The spaciousness of a new generation of diplomats

In a dull interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano, he expressed shock in his new remarks, who had been hearing the voices of the appointee, economist and political scientist Jeffrey Sachs, the appointee of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, asking a basic question without a simple response:

“Why our policymakers can’t think of it from the other hand is some astonishing incapacity, some basic dishonesty or the fundamental incapacity of these people, putting us all in danger. The first point of diplomacy is at least to confirm our position. We rejected this position. We are directly threatened by the nuclear superpower.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lebyqdwock

Today’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Incapacity:

The basic professional skills required by today’s politicians enable them to appear powerful and decisive, which would be seriously compromised if attracted by the questionable qualities and attitudes called curiosity, empirical wisdom, historical memory, and compassion.

Context Comments

From two perspectives, and the subsequent events without compassion, now seem to be the highest virtues of the Western diplomacy. The most reliable way to show the required inability is to avoid any situation where the conversation can lead to an appreciation of complexity.

Since the beginning of organizing human society, local tribes quarrel on territory or other possible motives of jealousy, diplomacy provides the possibility of seeking to understand the demands, desires or ambitions of the other party. The knowledge gained through dialogue will help confirm incompatibility of contrast positions or define possible paths of compromise.

There is no guarantee of diplomacy. It cannot prevent war from happening. However, it can provide an idea for the appearance of the solution, whether it is a victory on one side or the other, or terms of a settlement that both parties can accept. In the days before industry, few political parties believed it had technical and pure material power to impose the principle of “infinity” or “Ironclad” that was excluded at least in the preliminary discussion. But we have entered the era of Tyck ideas. Previously, a soldier or vehicle might actually be Iron Keirard. Now, what has won the title is the principles and beliefs about the world.

Some people will say nothing has changed. Throughout history, diplomacy will begin with the “interest” of a person’s group or country. If these interests are not respected, there will be consequences. So what has changed? Perhaps the modern belief is that “time is money,” “delay is expensive” and “talk is cheap,” it convinced a generation of politicians to adhere to new principles of efficiency. By failing to plan immediately, people have the potential to lose their determination.

One thing is all the situations of a budding conflict. There will always be consequences, whether with or without a negotiation decision. The boring business of discussing and eliminating details happens to be a possible negative consequence of diplomacy, and certainly more exciting than war. Although it may be painful to think that the “great principle” that drives our behavior and gives us a sense of identity has not been fully realized after successful negotiations, most people still believe that living for regret is preferable to extinction of each other.

The real difference today is the factor mentioned above: sense of identity. Until recently, humanity accepted the principle that the surface of the earth must be divided into nation-states. This creates a phenomenon of population and nation-state recognition. As a characteristic of international relations, this seems to be a question of territorial sovereignty. In the minds of many, it has evolved into the tec principle. Until a few days ago, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had used it as a reason to refuse to consider ceding an inch of terrain. That Tieclad’s position miraculously lost its stretching power when Trump realized that Trump’s concept of territorial sovereignty might be looser than his own.

But the territory of a nation-state is not the only factor in identity. In the case of the United States, it is a belief in American exceptionalism, a belief in the country having a mission to appear anywhere in the world. This particular sense of identity requires its citizens to believe that the imposition of order is not a pure act of self-interest, but corresponds to the “obvious fate” of the state. This sense of divine call was confirmed in 1954 when President Dwight D. D. Eisenhower, in his commitment to all school children, had to recite it.

Then there are more extreme examples of Israel. Among many, many seem to be that when the United States became a prominent winner of World War II, the economy and technology dwarfed every other country’s economy and technology, and it should consider itself so extraordinary that it believes it is responsible for the task of regulating all problems in the world. Doctors do not negotiate with the disease, but apply treatment. Who else can explain the fact that in December 2021, the United States could simply refuse to discuss the issue of “indivisible security” with Russia, a concept that raised a key factor during the Cold War?

Israel may rule its region in many ways (military, economic and technologically) – but unlike the United States, it cannot claim to have a mission to solve other people’s problems. Instead, it finds its rejection of words, plus its powerlessness, because it reads its version of the Bible: the laws, principles, and ambitions listed in the Pentateuch. The only mystery about the current situation in the Middle East is actually the identity of the U.S. government and many of them, essentially the political stance expressed by unknown scribes 3,000 years ago. Americans’ tendency to identify with it actually violates understanding.

History

In the interview quoted above, Sax reminds us of the famous 1963 offer from U.S. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy:

“The most important thing is that while defending one’s own important interests, nuclear forces must avoid confrontations against opponents that have led to a humiliating retreat or nuclear war. To adopt this in the nuclear age, it will only prove that our policy is insolvent, or that of collective deaths throughout the world.”

Kennedy acknowledged that international relations began with the idea of ​​“defending…important interests.” But he seems to suggest a condition that today’s benign “incapacitated” political strategists no longer recognize: avoiding confrontation is itself a common “important interest” of all parties.

Sachs noted that over the past three years, all the remarks have pointed to what Kennedy thinks are unimaginable: choosing between humiliation – for anyone who believes in their abilities, it is certainly unacceptable, and that is unacceptable. If a country that believes in itself as a great one – or a country like Ukraine who is considered a great country backed by a prominent country – sees it as an option, then danger is the real danger that nuclear war will inevitably become inevitable at some point.

Is it wrong for Sachs to call it the politician in question? Or should we consider it as a temporary preference? There is no doubt that the United States and Israel are temporarily, but the United Kingdom also exhibits behavior consistent with Saxophone observations. We just need to remind ourselves that it was then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson who stepped in late March 2022 to convince Zelenskyy that there was nothing to negotiate, opening up a two-and-a-half-year extended, unparalleled conflict, which are thousands of corpses from Ukraine and Russia, absolutely text and “IncapaCicatianand”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEV9ZAHCA7Q

Sachs summed up his appreciation for politicians through this statement, making Judge Napolitano laugh:

“They are individual and collective strategic ignorance. I mean, people can only want to know what they are thinking, right? When you look at Western leaders, you just shake your head and say, ‘Did these people ever adopt strategy 101?’ And you say to yourself, “If they do adopt strategy 101, it must be the situation where they fail – because of the way they deal with these different foreign policy issues, which is really amazing in the way they behave.” ”

Now, the world is waiting to see how capable Trump’s new administration will play.

* (In the time of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of ironic definitions, ironic definitions of common terms, illuminating their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published it as a book and used it as a book, and he mastered his depliment in 1911, and in the continuous effort, his title was ongoing, his title was shame, and his title was ongoing effort. Fair Observer Devil Dictionary)

((Lee Thompson-Kolar Edited this. )

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of fair observers.