocating labor and by capital accumulation through the creation of new tools and factories. Growth was so rapid that it took in generations of Westerners, not just Lincoln Steffens. It took in the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States. It even took in the Soviet Union’s own leaders, such as Nikita Khrushchev, who famously boasted in a speech to Western diplomats in 1956 that “we will bury you [the West].” As late as 1977, a leading academic textbook by an English economist argued that Soviet-style economies were superior to capitalist ones in terms of economic growth, providing full employment and price stability and even in producing people with altruistic motivation. Poor old Western capitalism did better only at providing political freedom. Indeed, the most widely used university textbook in economics, written by Nobel Prize–winner Paul Samuelson, repeatedly predicted the coming economic dominance of the Soviet Union. In the 1961 edition, Samuelson predicted that Soviet national income would overtake that of the United States possibly by 1984, but probably by 1997. In the 1980 edition there was little change in the analysis, though the two dates were delayed to 2002 and 2012. Though the policies of Stalin and subsequent Soviet leaders could produce rapid economic growth, they could not do so in a sustained way. By the 1970s, economic growth had all but stopped. The most important lesson is that extractive institutions cannot generate sustained technological change for two reasons: the lack of economic incentives and resistance by the elites. In addition, once all the very inefficiently used resources had been reallocated to industry, there were few economic gains to be had by fiat. Then the Soviet system hit a roadblock, with lack of innovation and poor economic incentives preventing any further progress. The only area in which the Soviets did manage to sustain some innovation was through enormous efforts in military and aerospace technology. As a result they managed to put the first dog, Leika, and the first man, Yuri Gagarin, in space. They also left the world the AK-47 as one of their legacies. Gosplan was the supposedly all-powerful planning agency in charge of the central planning of the Soviet economy.

He sensed the return of her restlessness. “What is it?” “Let’s do something, Gregori. Something that has nothing to do with the hunt. Something different. Something touristy.” “The streets are flooded tonight,” he pointed out. She shrugged. “I know. I was just looking at some pamphlets earlier, on all the tourist attractions here,” Savannah said nonchalantly. Gregori looked up alertly at the carefully calculated disinterest in her voice. “Did any of them seem appealing to you?” She shrugged again very casually. “Most of the more interesting ones are the day trips. Like the bayous. There’s one you can go on with someone who grew up in the bayou.” She shrugged again. “I like learning local history. I wouldn’t mind a tour of the bayou with someone who grew up there.” “You have the brochure handy?” he asked. “It isn’t important,” Savannah said with a little sigh. Tossing the packet of pamphlets onto the table, she picked up her hairbrush. Gregori took it out of her hand. “If you want a proper tour of the bayou, Savannah, then we will go.” “I like to do the tourist thing,” Savannah admitted with a slight smile. “It’s kind of fun to ask questions and learn new things.” “I bet you are very good at it,” he answered her, slowly running the brush through the blue-black length of her hair. It crackled with a life of its own, refusing to be tamed. He gathered it into his hands just to feel how soft and silky it was. Over her shoulder, his pale gaze rested on the brochure she had put to one side. If Savannah wanted a tour, he would move heaven and earth to get her one. “We do not always go chasing after vampires and the mortal assassins plaguing our people,” he began diplomatically. “I know. They turn up everywhere we go,” she agreed. He tugged at a tangle in her glossy hair. “When you first proposed to come to New Orleans, we had hoped the society members would follow us and leave Aidan and his people in peace. Is that not what you wanted?” “Not particularly,” she admitted with a flash of her blue eyes. “I was only trying to get you to come here. You know, classic honeymoon. Sweet young wife teaches wizened old grouch how to have fun. That sort of thing.” “Wizened old grouch?” he echoed in astonishment. “The old part I can accept, even the grouch. But I am definitely not wizened.” In punishment he tugged her hair. “Ow!” She swung around and glared indignantly at him. “Wizened sort of seemed to fit. You know, wizard, wizened.

Patrick Jephson As the first and only private secretary to Diana during her life, Patrick Jephson was one of the closest people to the Princess throughout her international charity and diplomatic career. He is also a notable broadcaster and journalist and has contributed to many major British newspapers, including the Times, the Observer, and the Daily Mail. His writing credits include Shadows of a Princess and Portraits of a Princess: Travels with Diana, and several of his books have been international bestsellers. The duty to be honest was more important to her than the duty to keep silent. For many of her critics, that was at best an indulgence and at worst an unforgivable sin. If it was either, she certainly paid a high price for it. Her undoubted concern would be that nobody has to pay such a high price in the future. Most especially not her sons. They are her living legacy, and if there are lessons to be learned from her life, it is they who have the most to gain by recognizing them.

Uncomplicated Systems Of giftcity - A Background The sort of present you give can have an enduring impression on the receiver. Gift will make a person feel special so it is important that when selecting a gift, you must always keep the receiver in mind. Gift has the power to keep up it for a long time and to develop relationship that is powerful. Particularly in the corporate world, a a happy customer or a partner that is satisfied can have an enormous impact on the business. Thus, when picking corporate gift, one must be attentive and be diplomatic as well. Firms organises occasions and events to market their services and products. During such occasions, corporate gifts Singapore can play an enormous part in attracting more customers and keep up the old ones. Companies can emboss the presents reach to more individuals and they give away to further their advertisement with company emblems. Inexpensive gift item like pencils mugs bags etc are perfect for such giveaways they not only promote the company but also bring more customers company may also organize Corporate Gifting such as jewellery branded goods electronics and gadgets etc for significant occasions giveaways to high achievers for the company or business associates. Some of the things proposed by Giftcitysingapore are leather goods, branded wristwatches, kitchenwares, gadgets and electronic good etc are perfect for corporate gifts. Such expensive items can be given on particular company's occasion and occasions. Depending on the occasion and recipients corporate gifts can be chosen. One should also keep in your mind not to tarnish the company's persona with affordable presents for special occasions when choosing corporate gifts. Latest gadgets and electronic devices makes wonderful gifts for family members and friends, the exact same thought can be used on corporate gift ideas. Everyone will appreciate being gifted with the most recent gadget in the industry. Present city website has also implied that electronic devices and gadgets are perfect corporate gifts. Gadgets and electronic devices even have practical use consequently most firms regularly give away such expensive gifts to valued employees and clients.

