Diplomatic Person Diplomacy Quotes

The art of looking at the problem from the other person's point of view, identifying his opportunities and his interests, an art that has traditionally been practiced by diplomats, lawyers, and chess players, is at the center of strategic analysis.

When, in May, tensions reached a high point, London warned Berlin that if it attacked Czechoslovakia and the French were embroiled as well, "His Majesty's Government could not guarantee that they would not be forced by circumstances to become involved also". Ar the same time, English officials were telling their counterparts in Paris that they were "not disinterested" in Czechoslovakia's fate. I learned in the course of my own career that British diplomats are trained to write in with precision; so when a double negative is employed, the intent, usually, is not to clarify an issue but to surround it with fog.

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

The Emoluments Clause states: “No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” This was a profoundly American idea, Teachout had written. “It showed a real split from the old European corrupt ways. The new Americans were insistent on this clause even though it caused some problems with diplomacy because there had been a lot of financial interchange between diplomats before. I had used it as an example of the American commitment to anti-corruption. I had never expected there would be a president who would blatantly violate it.” Corrupt governments and oligarchs had plenty of experience with Trump’s new corporate structure: you turn over a company to your children to wink at the world that

It is a the belief of many brooding minds that almost as great as the direct guilt of the German war lords was the guilt of the whole political society of Europe, whose secret diplomacy (unrevealed to the peoples) was based upon hatred and fear and rivalry, in play for imperial power and the world's markets, as common folk play dominoes for penny points, and risking the lives of common folk in a gamble for enormous stakes of territory, imperial prestige, the personal vanity of politicians, the vast private gain of trusts and profiteers. To keep the living counters quiet, to make them jump into the pool of their own free will at the word "Go," the statesmen, diplomats, trusts, and profiteers debauch the name of patriotism, raise the watchword of liberty, and play upon the ignorance of the mob easily, skillfully, by inciting them to race hatred, by inflaming the brute-passion in them, and by concocting a terrible mixture of false idealism and self-interest, so that simple minds quick to respond to sentiment, as well as those quick to hear the call of the beast, rally shoulder to shoulder and march to the battlegrounds under the spell of that potion.

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.

Even the greatest diplomat could never speak without hurting someone’s ego. Because sensitivity is subjective to personal experiences.

Diplomacy, personal: "When persons of supreme or high authority deal directly with one another, there is a tendency for their government to take on a personal quality and to depend for their validity, to some extent, on the personal relationship that has been established. This is sometimes fine as long as it lasts; but the agreement is then largely vitiated if one or the other of them falls from office. Agreements concluded through the regular domestic channels, time-consuming and cumbersome as they may be, and thus regarded as agreements between governments rather than between individuals, tend to be more carefully worked out, less personally conditioned, and more enduring." — George F. Kennan, 1977 Diplomacy, practice of: "The practice of diplomacy is not in fact very different from the practice of sound business, in that it relies for its efficacy upon the establishment of confidence and credit. Experienced diplomats are traditionally suspicious of what is called 'brilliant diplomacy' or 'diplomatic triumphs,' since they are well aware that these feats of ingenuity are apt to leave resentment and suspicion behind." — Harold Nicolson, 1959

Diplomacy, women's like eunuchs: "The diplomacy of women is very much like that of eunuchs; it is false and dangerous, ultimate good seldom comes of it. Women are good as counsellors but bad as actors. Perhaps no negotiation has ever been perfected since the creation of the world without their interference and advice, but they are best kept out of sight. Their judgement is shrewd and clear on any abstract question submitted to them; but their own conduct is always too much influenced by personal feelings to render their entire management of affairs either proper or expedient." — Grenville Murray, cited by Sir Victor Wellesley Diplomatic life: "American diplomacy is easy on the brain, but hell on the feet." — Charles G. Dawes [Henry Prather Fletcher retorted: "It depends on which you use."] Diplomatic life: "A diplomat's life is made up of three ingredients: protocol, Geritol, and alcohol." — Adlai E. Stevenson, Jr.

Intolerable: In diplomacy, a situation described as "intolerable" is usually one that governments don't know what to do about and must therefore learn to live with. Irony: "Irony [is] always a mistake in diplomacy; for irony exposes an assumption of superiority on the part of the writer, and it cannot fail to offend the recipient. It is obviously a serious fault in a diplomatist, who is trying to persuade another party to agree with him, if he offends that party's personal feelings." — R. B. Mowat, 1936 Irritation, concealment of: "Not only must the negotiator avoid displaying irritation when confronted by the stupidity, dishonesty, brutality, or conceit of those with whom it is his unpleasant duty to negotiate; but he must eschew all personal animosities, or personal predilections, all ethusiasms, prejudices, vanities, exaggerations, dramatizations, and moral indignations." — Harold Nicolson, 1960

International organizations, rhetoric at: "There is a theory that portrays debate as of intrinsic value in diplomacy: the more people talk to each other, the greater the chance that they will achieve mutual understanding. Most of us realize from personal experience that this is not necessarily true. If the style of the rhetoric is self-laudatory denunciation of others and innocent of any element of compromise it is not unreasonable to conclude that debate can widen the gulf between nations and add to the difficulties of accommodation. The glib statement that it is better for nations to argue than to fight is superficial. The question is whether mere ventilation of grievances necessarily makes conciliation easier. Those of us who have worked in various fields of diplomacy cannot deny the assertion that 'the least inhibited language in the annals of diplomacy is recorded at the United Nations.' Diplomacy, traditionally associated with civility and courtliness, is turned on its head. Ventilation theorists allege that even these angry orations are beneficial since they are a substitute for physical violence. This is a nonsensical rationalization by those who cannot bear to hear a critical word about international organization .... Descriptions of [other nations in derogatory terms] ... are an obstacle to conciliation, not a substitute for it. In the restraint of its discourse, as in many other attributes, traditional diplomacy has a better record than multilateral debate." — Abba Eban, 1983

He saw that there had been a scene, and conceived that it was the kind of quarrel which could be better arranged by a third disinterested person.