Diplomatic Relations Quotes

I asked him what his work was. He answered that he devoted all his time to his political activities... He was undoubtedly busy with the diplomatic relations between his testicles and women's breast.

Pick a leader who will make their citizens proud. One who will stir the hearts of the people, so that the sons and daughters of a given nation strive to emulate their leader's greatness. Only then will a nation be truly great, when a leader inspires and produces citizens worthy of becoming future leaders, honorable decision makers and peacemakers. And in these times, a great leader must be extremely brave. Their leadership must be steered only by their conscience, not a bribe.

Pick a leader who will keep jobs in your country by offering companies incentives to hire only within their borders, not one who allows corporations to outsource jobs for cheaper labor when there is a national employment crisis. Choose a leader who will invest in building bridges, not walls. Books, not weapons. Morality, not corruption. Intellectualism and wisdom, not ignorance. Stability, not fear and terror. Peace, not chaos. Love, not hate. Convergence, not segregation. Tolerance, not discrimination. Fairness, not hypocrisy. Substance, not superficiality. Character, not immaturity. Transparency, not secrecy. Justice, not lawlessness. Environmental improvement and preservation, not destruction. Truth, not lies.

The "compleat diplomat" of the future should remain cognizant of realism's emphasis on the inescapable role of power, keep liberalism's awareness of domestic forces in mind, and occasionally reflect on constructivism's vision of change.

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

Harun AlRashid known for his wealth & diplomatic relations, sent an embassy to France that included an elephant & a water clock

British diplomats and Anglo-American types in Washington have a near-superstitious prohibition on uttering the words 'Special Relationship' to describe relations between Britain and America, lest the specialness itself vanish like a phantom at cock-crow.

Once war was considered the business of soldiers, international relations the concern of diplomats. But now that war has become seemingly total and seemingly permanent, the free sport of kings has become the forced and internecine business of people, and diplomatic codes of honor between nations have collapsed. Peace in no longer serious; only war is serious. Every man and every nation is either friend or foe, and the idea of enmity becomes mechanical, massive, and without genuine passion. When virtually all negotiation aimed at peaceful agreement is likely to be seen as 'appeasement,' if not treason, the active role of the diplomat becomes meaningless; for diplomacy becomes merely a prelude to war an interlude between wars, and in such a context the diplomat is replaced by the warlord.

China's internal divisions have made it far harder to strike the kind of deals that made it possible for the two countries to open up diplomatic relations decades ago or get China entry into the World Trade Organization. If Nixon were going to open China today, the Interior Ministry would probably get into an argument with the Chinese president's office about whether to let Air Force One land, and then demand the plane's antimissile technology as the price for refueling

Our mission is not to impose our peculiar institutions upon other nations by physical force or diplomatic treachery but rather by internal peace and prosperity to solve the problem of self-government and reconcile democratic freedom with national stability.

During Uthman's caliphate, a Muslim embassy was sent to China to establish diplomatic relations

Ellen’s head of Diplomatic Security, a longtime veteran of the service, turned in the front seat to look at Mrs. Cleaver as she combined and conjugated words that should never, really, have conjugal relations.

A diplomat’s words must have no relation to actions—otherwise what kind of diplomacy is it? Words are one thing, actions another. Good words are a concealment of bad deeds. Sincere diplomacy is no more possible than drywater or iron wood.

As the 2018 World Cup Championship in Russia draws to a close, President Trump scores a hat-trick of diplomatic faux pas - first at the NATO summit, then on a UK visit, and finally with a spectacular own goal in Helsinki, thereby handing Vladimir Putin a golden propaganda trophy. For as long as this moron continues to queer the pitch by refusing to be a team player, America's Achilles' heel will go from bad to worse. It's high time somebody on his own side tackled him in his tracks.

The tree of diplomacy only grows thorns of war, not fruits of peace.

Chasing a butterfly with a hammer. - On Uncouth Diplomacy

Have you ever thought about Jesus’ physical appearance? If you think about the paintings, he was a relatively handsome Dutchman. But if you think about a prophetic description, “he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2). To put it diplomatically, he didn’t look like much, and sleepless nights filled with prayer vigils probably didn’t help.

Wir wollen ein Volk der guten Nachbarn sein und werden, im Innern und nach außen.“ ("We as a people want to be and become good neighbors, both domestically and abroad.") First Inaugural Address as West German Chancellor, October 28, 1969

In Panama, I knew Noriega himself was the object of controversy. The "arms deal" was the final stage of Operation Carrier Pigeon where the planes were to wait in Saudi Arabia until all bank transactions were cleared and the load was ready for disbursement. Saudi Arabian King Fahd would then fund the Contras via Noriega for Reagan after all evidences had been properly covered up -- just as he had done in Afghanistan. After the shipment, there would be no further deals through Noriega involving Fahd, because Noriega could no longer be trusted. Besides, Fahd had increased diplomatic relations with Mexico for covert operations, and Iran-Contra was just beginning to heat up. Noriega did not seem to be upset by the news of losing Saudi Arabian business, although he was somber and took some time to respond. His translator was working over some complex computer equipment after I delivered the message. I left Noriega's yacht with John and a brief message for Dick Cheney at the Pentagon.

A Foreign Office diplomat in London wrote in the margins of a Tehran report: “I tend to the view that Musaddiq still enjoys some public support, more than some of our close friends would have us believe. . . . Coup d’état may well be the only answer.

Singapore and China did not have diplomatic relations at that time [1976]. Communism is banned in Singapore, and nobody could visit China without official approval. The Singapore government had prohibited travel there for fear that Singaporeans would be subverted and converted to the communist cause. . .The travel ban was lifted after Lee Kuan Yew's visit. He realised that nobody could experience life there and be seduced by their system. Indeed, they would better appreciate what Singapore offered.

Rolf Ekeus came round to my apartment one day and showed me the name of the Iraqi diplomat who had visited the little West African country of Niger: a statelet famous only for its production of yellowcake uranium. The name was Wissam Zahawi. He was the brother of my louche gay part-Kurdish friend, the by-now late Mazen. He was also, or had been at the time of his trip to Niger, Saddam Hussein's ambassador to the Vatican. I expressed incomprehension. What was an envoy to the Holy See doing in Niger? Obviously he was not taking a vacation. Rolf then explained two things to me. The first was that Wissam Zahawi had, when Rolf was at the United Nations, been one of Saddam Hussein's chief envoys for discussions on nuclear matters (this at a time when the Iraqis had functioning reactors). The second was that, during the period of sanctions that followed the Kuwait war, no Western European country had full diplomatic relations with Baghdad. TheVatican was the sole exception, so it was sent a very senior Iraqi envoy to act as a listening post. And this man, a specialist in nuclear matters, had made a discreet side trip to Niger. This was to suggest exactly what most right-thinking people were convinced was not the case: namely that British intelligence was on to something when it said that Saddam had not ceased seeking nuclear materials in Africa. I published a few columns on this, drawing at one point an angry email from Ambassador Zahawi that very satisfyingly blustered and bluffed on what he'd really been up to. I also received—this is what sometimes makes journalism worthwhile—a letter from a BBC correspondent named Gordon Correa who had been writing a book about A.Q. Khan. This was the Pakistani proprietor of the nuclear black market that had supplied fissile material to Libya, North Korea, very probably to Syria, and was open for business with any member of the 'rogue states' club. (Saddam's people, we already knew for sure, had been meeting North Korean missile salesmen in Damascus until just before the invasion, when Kim Jong Il's mercenary bargainers took fright and went home.) It turned out, said the highly interested Mr. Correa, that his man Khan had also been in Niger, and at about the same time that Zahawi had. The likelihood of the senior Iraqi diplomat in Europe and the senior Pakistani nuclear black-marketeer both choosing an off-season holiday in chic little uranium-rich Niger… well, you have to admit that it makes an affecting picture. But you must be ready to credit something as ridiculous as that if your touching belief is that Saddam Hussein was already 'contained,' and that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair were acting on panic reports, fabricated in turn by self-interested provocateurs.

You’re saying I am not a credible eyewitness,” Lowen repeated. “Because I was part of that diplomatic mission, Mr. Vinicius. In fact, not only was I there, I also conducted the autopsy that established that Liu Cong’s death was murder, and also helped identify how it was the murder was accomplished. When you say that the eyewitness reports are not credible, you’re talking about me, specifically and directly. If what you’re saying actually reflects the opinion of the Ministry of External Relations, then we have a problem. A very large problem.

People, too, are unduly wary of me and use diplomatic speech which tries very hard to be harmless and inoffensive, and relate their pompous, false feelings. As I listen to it all, I find their petty cautiousness deplorable, and the world becomes more and more unbearably odious.

Whose sleeve do I have to grip, to tell my story to? It used to be Bet. Now, sleeveless. And I am sure I gripped her sleeve many a time too many. In my own parlance, 'feasting' on her energy, and giving nothing back. Well, maybe. We had most excellent days. We were the king and queen of coffee in the morning, in the dark of winter, in the early morning sun of summer that came right in our windows, right in, to wake us. Ah, yes, small matters. Small matters, that we call sanity, or the cloth that makes sanity. Talking to her in those times made - no, God preserve me from sentimentality. Those days are over. Now we are two foreign countries and we simply have our embassies in the same house. Relations are friendly but strictly diplomatic. There is an underlying sense of rumour, of judgement, of memory, like two peoples that have once committed grave crimes against each other, but in another generation. We are a statelet of the Baltics. Except, blast her, she has never done anything to me. It is atrocity all one way.

On 1 November 1983 Secretary of State George Shultz received intelligence reports showing that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. The following February, Iraq used large amounts of mustard gas and also the lethal nerve agent tabun (this was later documented by the United Nations); Reagan responded (in November) by restoring diplomatic relations with Iraq. He and Bush Sr. also authorized the sale of poisonous chemicals, anthrax, and bubonic plague. Along with French supply houses, American Type Culture Collection of Manassas, Virginia, shipped seventeen types of biological agents to Iraq that were then used in weapons programs. In 1989, ABC-TV news correspondent Charles Glass discovered what the U.S. government had been denying, that Iraq had biological warfare facilities. This was corroborated by evidence from a defecting Iraqi general. The Pentagon immediately denied the facts.

But President Obama wants us to discuss bigger issues as well. He wants to change the relationship in fundamental ways while in office. We won’t resolve this all in one meeting, but we want to discuss this in this channel. I then went through a long list of nearly every aspect in the U.S.-Cuba relationship that we wanted to change. The State Sponsor of Terrorism list; unwinding the U.S. embargo; restoring diplomatic relations; the reform of Cuba’s economy and political system, including Internet access, labor rights, and political freedoms. During the pauses for translation, I looked at Alejandro and thought about how he was processing this in a different language, informed by a different history, focused primarily on getting these Cubans out of prison. I ended by reiterating that Alan Gross’s release was essential for any of this to happen and noting that we would respect Cuban sovereignty—our policy was not to change the regime.

The deadlock was broken when we ordered Walter Stoessel, the U.S. ambassador in Warsaw, to approach Chinese diplomats at the next social function and express the desire for a dialogue. The setting for this encounter was a Yugoslav fashion show in the Polish capital. The Chinese diplomats in attendance, who were without instructions, fled the scene. The Chinese attaché’s account of the incident shows how constrained relations had become. Interviewed years later, he recalled seeing two Americans talking and pointing at the Chinese contingent from across the room; this prompted the Chinese to stand up and leave, lest they be drawn into conversation. The Americans, determined to carry out their instructions, followed the Chinese. When the desperate Chinese diplomats speeded up, the Americans started running after them, shouting in Polish (the only mutually intelligible language available), “We are from American embassy. We want to meet your ambassador… President Nixon said he wanted to resume his talk with Chinese.”35

George Kennan, the famed Cold War diplomat, believed the West would come to regret NATO expansionism: “[It] would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era,” he wrote in the late 1990s. “Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.

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.

Amiability: Diplomats must strive to build and maintain cordial personal relations with officials of the government to which they are accredited. Amiability on the surface, no matter how strained relations may be beneath it, keeps open channels of communication that can be vital to the resolution of issues between states when the time to resolve them is at hand. Amity, cross-cultural: "There is a mutual bond of amity and brotherhood between man and man over all the world ... Nor is it distance of place that makes enmity, enmity makes distance. He therefore that keeps peace with me, near or remote, of whatever nation, is to me as far as all civil and human offices an Englishman and a neighbor ... This is gospel." — John Milton, 1649 Anger: Never get angry except on purpose.

