Straightforward is a somewhat loose, vague term. Certainly, diplomatic language should be more precise.
Applied science distinguishes between precision and accuracy. I refer those interested in exact meanings to academic textbooks. In the language of politics accuracy is substituted by truthfulness, and precision by quantitative description.
It would be too much to demand from diplomats to be truthful. That would question the neeed of their existence. We may make their life harder, however, by demanding more numerical data in their presentations.
I became attracted to Russian mass media just because of detailed reporting. The reports often provide relevant statistics quoting their sources. A reader may try to verify them indpendently, from other sources. Even the mass information is aimed at well-educated addressees. The personal comments of reporters are avoided.
Unfortunately, in this regard the situation in Poland is likely to be the worst in Europe. Much worse than in the USA. Polish journalists and editors, unlike their US collegues, aren't inhibited in their censorship activities by any tradition or by legal provisions such as The First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Moreover, declining level of education made Polish society more susceptible to primitive propaganda then ever before. Television broadcasts in which the watching public is induced to laughing (or to other behavior) by following the invited individuals (or by prerecorded sounds) are getting more and more popular. So are comics.
Just one example. Wynik wyborów na Bia?orusi nie pozwala na ich uznanie przez Zachód http://www.wprost.pl/ar/139914/Wynik-wyborow-na-Bialorusi-nie-pozwala-na-ich-uznanie-przez-Zachod/?K=1 "Sunday's parliamentary elections in Belarus shouldn't be recognized by West because none of the opposition candidates have won a place in parliament" - assessed Tomasz Pisula, Chairman of Freedom and Democracy Foundation (never heard of it and of him before.).
My innocent comment that it was the adherence to the prescribed procedures to be assessed by European Union (Western)observers, and not the results, hasn't been published yet.
I respect Russia's diplomatic position. Given the position America and NATO places them in, Russia could not be more correct than today. I would not give back any Georgian territory until it is assured Georgia will not be joining NATO; and, only after M. Sakashvilli is tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
I believe that Russia it is in its right track. Russia can not divert for what it is important for it.
For the first time I see the american's impotent. The owr5ld does not need confrontation, but that does not mean that it has to accept the hipocritocal American policies.
As the UK Times explained, India is "the only regional power committed to a new democratic Afghanistan. It was no accident that India shouldered part of the cost of the parliamentary and presidential elections. Nor should one ignore the symbolic value of the fact that India is building the new Palace of Democracy to house the Afghan parliament." Further, "The only power likely to offer Afghanistan long-term support is India. Helping Afghanistan would weaken radical Islamism and prevent Pakistan acquiring a hinterland through Afghanistan in Muslim Central Asia."[48]
Historically, the Taliban were financed and armed by the Pakistani ISI, while India had backed the Northern Alliance during the 1990s. After the 2001 invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance was put back into power as the Taliban were deposed.[49] This would explain why the ISI and Pakistan has again become the main supporter of the Taliban.[50] However, in most discussion on Pakistan funding the revival of the Taliban, what is left ignored is the ISI’s continued connections to British and American intelligence. For example, with the London 7/7 bombings, the mastermind was an MI6 asset and he had, along with several of the suspected bombers, connections to the Pakistani ISI.[51]
Interestingly, keeping in mind the ISI’s help in the resurgence of the Taliban, in February of 2008, it was reported that, "Britain planned to build a Taliban training camp for 2,000 fighters in southern Afghanistan, as part of a top-secret deal to make them swap sides." Further, "Afghan government officials insist it was bankrolled by the British. UK diplomats, the UN, Western officials and senior Afghan officials have all confirmed the outline of the plan, which they agree is entirely British-led, but all refused to talk about it on the record."[52]
I'm sorry. May it's wrong topic for my message but I've just come across video on www.russia.ru - I'm shocked: Georgians shot civilians. http://www.russia.ru/brdmscorpion/
RUSSIA is NOT ethnically/racially homogenous, neither is China, China has about 7 differnt ethnic groups, the most famous of which are tha HAN Chineese, the Tibetians, the Mongols (Not all of them live in mingolia) the Ughurs, etc. They also dont always get along ESPECIALLY if youve seen Tibet on the news lately. Lets see - Uzbeks, Chehens, Russians, Jews all groups in the Russian federation, meanwhile Ethnically PURE countries like German, & Japan took DECADES to recover from being defeated by The Soviets, Americans & the British Empire which even included India at the time. If history has taught us ANYTHING its that diversity WORKS & its IMPOSSIBLE to grow an empire if you only include your own ethnic group. Even the old Nazi Germany, possibly the xenophobic & racial purity obsessed country the world has ever known recognized the need to include some diversity by integrating the French collaborators, & making the Japaneese "Honorary Aryans" & full partners in the failed empire that was supposed to rule the world. Their failure is the best example that I can think of against any attempt at "Racially Homogenious " nations. Sadly both the current American Capitalist, & old Soviet communist economies were both managed by incompetents and had flawed economic systems the economies of both fell apart. Economic crashes can happen anywhere under many systems. The competence of the people in charge, not the race is the biggest factor. Especially as the MOST racially homogeneous nations on earth these days are in AFRICA (Nigeria & Zimbabwe come to mind) and they are at the BOTTOM of the economic scale when compared against LESS homogeneous nations like France or the US.