Friedrich von Prittwitz und Gaffron, the German ambassador to Washington before 1933, the only German diplomat to resign on the Nazi accession to power.

America is really the only country strong enough to cope with the Russians these days, and we depend upon her support for much of our policy in Europe and the Middle East. They have just bought a monopoly oil concession in Saudi Arabia, and now they actually have more oil holdings in the Middle East than ourselves. That makes our role in Iran doubly important, because the Americans will try to pick up Middle East influence where we drop it. However, it is in our mutual interests to see that Russia is checked in the Middle East. We can always depend on American support for our case.' Essex laughed softly. 'In fact the Americans are more vigorous about the Russians than we are, because they are between the devil and our deep blue sea.

I don't fancy bringing the Americans into this at all.... They are inclined to take things over these days, and I have an idea that the price for their co-operation might be a big slice of influence in that part of the world--at our expense of course. They are developing a large interest in the Middle East, and the danger of ignoring them is worse than that of co-operating with them. We are trying to hang on to what we've got down there, while the Yankees are coming in and taking everything they can put their hands on. We are the defensive and they are on the offensive. They have the dollars, unfortunately. All we have is our political experience and skill. Where we do have a good sound economic footing, such as in Iran, what do they do but come and try to interfere with that too? That is our wealth down there in Iran, but who is handling it? Millspaugh and all sorts of strange financial geniuses from Milwaukee. Other geniuses from Chicago are running the police and the gendarmerie and even the army now. You import a gangster specialist from Chicago to handle a miserable collection of peasants! Aren't the local brutes efficient enough? Now they are starting to run the hospitals and the street-cleaning departments, and even the palace. How can a good American stomach a king? Yet you observe our friends swallowing feudal courts and kings and then spitting up Democracy and the American way of life. I know that we are fairly hypocritical at times, but compared to the piousness of the Americans we are a nation of honest men. Unfortunately they are about to skin us too..., but I suppose it's either that or losing everything. At a pinch I would sooner kiss the dollar than embrace the fanatics who are trying to change everything all over the world.

bulk n. 1 [mass noun] the mass or size of something large: residents jump up and down on their rubbish to reduce its bulk. large size or shape: he moved quickly in spite of his bulk. [count noun] a large mass or shape. [as modifier] large in quantity: bulk orders of over 100 copies. roughage in food: potatoes supply energy, essential protein, and bulk. cargo in an unpackaged mass such as grain or oil. [PRINTING] the thickness of paper or a book. 2 (the bulk of) the greater part of something: the bulk of the traffic had passed. v. [with obj.] 1 treat (a product) so that its quantity appears greater than it is: traders were bulking up their flour with chalk. [no obj.] (bulk up) build up flesh and muscle, typically in training for sporting events. 2 combine (shares or commodities for sale): your shares will be bulked with others and sold at the best prices available. bulk large be or seem to be of great importance: territorial questions bulked large in diplomatic relations. in bulk 1 (of goods) in large quantities and generally at a reduced price: retail multiples buy in bulk. 2 (of a cargo or commodity) not packaged; loose. Middle English: the senses ‘cargo as a whole’ and ‘heap, large quantity’ (the earliest recorded) are probably from Old Norse búlki ‘cargo’; other senses arose perhaps by alteration of obsolete bouk ‘belly, body’. bulk buying

Cato the Elder, began his career as a military tribune and rose through the ranks as quaestor, aedile, praetor, all the way to consul in 195 BC, all the while earning a fortune in agriculture and making his name fighting for the ancestral customs (mos maiorum) against the modernizing influences of an ascendant empire. Ironically, the one influence most important to Cato that his great-grandfather fought most stridently against with his conservative zeal was philosophy. It was he, after all, who had wanted to throw the Athenian philosophers from Diogenes’s diplomatic mission out of Rome in 155 BC.

Alexander VI (1492–1503) was an astute political leader, a skillful diplomat, and a careful shepherd of the church’s fiscal resources. Alexander also supported missionary work in North and South America and in the Far East and by so doing anticipated extremely important developments in the later history of Christianity.

Eugenius would remain in Florence for much of the next decade, ruling as pope in sumptuous lodgings prepared for him in the Dominican convent of Santa Maria Novella. His ejection from Rome was to have important consequences for Vespasiano’s career. Pious and unworldly, the pope was not a learned man. However, the Florentine residence of the papacy meant, crucially, that the Roman Curia also came to town—the papal bureaucracy staffed by highly educated diplomats, scribes, scholars, and experts in Latin, such as Poggio Bracciolini.

The system is premised on a rhetoric of a war on Muslim “terrorism” that the Chinese state has imported from the US and its allies post–September 11, 2001. As recently as 2017, Xinjiang authorities hosted British counter-terrorism experts as part of a diplomatic exchange called “Countering the root causes of violent extremism undermining growth and stability in China’s Xinjiang Region by sharing UK best practice.” In the Chinese context, countering violent extremism—something that British experts refer to simply as Prevent—is premised on detaining hundreds of thousands of Muslims deemed “untrustworthy” in camps and prisons, and placing still other Muslim adults in jobs far from their homes.