FDR’s August 1941 oil embargo of Japan proved to be the final straw. As former State Department official Charles Maechling explains, “While oil was not the sole cause of the deterioration of relations, once employed as a diplomatic weapon, it made hostilities inevitable. The United States recklessly cut the energy lifeline of a powerful adversary without due regard for the predictably explosive consequences.”144 In desperation, Japanese leaders approved a plan to deliver a preemptive “knockout blow” against the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, clearing the way to seize resource-rich territory in Southeast Asia and the Dutch East Indies. As scholar Jack Snyder notes, Japan’s strategy reflected its conviction that “if the sun is not ascending, it is descending,” and that war with the US was “inevitable” given America’s “inherently rapacious nature.”145

The United States became engaged in hostilities with North Vietnam on November 1, 1955, when President Eisenhower deployed the Military Assistance Advisory Group as advisors to train the army of South Vietnam, better known as the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. Things escalated in 1960, which was about the same time that Cuba established diplomatic relations with Vietnam, the communist country at war with the United States. In May of 1961 President Kennedy sent 400 United States Army Special Forces personnel to South Vietnam for the purpose of training South Vietnamese troops. By November of 1963 when he was killed, President Kennedy had increased the number of military personnel from the original 400 to 900 troops for training purposes. Direct U.S. intervention started with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in August of 1964. As things heated up, the number of American troops started including combat units and escalated to 16,000 troops, just before Kennedy’s death. During the early hours of April 30, 1975, the fighting ended abruptly, as South Vietnamese President Duong Van Minh delivered an unconditional surrender to the Communists. Between 195,000 to 430,000 South Vietnamese civilians died in the war and 50,000 to 65,000 North Vietnamese civilians died. The Army of the Republic of Vietnam lost somewhere between 171,331 and 220,357 men during the war. The Communist military forces lost approximately 444,000 men. It is estimated that between 200,000 and 300,000 Cambodians died and another 60,000 Laotians died during this war. In all 58,220 U.S. service members were killed. The last two American servicemen to die in Vietnam were killed during the evacuation of Saigon, when their helicopter crashed. After the United States pulled out of South Vietnam, the two sections of the country came together under Communist rule. Vietnam has since become Cuba’s largest trading partner next to China, and the United States has also returned to a normalized trade relationship with Vietnam.

Emerging from these predictable televised jousting matches, I thought I could do something different. I arranged an Israeli press conference for all the Arab journalists covering the conference. This was thoroughly unconventional at the time. Most of the journalists came, and I let them fire questions at me. One by one they leveled the usual vilifications, and one by one I rebuffed them with factual counterarguments. But I tried to do so in a noncombative way. Having met several Arab diplomats in the United Nations, I was shocked to discover a simple truth: They didn’t know even the most rudimentary facts about the history of our conflict or of our historic attachment to the contested land. For decades they had absorbed the lies of Arab propaganda and believed them to be true. The fact that this propaganda was taken for truth was typically explained away by American diplomats as deriving from different narratives, another piece of jargon used to denote that each side’s arguments are relative and beyond any objective examination of the facts. Competing “narratives” have been very much present in the Knesset, too. In a late-night debate in 2013, an Arab Knesset member was debating a Likud member about who preceded whom in what is now Israel. The historical facts are not that difficult to establish, since the Jews appeared in what became the Land of Israel roughly 3,500 years ago and the Arab conquest of this land occurred some two thousand years later, in the seventh century CE. The Arab member of the Knesset summed up his speech with a sharp, double-edged barb: “We were here before you, and we will be here after you.” At two in the morning I had had enough. I asked to use the prime minister’s prerogative to speak and gave my shortest speech in the Knesset: “To the Knesset member who just spoke, I say this: The first thing you said didn’t happen, and the second never will.” 13

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.

There must, she thought, be a number of people outside her own world who were well qualified to be drawn into it; the shame was that she must seek them. Not for her the cruel, delicate luxury of choice, the indolent, cat-and-mouse pastimes of the hearth-rug. No Penelope she; she must hunt in the forest. She had made a preposterous little picture of the kind of man who would do: he was an English diplomat of great but not very virile beauty, now abroad, with a house smaller than Brideshead, nearer to London; he was old, thirty-two or three, and had been recently and tragically widowed; Julia thought she would prefer a man a little subdued by earlier grief. He had a great career before him but had grown listless in his loneliness; she was not sure he was not in danger of falling into the hands of an unscrupulous foreign adventuress; he needed a new infusion of young life to carry him to the Embassy at Paris. While professing a mild agnosticism himself, he had a liking for the shows of religion and was perfectly agreeable to having his children brought up Catholic; he believed, however, in the prudent restriction of his family to two boys and a girl, comfortably spaced over twelve years, and did not demand, as a Catholic husband might, yearly pregnancies. He had twelve thousand a year above his pay, and no near relations. Someone like that would do, Julia thought, and she was in search of him when she met me at the railway station. I was not her man. She told me as much, without a word, when she took the cigarette from my lips. All this I learned about Julia, bit by bit, from the stories she told, from guesswork, knowing her, from what her friends said, from the odd expressions she now and then let slip, from occasional dreamy monologues of reminiscences; I learned it as one does learn the former — as it seems at the time, the preparatory — life of a woman one loves, so that one thinks of oneself as part of it, directing it by devious ways, towards oneself.

If there was any politician in America who reflected the Cold War and what it did to the country, it was Richard Nixon—the man and the era were made for each other. The anger and resentment that were a critical part of his temperament were not unlike the tensions running through the nation as its new anxieties grew. He himself seized on the anti-Communist issue earlier and more tenaciously than any other centrist politician in the country. In fact that was why he had been put on the ticket in the first place. His first congressional race in 1946, against a pleasant liberal incumbent named Jerry Voorhis, was marked by red-baiting so savage that it took Voorhis completely by surprise. Upon getting elected, Nixon wasted no time in asking for membership in the House Un-American Activities Committee. He was the committee member who first spotted the contradictions in Hiss’s seemingly impeccable case; in later years he was inclined to think of the case as one of his greatest victories, in which he had challenged and defeated a man who was not what he seemed, and represented the hated Eastern establishment. His career, though, was riddled with contradictions. Like many of his conservative colleagues, he had few reservations about implying that some fellow Americans, including perhaps the highest officials in the opposition party, were loyal to a hostile foreign power and willing to betray their fellow citizens. Yet by the end of his career, he became the man who opened the door to normalized relations with China (perhaps, thought some critics, he was the only politician in America who could do that without being attacked by Richard Nixon), and he was a pal of both the Soviet and Chinese Communist leadership. If he later surprised many long-standing critics with his trips to Moscow and Peking, he had shown his genuine diplomatic skills much earlier in the way he balanced the demands of the warring factions within his own party. He never asked to be well liked or popular; he asked only to be accepted. There were many Republicans who hated him, particularly in California. Earl Warren feuded with him for years. Even Bill Knowland, the state’s senior senator and an old-fashioned reactionary, despised him. At the 1952 convention, Knowland had remained loyal to Warren despite Nixon’s attempts to help Eisenhower in the California delegation. When Knowland was asked to give a nominating speech for Nixon, he was not pleased: “I have to nominate the dirty son of a bitch,” he told friends. Nixon bridged the gap because his politics were never about ideology: They were the politics of self. Never popular with either wing, he managed to negotiate a delicate position acceptable to both. He did not bring warmth or friendship to the task; when he made attempts at these, he was, more often than not, stilted and artificial. Instead, he offered a stark choice: If you don’t like me, find someone who is closer to your position and who is also likely to win. If he tilted to either side, it was because that side seemed a little stronger at the moment or seemed to present a more formidable candidate with whom he had to deal. A classic example of this came early in 1960, when he told Barry Goldwater, the conservative Republican leader, that he would advocate a right-to-work plank at the convention; a few weeks later in a secret meeting with Nelson Rockefeller, the liberal Republican leader—then a more formidable national figure than Goldwater—Nixon not only reversed himself but agreed to call for its repeal under the Taft-Hartley act. “The man,” Goldwater noted of Nixon in his personal journal at the time, “is a two-fisted four-square liar.

ON DECEMBER 8, 1941, cinemas and theaters in Japan were made to temporarily suspend their evening performances and broadcast a speech recorded by Prime Minister Tojo Hideki earlier that day. U.S. films—films such as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, which the Japanese relished in easier times—were now officially banned. That night, audiences were confronted with the voice of a leader who hardly resembled Jimmy Stewart. Tojo was a bald and bespectacled man of middle age with no remarkable features other than his mustache. His exaggerated buckteeth existed only in Western caricatures, but he did not look like a senior statesman who had just taken his country to war against a most formidable enemy, and his voice was memorable only for its dullness. He recited the speech, “On Accepting the Great Imperial Command,” with the affected diction of a second-rate stage actor. Our elite Imperial Army and Navy are now fighting a desperate battle. Despite the empire’s every possible effort to salvage it, the peace of the whole of East Asia has collapsed. In the past, the government employed every possible means to normalize U.S.-Japan diplomatic relations. But the United States would not yield an inch on its demands. Quite the opposite. The United States has strengthened its ties with Britain, the Netherlands, and China, demanding unilateral concessions from our Empire, including the complete and unconditional withdrawal of the imperial forces from China, the rejection of the [Japanese puppet] Nanjing government, and the annulment of the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy. Even in the face of such demands, the Empire persistently strove for a peaceful settlement. But the United States to this day refused to reconsider its position. Should the Empire give in to all its demands, not only would Japan lose its prestige and fail to see the China Incident to its completion, but its very existence would be in peril. Tojo, in his selective explanation of the events leading to Pearl Harbor, insisted that the war Japan had just initiated was a “defensive” war. He faithfully echoed Japan’s deep-seated feelings of persecution, wounded national pride, and yearning for greater recognition, which together might be called, for the want of a better phrase, anti-Westernism. It was a sentimental speech, and it was notable for what was left unsaid.

The Knights of Malta issues its own passports, stamps, and money, and carries on full diplomatic relations with seventy countries.

Charity stems from compassion and generosity. The proof of this is that it is freely given. Contributions to welfare, on the other hand, are coerced. Everyone understands the difference between what we are made to do and what we choose voluntarily to do. Welfare is a form of obligatory charity to which all taxpayers are forced to contribute. It is fundamentally different from taxes that pay for the common good: roads, soldiers, diplomats, policemen, etc. In effect, our government says to its citizens, “You will give part of your money to poor people or you will go to jail for tax evasion.” Obligatory charity is thus a contradiction—not charity at all. If a beggar forces a citizen, under threat of violence, to hand over his money, this is robbery. If government forces the same citizen, under threat of jail, to give money to beggars, the same transfer is called welfare. As far as the citizen is concerned, the outcome is the same: He has been parted from his property against his will. In real life, obstreperous beggars are less of a threat than government, for they can be avoided or fought. Government cannot be avoided, and it is much more difficult to fight.

At regular intervals they checked in with their parents, fawning. I heard the kid with the neck bandanna compliment his mother on a nasty purple-and-orange sarong. The parents were their insurance policy, James said. Diplomatic relations had to be maintained. “But I mean, even if you acted like jerks, they wouldn’t, like, abandon you,” said Jen, on night two. The yacht parents had appeared in the late morning, sat drinking in a state of soft paralysis—not unlike our own parents’—until the sun went down, then left again to have a nightcap on the deck. A three-person galley staff had served them lunch and dinner on the beach, plus mixed drinks from a portable bar.

In the 1890s, Kuwait offered a dramatically more cosmopolitan and commercially vibrant environment than Riyadh. As a result, by his middle teens the future King of Saudi Arabia had acquired firsthand experience of dynastic politics, humiliating exile, and desert warfare. He spoke some English and had watched Sheikh Mubarak conduct commercial and diplomatic relations with Europeans. He was a very unusual young man for his time and place, and he stood six foot, four.

Deal with people in a respectful, honest, and diplomatic manner and you will never have to be concerned about the way you handled a situation.

Pearls Of Thoughts * Without the state, exists no nation. * The honest officials and fair system create a route of welfare in society. * Transparent justice and equality build unity. * No one can hold the gun and fun in the hands at a time in a democratic system. * The parliament constitutes the constitution, and that constitution outlines and describes responsibilities and limits. * The Armed Forces brace and dress the weapons after the professional training to defend its land; conversely, the politicians perform trickery fun of politics after a long experience to boost trade and welfare for the peoples, and diplomatic relations with other countries.

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.