America’s economic problems can be best understood in a social context. America is racially divided and socially disturbed. Many discontent Americans lack ingenuity, productivity and desire to work hard. Tax reductions have failed to motivate them. Instead to alleviate their stress Americans spend more money on themselves. Meanwhile hard working racially homogenous countries like China move ahead …
Sometimes a single word of plain language is all thats needed. My favourite example this is a brief, & concise plain language negotiation document was used in the battle of the Bulge. When General Anthony McAuliffe, acting commander of the 101st Airborne, was told of a German invitation to surrender, McAuliffe wrote on a paper delivered to the Germans: “NUTS!”. It needed to be explained to the German commander, but it conveyed all the information that was needed.
Russia could easily have simply conquered and annexed Georgia. That it did not do so demonstrates that Russia's leadership genuinely wants to have good relations with the West. But the reaction of the Western "leaders" was one of hysteria, Cold War rhetoric and undiluted Russophobia. This is the thanks Russia got for demonstrating its remarkable restraint.
By the way it's no coincidence that Nicaragua was the first country to recognise South Ossetia. The people of Nicaragua know better than most the hypocrisy of America when it speaks of its desire to uphold international law and "territorial integrity". When Nicaragua tried to take the US to the International Court (which Georgia now threatens Russia with) in the 1980s, the American side showed its real attitude towards "international law" by not even turning up for the proceedings. The then US ambassador to the UN Jean Kirkpatrick dismissed the ICJ as a "semi-legal, semi-juridical, semi-political body, which nations sometimes accept and sometimes don't." One law for America; another for the rest of the world.
This topic inspired by the amusing tale of Lavrov and Milliband I daresay.
I think it ought to be pointed out that there is a difference between "diplomatic language" as prepared and pronounced in public, and ordinary language, as spoken off the record between grown-ups. Why we should expect foreign ministers to speak to each other in private in the language of the diplomat is beyond me: plainly frequently they do not.
If Lavrov lost it for a few seconds it proves only that he is human, and I'm glad about that as I was beginning to wonder. Furthermore, I'm also glad to see that he put the kibosh on his own side's ridiculous attempts to cover it up by coming clean.
Despite the "shocked" reaction of the hangers-on, I suspect the people least bothered about it are Milliband and Lavrov themselves.
On the subject of whether diplomatic language should be clearer, well it probably wouldn't hurt but 9 times out of ten I think we all know what the real meaning is anyway.
I think Russia should have went ahead and took over the capital Tbilisi. I cant imagine how all the rheteoric and BS coming from Tbilisi cant be infuriating to the leaders of Russia. The only reason I can think of for the capital not being taken is it would have caused massive casualties and damage to Tbilisi. However it seems like NATO and the EU is treating the issue like Russia did destroy the capital anyway so maybe Russia should have went ahead and done it.
Britain and the US are obviously behind all of this. Britain is affraid of Russia rising again and the US wants it all- all the oil, the middle east, central asia etc more and more - all of it. China should be concerned with this also because if the US takes control of central Asia there will be no problem controlling and blackmailing China either. I think China should be aware of this given its history of being a western pseudo-colony for hundreds of years. China is being quiet on purpose im sure.
NATO is a US tool to expand its power and Britain dominates the EU and thus helps the US keep western Europe against Russia even though the EU and Russia could both spur massive mutual prosperity if they really work together and the US and UK are very affraid of this possibility.
As far as diplomatic language goes - it should be straight forward as possible. Usually whichever side is using nonsense and ambiguous language it is hiding its real intentions and regards. It is obvious the US and Britain hold Russia in contempt and are trying everything they can to keep Russia weak.
The real trump card here will be the real stance of China. If China is pulled into the US-british game it would be game over for Russia I think. If China stays with Russia I think Russia can overcome its troubles eventually.