Moreover, by 1947 al-‘Alami and Dr. Husayn, the two Palestinian leaders perhaps best suited to deal with matters of diplomatic representation, were no longer allies. Walid Khalidi describes how al-‘Alami’s high-handedness alienated colleagues,24 for which there is ample evidence in Dr. Husayn’s memoirs. More important, al-‘Alami’s closeness to the pro-British Iraqi regime provoked the suspicions of many Palestinian figures.

North Node Aries in 1st House: You are encouraged to leave your private partnership comfort zone to take great adventures in public, or at least try to be assertive and brave. With your north node Aries in 1st house, you are destined to show your true color and dare to be yourself. Gone is the diplomatic and tactic strategy in the sphere of partnerships. This time, life seriously challenges you to be the first, to do with your ego and act according to your impulse by following your dream for all things that you never dared to think about, especially when you were in your childhood, where past life experiences' influences were still quite strong on your collaboration-oriented mind. North Node Aries in 1st house put your Aries soul energy on the front line of your life. It is important to display Aries's potential in public to practice and foster your positive energies in the process of your spiritual growth.

My own background as a diplomat well into a fifth decade biases me in favour of presenting a clinical picture of the global landscape, its challenges and complications as well as of the implications for India and a suggested course of action. This is what I have done for a living all these years. It is not that we avoid personalities and relationships or underplay their importance. On the contrary, so much of diplomacy is about chemistry and credibility that the human factor is always central to an accurate judgement. But what usually happens is that a vast number of objective and subjective elements are distilled into an integrated picture, which acquires a relatively dispassionate character.

The foundation of Machiavellian philosophy and its deepest insight is a sense of proportion. It corresponds to the Grotian apprehension of the moral complexity of politics… This is the special picture of political life one gets from reading Machiavelli himself and ‘irony’ is a category of philosophical Machiavellians. The word is not, I think, found in Machiavelli, but political irony is in fact what he very lovingly studied. Irony is a Machiavellian category while tragedy is a Grotian category. ‘Tragedy’ implies a standpoint outside the political drama, in which we experience, for example, admiration for Othello's nobility, pity for his weakness, and terror at Iago's wickedness… Now, it is difficult to adopt a tragic standpoint about politics, because ‘politics’ implies a situation in which we are still involved, where we can still act and affect the outcome, and anyway where we do not know the outcome because the drama is unfinished. To become fully tragic, politics have to be dead politics, that is, history: the tragedy of Athens, and of the League of Nations… Irony is, so to speak, the factual skeleton of tragedy, stripped of its moral and transcendental clothing. In literature it is the warping of a statement by its context; a character means one thing by a statement but we know the context and outcome that he does not, and see it has a different meaning. As Banquo rides away to be murdered, as Macbeth has arranged, Macbeth says to him genially: ‘Fail not our feast’—‘My lord, I will not.’ This is Sophoclean irony and there are other kinds, more complex. Irony can be seen in politics when statesmen pursue ends that recoil upon them, and turn into their opposites. Hugh R. Wilson, in Diplomat between Wars, says that the policy of the USA was of ‘overwhelming importance’ to the League of Nations in the Manchurian crisis, which makes ironic America's fear of, commitment and involvement: however little she wanted to be committed she was certainly involved, and by refusing to commit herself at that time she made her involvement in the struggle with Japan all the more certain. It is equally ironical that Britain and France went to war in 1939 to restore the balance of power in Europe by destroying Nazi Germany, embraced the Soviet alliance for that purpose, and ended with Europe as badly unbalanced by Stalin's power as it had been by Hitler's.

Even with their strengthened rights under the Lisbon Treaty, citizens still lack a meaningful connection with the EU; and it would be unwise to ignore the track record of representative democracy as a major element in citizenship. As long as citizens do not see the Parliament as being on an equal footing with the Council of Ministers, they are not likely to regard it as a sufficiently important channel of representation. The Council of Ministers, representing the states, is an essential part of the EU’s legislature too. But despite the progress in holding legislative sessions in public, it remains at the centre of an opaque system of quasi-diplomatic negotiation. Representation in a powerful house of the citizens may well be a condition of the latter’s support for the EU over the longer term.

Stalin’s Marxism and the National and Colonial Question. That book is the bible for every Russian diplomat and representative abroad. In it Stalin deals with every country of any importance, and he analyses the conditions in that country; he has all the facts and is clear and precise about what he is going to do and how he is going to do it—to undermine the government of that country and place his own kind of people in control.

Virginia nevertheless made an instant impression at work, conducting her duties—coding and decoding telegrams, dealing with the mail, processing diplomatic visas, and dispatching reports back to Washington on the increasingly tense political situation—

A second important difference between the international environment that shaped Western states and the one that is now shaping post-colonial Middle Eastern states is that many in the latter category can trade petrodollars (or strategic rents) for Western arms, which artificially increases the ability of the rulers to coerce the ruled.[8] At the turn of the century, the Middle East already spent more of its GDP per capita on defence than any other region. Between 1999 and 2008, that spending increased by another 34%.[9] With this difference in mind, it is unrealistic to insist, as Western diplomats and leaders have done following the removal of Mubarak, that transitions from dictatorships to fledgling democracies must be orderly. This is particularly unrealistic given that the international weapons trade, the international reliance on oil and the Western tendency to view the region through a lens of counter-terrorism objectives have all helped to sustain these regimes, but cannot realistically be altered by those who take to the street in protest.

THE MAIN POINT STEMS from the fact that I’ve always acted alone,” Kissinger told Italian journalist and war correspondent Oriana Fallaci, in a revealing 1972 interview. “Americans admire that enormously. Americans admire the cowboy leading the caravan alone astride his horse, the cowboy entering a village or city alone on his horse….. Kissinger suggests that “there are two kinds of realists: those who manipulate facts and those who create them. The West requires nothing so much as men able to create their own reality.” He thought that he could construct such a world from the Nixon White House if the president gave him the power to do so. Kissinger created a small foreign policy empire inside the National Security Council by cutting Defense and State out of most important foreign policy issues. Even in his own office, he concentrated power. His subordinates were denied direct access to the press, to diplomats, and, most important, to the president.