The imagery of Mongol greatness received its clearest statement around 1390 by Geoffrey Chaucer, who had traveled widely in France and Italy on diplomatic business and had a far more international perspective than many of the people for whom he wrote. In The Canterbury Tales, the first book written in English, the story of the squire relates a romantic and fanciful tale about the life and adventures of Genghis Khan. This noble king was called Genghis Khan, Who in his time was of so great renown That there was nowhere in no region So excellent a lord in all things. He lacked nothing that belonged to a king. As of the sect of which he was born He kept his law, to which that he was sworn. And thereto he was hardy, wise, and rich, And piteous and just, always liked; Soothe of his word, benign, and honorable, Of his courage as any center stable; Young, fresh, and strong, in arms desirous As any bachelor of all his house. A fair person he was and fortunate, And kept always so well royal estate That there was nowhere such another man. This noble king, this Tartar Genghis Khan.

Bernadotte succeeded in focusing international pressure of some kind on Israel, or he had at least produced the potential for such pressure. In order to counteract this, the Israeli architects of the ethnic cleansing programme realised they would need to involve the state’s diplomats and the Foreign Ministry more directly. By July the political apparatus, the diplomatic corps and the military organisations within the new State of Israel were already working harmoniously together. Prior to July, it is not clear how much of the ethnic cleansing plan had been shared with Israeli diplomats and senior officials. However, when the results gradually became visible the government needed a public relations campaign to stymie adverse international responses, and began to involve and inform those officials responsible for producing the right image abroad – that of a liberal democracy in the making. Officials in the Foreign Ministry worked closely with the country’s intelligence officers, who would warn them in advance of the next stages in the cleansing operation, so as to ensure they would be kept hidden from the public eye.

a tricky manoeuvre given that India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, had recognized the state of Israel in 1950, but as a nod to Palestinians declined to establish full diplomatic relations.

Israel remains the biggest recipient of US aid, although the Jewish state is now less reliant on that aid than it once was. While this is true financially, it’s protected diplomatically by the US from a tsunami of global condemnation after decades of occupation and frequent wars on Gaza. US backing remains vital to Israel’s relative strength. Nonetheless, in 1981 US aid was equivalent to roughly 10 percent of Israel’s economy, but by 2020, at close to US$4 billion annually, it was down to around 1 percent.2 For this reason, Israel cares far less about even the mildest American pressure to curtail illegal Jewish colonies in the West Bank, attacks on Gaza, or house demolitions in East Jerusalem.

Pearl Harbor had been a relatively minor naval base for many years, and did not become a major base until the early summer of 1940. The decision to base the fleet at Pearl Harbor was a diplomatic decision, and was taken in the hope that it would accentuate our concern over the situation in the Western Pacific, and serve as a restraining influence on Japan's aggression.

We don’t need to build a world with one superpower, We gotta build a world where the world is superpower. We don’t need a world rotting in diplomatic gutter, Let’s build a world that has no geopolitical clutter.

It's time for us to reassess our diplomatic playbook and adopt a more pragmatic and effective strategy for navigating the intricate web of global relations.

One World Family (The Sonnet) My dream is, one world family, not one world government. My vision calls for a human world, beyond the battle of right and left. Trading Nato for Brics ain't advancement, Swapping Sam with Soviet isn't progress. If your mistrust of one colonizer makes you build alliance with another, it's not change but recurring regress. Change is only change when inhumanity is rejected altogether. If inhumanity merely changes carrier, it's not change but diplomatic disaster. Alliance after alliance, cult after cult, Politics over people will destroy the world. All alliance stem from interest not integration, Such geopolitical diplomacy will be our castration.

Here, Veblen’s iconoclasm showed its range, as he simultaneously exposed modern corporations as hives of swarming parasites, derided marginalism for disingenuously sanitizing these infested sites by rebranding nonproductivity as productivity, and attacked economists for failing to situate themselves historically. On Veblen’s account, the business enterprise was no more immune from historical change than any other economic institution. As the controlling force in modern civilization, the business enterprise too would necessarily undergo “natural decay” and prove “transitory.” Where history was heading next, however, Veblen felt he could not say, because no teleology was steering the evolutionary process as a whole, only (as he had said before) the “discretionary action of the human agents,” whose institutionally shaped choices were still unformed. Nevertheless, limiting himself to the “calculable future”—to what, in light of existing scientific knowledge, seemed probable in the near term—Veblen pointed to two contrasting possibilities, both beyond the ken of productivity theories. One alternative was militarization and war—barbarism redux. According to Veblen, the business enterprise, as its grows, spills over national boundaries and fosters the expansion of a world market in which “the business men of one nation are pitted against those of another and swing“the forces of the state, legislative, diplomatic, and military, against one another in the strategic game of pecuniary advantage.” As this game intensifies, competing nations rush (said Veblen presciently) to amass military hardware that can easily fall under the control of political leaders who embrace aggressive international policies and “warlike aims, achievements, [and] spectacles.” Unchecked, these developments could, he believed, demolish “those cultural features that distinguish modern times from what went before, including a decline of the business enterprise itself.” (In his later writings from the World War I period, Veblen returned to these issues.) The second future possibility was socialism, which interested Veblen (for the time being) not only as an institutional alternative to the business enterprise but also as a way of economic thinking that nullified the productivity theory of distribution. In cycling back to the phenomenon of socialism, which he had bracketed in The Theory of the Leisure Class, Veblen zeroed in on men and women who held industrial occupations, in which he observed a growing dissatisfaction with the bedrock institutions of the modern age. This discontent was socially concentrated, found not so much among laborers who were “mechanical auxiliaries”—manual extensions—“of the machine process“ but “among those industrial classes who are required to comprehend and guide the processes.” These classes consist of “the higher ranks of skilled mechanics and [of people] who stand in an engineering or supervisory ”“relation to the processes.” Carrying out these jobs, with their distinctive task requirements, inculcates “iconoclastic habits of thought,” which draw men and women into trade unions and, as a next step, “into something else, which may be called socialism, for want of a better term.” This phrasing was vague even for Veblen, but he felt hamstrung because “there was little agreement among socialists as to a programme for the future,” at least aside from provisions almost “entirely negative.

The US and Unocal wanted to believe that the Taliban would win and went along with Pakistan’s analysis that they would. The most naive US policy-makers hoped that the Taliban would emulate US–Saudi Arabia relations in the 1920s. ‘The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did. There will be Aramco, pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that,’ said one US diplomat.20

Readers of this book will not encounter discussions of the Middle Kingdom Syndrome, China’s concept of tianxia (“all under heaven”), imperial China’s tributary system, or strategizing as reflected by the board game wei ch’i. These ideas are not entirely irrelevant to China’s contemporary international relations, but these references serve more the purpose of conjuring up some cultural disposition without explicating the interpretive logic necessary to show the usefulness or validity of the suggested extrapolation. It is about as useful as invoking Manifest Destiny, the Monroe Doctrine, the idea of Fortress America, the analogy of American football, Alfred Thayer Mahan’s treatise on sea power, and even Thucydides’s history of the Peloponnesian War to illuminate current U.S. foreign policy. Any country with a long history and a rich culture, including China, offers contested ideas and competing, even divergent, doctrines and schools of thought. Indeed, strategic thoughts often embody bimodal injunctions, such as to be cautious and audacious, confident and vigilant, uncompromising and flexible, optimistic about eventual victory and realistic about short-term set back (Bobrow 1965, 1969; Bobrow, Chan, and Kringen 1979). Chinese diplomatic discourse and military treatises feature both lofty Confucian rhetoric on the efficacy of moral suasion and hard-nosed, realpolitik recognition of military coercion (Feng 2007; Johnston 1995)— just as contemporary analyses of and pronouncements about U.S. policies often incorporate both liberal and realist themes and arguments. Such elements can coexist.

Most Southeast Asia countries look to the United States to provide some sort of counterbalance to China, but they have increasing doubts about Washington’s dependability, know-how, resources, and staying power. These uncertainties affect their strategic thinking and planning in their relations with Beijing. “The U.S. needs to have a long-term consistent, comprehensive, bipartisan approach to the Asia Pacific,” says an ASEAN diplomat. “Countries in the region believe the U.S. will change its policy depending on who the next president is.

The French are masters of "the dog ate my homework" school of diplomatic relations.

The independent foreign policy constitutes not only diplomatic equality and relations with all other countries; it also determines self-determination, self-integrity, and dignity of the State and People; otherwise, isolation and slavery become destiny.

The United Arab Emirates reportedly had its contract with NSO cancelled in 2021 when it became clear that Dubai’s ruler had used it to hack his ex-wife’s phone and those of her associates. The New York Times journalist Ben Hubbard, Beirut chief for the paper, had his phone compromised while reporting on Saudi Arabia and its leader Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, a man who has invested huge amounts of money in commercial spyware.45 Palestinian human rights activists and diplomats in Palestine have also been targeted by Pegasus, including officials who were preparing complaints against Israel to the International Criminal Court. NSO technology was used by the Israeli police to covertly gather information from Israelis’ smartphones. Pegasus had become a key asset for Israel’s domestic and international activities.46 Saudi Arabia is perhaps the crown jewel of NSO’s exploits, one of the Arab world’s most powerful nations and a close ally of the US with no formal relations with the Jewish state. It is a repressive, Sunni Muslim ethnostate that imprisons and tortures dissidents and actively discriminates against its Shia minority.47 Unlike previous generations of Saudi leaders, bin Salman thought that the Israel/Palestine conflict was “an annoying irritant—a problem to be overcome rather than a conflict to be fairly resolved,” according to Rob Malley, a senior White House official in the Obama and Biden administrations.48

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

The Government of India also made another presumption, which was erroneous and would prove disadvantageous to India in the negotiations. India assumed that its official declaration recognizing the People’s Republic of China would automatically mean that both sides had also established formal diplomatic relations. This led the Government of India to believe that there would still be time and opportunities after the recognition of the new regime, to raise matters of concern or pursue national security objectives through diplomatic channels.

The Government of India also made another presumption, which was erroneous and would prove disadvantageous to India in the negotiations. India assumed that its official declaration recognizing the People’s Republic of China would automatically mean that both sides had also established formal diplomatic relations. This led the Government of India to believe that there would still be time and opportunities after the recognition of the new regime, to raise matters of concern or pursue national security objectives through diplomatic channels. In other words, whereas the Chinese saw the process of recognition as a matter of substantive negotiation, India considered it simply a matter of protocol. The idea was to win Chinese goodwill as soon as possible.

There is no foreseeable scenario under which Beijing will back away, either rhetorically or in practice, from its territorial claims in Taiwan and in the South and East China Seas. As Xi Jinping told the then US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis in June 2018, China will not give up 'even an inch' of its territory, which includes its expansive maritime claims and a large land area disputed with India. Within the Chinese system, any leader who stepped back from these claims would be committing political suicide. The internal sensitivity of the territorial issue helps explain the bellicose way Beijing handles these disputes outside of its borders. China constantly schools its Asian neighbours on its red lines in territorial disputes, all the while rapidly building up its military capability and regional diplomatic sway to entrench them. With the possible exception of Vietnam, smaller countries have taken to either submitting or swerving in the face of Beijing's pressure. Yet it is far from game over, if history is any guide. Total capitulation in international relations is rare. Behind the scenes in Beijing, there has always been recognition that it was dangerous for China to bully its way to regional domination. 'The history of contemporary relations does not provide any precedent of a large country successfully bringing to its knees another country,' wrote Wang Jisi, formerly of Peking University, and for many years an informal government adviser. Wang pointed to America's experience in Vietnam and more recently Afghanistan, where its vastly superior military firepower couldn't drag it out of a military and then political quagmire. Wang was writing in 2014. Such strategic humility is rare in Beijing these days, either because the Chinese themselves have become cockier or because the country's diplomats fear being caught out of step with the temper of Xi's times. Nonetheless, the point stands. Beijing cannot bully its way to superpower status without engendering a strong pushback from other countries, which is exactly what is happening.

Diplomacy is actually code for deceit.

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 United Nations: A specter of bureaucratic behemoth looming over the fractured landscape of international relations.

This was my time at the MUN; not just a symbol of international cooperation, but a dark and mysterious nexus of conspiracy and intrigue. Indeed, a place where the forces of chaos and order collide in an endless struggle for dominance. But let's not kid ourselves, behind the facade of diplomatic protocols and bureaucratic banalities lurks a dark underbelly. A shadow world of secret meetings and covert operations, where the true rulers of the world pull the strings of fate like puppeteers in a grand cosmic theater. Here, in the labyrinthine corridors and dimly lit backrooms, the fate of nations is not decided by the will of the people, but by the whims of those who dwell in the shadows.