Once again Russia is the battlefield of the world and the Russian people are stuck in it.
Yes, I think that in many circumstances diplomatic language should be more straightforward so that there should be no misunderstandings or misinterpretations on either side of the argument. Of course, this can be done in an intelligent and polite way without bullying and threatening. It's something I think American politicians and diplomats need more practice in.
Yes, BUT if it takes more severe methods to try and get a message across to stubborn idiots, like Miliband, you have to. (A man has to do what a man has to do)
If you adopt a more simplistic approach to diplomatic language, then people may take points of view, facts and comments out of context. Diplomatic communication in relation to complex subjects should be thorough, although not unduly magnified.
The British tabloids and western media are notorious for maliciously misrepresenting words and phrases which have damaged reputations, destroyed relationships and ruined lives. I would opt for a more attractive softly-softly approach, before western and Middle Eastern journalists are given a second chance to report disparagingly about events and current affairs in the future.
1. Diplomacy is putting an issue in a positive, constructive and respectfully assertive way. 2.Diplomacy is trying to solve a problem in a peaceful way. 3. Most diplomats are looking out for their own country's best interest, while trying to look like they care about the other country's concerns. 4. When all else fails, threaten to use the economic or military options!
18 October, 2008, 11:15
I
29 September, 2008, 14:49
Straightforward is a somewhat loose, vague term. Certainly, diplomatic language should be more precise.
Applied science distinguishes between precision and accuracy. I refer those interested in exact meanings to academic textbooks. In the language of politics accuracy is substituted by truthfulness, and precision by quantitative description.
It would be too much to demand from diplomats to be truthful. That would question the neeed of their existence. We may make their life harder, however, by demanding more numerical data in their presentations.
I became attracted to Russian mass media just because of detailed reporting. The reports often provide relevant statistics quoting their sources. A reader may try to verify them indpendently, from other sources. Even the mass information is aimed at well-educated addressees. The personal comments of reporters are avoided.
Unfortunately, in this regard the situation in Poland is likely to be the worst in Europe. Much worse than in the USA. Polish journalists and editors, unlike their US collegues, aren't inhibited in their censorship activities by any tradition or by legal provisions such as The First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Moreover, declining level of education made Polish society more susceptible to primitive propaganda then ever before. Television broadcasts in which the watching public is induced to laughing (or to other behavior) by following the invited individuals (or by prerecorded sounds) are getting more and more popular. So are comics.
Just one example.
Wynik wyborów na Bia?orusi nie pozwala na ich uznanie przez Zachód http://www.wprost.pl/ar/139914/Wynik-wyborow-na-Bialorusi-nie-pozwala-na-ich-uznanie-przez-Zachod/?K=1
"Sunday's parliamentary elections in Belarus shouldn't be recognized by West because none of the opposition candidates have won a place in parliament" - assessed Tomasz Pisula, Chairman of Freedom and Democracy Foundation (never heard of it and of him before.).
My innocent comment that it was the adherence to the prescribed procedures to be assessed by European Union (Western)observers, and not the results, hasn't been published yet.
:)))
19 September, 2008, 05:17
I respect Russia's diplomatic position. Given the position America and NATO places them in, Russia could not be more correct than today. I would not give back any Georgian territory until it is assured Georgia will not be joining NATO; and, only after M. Sakashvilli is tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
18 September, 2008, 22:17
I believe that Russia it is in its right track.
Russia can not divert for what it is important for it.
For the first time I see the american's impotent. The owr5ld does not need confrontation, but that does not mean that it has to accept the hipocritocal American policies.