That our best minds have been misinformed, that they will continue to misunderstand, is given. In consequence, the West’s position will continue to erode away. This is not seen, however, because today’s prevailing mode of thought sees the future as an extension of today’s normal life. From this perspective it does indeed appear that Russia has suffered a defeat. Russia’s economy has suffered and Russia has lost diplomatic prestige. But Moscow has not changed course because Russia is not trying to preserve today’s “normal life,” and diplomatic prestige is not as important as nuclear supremacy. The sum of diplomatic approval from militarily ineffectual countries is of no value. Temporary economic losses are meaningless. If strategic nuclear supremacy is acquired, the world can beg for negotiations as Gen. Krebs begged General Chuikov. But negotiations will not take place. Only surrender will take place.

With your north node Aries in 1st house, you are destined to show your true color and dare to be yourself You are encouraged to leave your private partnership comfort zone to take great adventures in public, or at least try to be assertive and brave. With your north node Aries in 1st house, you are destined to show your true color and dare to be yourself. Gone is the diplomatic and tactic strategy in the sphere of partnerships. This time, life seriously challenges you to be the first, to do with your ego and act according to your impulse by following your dream for all things that you never dared to think about, especially when you were in your childhood, where past life experiences' influences were still quite strong on your collaboration-oriented mind. North Node Aries in 1st house put your Aries soul energy on the front line of your life. It is important to display Aries's potential in public to practice and foster your positive energies in the process of your spiritual growth. Speak and do more, being enthusiastic when addressing the public will bring you fulfillment joyfully.

The next period of Indian history saw a complex, multilingual, pluralistic and syncretic interaction between the Persian and the Sanskritic worlds, with Persian as the dominant court and diplomatic language, but with Sanskrit and Sanskrit-derived vernaculars remaining important and influential

Folly: "It may at times be the highest wisdom to simulate folly." — Niccolò Machiavelli Forbearance: "Next to knowing when to seize an advantage, the most important thing in life is to know when to forego an advantage." — Benjamin Disraeli Force, resort to: It is stupid to seize by violence what diplomacy may persuade another he should give you. Force, resort to: "It is the man who uses violence to spoil things, not the man who uses it to mend them, that is blameworthy." — Niccolò Machiavelli Force, resort to: "Weapons are inauspicious intruments, not the tools of the enlightened. When there is no choice but to use them, it is best to be calm and free from greed, and not celebrate victory." — Sunzi [Cannot find precise quote from Sunzi, the translation matches perfectly with a paragraph from Laozi: 兵者不祥之器，非君子之器，不得已而用之，恬淡为上。——《道德经》] []

Espionage, vital importance of: "What enables an intelligent government and a wise military leadership to overcome others and achieve extraordinary accomplishments is foreknowledge. "Foreknowledge cannot be gotten from ghosts and spirits, cannot be had by analogy, and cannot be found out by calculation. It must be obtained from people who know the conditions of the enemy." — Sunzi [故明君贤将，所以动而胜人，成功出于众者，先知也；先知者，不可取于鬼神，不可象于事，不可验于度；必取于人，知敌之情者也。——《孙子兵法·用间》] Evasion: "If, as frequently happens, an indiscreet question which seems to require a distinct answer is put to you abruptly by an artful minister, parry it either by treating it as an indiscreet question or get rid of it by a grave and serious look; but on no account contradict the assertion flatly if it be true, or admit it as true if false." — Lord Malmesbury Exiles: "It seems not amiss to speak ... of the danger of trusting to the representations of men who have been expelled from their country; this being a matter that all those who govern states have to act upon almost daily ... We see ... how vain the faith and promises of men are who are exiles from their own country. As to their faith, we have to bear in mind that, whenever they can return to their country by other means than your assistance, they will abandon you and look to the other means, regardless of their promises to you. And as to their vain hopes and promises, such is their extreme desire to return to their homes that they naturally believe many things that are not true, and add many others on purpose; so that, with what they really believe and what they say they believe, they will fill you with hopes to that degree that if you attempt to act upon them you will incur a fruitless expense, or engage in an undertaking that will involve you in ruin." — Niccolò Machiavelli

Foreign policy: "The Game of nations ... differs from other games ... in several important respects. First, each player has his own aims, different from those of the others, which constitute 'winning'; second, every player is forced by his own domestic circumstances to make moves in the Game which have nothing to do with winning and which, indeed, might impair the chance of winning; third, in the Game of nations there are no winners, only losers. The objective of each player is not so much to win as to avoid loss. "The common objective of the players in the game of nations is merely to keep the Game going. The alternative to the Game is war." — Zakaria Mohieddin, 1962 Foreign policy: "There is a vital difference between foreign policy and diplomacy. Foreign policy is the strategy of diplomacy." — Roberto Regala, 1959 Foreign policy, bureaucratic: Policies made by bureaucracies are the opposite of strategy. They are the vector of competing egos, institutions, and viewpoints — a compromise intended to appease contentious domestic interests rather than a serious attempt to grapple with the issues and interests of the foreign states to which they are purportedly directed. Such policies invite contempt from strong leaders; they often receive it.