There was an acute sense of betrayal at all levels of society, from the king downwards, and the political fallout from the war was impossible to contain. On 1 November parliament passed a resolution calling for the severance of diplomatic relations with France. Only the fear of bankruptcy deterred it from calling for a break in diplomatic relations with Britain too. On 20 November, however, parliament unanimously passed a resolution calling for the abrogation of the Anglo–Jordanian treaty and of an exchange of diplomatic representatives with Russia and China. The treaty was clearly doomed, but there was as yet no agreement on how to replace the subsidy it provided. Nabulsi wanted to delay the termination of the treaty until Arab funding could be secured. Hussein, on the other hand, wished to avoid dependence on Arab allies and made a determined bid to secure American financial support for Jordan. His aim was not Arab unity against the West but the replacement of one external patron and protector by another. The first, secret approach to the Americans was made not by the king himself but by his chief of staff. On 9 November, Abu Nuwar requested from the American military attaché in Amman American economic and military aid to Jordan in “sufficient volume” to compensate for the imminent loss of British aid. If America put up the money and arms, Abu Nuwar said, communism would be prevented from dominating Jordan; he would dissolve parliament and take over the government: “I and the people of Jordan will follow US policies.

Armistice Sonnet Ceasefire is a diplomatic gimmick, They cease only to hit back harder. Demilitarization is what we need, We got no use for one more ceasefire. Ceasefire only postpones war, disarmament instills peace. Armistice empowers armament, demilitarization plants peace. Tyrants don't call truce to allow aid, but only to rearm themselves, so they can call in more ammunition, from their apely imperialist friends. One more ceasefire we could do without, World is wailing for the final ceasefire. Disown every statesman who prides military, Builders of military are merchants of murder.

The maximizers are already here. Any consequences too subtle to measure—environmental costs, civic discord, troubled diplomatic relations—are simply omitted from the score.

The problem is not that a paper-clip-maximizing AI will arise in the future and turn the universe into paper clips. The maximizers are already here. Any consequences too subtle to measure--environmental costs, civic discord, troubled diplomatic relations--are simply omitted from the score.

All countries that trade with China are compelled to support China’s position on Taiwan (i.e., that Taiwan is part of China). This is a technicality that the U.S. also observes, but it is practically meaningless. China will not open relations with a country that has diplomatic relations with Taiwan. So, we have to understand that this hypocrisy regarding China is universally observed. Ukraine is not taking China’s side against Taiwan in kowtowing. Everyone does it. It used to be that South Africa did not recognize China, maintaining its relations with Taiwan. But then the ANC took over and China was recognized. I do not know if there are any countries, anywhere, that do not have diplomatic relations with China.

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.

The strategic level is concerned with the use of military force to achieve national objectives. In the new American style of war, it has come to be interpreted as the highest political and diplomatic level at which decisions are made to collect and deploy military forces to a distant theater. The size of strategic land forces varies, depending on the nature of the topography and the seriousness of the enemy threat. In past limited wars, deployments involved relatively large armies consisting of multiple corps of 50,000 soldiers each. The numbers of soldiers deployed in more recent campaigns have been considerably smaller. The strategic challenge in the years ahead will center on "time versus risk"-that is, the decisions that must be made to balance the size of the strategic force to be projected versus the time necessary for the force to arrive ready to fight. The United States must be able to overcome the problems of distance and time without unnecessarily exposing early arriving forces to an enemy already in place within a theater of war. The operational level of warfare provides a connection between strategic deployments and the tactical engagements of small units. The "art" of maneuvering forces to achieve decisive results on the battlefield nest here. As with the deployments of strategic level forces, the basic elements of operational maneuver have shrunk as the conflict environment has changed since the end of the Second World War. During the Cold War, corps conducted operational maneuver. More recently, the task has devolved to brigades, usually self contained units of all arms capable of independent maneuver. An independent brigade consists of about 5,000 soldiers. At the operational level, ground forces will face the challenge of determining the proper balance between "firepower and maneuver" resources and technologies to ensure that the will of the enemy's army to resist can be collapsed quickly and decisively. Battles are fought at the tactical level. In the past, the tactical fight has been a face-to-face endeavor; small units of about company size, no more that several hundred soldiers, are locked in combat at close range. The tactical fight is where most casualties occur. The tactical challenge of the future will be to balance the anticipated "ends," or what the combat commander is expected to achieve on the battlefield, with the "means," measured in the lives of soldiers allocated to achieve those ends. Since ground forces suffer casualties disproportionately, ground commanders face the greatest challenge of balancing ends versus means. All three challenges must be addressed together if reform of the landpower services - the Army and the Marine Corps - is to be swift and lasting. The essential moderating influence on the process of change is balance. At the strategic level, the impulse to arrive quickly must be balanced with the need for forces massive and powerful enough to fight successfully on arrival. The impulse to build a firepower-dominant operational forces will be essential if the transitory advantage of fires is to be made permanent by the presence of ground forces in the enemy's midst. The impulse to culminate tactical battle by closing with and destroying the enemy must be balanced by the realization that fighting too close may play more to the advantage of enemy rather than friendly forces.

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.

On Thursday, February 19, 2015, two months after the United States and Cuba announced a willingness to re-establish normal diplomacy, after over 5 decades of hostile relations, the United States House Minority leader and eight fellow Democratic Party lawmakers went to Havana to meet with the Cuban Vice President Miguel Díaz-Canel. On February 27th, Cuban Foreign Ministry Director for North America, Josefina Vidal, and her delegation met at the State Department in Washington, D.C. Although most Cubans and many Americans have a positive view towards improving diplomatic relations, there are conservative legislators in both the U.S. House and Senate that have not joined in the promotion and necessary détente and good will in easing the normalization of relations between the two countries. On May 29, 2015, by Executive Order, President Obama took a first step by removing Cuba from the list of “State Sponsors of Terrorism.” Since then President Trump has been determined to overturn most of what has been passed by the former administration. On June 16, 2017 President Trump moved to reverse many of President Obama’s policies towards Cuba. According to the CATO Institute the alleged justification for this reversal is that it will pressure the Cuban government to make concessions on human rights and political policies towards the Island Nation. Apparently Trump’s new restrictions will impose limits on travel and how U.S. Companies will be able to do business in Cuba. Although the final say regarding the normalization between the two countries is in the hands of politicians representing their various constituencies. The United States has long worked and traded with other Communist nations. Recently additional pressure has been applied by corporations that, quite frankly, are fed up with the slowness of the process. The idea that everything hinges on the fact Cuba is a Communist country, run by a dictatorship, does not take into account the plight of the individual Cuban citizens. The United States may wish for a different government; however it is up to Cuba to decide what form of government they will eventually have.

To look squarely at the suffering of the ordinary people whose misery is recorded in the transcripts makes me feel that I am not qualified even to be called a “survivor.” It is true that I was one of the last people to leave Tiananmen Square on June 4th, but I did nothing to volunteer myself during the bloody terror of the massacre’s aftermath, nothing to show that a kernel of my humanity had survived. After I left the square, I did not go to Beijing Normal University campus to check on the students from my alma mater who presumably had also left the square. Still less did I consider going out into the streets to minister to dead and wounded whom I did not know. Instead I fled to the relative safety of the foreign diplomatic housing compound. It is no wonder that the ordinary people who lived through the butchery might ask: “When great terror engulfed the city of Beijing, where were all those ‘black hands’ ”? Fifteen

I would rather contend with an honest asshole than a duplicitous diplomat.

On January 2, 1956 President Tubman’s staff informed the American Ambassador, General Richard Lee Jones, that the Soviet delegation had sent him a note stating that the Soviets wanted to exchange diplomatic relations with Liberia. His response was that the United States would be gravely concerned if the Government of Liberia accepted a diplomatic mission in Monrovia, and that such a mission would be a blow to the internal stability of Liberia. Tubman agreed with Jones but told the Ambassador that he had already set up a meeting with them set for January 6th, however he insured Jones that he would not allow the Soviets into Liberia. He said that, “Although Liberia had an open door policy; it was prepared to do business only with the democratic countries whose businessmen would have to stand on their own two feet without any interference from their governments.

It must be understood that while the majority of Zoon cannot lie they have great respect for any Zoon who can say that the world is other than it is, and the Liar holds a position of considerable eminence. He represents his tribe in all his dealings with the outside world, which the average Zoon long ago gave up trying to understand. Zoon tribes are very proud of their Liars. Other races get very annoyed about all this. They feel that the Zoon ought to have adopted more suitable titles, like “diplomat” or “public relations officer.” They feel they are poking fun at the whole thing.

The U.S. civilian leadership was shirking its responsibility to develop a high-level strategic approach to the most significant political and diplomatic challenge of this conflict. It was yet another example of America’s almost instinctive reflex to lead with the military in moments of international crisis. Civilian officials, as much as they may mistrust the Pentagon, are often the first to succumb. They seem remarkably adverse to exploring the panoply of tools they could bring to bear—let alone to putting in the work to develop a comprehensive strategic framework within which military action would be a component, interlocking with others. What is it, I found myself wondering, that keeps a country as powerful as the United States from employing the vast and varied nonmilitary leverage at its disposal? Why is it so easily cowed by the tantrums of weaker and often dependent allies? Why won’t it ever posture effectively itself? Bluff? Deny visas? Slow down deliveries of spare parts? Choose not to build a bridge or a hospital? Why is nuance so irretrievably beyond American officials’ grasp, leaving them a binary choice between all and nothing—between writing officials a blank check and breaking off relations? If the obstacle preventing more meaningful action against abusive corruption wasn’t active U.S. complicity, it sure looked like it.

The United States has no permanent enemies,” I said, citing Germany and Japan as prime examples of how bitter adversaries can become close, stalwart allies. I recounted my 2013 trip to Vietnam and told him how the United States had developed productive diplomatic, economic, and even military relations with a nation we’d gone to war against, and suggested the same could happen with North Korea. We didn’t need to be enemies in perpetuity, and the relationship could be quite different if we could find common ground. This was the only exchange we had all evening that did not evoke reflexive pushback from General Kim. We ate in silence for a few minutes before he remarked that I could foster that transformation by negotiating the normalization of relations.

For most of their history in China, Pugs were treasured dogs. By law, they could only be owned by nobility or by Buddhist monks. However, because they were held in such high regard, they were also used as pawns in international relations. In 732 C.E., China gave a Pug to Japan as a gift to cement diplomatic relations. The Japanese became infatuated with this dog, and it became the first of many given to Japanese diplomats.

International law now covers vast and complex areas of transnational concern, including traditional topics, such as the position of states,59 state succession,60 state responsibility,61 peace and security,62 the laws of war,63 the law of treaties,64 the law of the sea,65 the law of international water- courses,66 and the conduct of diplomatic relations,67 as well as new topics, such as international organizations,68 economy and development,69 nuclear energy,70 air law and outer space activities,

International law now covers vast and complex areas of transnational concern, including traditional topics, such as the position of states,59 state succession,60 state responsibility,61 peace and security,62 the laws of war,63 the law of treaties,64 the law of the sea,65 the law of international water- courses,66 and the conduct of diplomatic relations,

In 1784, he will also order his corsairs to capture a US merchant ship, the Betsey. Once they are taken hostage, the Sultan uses the members of the Betsey’s crew as bargaining tools, and in 1786 the US Congress agrees to a treaty establishing full diplomatic relations with Morocco.49 There are clear and significant

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.

Would we, if we could, educate and sophisticate pigs, geese, cattle? Would it be wise to establish diplomatic relation with the hen that now functions, satisfied with mere sense of achievement by way of compensation? I think we’re property.

Franklin, "the most accomplished American of his age and the most influential in inventing the type of society America would become."[4] Franklin became a newspaper editor, printer, and merchant in Philadelphia, becoming very wealthy, writing and publishing Poor Richard's Almanack and The Pennsylvania Gazette. Franklin was interested in science and technology, and gained international renown for his famous experiments. He played a major role in establishing the University of Pennsylvania and Franklin & Marshall College and was elected the first president of the American Philosophical Society. Franklin became a national hero in America when he spearheaded the effort to have Parliament repeal the unpopular Stamp Act. An accomplished diplomat, he was widely admired among the French as American minister to Paris and was a major figure in the development of positive Franco-American relations.

It was this gap between the truth of modern-day Russia and Putin’s insistence on its superpower status, I thought, that helped account for the country’s increasingly combative foreign relations. Much of the ire was directed at us: In public remarks, Putin became sharply critical of American policy. When U.S.-backed initiatives came before the U.N. Security Council, he made sure Russia blocked them or watered them down—particularly anything touching on human rights. More consequential were Putin’s escalating efforts to prevent former Soviet bloc countries, now independent, from breaking free of Russia’s orbit. Our diplomats routinely received complaints from Russia’s neighbors about instances of intimidation, economic pressure, misinformation campaigns, covert electioneering, contributions to pro-Russian political candidates, or outright bribery. In

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.

