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