Démarches, level of: "Governments which attach importance to getting their messages to those in authority in other states as accurately and persuasively as possible have found by experience that the most effective way to do this is to instruct their own representative in a foreign capital to state and explain their views at or as close as possible to the effective level of decision-making in the other governments concerned. This does not always, or indeed usually, mean the top, even though the President or Chancellor or Prime Minister has the ultimate right of approval or rejection. For the effective decision is likely to be made lower down, by experts who understand the complexities of the subject, in the light of general guidelines laid down from the top. These effective decisions take the form of recommendations to the foreign minister, which he or the head of the government may reject but which he is unlikely to do if they conform to the government's lines of policy. A particular recommendation at the right level can thus often clinch the business. Unfavorable recommendations by experts in a ministry of foreign affairs, on the other hand, once fed in are much harder for a foreign ambassador to surmount at a higher level. Therefore well-run embassies make sure that they explain their government's views and wishes persuasively to the experts whose formulation of recommendations will go far to determine the decision their government makes." — Adam Watson, 1983

Friends, negotiations between: Negotiations between friends proceed from common interests and shared ends; the objective is to find a means of carrying out a common course of action to realize these ends. It si a great mistake to approach such negotiations in an adversarial manner. This can only risk raising questions about the extent to which interests are truly held in common and erode the sense of partnership that is the greatest hope for success in both the negotiations and the relationship they are intended to advance. Friends, tending of:/ A first rule of foreign policy is to find out who your friends are and what their interests are, and then to help them along. If you don't, you must not be surprised if they ultimately decide to act without regard to your interests or fail to back you in times of need. Friendship between nations, invaluable: Over time, relations between nations can become so affable, honest, and reflexive that it becomes virtually unthinkable for one to act on an important matter without seeking and taking into account the views of the other. Such a relationship with a stronger state is the rarest and most valuable possession of a weaker; it must be cherished and nurtured, and never jeopardized by unilateral action.

Diplomacy, professional: Like war, diplomacy is too important a subject to be left to blundering amateurism. It marks the phase of policy prior to war; it makes and breaks military alliances; it ends war. There is much lore to it; it is a subtle calling. Diplomacy is too portentous to be entrusted to the politicians but it is too political to be left to the generals. Those who may be fatally affected by diplomacy's failure have every reason to demand that only its most skilled, professional practitioners represent their interests. Diplomacy, public: Advocacy openly directed at foreign publics in support of negotiations or broad policy positions and couched in terms intended to enlist their backing from a particular position or outcome. Distinguish Propaganda Diplomacy, purpose of: The purpose of diplomacy is not to outwit the opposing nation but to engage it in a web of common interests, thereby serving the interests of one's own nation. Diplomacy, rape: Diplomacy is political rape convincingly disguised as seduction. Diplomacy, with women: "Diplomacy lies in remembering to celebrate a woman's birthday while forgetting to note her age." — Proverb Diplomacy, revolutionary regimes and: "Diplomacy is one of the things which change least in the world, for it meets the great secular need of mankind, the need of peoples to make arrangements with each other, so that they can go about their several ways in peace ... It is therefore not surprising that revolutionary Governments, however drastically they break up the old régime of their country, either carry on the inherited diplomatic system or else return to it sooner or later." — R. B. Mowat, 1936

Foreign relations: "States receive so much benefit from uninterrupted foreign negotiations, if they are conducted with prudence, that it is unbelievable unless it is known from experience ... I dare say emphatically that it is absolutely necessary to the well-being of the state to negotiate ceaselessly, either openly or secretly, and in all places, even in those from which no present fruits are reaped and still more in those for which no future prospects as yet seem likely ... Some among these plannings produce their fruit more quickly than others. Indeed, there are those which are no sooner in the ground than they germinate and sprout forth, while others remain long dormant before producing any effect. He who negotiates continuously will finally find the right instant to attain his ends, and even if this does not come about, at least it can be said he has lost nothing while keeping abreast of events in the world, which is not of little consequence in the lives of states ... Important negotiations should never be stopped for a moment." — Cardinal Richelieu

Hatred: "The foremost art of kings is the power to endure hatred." — Seneca History: "The diplomacist should know the history of the great powers and of their relations with each other, as a competent physician would wish to know the life record of a delicate or dangerous patient, for the present is but the epitome and expression of the past. The future knows no other guide and it is from history that we are to gather the formulas of present action." — David J. Hill History: "If people always understood, there would have been no history." — Talleyrand History, diplomatic: "The narrative of brilliant campaigns and heroic military achievements may, ... at first glance, seem more attractive than the story of the reasons why battles have been fought; but, as after a storm the fallen trees in the forest, the fragments of wrecks upon the shore, and the general upheaval of nature, thought more exciting, are of less abiding human interest than a knowledge of the atmospheric conditions out of which the tempest has been born, so the plans and purposes of policies of nations are intrinsically more important than the march of armies and the carnage of military conflicts. It is the psychological factor in moments of creative action that gives history its highest instructive value and its most lasting social utility." — David J. Hill, 1906 History, worldview: Nations interpret the present by reference to their past. If that past includes traumatic events, their interpretation of the present will often diverge radically from objectively verifiable reality.

Amplifying these tensions is the extensive espionage that Israel engages in against the United States. According to the GAO, the Jewish state “conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the United States of any ally.”95 Stealing economic secrets gives Israeli firms important advantages over American businesses in the global marketplace and thus imposes additional costs on U.S. citizens. More worrying, however, are Israel’s continued efforts to steal America’s military secrets. This problem is highlighted by the infamous case of Jonathan Pollard, an American intelligence analyst who gave Israel large quantities of highly classified material between 1984 and 1985. After Pollard was caught, the Israelis refused to tell the United States what Pollard gave them.96 The Pollard case is but the most visible tip of a larger iceberg. Israeli agents tried to steal spy-camera technology from a U.S. firm in 1986, and an arbitration panel later accused Israel of “perfidious,” “unlawful,” and “surreptitious” conduct and ordered it to pay the firm, Recon/Optical Inc., some $3 million in damages. Israeli spies also gained access to confidential U.S. information about a Pentagon electronic intelligence program and tried unsuccessfully to recruit Noel Koch, a senior counterterrorism official in the Defense Department. The Wall Street Journal quoted John Davitt, former head of the Justice Department’s internal security section, saying that “those of us who worked in the espionage area regarded Israel as being the second most active foreign intelligence service in the United States.”97 A new controversy erupted in 2004 when a key Pentagon official, Larry Franklin, was arrested on charges of passing classified information regarding U.S. policy toward Iran to an Israeli diplomat, allegedly with the assistance of two senior AIPAC officials, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. Franklin eventually accepted a plea bargain and was sentenced to twelve years in prison for his role in the affair, and Rosen and Weissman are scheduled to go on trial in the fall of 2007.98