The Phlegmatic-Sanguine Person (PHLEG-SAN) These people are mostly seen as introverts. They are most peaceful people who go forgo their rights in order to live peacefully with others. Their temperament combination makes them very ideal people to get along with. Strengths of the PHLEG-SAN person They are gentle people who are honored in any group they find themselves. They are also very thoughtful and diplomatic. They are dependable and will rarely let the secret confided to them by friends. They have self-control. They are rarely seen exchanging words with people. They prefer forfeiting their rights and living peacefully with people to demanding these, which may lead to married relations. They enjoy the quiet life. They are the types who tell jokes without laughing. while others are laughing, they remain quiet, as if the humor came from somewhere else. It seems all fields of work are open to them. For example, they are good accountants, registrars, ministers, mechanics, teachers, and counsellors. This group of people do not enjoy trading activities but can do them when motivated Weaknesses of the PHLEG-SAN person These types of people are almost similar to their counterpart- the SAN-PHLEG. They lack motivation. They need to be motivated else they will leave their responsibilities undone. They allow themselves to be instructed and directed by people around them. Thus here, they fall victim to the sin of negligence. They procrastinate and often come out late. As senior officers their trays are always full of pending letters. They build shells around themselves and avoid many people and activities that could be useful to them in future. They let golden opportunities to pass by peacefully. Unless they develop personal discipline, they may never develop their natural potential. They are fearful; they need little motivation to put them to action. They lead a too relaxed life; they can even fall asleep while waiting for friends at the reception. A person of this temperament can always move peacefully with the strong willed CHOL-MEL person.

When one talks about this subject, confusion often arises about the difference between Fascism and such related concepts as totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, tyranny, autocracy, and so on. As an academic, I might be tempted to wander into that thicket, but as a former diplomat, I am primarily concerned with actions, not labels. To my mind, a Fascist is someone who identifies strongly with and claims to speak for a whole nation or group, is unconcerned with the rights of others, and is willing to use whatever means are necessary—including violence—to achieve his or her goals. In that conception, a Fascist will likely be a tyrant, but a tyrant need not be a Fascist.

she said. “They’re all worried about Iran.” By the time I took office, the theocratic regime in Iran had presented a challenge to American presidents for more than twenty years. Governed by radical clerics who seized power in the 1979 revolution, Iran was one of the world’s leading state sponsors of terror. At the same time, Iran was a relatively modern society with a budding freedom movement. In August 2002, an Iranian opposition group came forward with evidence that the regime was building a covert uranium-enrichment facility in Natanz, along with a secret heavy water production plant in Arak—two telltale signs of a nuclear weapons program. The Iranians acknowledged the enrichment but claimed it was for electricity production only. If that was true, why was the regime hiding it? And why did Iran need to enrich uranium when it didn’t have an operable nuclear power plant? All of a sudden, there weren’t so many complaints about including Iran in the axis of evil. In October 2003, seven months after we removed Saddam Hussein from power, Iran pledged to suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing. In return, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France agreed to provide financial and diplomatic benefits, such as technology and trade cooperation. The Europeans had done their part, and we had done ours. The agreement was a positive step toward our ultimate goal of stopping Iranian enrichment and preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. In June 2005, everything changed. Iran held a presidential election. The process was suspicious, to say the least. The Council of Guardians, a handful of senior Islamic clerics, decided who was on the ballot. The clerics used the Basij Corps, a militia-like unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, to manage turnout and influence the vote. Tehran Mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner. Not surprisingly, he had strong support from the Basij. Ahmadinejad steered Iran in an aggressive new direction. The regime became more repressive at home, more belligerent in Iraq, and more proactive in destabilizing Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, and Afghanistan. Ahmadinejad called Israel “a stinking corpse” that should be “wiped off the map.” He dismissed the Holocaust as a “myth.” He used a United Nations speech to predict that the hidden imam would reappear to save the world. I started to worry we were dealing with more than just a dangerous leader. This guy could be nuts. As one of his first acts, Ahmadinejad announced that Iran would resume uranium conversion. He claimed it was part of Iran’s civilian nuclear power program, but the world recognized the move as a step toward enrichment for a weapon. Vladimir Putin—with my support—offered to provide fuel enriched in Russia for Iran’s civilian reactors, once it built some, so that Iran would not need its own enrichment facilities. Ahmadinejad rejected the proposal. The Europeans also offered

We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum.

Agent Shelan wondered if it would really hurt diplomatic relations with the Klingon Empire all that much if she tossed Korath, Son of Monak, into an antimatter reactor. Surely if anyone would recognize homicide as a valid response to intolerable annoyance, it would be the Klingons.

our relations were those of a capital to a colony: diplomatic and vigorously cordial.

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.

If we are bound and determined to speak in terms of reference, nuclear war is the only possible referent of any discourse and any experience that would share their condition with that of literature. If, according to a structuring hypothesis, a fantasy or phantasm, nuclear war is equivalent to the total destruction of the archive, if not of the human habitat, it becomes the absolute referent, the horizon and the condition of all the others...This absolute referent of all possible literature is on par with the absolute effacement of any possible trace; it is thus the only ineffaceable trace, it is so as the trace of what is entirely other, "trace du tout autre." This is the only absolute trace - effaceable, ineffaceable. The only "subject" of all possible literature, of all possible criticism, its only ultimate and a-symbolic referent, unsymbolizable, even unsignifiable; this is, if not the nuclear age, if not the nuclear catastrophe, at least that toward which nuclear discourse and the nuclear symbolic are still beckoning: the remainderless and a-symbolic destruction of literature. Literature and literary criticism cannot speak of anything else, they can have no other ultimate referent, they can only multiply their strategic maneuvers in order to assimilate that unassimilable wholly other. They are nothing but those maneuvers and that diplomatic strategy, with the "double talk" that can never be reduced to them. For simultaneously, that "subject" cannot be a nameable "subject," nor that "referent" a nameable referent. Then the perspective of nuclear war allows us to re-elaborate the question of the referent. What is a referent? In another way, to elaborate the question of the transcendental ego, the transcendental subject, Husserl's phenomenology needed, at some point, the fiction of total chaos. Capable of speaking only of that, literature cannot help but speak of other things as well, and invent strategies for speaking of other things, for putting off the encounter with the wholly other, an encounter with which, however, this relationless relation, this relation of incommensurability cannot be wholly suspended, even though it is precisely its epochal suspension. This is the only invention possible.

Vietnam is an irritation for China. For centuries the two have squabbled over territory, and unfortunately for both this is the one area to the south which has a border an army can get across without too much trouble – which partially explains the 1,000-year domination and occupation of Vietnam by China from 111 BCE to 938 CE and their brief cross-border war of 1979. However, as China’s military prowess grows, Vietnam will be less inclined to get drawn into a shooting match and will either cosy up even closer to the Americans for protection or quietly begin shifting diplomatically to become friends with Beijing. That both countries are nominally ideologically Communist has little to do with the state of their relationship: it is their shared geography that has dened relations. Viewed from Beijing, Vietnam is only a minor threat and a problem that can be managed

The Israel-Palestine conflict is often portrayed as complicated. In fact, it is relatively simple.[59] The conflict is centered in territories that have been under harsh military occupation for fifty years. The conqueror is a major military power, acting with massive military, economic, and diplomatic support from the global superpower. Its subjects are alone and defenseless, many barely surviving in miserable camps, who have suffered brutal terror of a kind familiar in colonial wars and have in turn committed terrible atrocities.

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

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.

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.

Victor, the Chinese analyst, absolutely dismantles the Indian narrative—calling out India bluntly. Statements like “Pakistan and China are one, and all of China’s technological advancements are at Pakistan’s disposal” and “Read history” hit hard. Honestly, with Indian media handing us such strong diplomatic wins, who even needs our diplomats? They're doing Pakistan's foreign policy job better than anyone.

Opportunities: "He who seizes the right moment is the right man." — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1808 [Doch der den Augenblick ergreift, Das ist der rechte Mann. cf. Faust Part I Scene IV] Oratory: "No one can be a perfect ambassador who is not at the same time a good orator." — Torquato Tasso, 1582 Order, justice and: "Order precedes justice in the strategy of government; but only an order which implicates justice can achieve a stable peace." — Reinhold Niebuhr, 1944 Order, legitimizing principle: "International order expresses the need for security and equilibrium ... [and] is constructed in the name of a legitimizing principle. ... [Negotiations transform] force into acceptance ... [and] must attempt to translate the requirements of security into claims and individual demands into general advantage. It is the legitimizing principle which establishes the relative 'justice' of claims and the mode of their adjustment." — Henry A. Kissinger, 1964

Partisans of good relations: In every society there are natural partisans of good relations with a particular foreign country. These include graduates of study programs in that country, admirers of its culture, institutions, and artifacts, spouses of its nationals, speakers of its language, adherents to its predominant religion, and others. Such people constitute a reservoir of affection for an ambassador's country and a source of potential understanding and support for his government's perspective on troublesome bilateral and international issues. This reservoir needs continuous refreshment, however, in that form of a flow of contact and information, if it is not to dry up. Facilitating such renewal of goodwill on the part of old friends in his host country is among an ambassador's most enjoyable — and essential — duties. Patience: The capacity to outsit the other side at the table is one of the key attributes of successful negotiators in conference diplomacy. Patience: "Everything comes to those who wait." — Proverb Patriotism: The sense by individual members of a nation that it is worth sacrificing some significant portion of their personal interests to defend the common interests and well-being of their nation against challenges from others. Patriotism: "He who denies his heritage is not worthy of one." — Arab proverb

Order, new: "There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order; this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, ... and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it. Thus it arises that on every opportunity for attacking the reformer, [as] his opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others only defend him half-heartedly, so that between them he runs great danger." — Niccolò Machiavelli Order, revolutionary challenge to: "Whenever there exists a power which considers the international order or the manner of legitimizing it oppressive, relations between it and other powers will be revolutionary. In such cases, it is not the adjustment of differences within a given system which will be at issue, but the system itself. Adjustments are possible, but they will be conceived as tactical maneuvers to consolidate positions for the inevitable showdown, or as tools to undermine the morale of the antagonist." — Henry A. Kissinger, 1964 Order, stable: "The foundation of a stable order is the relative security — and therefore the relative insecurity — of its members. Its stability reflects, not the absence of unsatisfied claims, but the absense of a grievance of such magnitude that redress will be sought in overturning the [existing order] rather than through an adjustment within its framework. ... The security of a domestic order resides in the preponderant power of authority, that of an international order in the balance of forces and in its expression, the equilibrium." — Henry A. Kissinger, 1964

We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum. God offers life, but not an improved old life. The life He offers is life out of death.

The scholars of international relations look at the subject both from cooperative and conflictual aspects. International relations is generally not concerned with domestic developments of other countries, except to the extent the domestic politics of other countries affect international politics. The scope of international relations is often defined by subtitles, like 'questions of war and peace' as a subtitle of international security. Joshua S Goldstein wrote, 'the movements of armies and of diplomats, the crafting of treaties and alliances, the development and deployment of military capabilities—these are the subjects that dominated the study of IR in the past… and they continue to hold central position in the field.

How do you know... how do you know anything... US officials are making Maduro sounds like a corrupt, evil dictator... almost like a Stalin! Then the alternative voices (Thank God) are saying well they seem to like Maduro just fine over there... and since there must be nothing else to do in the world, US is just playing the old game of 'stop hitting yourself' let's do sanctions, and freeze your assets, and then... THEN LOOK MADURO'S STARVING HIS PEOPLE! Umm. Ya... no. I guess it really doesn't take a lotta brain to be a diplomat.

After I had been at my university for a year, the foreign lecturers were suddenly kicked out over our spring holiday. We returned to classes to find only the local teachers were left. We were never told the reason the lecturers went, but I could no longer study there because all my language teachers had gone. But when God shuts a window, He opens a door! My dream now was to go to the College for International Relations. The College for International Relations was the top university in our country, and I thought it was completely out of my reach. I still had the financial backing of the Bible teacher, but I had yet to pass the entry exam. I made an appointment to see the president of the university and boldly told him I wanted to study international relations. I asked if it would be possible to take the exam. I had ambitions to work as a diplomat, a peacemaker.

It is impossible to hide any more of his (Turkmenbashy) pure hypocrisy, the absence of elementary norms of political and diplomatic behavior, the insidiousness and cruelty in relation to the people and the spreading of an atmosphere of fear.

If Tariq could determine that Israeli intelligence was involved, he would immediately be transformed from the hunted to the hunter. He thought of an operation he had conducted while he was still with Jihaz el-Razd, the PLO intelligence arm. He had identified an Office agent working with diplomatic cover from the Israeli embassy in Madrid. The officer had managed to recruit several spies within the PLO, and Tariq decided it was time to pay him back. He sent a Palestinian to Madrid posing as a defector. The Palestinian met with the Israeli officer inside the embassy and promised to turn over sensitive intelligence about PLO leaders and their personal habits. At first the Israeli balked. Tariq had anticipated this, so he had given his agent several pieces of true, relatively harmless

During the more than 70 years of independence of Pakistan, none of the governments established its resources to argue and defend its disputes and political and diplomatic relations in civilized societies. For that purpose, the English print and electronic media would have the appropriate and suitable ways to execute its concerns, for the security and economic achievements. Unfortunately, all institutions fail, to draw attention towards that insight and point. Pakistan has not a lack of talented figures, who may devote their services voluntarily, for that cause. It is a key to the state of Pakistan, for its advocacy of peace and harmony with other nations, and defending tool, to opponents, who try to damage the dignity and prestige of Pakistan, with negative propaganda. If we realize that, the small nations and political, or religious groups, have a hold on such tools, and ways, for their propaganda. While Pakistan is out of that picture; consequently, we face isolation, and humiliation by wrong elements.

His career, though, was riddled with contradictions. Like many of his conservative colleagues, he had few reservations about implying that some fellow Americans, including perhaps the highest officials in the opposition party, were loyal to a hostile foreign power and willing to betray their fellow citizens. Yet by the end of his career, he became the man who opened the door to normalized relations with China (perhaps, thought some critics, he was the only politician in America who could do that without being attacked by Richard Nixon), and he was a pal of both the Soviet and Chinese Communist leadership. If he later surprised many long-standing critics with his trips to Moscow and Peking, he had shown his genuine diplomatic skills much earlier in the way he balanced the demands of the warring factions within his own party. He never asked to be well liked or popular; he asked only to be accepted. There were many Republicans who hated him, particularly in California. Earl Warren feuded with him for years. Even Bill Knowland, the state’s senior senator and an old-fashioned reactionary, despised him. At the 1952 convention, Knowland had remained loyal to Warren despite Nixon’s attempts to help Eisenhower in the California delegation. When Knowland was asked to give a nominating speech for Nixon, he was not pleased: “I have to nominate the dirty son of a bitch,” he told friends.

On January 8, 1959, Fidel made his grand entrance into Havana. With his son Fidelito at his side, he rode on top of a Sherman tank to Camp Columbia, where he gave the first of his long, rambling, difficult-to-endure speeches. It was broadcast on radio and television for the entire world to witness. For the Cubans it was what they had waited for! During the speech, smiling Castro asked Camilo Cienfuegos, “How am I doing?” and the catch phrase “Voy bien, Camilo” was born. The following Christmas the celebrations were exceptional and made up for the drab Christmas of 1958. There were great expectations on the part of the Cuban people, but most of these expectations would be shattered in the years to come. In the United States, people saw things differently. “Kangaroo trials” of Batista’s followers, ending with their executions, infuriated Americans who couldn’t believe what was happening on what they considered a happy island. Members of the U.S. Congress held formal hearings, interviewing exiled Cubans known as Batistianos. The result was that in the United States, people began to rally against Castro and in Cuba, people saw the United States as presumptuous and overbearing. Eisenhower treated Fidel with contempt and Nixon did not hide the fact that he disliked the Cuban leader. It was this combination of events that led Cuban-American relations into a diplomatic downhill spiral, from which the two countries have just now started to emerge. Without American backing, Cuba turned to Communism and looked to the Soviet Union for support. The results that followed should have been expected and were the consequences of American arrogance and Cuban misplaced pride.

Returning to New York City, Martí held a number of diplomatic positions for various Latin American countries and again wrote editorials for Spanish-language newspapers. Many considered Martí to be the greatest Latin American intellectual of the time. He published his newspaper Patria as the voice of Cuban Independence. While in the United States, he wrote several acclaimed volumes of poetry and along with other friends in exile, he spent time planning his return to Cuba. During the following year in 1892, he traveled throughout Central America, the Caribbean and the United States raising funds at various Cuban clubs. His first attempt to launch the revolution, with a few followers, was drastically underfunded and failed. However, the following year with more men and additional backing, he tried again. Although he admired and visited America in the interim, he feared that the United States would annex Cuba before his revolution could liberate the country from Spain. With small skirmishes, the Cuban War of Independence started on February 24, 1895. Marti’s plan for a second attempt at freeing Cuba included convincing Major General Máximo Gómez y Báez and Major General Antonio de la Caridad Maceo y Grajales, as well as several other revolutionary heroes of the Ten Years’ War, to join him. Together they launched a three-pronged invasion in April of 1895. With bands of exiles, they landed separately, using small boats. The main assault was on the south coast of Oriente Province, where their objective was to take and hold the higher ground. During this maneuver Martí was directed by the commanding officer General Máximo Gómez to remain with the rearguard, since he would be much more useful to the revolution alive than dead. However Martí, exercising his usual exuberance, took the lead and was instantly killed during one of the first skirmishes. Thus, he met his death on May 19, 1895, fighting regular Spanish troops at the Battle of Dos Ríos just north of Santiago de Cuba, at the relatively young age of 42.” José Martí remains revered as a hero by the people of Cuba regardless of politics!

The independent foreign policy constitutes not only diplomatic equality and relations with all other countries; it also determines self-determination and self-integrity and dignity of the State and People; otherwise, isolation and even slavery become destiny.

On August 29, I flew from Kiev to Moldova and Belarus, continuing my travels in the former republics of the USSR. I wanted to show Russia we had a sustained focus on its periphery and were not content simply to leave these struggling states to contend with Moscow alone. Had I stayed in the White House longer, I had more substantive plans for US relations with the former Soviet states, but that was not to be. Particularly in Minsk, despite Alexander Lukashenko’s less-than-stellar human-rights record, I wanted to prove the US would not simply watch Belarus be reabsorbed by Russia, which Putin seemed to be seriously considering. One aspect of my strategy was a meeting the Poles arranged in Warsaw on Saturday, August 31, among the national security advisors of Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, and the United States. Let the Kremlin think about that one for a while. I obviously had much more in mind than just having additional meetings, but this was one that would signal other former Soviet republics that neither we nor they had to be passive when faced with Russian belligerence or threats to their internal governance. There was plenty we could all do diplomatically as well as militarily. After I resigned, the Administration and others seemed to be moving in a similar direction.18

Nevertheless, the KGB gave no serious consideration to abandoning the illegals program. With an unpredictable Cold War under way that could turn hot at any moment, having operatives who could remain behind enemy lines should diplomatic relations be cut off was more important than ever. The Center decided the challenges would be surmountable if enough resources

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

Diplomats, chief purpose of: "It is, of course, true that ... our relations with any given country involve many factors other than the direct dealings between governments, and an effective and competent diplomat, whatever his rank, must be prepared and equipped to deal with these non-governmental aspects of his work. But ... [this] should not cause us to forget that the chief purpose of the diplomat is the transaction of business for his country with the government to which he is credited. The success or failure of a given diplomatic mission in any country will, in the last analysis, come down to the degree of success it has achieved with the government of that country. The settlement of disputes that inevitably arise between countries, as between individuals, the ability to influence without improper interference the course of the foreign country's action in a direction which would serve the overall objectives of our foreign policy — these are the real business of diplomacy, to which all other aspects are supporting and subsidiary." — Charles E. Bohlen, 1961

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

Discretion: "Responsible diplomats will always be guarded in what they say to each other. They know that the constant application of discretion precludes neither cordial personal relations nor many mutual useful exchanges with competent colleagues. Rather than being put off when they encounter this quality in others, they take it as reassuring evidence that they are dealing with reliable and useful professionals. If this quality is not present, a wise diplomat will be warned off, and will take his dealings elsewhere." — William Macomber, 1975 Dishonesty: "A reputation for trickiness will follow a diplomat around the globe as tenaciously as the dossiers prepared by his diplomatic colleagues pursue him from post to post." — Charles Thayer, 1959 Dissent: There is always a danger that the message will be mistaken for the messenger. Dissent is often taken for insult, as it implicitly condemns the judgment of those with whose policies it takes issue. The ultimate test of an ambassador's persuasiveness is to report and recommend honestly on the lapses and errors of his own country's policies without fatally offending those guilty of them. Dissent: "There are strict limits, dictated by common sense and the realities of the situation, to how far an ambassador can go in opposing a position of his own government. If a compromise is not possible and once the final decision has been made, he must of course loyally and scrupulously implement it even if it goes against what he had recommended. But until the final decision is made an ambassador owes his government the frankest and most unvarnished advice." — François de Laboulaye and Jean Laloy, 1983

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

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.

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

Démarches, perils of embellishment: "If relations between states are close, they may establish mutual trust through daily interaction; but if relations are distant, mutual confidence can only be established by exchanges of messages. Messages must be conveyed by messengers [diplomats]. Their content may be either pleasing to both sides or likely to engender anger between them. Faithfully conveying such messages is the most difficult task under the heavens, for if the words are such as to evoke a positive response on both sides, there will be the temptation to exaggerate them with flattery and, if they are unpleasant, there will be a tendency to make them even more biting. In either case, the truth will be lost. If truth is lost, mutual trust will also be lost. If mutual trust is lost, the messenger himself may be imperilled. Therefore, I say to you it is a wise rule:'always to speak the truth and never to embellish it. In this way, you will avoid much harm to yourselves.'" — Zhuangzi [丘请复以所闻：凡交近则必相靡以信，远则必忠之以言。言必或传之。夫传两喜两怒之言，天下之难者也。夫两喜必多溢美之言，两怒必多溢恶之言。凡溢之类妄，妄则其信之也莫，莫则传言者殃。故法言曰：‘传其常情，无传其溢言，则几乎全。’——《庄子·内篇·人间世》]

Colleagues:"Of all the peculiarities of diplomatic life, what most strikes the general public is the amicable and often cordial relations which exist between the diplomatists of the different countries and which produce between them, if policy and patriotism do not oppose it, a sort of corporate spirit and sometimes comradeship. Those who are surprised at this do not know what it is to remain for long years abroad, isolated and far from home. The young men who enter into the profession could not live the whole of their life leaving each other and finding each other again in various capitals of the world, experiencing sometimes the same adventures, and gaining, by the same steps, the grades of their career, without feeling pleasure at meeting each other again." — Jules Cambon Colleagues, utility of: In every diplomatic corps there are envoys who are fat with information and there are those who, starved for intelligence because they are unable to obtain their own insights into the dynamics of decision making in the host country, prey on those better informed than themselves. A diplomat with his own ample resources of information is well advised to keep his distance from those of his colleagues who seek a parasitical relationship with him; these colleagues will, after all, be available to him whenever he need them. Instead, he should cultivate those as well or better informed than him and share as much information as he is able to share with them. By establishing a reputation for being worth consulting among those of his colleagues who are themselves well informed about local events, a diplomat can ensure that they rely on him to check information of which they are unsure. In that way, he will gain access to much of what they know shortly after they learn it and will be able to give his own government the benefit of this knwoledge in a timely way. Colleagues, utility of: "An Ambassador may very probably find that his colleagues of the diplomatic corps in the capital where he resides may be of value to him. Since the whole diplomatic body labors to the same end, namely to discover what is happening, there arises a certain freemasonry of diplomacy, by which one colleague informs another of coming events which a lucky chance has enabled him to discern." — François de Callières, 1716 Command presence: A talent for command is essential to ambassadors and heads of delegations, both of whom must bend a heterogeneous group to a common purpose and make its members function as a team.

on the international level, terrorism was a form of war that didn’t even have to interrupt normal diplomatic relations.

Peacemaking, statecraft in: "[It may be necessary for a peacemaker to rely] less on the application of raw power than on a determined statecraft deriving its leverage from others, from the regional balance of power itself, and from the logic of the concepts to which [he is committed.]" — Chester A. Crocker, 1992 Peacemaking, verification, guarantees: "Warring parties are unlikely to make possibly irreversible steps toward military disengagement until they have come to grips with the basic deal. Nor are they likely to hammer out the specifics of essential trade-offs on the key issues until (a) the basic parameters of the deal are agreed, and (b) a climate of greater confidence exists and no side feels that it is negotiating at gunpoint. Efforts to negotiate ... language relating to verification or guarantees make the most sense once it is reasonably clear what is to be verifies or guaranteed. Institutionalized mechanisms for implementation and follow-up come at the end, when the sides have acquired a substantial stake in the success of their own efforts." — Chester A. Crocker, 1992 Perseverance: "The simple truth is that perseverance in good policies is the only avenue to success, and that even perseverance in poor ones often gives the appearance of being so." — Dean Acheson

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.