Intelligence officers, qualities of good: "The qualities of a good intelligence [and, equally, of a good diplomatic reporting] officer ... [are to]: · Be perceptive about people · Be able to work well with others under difficult conditions · Learn to distinguish between fact and fiction · Be able to distinguish between essentials and nonessentials · Possess inquisitiveness · Have a large amount of ingenuity · Pay appropriate attention to detail · Be able to express ideas clearly, briefly, and, very important, interestingly · Learn when to keep your mouth shut ... "A good intelligence officer must have an understanding of other points of view, other ways of thinking and behaving, even if they are quite foreign to his own. Rigidity and closed-mindedness are qualities that do not spell a good fortune in intelligence." — Allen Dulles, advice to junior intelligence officers, 1963 Intelligence, overt and covert collection: Most intelligence is collected openly, from the press or by diplomats. But in closed societies, the wall of secrecy can often only be breached by spies. It is there that they have their greatest utility.

Interests: "It is a maxim, founded on the universal experience of mankind, that no nation is to be trusted farther than it is bound by its interest, and no prudent statesman or politician will venture to depart from it." — Geroge Washington, 1778 Interests, among allies: It is common for nations that are close allies to assert that their interests are identical. This is always hyperbole at best, and at worst a delusion. The interests of two states may coincide for a time, or be parallel with regard to a particular subject matter or objective, but they are never identical. In the end, they will diverge and may even come into opposition. Interests, as basis of agreements: Agreements between nations must rest on real interests and verifiable commitments, not trust. Trust is ephemeral; interests last. Intentions are important, and it is vital to understand them accurately. In the end, however, it is even more important to know how nations perceive their interests than to understand them objectively. A nation's view of its national interests determines whether its intentions are fantasies or plans of action.

International organizations, as police: "The paradox is that men of liberal mind, who would be offended by the idea that the police are the most important factor in assuring social cohesion, do not hesitate to become fierce police ethusiasts when they discuss the international system. The zealots of world community and collective security might have spared themselves these anomalies if they had been less despairing about the wide field of cooperation that lies open to international organizations, once the fantasy of coercion is laid aside. If there is not much to be done by law and enforcement, there are still the alternatives of politics and adjustment. The tragedies of our age should not blind us to the achievements of noncoercive diplomacy. Indeed, unrealistic dreams about enforcement may have led statesmen and diplomats to underestimate the promise and dignity of their task as conciliators. Even in our unsatisfactory world clashes of national interest are usually settled without the threat or use of force. Most of them are resolved by routine processes of diplomacy and conference. If coercion is abandoned, only persuasion remains; and in a world of sovereign nation-states, each devoted to its particular national interest, there is no substitute for persuasion. In the final resort, the prevention of war, like the prevention of civil strife within society, does not depend on legal procedures or policy coercion, but on the art of adjustment." — Abba Eban, 1983

Diplomats, qualities of: "In the exercise of the functions of the diplomat, the qualities which will be most useful are a sharp discernment, sound judgement, studied opinion, firm convictions, and a humble bearing." — Baron Silvercruys, 1956 Diplomats, qualities of the perfect: "The essential qualities of a diplomatists ... [are that]: He is conciliatory and firm; he eludes difficulties which cannot immediately be overcome only in order to obviate them in more favorable conditions; he is courteous and unhurried; he easily detects insincerity, not always discernible to those who are themselves sincere; he has a penetrating intellect and a subtle mind, combined with a keen sense of humor. He has an intuitive sense of fitness; and is ... adaptable. He is at home in any society and is equally effective in the chanceries of the old diplomacy or on the platforms of the new." — A. L. Kennedy, 1922 Diplomats, training of: "[Apprentice diplomats] must be made fully to understand that there is nothing more important for the good of the service and their own advancement than to secure for themselves a well-established reputation of being safe and trustworthy men, so that those who shall have to do with them may feel that they will not be betrayed and that any secret revealed to them will be kept." — Marquis de Torcy, 1711, cited by J. J. Jusserand

Diplomatic mission, chief of: Within a foreign country, an ambassador must be the paramount authority for the coordination and implementation of his nation's policy. Diplomatic mission, management of of: An ambassador must be ever mindful that he is responsible for representing his whole state and nation, and his entire government, not just his foreign ministry, through which he receives his instructions. In large and important embassies, an ambassador directs a staff drawn from many civilian and military departments, not just the foreign ministry. In his management of relations between disparate elements of his diplomatic mission and in his direction of their work, he must be dedicated to getting the job done, and be seen to be impartial, regardless of the bureaucratic divisions of labor in his capital. Diplomatic work, importance of: The work of diplomats affect the life of the nation. In ordinary times, it helps determine the sense of confidence, security, and well-being of the citizenry, their general welfare, the balance of trade and payments, whether employment opportunities are created or destroyed through exports and imports, and whether citizens traveling or residing abroad are treated with dignity or subjected to humiliations by foreign governments. In extraordinary times, diplomats manage the prelude of war, protect citizens from its consequences, and set the terms of the return to peace. Diplomats: "A diplomat is a person who tries to solve complicated problems which would never have arisen if there had been no diplomats." — Robert Regala, quoting an unidentified foreign minister

Enemies, contact with: In diplomacy, as in war, one should never lose contact with the enemy. Enemies, dealing with: The best way to deal with an enemy is to make a friend of him. The next best way is to persuade another to check or chasten him. Either is better than having to fight an enemy yourself. Enemies, hatred of: "An enemy should be hated only so far as one may be hated who may one day be a friend." — Sophocles, c. 450 B.C. [cf. Ajax line 676-680: And we men—must we not learn self-restraint? I, at least, will learn it, since I am newly aware that an enemy is to be hated only as far as suits one who will in turn become a friend.] Enemies, respect for: Today's enemies may be tomorrow's allies. They should be treated with due respect and consideration. Enmity of nations: "I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people." — Edmund Burke, 1775 Entertainment: "An ambassador must be liberal and magnificent, but with judgment and design, and his magnificence should be reflected in his suite. His table should be served neatly, plentifully, and with taste. He should give frequent entertainments and parties to the chief personages of the Court and even to the Prince himself. A good table is the best and easiest way of keeping himself well informed. The natural effect of good eating and drinking is the inauguration of friendships and the creation of familiarity, and when people are a trifle warmed by wine they often disclose secrets of importance." — François de Callières, 1716 Entertaining: "Dining is the soul of diplomacy." — Palmerston

Adversaries, mutual dependence of: "If there is any possibility of avoiding a mutually damaging war, of conducting warfare in a way that minimizes damage, or of coercing an adversary by threatening war rather than waging it, the possibility of mutual accomodation is as important and dramatic as the element of conflict. Concepts like deterrence, limited war, and disarmament, as well as negotiation, are concerned with the common interest and mutual dependence that can exist between participants in a conflict." — Thomas C. Shelling, 1960 Advocacy, diplomatic: "The task of persuading another government to accept and perhaps actually help promote the policies which it is the ambassador's function to advocate still falls primarily on the ambassador himself and his senior diplomatic staff, even in these days of the communications revolution. The cordiality of his personal relations with key figures in the government (even, in countries where this is necessary, at the expense of cordial relations with opposition groups) and their confidence in him as a man of goodwill, make a great difference. An experienced ambassador will have learnt to cultivate such relations as best as he can, so as to have a fund of confidence to draw on. Outside the government there are likely to be a large number of influential people, in the legislature, in political parties, in key economic or business positions, in the news media, perhaps in religious life, who influence decisions and public opinion. Ideally the ambassador must cultivate and influence all these people as well." — Adam Watson, 1982

Advocacy, policy: "Most people do not mind being surpassed in good fortune, character, or temperament, but no one, especially not a sovereign, likes to be surpassed in intelligence. For this is the king of attributes, and any crime against it is lèse-majesté. Sovereigns want to be so in what is most important. Princes like to be helped, but not surpassed. When you counsel someone, you should appear to be reminding him of something he had forgotten, not of the light he was unable to see. It is the stars who teach us this subtlety. They are brilliant sons, but they never dare to outshine the sun." — Baltazar Gracián Advocacy, policy: "Ideas do not sell themselves. Authors of memoranda who are not willing to fight for them are more likely to find their words turn into ex post facto alibis than guides to action." — Henry A. Kissinger, 1994

Ambassadors, knowledge of host country by: "The ambassador who wishes to understand the origin of affairs in the kingdom where he is to reside must spend his spare time in reading its histories or chronicles, must gain a knowledge of its laws, of the privileges of its provinces, the usages and customes of its inhabitants, the character of the natives, their temperament and inclination: and if he should desire to serve in his office with the goodwill of his own and a foreign people, he must try and accommodate himself to the character of the natives, though at cost of doing violence to his own; he must listen to them, talk with them and even flatter them, for flattery is the magnet which everywhere attracts goodwill ... Anyone who listens to many people and consorts with them, sometimes meets one who cannot keep a secret and even habitually make confidant of someone, in order to show that he is a man of importance, trusted and employed by the heads of his Government ... Should he lack friends and the ability to discover the truth and to verify his suspicions, money can help him, for it is and always has been the masterkey to the most closely-locked archives." — Anonymous, La embajada española Ambassadors, misleading reasonableness of: An ambassador who is successful at fitting himself fully into the life of the capital where he is assigned can unwittingly undermine its understanding of his own nation. The officials with whom he is in contact may come to imagine that his reasonableness and empathy for their perspective are typical of his countrymen, when nothing is further from the truth. They may therefore be misled into ignoring underlying adverse trends in relations with his country until it is too late to do much about them.

Citizens abroad, entertainment of: It is expected that an ambassador will entertain the more prominent among his countrymen and women at his residence from time to time. If he does so with obvious economy, they will accuse him of lacking elegance; if he does so with uncommon style, they will charge him with extravagance. It is therefore wise for an ambassador to serve the simplest fare of his homeland, and to do so abundantly, at occasions at which his compatriots are present in numbers. Citizens abroad, relations with: "The better that a diplomat's relations are with his countrymen living abroad, the more surely will he discover how large are the reciprocal benefits to be gained by this, for it will often happen that unofficial persons receive information as it were by accident which may be of the utmost importance ... [and] unless good relations exist ... [the diplomat] may remain in ignorance of important facts." — François de Callières, 1716

Ambassadors, spies: Ambassadors are licensed spies; they should not forget that spies may also be unlicensed ambassadors. Ambassadors, use of: If you want someone to deliver your mail to a foreign government, get a postal clerk. If you want to communicate effectively, appoint an ambassador in whose professionalism and discretion you trust. Tell him what you want to accomplish and listen to his advice on how to persuade his hosts to agree to it. Don't tell him how to flatter and cajole them into doing what you want them to do. If he doesn't know how to do this, you shouldn't have appointed him; you need another ambassador. If he knows how to do it and normally does it well, but can't do it in a particular case, you probably need more realistic objectives and expectations — not a new ambassador — to deal with the issue. Ambassadors, words as weapons: "Ambassadors have no battleships at their disposal, or heavy infantry, or fortresses; their weapons are words and opportunities. In important transactions opportunities are fleeting; once they are missed they cannot be recovered." — Demosthenes Ambiguity, creative: If two parties to a negotiation cannot agree, they may be able to set aside their disagreements, agreeing to disagree or agreeing not to challenge each other's positions on specific points. Such creative ambiguity is often the grease on which progress in relations between states turns. (Cf. Amb. Chas Freeman's instrumental role in Nixon's visit to China in 1972 and the subsequent Shanghai Communique)