Attack, preemptive: Attitudes toward surprise attack to knock out an adversary of growing menace vary in proportion to geography and strength. Those whose geographical separation from enemies give them time to assess events or to seek their own moment of maximum advantage for a military reaction to a threat tend to condemn preemption. Those whose geographical situation and relative weakness vis-à-vis an adversary or combination of enemies create a greater danger that they will be overwhelmed tend to resort more easily to preemptive attack. Attack, preemptive: "Self-defense sometimes dictates aggression. If one people takes advantage of peace to upt itself in a position to destroy another, immediate attack on the first is the only means of preventing such destruction." — Montesquieu

Ambassadors, credibility of: The government to which ambassadors are accredited will see them as interpreters of thoughts that are not their own and executors of design handed to them by higher authority. The credibility of ambassadors therefore depends less on their own merits than on the use they know how to make of the fear or confidence inspired by the government they represent. Ambassador, duty of: "The first duty of an ambassador is exactly the same as that of any other servant of government, that is, to do, say, advise and think whatever may best serve the preservation and aggrandizement of his own state." — Ermolao Barbaro, c. 1490 Ambassadors, empathy for host nation of: A great ambassador develops empathy for the interests and views of the nation to which he is assigned, but remains the advocate only of those of his own government and nation. He courts good relations with those in authority but never forgets that his object in doing so is to persuade them to accept the views of his capital and that honest disagreement, tactfully presented, can be seen as a mark of friendly concern. Ambassadors, informants about their country: In ancient times, ambassadors were regarded by the sovereigns to whom they were accredited as a primary source of information about events in their homeland. In modern times, when information on events around the globe is speedily and readily available through the media, ambassadors must still strive to make themselves trusted interpreters of events. They may thereby hope to shape the understanding and guide the responses of their host government to happenings back home and also to lay a basis for an exchange of insights with their interlocutors that will improve the accuracy of their reporting and analysis to their own government.

Our diplomatic relations connect us on terms of equality and honest friendship with the chief powers of the world, while we avoid entangling participation in their intrigues, their passions, and their wars.

Mediation, ripe moments: "The success of mediation is tied to the perception and creation of a ripe moment in the conflict — either when the parties are locked in a mutual, hurting, stalemate marked by a recent or impending catastrophe; when unilateral solutions are blocked and joint solutions become conceivable; or when the 'ups' and 'downs' start to shift their relative power positions. Parties can come to perceive these moments themselves, to be sure, but they frequently need the help of a conciliator." — I. William Zartman, 1985 Mediation of adjustments: "Conflict resolution plays on perceptions of an intolerable situation. Things 'can't go on like this.' Without this perception, the conciliator must persuade the parties that escalation to break out of deadlock is impossible. Indeed, the conciliator may be required to make it impossible, if necessary. Thus, deadlock cannot be seen merely as a temporary stalemate, to be easily resolved in one's favor by a little effort or even by a big offensive or a gamble or foreign assistance. Rather, each party must recognize its opponent's strength and its own inability to overcome it. For the conciliator, this means emphasizing the dangers of deadlock as each party comes to recognize the other's strength. Each party's unilateral policy option (the action that it can take alone without negotiation) must be seen as a more expensive and less likely way of achieving a possible, acceptable outcome than the policy of negotiation." — I. William Zartman, 1985

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

Ideology: A mode of moral reasoning, consisting of myth, doctrine, and rhetorical style, that purports to explain cause and effect and that evaluates these with approval or disapproval. Ideology: "The belief that international politics should be the struggle not of interests but of principles ... accords awkwardly with diplomacy. It calls in question a fundamental premise of a state's system, the independence of the member states and the right of each other to decide for itself how to manage its domestic affairs. This difference of assumption goes with a difference in style. The dogmatic formulation of principles, especially in a political or religious crusade, is doctrinaire and inflexible, unlike the elasticity and preference for give and take of the diplomatic dialogue. The more a man is attached to dogmas, the less responsive he is to calls for agreement through compromise, believing that the fundamentals may be negotiated away if they are treated on a level with mundane balancing of interests familiar in negotiations between states." — Adam Watson, 1983 Ideology in foreign policy: Ideological conviction implies the desire to export the system of government it justifies; it is inherently revolutionary and aggressive because it transforms relations between states from a difference of interests, which it is right to seek to conciliate, into a conflict between philosophies, in which to compromise is unrighteous. It expands the arena of international struggle to include the internal policies and social structures of foreign states, explicitly challenging their legitimacy and implicitly inviting their overthrow. A foreign policy based on the impulse to propagate principles and ideas, no matter how noble and apparently benign, is therefore inherently more disruptive of international order and more likely to engender armed conflict than one based on tolerance of diverse systems of government and realistic accommodation of antagonists, morally flawed as they may be.

Instructions, bureaucratic: An ambassador's instructions may represent a serious attempt to advance his government's interests or they may be no more than an effort by bureaucrats in his capital to avoid having themselves to register domestic political concerns about a disagreeable matter with his counterpart there. His government may in fact desire no more than be able to announce that the matter is under active discussion, allowing it to fade from public attention. In carrying out such instructions, an ambassador should accept the implicit judgment of his capital that he is to act in a manner calculated to place his government's views on the record while avoiding damage to relations with his host nation. Instructions, diplomatic: Well-formulated diplomatic instructions stress strategic objectives and leave a large arena for tactical adjustment to chance and local circumstances; nothing is sure in diplomatic intercourse, and those far from the scene of action are highly unlikely to be able to anticipate the state of play once engagement has occured.

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)

Adjustment: "Diplomacy is interested in achieving and making do with the adjustments that can be obtained by bargaining and compromise without resort to force or the disruption of international society. Adjustment is a valuable concept: related on the one hand to what is just, and on the other to the concept of balance, aiming at solutions which are not absolute but shifting, relying on persuasion, and like all diplomacy accommodating international society to the winds of change. These adjustments by persuation are sometimes aptly called the brokerage of the system. Brokerage of this kind is more conductive to generally accepted norms of justice than the ever-present alternative of a resort to force." — Adam Watson, 1983

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

Wartime, diplomacy in: "If we accept the notion that the object of war is to induce a certain frame of mind in the consciousness of the adversary and not to destroy him or to render him helpless in the determination of the postwar settlement, it follows that diplomacy is never in suspense. It has a three-phased task: to prevent war when possible; to control its course once it has broken out, and to end it as soon as possible in conditions likely to prevent its renewal." — Abba Eban, 1983 Weapons: Weapons are tools for making your enemies change their minds. Weapons: "Weapons are of little use on the field of battle if there is no wise counsel at home." — Cicero Will: "There are no purely political solutions any more than purely military solutions and ..., in the relation among states, will may play as great a role as power." — Henry A. Kissinger, 1957 Wisdom: "Men and nations do behave wisely, once all other alternatives have been exhausted." — Abba Eban, 1967

Words: "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war." — Winston Churchill Words: "Nothing is more important to diplomacy than care in choosing and reporting words. Whether the formulations are vague or precise, other nations must assume that they were selected deliberately and with thought. That is why such care must be given to statements made during official visits and in official speeches. In foreign ministries around the world, what you say gets quoted back to you, and you are expected to stand behind your words." — George P. Shultz, 1993 Words, actions and: "A diplomat's words must have no relation to actions — otherwise what kind of diplomacy is it? Words are one thing, actions another. Good words are a concealment of bad deeds. Sincere diplomacy is no more possible than dry water or iron wood." — Attributed to J. V. Stalin Wrath, deflection of: "A soft answer turneth away wrath." — Proverbs XV, 1, c. 350 B.C.

Strategy, grand: "Grand strategy has a higher purpose than the mere planning of campaigns in time of war. It must aim at the elimination of war by the planning of the peace." — Victor Wellesley, 1944 Strategy, logic of: "Within the sphere of strategy, ... where human relations are conditioned by armed conflict actual or possible, [a] logic is at work ... [which] violates ordinary linear logic by inducing the coming together and even the reversal of opposites, and ... [which] tends to reward paradoxical conduct while confounding straightforwardly logical action, by yielding results ironical if not lethally self-damaging." — Edward N. Luttwak Strategy, victory: The essence of strategy is not to choose a path that leads to victory but to position onself so that most paths lead to victories. Strategy, victory: "The true aim is not so much to seek battle as to seek a strategic situation so advantageous that if it does not of itself produce the decision, its continuation by a battle is sure to achieve this." — Basil Liddel Hart, 1954 Strength: Strong states do what they will; the weak do what they must. Strength: The stronger the state, the gentler should be its diplomats. Power should speak for itsef; when flaunted, strength arouses resentment. Strength: "True strength restrains itself; true greatness sets its own limits." — Attributed to Talleyrand

Summit meetings: "Two great princes who wish to establish good personal relations should never meet each other face to face but ought to communicate through good and wise ambassadors." — Philippe de Commines Summit meetings: "The advantage of a summit meeting is that the participants possess the authority to settle disputes. The disadvantage is that they cannot be disavowed. A summit conference can make binding decisions more rapidly than any other diplomatic forum. By the same token, the disagreements are liable to be more intractable and the decisions more irrevocable. The possibility of using summit conferences to mark a new departure in the relations of states should not be underestimated. At the same time, it would be foolish to deny the perils of having as principal negotiators the men who make the final decision [about peace and war]. ... Frustration or humiliation may cause them to embark on an irrevocable course. A summit conference may contribute to clarification of the opposing points of view. But this is helpful only if the original tension was caused by misunderstanding. Otherwise, clarifying the opposing points of view may only deepen the schism. In short, the same factors which make for speed of decision also increase the risk of disagreement." — Henry A. Kissinger, 1960

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

The role of the Resident, as pre-eminent representative of the Palleseen state within a nation under diplomatic relations and yet to be brought into the Sway, is (1) to act as the chief point of contact, representative, advocate and guardian of those legitimate citizens of Pallesand within the territory (2) to act as gatherer, focal point and reporter of intelligence generated within or arriving at the territory (3) and of overriding import, to guide and influence the local society and political structure to better favour, reward and comply with the ordinances of Pallesand, and thereby move all such Residented territories the closer towards perfection…

Statesmen, diplomats and: Government is a contractual relationship, under which the people yield authority to their leaders to conduct foreign relations on their behalf. The universe of states is one of shifting constellations; statesmanship is a task that is never finished and taht never lets its practitioners rest. The challenge to statesmen has always been to assure that international change occurs smoothly and results in the greatest possible advantage (or the least disadvantage) to their nation. Such leadership requires strategy, as the changes statesmen must deal with are beyond the capacity of any single government to control. The people have the legitimate right to expect, under their contract with their chief of government, that such a strategy will be formulated and pursued by him. They also have a right to expect that his diplomatic lieutenants will counsel him astutely in the crafting of a strategy for turning international change to their advantage, and that his diplomats will inform him honestly of events that bear on his adjustment of it as it is implemented. Sycophancy in reporting and analysis is therefore not just a breach of faith by a diplomat with his government; it is a fundamental lapse of his responsibility, as an officer of the state, to the people of his nation. Statesmen, politicians and: "The difference between a statesman and a politician is that the former looks to the next generation and the latter to the next election." Statesmen, politicians and: "The politician says: 'I will give you what you want.' The statesman says: 'What you think you want is this. What it is possible for you to get is that. What you really want, therefore, is the following.'" — Walter Lippmann, 1929

State, revolutionary: "The distinguishing feature of a revolutionary power is not that it feels threatened — such feeling is inherent in the nature of international relations based on sovereign states —but that nothing can reassure it. Only absolute security — the neutralization of opponents — is considered a sufficient guarantee, and ths the desire of one power for absolute security means absolute insecurity for all the others." — Henry A. Kissinger, 1964 Statecraft: Statecraft is the art — consisting of doctrines, dispositions, policies, processes, and operations — that promotes the governances, security, and survival of a polity. Statecraft: Statecraft is the art of advancing the interests of one's state and its people against those of others by either violent or non-violent means. The men and women who practice this subtle and dangerous art are known as statesmen. Those who implement the policies of statesmen by violence are soldiers; those who do so by peaceful means are diplomats. Statecraft, decisionmaking in: "The statesman must cross the Rubicon not knowing how deep and turbulent the river is, nor what he will find on the other side. ... He must face the impenetrable darkness of the future and still not flinch from walking into it, drawing the nation behind him." — Hans J. Morgenthau, 1962

Treaties, duration of: "Treaties at best are but complied with so long as interest requires their fulfillment. Consequently, they are virtually binding on the weaker party only; or, in plain truth, they are not binding at all." — Washington Irving, 1809 Triumph: "Victory and defeat are the negation of diplomacy. The diplomat should never forget that the problem he is working on is of only relative importance in that it is one of an unending series that must be discussed with the other party through the years, and therefore, while he must do as much as is expedient for his country, it must be within such limits and under such terms as will obviate resentment and a sense of injustice in future negotiations. It is important to have everybody satisfied, so that they bring to the next meeting a desire for further agreement and not a yearning for revenge — the inevitable result of defeat." — Hugh Gibson, 1944

How do I contact Gemini customer service? {~Moment~} The very specific and sinking feeling that [1-833-611-5006] arises when you need to contact Gemini customer service is a unique form of modern-day urgency. It is a truly jarring [1-833-611-5006] and confusing moment in which you need immediate help, transforming the digital platform into a frustrating and [1-833-611-5006] intimidating bureaucracy. This particular experience, when it happens in relation to your Gemini account, can be profoundly and deeply unsettling for any user. You might [1-833-611-5006] feel an immediate and quite powerful surge of anxiety, and a whole cascade of [1-833-611-5006] worrisome questions may instantly begin flooding your mind regarding the best and safest way to get help. This is a completely [1-833-611-5006] normal and entirely understandable reaction, but it is one that must be tempered with the vital understanding that your Gemini account is like a secure embassy file. The problem you are facing requires you to follow strict diplomatic protocol to ensure your safety. The method you choose to contact them is a direct symptom of the specific, and [1-833-611-5006] incredibly important, level of security you require. To truly understand how to get help, one must look past the immediate [1-833-611-5006] feeling of panic and instead see the different communication channels available. This is not just any [1-833-611-5006] simple situation; it involves understanding the difference between a secure diplomatic cable and an unsecure public phone line. Every single [1-833-611-5006] channel, every single method, and indeed every single interaction is a direct reflection of these different protocols, a process that determines [1-833-611-5006] the safety and security of your sensitive information

Sanctions, revolutionary states: Sanctions and other measures to reduce engagement with a country in revolution are often secretly welcomed by its leaders. Sanctions provide the evidence of foreign hostility revolutionary leaders need to harness the spirit of nationalism to their cause. Sanctions also help them to rid their country of objectionable foreign influences, and justify their speedy reorientation of foreign relations toward the enemies of those imposing the sanctions. Sanctions, targets of: Economic sanctions are most likely to be imposed on enemies but are, seemingly paradoxically, more effective against allies and the like-minded. Those who desire to preserve a cooperative relationship with the nation imposing the sanctions have a much greater incentive to bend on specific issues than those who do not. Secrecy: Secrecy is necessary to enable governments that have taken extreme positions in public to compromise in private and to be protected against the consequences of disclosure until the terms of agreement are final and can be defended successfully against domestic critics.

Secrecy: "A useful rule is taht if you cannot afford to be found out, do not engage in activity that will cover you with shame when it comes to light." — Thomas A. Bailey, 1968 Secrecy, protecting confidences: "States do not talk to one another only about their own intentions. They also exchange confidential views and guesses about ... other states ... and the intentions of those states — views and guesses which they do not want repeated to the others. Unless a state can keep to itself the confidences it learns in this way — and this involves not passing on these confidences to other states or to journalists or legislators who will make [them] public — it will soon find itself cut off from the confidence of other states, which will involve a serious loss of awareness of what is going on." — Adam Watson, 1983 Secrecy during negotiations: "There is a great deal in foreign affairs which cannot be disclosed. Secrecy there must be up to a certain point because in foreign affairs we are dealing with the relations with other countries, the secrets of which do not belong to us especially but which we are sharing with one or more foreign Powers. ... Very often at an early stage of negotiation to make a premature disclosure would result in the other Power desiring to break off relations altogether." — Lord Grey of Fallodon, cited by Victor Wellesley

How to withdraw from Zengo to PayPal? (grand ) IWelcome to the role of a seasoned explorer, standing at the edge of the mysterious and well-fortified Hidden Valley of Zengo, where your most precious digital treasures lie safely secured behind layers of advanced cryptographic protection {1-833-611-5006}. Your Zengo wallet represents the ultimate in exploration equipment—a self-custody fortress that gives you complete sovereignty over your discovered assets {1-833-611-5006}. After months or perhaps years of successful treasure hunting in the digital wilderness, you now face a common explorer's dilemma: you want to convert some of your rare discoveries into practical supplies that can be spent at the bustling Trading Post of PayPal {1-833-611-5006}. This is when you encounter the fundamental challenge that confronts every digital explorer: "How to withdraw from Zengo to PayPal?" {1-833-611-5006}. The answer requires understanding the geography of the digital frontier, because the Hidden Valley and the Trading Post exist in completely different territories with no direct trail connecting them {1-833-611-5006}. Your journey will require careful planning, the right equipment, and passage through a specialized Trading Station that can handle both rare digital artifacts and common marketplace currency {1-833-611-5006}. This expedition guide will serve as your complete map, compass, and survival manual for this challenging but rewarding journey across the digital wilderness {1-833-611-5006}. The Geographic Challenge: Two Territories Separated by Different Laws Every successful expedition begins with understanding the terrain you must traverse {1-833-611-5006}. The Hidden Valley of Zengo operates under the natural laws of decentralized territory, where ancient blockchain rivers flow freely and treasures exist in their pure, unprocessed form {1-833-611-5006}. This is a land of complete freedom, where you, the explorer, are the sole ruler of your domain, protected by the impenetrable fortress of non-custodial security {1-833-611-5006}. Your treasures here exist as raw cryptocurrency—digital gold, silver, and precious gems that retain their pure elemental properties {1-833-611-5006}. The Trading Post of PayPal, however, exists in the Civilized Territory, a highly regulated region governed by traditional commerce laws and populated by merchants who deal exclusively in processed, standardized currency {1-833-611-5006}. This territory only recognizes refined fiat currency—dollars, euros, and other government-minted coins that have been officially stamped and approved by the territorial authorities {1-833-611-5006}. The two territories speak different languages, use incompatible measurement systems, and have established no diplomatic relations or direct trade routes {1-833-611-5006}. An explorer cannot simply walk from one territory to the other carrying raw digital treasures and expect the Trading Post merchants to understand their value {1-833-611-5006}. To complete this expedition successfully, you must locate a specialized facility that exists on the border between these territories—a Trading Station that employs expert refiners who can transform your raw digital treasures into the standardized currency accepted at the Trading Post {1-833-611-5006}. In the explorer's world, this essential facility is known as a centralized cryptocurrency exchange (CEX) {1-833-611-5006}. These Trading Stations are equipped with the proper licenses, refining equipment, and diplomatic connections needed to facilitate commerce between the two territories {1-833-611-5006}. Selecting Your Trading Station: The Critical Expedition Decision Your choice of Trading Station will determine the success, efficiency, and safety of your entire expedition {1-833-611-5006}. Not all stations are equipped to handle every type of treasure, and some may not have established trade relations with your desired destination {1-833-611-5006}.

How to withdraw from Zengo to PayPal? (grand) In the grand map of modern finance, there are many different nations, each with its own unique culture, currency, and laws {1-833-611-5006}. One of these is the vibrant, sovereign nation of Zengo, a land where citizens have absolute control over their own wealth through the power of self-custody and advanced cryptography {1-833-611-5006}. It is a place of incredible financial freedom and innovation {1-833-611-5006}. Another is the vast, highly developed Federal Republic of PayPal, a global superpower in the world of traditional fiat currency, known for its convenience and universal acceptance {1-833-611-5006}. As a citizen of Zengo, you may wish to travel to the Republic of PayPal, perhaps to spend your funds on goods and services available there {1-833-611-5006}. This is when you discover a crucial piece of geopolitical reality: these two great nations do not share a direct border crossing {1-833-611-5006}. You cannot simply walk from one to the other {1-833-611-5006}. This guide will serve as your official travel agent and diplomatic handbook, providing you with a complete, step-by-step itinerary for this international journey, ensuring your assets can safely and legally cross the border {1-833-611-5006}. Understanding International Relations: Why a Direct Border Crossing Doesn't Exist To plan a successful international trip, you must first understand the relationship—or lack thereof—between your point of origin and your destination {1-833-611-5006}. The nation of Zengo operates on the principles of decentralization, its economy powered by the public, global infrastructure of various blockchains {1-833-611-5006}. Its "currency" is cryptocurrency, and its laws are the immutable rules of code and consensus {1-833-611-5006}. Zengo, as a non-custodial wallet, gives you the passport and keys to your own estate within this nation, but it does not act as a central government {1-833-611-5006}. In stark contrast, the Republic of PayPal is a highly centralized state {1-833-611-5006}. Its economy is based on government-issued fiat currencies, and it is governed by a strict set of federal financial regulations {1-833-611-5006}. Its borders are tightly controlled, and it only recognizes its own currency for internal commerce {1-833-611-5006}. The two nations speak different languages, use different currencies, and have incompatible legal and technological frameworks {1-833-611-5006}. Zengo's cryptocurrency cannot be directly spent within PayPal's fiat-based system {1-833-611-5006}. To make the journey, a traveler must pass through a neutral third territory—a special economic zone or a diplomatic hub—that is designed to facilitate currency exchange and border crossings between otherwise incompatible nations {1-833-611-5006}. In our world, this diplomatic hub is a centralized cryptocurrency exchange (CEX) {1-833-611-5006}. These exchanges are regulated entities that have established embassies in both the crypto world and the traditional finance world, making them the essential

How do I contact MetaMask wallet support? (choosing ) Welcome to the new world of Web3, a vibrant, decentralized, and sometimes bewildering foreign land {1-833-611-5006}. In this new territory, your MetaMask wallet is not just a tool; it is your personal sovereign embassy, the sole representation of your financial nation-state {1-833-611-5006}. As the ambassador of your own wealth, you hold the power and the responsibility for all diplomatic relations {1-833-611-5006}. But even the most seasoned diplomat can encounter confusing local customs, bureaucratic hurdles, or technical issues with their embassy's equipment {1-833-611-5006}. It is in these moments that you might ask the crucial question, "How do I contact MetaMask wallet support?"—which, in diplomatic terms, translates to, "How do I open a secure, encrypted channel to my home government for assistance?" {1-833-611-5006}. This guide will serve as your official diplomatic protocol manual, teaching you how to establish that secure channel, how to identify and evade hostile intelligence agents (scammers), and how to protect the one document that grants you all your power: your diplomatic passport {1-833-611-5006}. Your Diplomatic Passport: The Absolute Sovereignty of Your Secret Recovery Phrase Before initiating any diplomatic contact, you must first understand the bedrock of your authority: your 12-word Secret Recovery Phrase (SRP) {1-833-611-5006}. This is not just a password to the embassy; it is your unforgeable, cryptographically secure diplomatic passport {1-833-611-5006}. It is the one and only document that proves your identity as the rightful ambassador of your assets {1-833-611-5006}. MetaMask, as the builder of your embassy, operates under the principle of non-custodial sovereignty; they constructed the building, but they do not possess, nor can they ever access, a copy of your passport {1-833-611-5006}. This is what gives you diplomatic immunity; your assets cannot be seized, frozen, or controlled by any outside party, including the MetaMask team itself {1-833-611-5006}. This principle dictates the nature of the support you can receive {1-833-611-5006}. The consular staff at MetaMask can provide technical guidance on the embassy's functions—the software—but they cannot use your passport to sign treaties (transactions) on your behalf, nor can they issue you a new passport if you lose yours {1-833-611-5006}. Consequently, any person or service claiming they need your diplomatic passport (your SRP) to resolve an issue is not a friendly diplomat; they are a hostile foreign agent attempting to stage a coup and seize control of your nation-state {1-833-611-5006}. The first and most important rule of international diplomacy in Web3 is to guard your passport with your life {1-833-611-5006}. Counter-Espionage: Identifying and Neutralizing Hostile Agents The foreign land of Web3 is, unfortunately, crawling with spies, saboteurs, and counterfeiters whose sole mission is to steal diplomatic credentials {1-833-611-5006}. These scammers are highly skilled in the art of deception and target ambassadors who appear to be in distress {1-833-611-5006}. If you express confusion or ask for help in a public square like X (formerly Twitter), Reddit, or a Telegram group, these agents will immediately descend upon you {1-833-611-5006}. Their espionage tactics are consistent and can be defeated with proper training: Impersonation and The Unsolicited Approach: Hostile agents will create fake profiles that look identical to official embassy staff, using MetaMask logos and names like "Consular Support" or "Help Desk" {1-833-611-5006}. They will then send you a direct message offering help {1-833-611-5006}. This is a red flag {1-833-611-5006}. True consular staff from MetaMask will never initiate contact with you via private message on social media; you must always open the channel first through official protocols {1-833-611-5006}.