Journalism: "Journalism is concerned with effect and with newsworthiness; it is written under the pressure of time, and based on much less information than is usually available even to secondary embassies; and newspapers normally only cover important or momentarily newsworthy countries, so that the general presentation is unbalanced and patchy ... More broadly it may be stated that even in countries where press reporting is uninhibited, what governments say in public and what is gleaned and surmised by journalists are together no substitute for what governments are prepared to say to other governments in confidence." — Adam Watson, 1983 Judgment: "All too often diplomats are so afraid of being accused of lack of judgement that they avoid expressing any judgement at all. In evading these responsibilities they are omitting to perform one of their most desirable duties." — Harold Nicolson, 1939 Justice: "Justice without force is impotent; force without justice is tyranny. Justice without force is a myth because there are always bad men; force without justice stands convicted of itself." — Pascal Justice: "Into ... human affairs the question of justice only enters when there is equal power to enforce it, and ... the powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must." — Thucydides [cf. The Melian Dialogue, as seen in Histories of the Peloponnesian War, Book 5 Chapter 84-111]

Mediation, formulae for settlement: "When a peacemaker moves to lay down the conceptual framework from a settlement, this action tends to rule out and discredit the obvious alternatives. Ripening cannot take place until a consensus develops — not only about the need for a negotiated deal, but also for a specific kind of deal. If a number of approaches remain in play and appear to be equally viable and attractive, the conflict remains unripe. The peacemaker's move may cause the parties to collude tacitly against him, escaping behind the cover of each other's non-cooperation. If this keeps happening, he can prepare his moves with one side first, and claw his way toward agreement like a skipper tacking toward the wind. There may be times when a proposed framework of principles drives the parties towards another approach which has merit. The original initiative will still have served a useful purpose by shaking things up and injecting some movement into the picture. But the most important reason for taking the initiative is to block the parties' unilateral options and discredit their wishful thinking." — Chester A. Crocker, 1992 Mediation, leverage in: "The richest source of leverage for the peacemaker may already be built into the existing situation. How badly are the parties hurting, and how can they be persuaded that a settlement is their best option? What is it that one or the other side really wants but cannot get on its own? Is one or more of the parties isolated and eager to gain external support for its positions? can their standing and legitimacy be put in question if they fail to cooperate? What pressures are built into the military situation, and what can be done to strengthen or accelerate the necessary stalemate?" — Chester A. Crocker, 1992 Mediation, motivations of peacemakers: "Peacemakers typically invertene in conflicts precisely because their interests are affected, and they tend to act in support of a settlement compatible with those interests. By the same token, parties are more likely to respond to a peacemaker whose clout and prestige demand that he be taken seriously — even if that response is largely tactical and defensive. Bias (in the sense of having an interest in the issues and a preference about the outcome) is not an obstacle to success. But ignorance or prejudice will guarantee failure. ... It will not be possible to design a 'fair' (win-win) formula without a feel for each party's way of thinking and priorities. This is why the peacemaker must, first invest in knowledge; no one should know the brief better than he. Procedural even-handedness and fair play are important because they signal a readiness to listen, to learn, and to protect the parties' soft parts. They also protect the peacemaker from his own parochialism. There is little room for 'liking' or naively 'trusting.' If the various parties were not in some sense opposed to what he is doing, there would be no need for peacemaking!" — Chester A. Crocker, 1992

Linguists: Beware of men who can speak a dozen languages and are able to think in none. Listening: "The first and best advice ... is to listen, not to talk — at least not more than is necessary to induce others to talk. ... By endeavoring to follow this example, [I have] drawn from my opponents much information, and concealed from them my own views, much more than by the employment of spies or money." — Lord Malmesbury, 1813 Listening, in negotiations: Do not allow yourself to assume that your opponent in a negotiation has said something he has not. In relations between states, an optimistic imagination is as sure a road to ruin as the failure to heed what has been said. Listening, persuasion through: "One of the best ways to persuade others is with your ears — by listening." — Dean Rusk Listening to what is not said: It is as important to listen for what your opponent at the negotiating table does not say as to what he says. Often the first signal of a shift in the other side's negotiating position will be its failure to reiterate an argument or demand it has previously stressed.

Motivations: States seldom act from a single motive but from a combination of purposes. Yet the analyst who judges that the most important among these is the most selfish and self-interested of them will seldom be wrong.

Morality in foreign policy: "Where an important purpose of diplomacy is to further enduring good relations between states, the methods — the modes of conduct — by which relations between states are carried on must be designed to inspire trust and confidence. To achieve this result, the conduct of diplomacy should conform to the same moral and ethical principles which inspire trust and confidence when followed by and between individuals." — Dean Acheson, 1964 Morality in foreign policy: "Moral principles have their place in the heart of the individual and in the shaping of his own conduct, whether as a citizen or as a government official. ... But when the individual's behavior passes through the machinery of political organization and merges with that of millions of other individuals to find its expression in the actions of a government, then it undergoes a general transmutation, and the same moral concepts are no longer relevant to it. A government is an agent, not a principal; and no more than any other agent may it attempt to be the conscience of its principal. In particular, it may not subject itself to those supreme laws of renunciation and self-sacrifice that represent the culmination of individual moral growth." — George F. Kennan, 1954 Morality in foreign policy: 'A statesman cannot afford to be a moralist." Attributed to Will Durant