18 September, 2008, 15:57
hypocrisy means underjudgement, or willful ignorance, plain to see in the eyes of the english mediaman. on today's 'spotlight'
18 September, 2008, 14:15
As the UK Times explained, India is "the only regional power committed to a new democratic Afghanistan. It was no accident that India shouldered part of the cost of the parliamentary and presidential elections. Nor should one ignore the symbolic value of the fact that India is building the new Palace of Democracy to house the Afghan parliament." Further, "The only power likely to offer Afghanistan long-term support is India. Helping Afghanistan would weaken radical Islamism and prevent Pakistan acquiring a hinterland through Afghanistan in Muslim Central Asia."[48]
Historically, the Taliban were financed and armed by the Pakistani ISI, while India had backed the Northern Alliance during the 1990s. After the 2001 invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance was put back into power as the Taliban were deposed.[49] This would explain why the ISI and Pakistan has again become the main supporter of the Taliban.[50] However, in most discussion on Pakistan funding the revival of the Taliban, what is left ignored is the ISI’s continued connections to British and American intelligence. For example, with the London 7/7 bombings, the mastermind was an MI6 asset and he had, along with several of the suspected bombers, connections to the Pakistani ISI.[51]
Interestingly, keeping in mind the ISI’s help in the resurgence of the Taliban, in February of 2008, it was reported that, "Britain planned to build a Taliban training camp for 2,000 fighters in southern Afghanistan, as part of a top-secret deal to make them swap sides." Further, "Afghan government officials insist it was bankrolled by the British. UK diplomats, the UN, Western officials and senior Afghan officials have all confirmed the outline of the plan, which they agree is entirely British-led, but all refused to talk about it on the record."[52]
18 September, 2008, 14:08
look to the essential banking system[there are others]
18 September, 2008, 10:32
I'm sorry. May it's wrong topic for my message but I've just come across video on www.russia.ru - I'm shocked: Georgians shot civilians. http://www.russia.ru/brdmscorpion/
18 September, 2008, 04:48
RUSSIA is NOT ethnically/racially homogenous, neither is China, China has about 7 differnt ethnic groups, the most famous of which are tha HAN Chineese, the Tibetians, the Mongols (Not all of them live in mingolia) the Ughurs, etc. They also dont always get along ESPECIALLY if youve seen Tibet on the news lately. Lets see - Uzbeks, Chehens, Russians, Jews all groups in the Russian federation, meanwhile Ethnically PURE countries like German, & Japan took DECADES to recover from being defeated by The Soviets, Americans & the British Empire which even included India at the time. If history has taught us ANYTHING its that diversity WORKS & its IMPOSSIBLE to grow an empire if you only include your own ethnic group. Even the old Nazi Germany, possibly the xenophobic & racial purity obsessed country the world has ever known recognized the need to include some diversity by integrating the French collaborators, & making the Japaneese "Honorary Aryans" & full partners in the failed empire that was supposed to rule the world. Their failure is the best example that I can think of against any attempt at "Racially Homogenious " nations.
Sadly both the current American Capitalist, & old Soviet communist economies were both managed by incompetents and had flawed economic systems the economies of both fell apart.
Economic crashes can happen anywhere under many systems. The competence of the people in charge, not the race is the biggest factor. Especially as the MOST racially homogeneous nations on earth these days are in AFRICA (Nigeria & Zimbabwe come to mind) and they are at the BOTTOM of the economic scale when compared against LESS homogeneous nations like France or the US.
18 September, 2008, 03:47
America’s economic problems can be best understood in a social context. America is racially divided and socially disturbed. Many discontent Americans lack ingenuity, productivity and desire to work hard. Tax reductions have failed to motivate them. Instead to alleviate their stress Americans spend more money on themselves. Meanwhile hard working racially homogenous countries like China move ahead …
17 September, 2008, 18:27
Sometimes a single word of plain language
is all thats needed. My favourite example this is a brief, & concise plain language negotiation document was used in the battle of the Bulge.
When General Anthony McAuliffe, acting commander of the 101st Airborne, was told of a German invitation to surrender,
McAuliffe wrote on a paper delivered to the Germans: “NUTS!”. It needed to be explained to the German commander, but it conveyed all the information that was needed.
17 September, 2008, 15:17
Russia could easily have simply conquered and annexed Georgia. That it did not do so demonstrates that Russia's leadership genuinely wants to have good relations with the West. But the reaction of the Western "leaders" was one of hysteria, Cold War rhetoric and undiluted Russophobia. This is the thanks Russia got for demonstrating its remarkable restraint.
By the way it's no coincidence that Nicaragua was the first country to recognise South Ossetia. The people of Nicaragua know better than most the hypocrisy of America when it speaks of its desire to uphold international law and "territorial integrity". When Nicaragua tried to take the US to the International Court (which Georgia now threatens Russia with) in the 1980s, the American side showed its real attitude towards "international law" by not even turning up for the proceedings. The then US ambassador to the UN Jean Kirkpatrick dismissed the ICJ as a "semi-legal, semi-juridical, semi-political body, which nations sometimes accept and sometimes don't." One law for America; another for the rest of the world.
17 September, 2008, 08:54
This topic inspired by the amusing tale of Lavrov and Milliband I daresay.
I think it ought to be pointed out that there is a difference between "diplomatic language" as prepared and pronounced in public, and ordinary language, as spoken off the record between grown-ups. Why we should expect foreign ministers to speak to each other in private in the language of the diplomat is beyond me: plainly frequently they do not.
If Lavrov lost it for a few seconds it proves only that he is human, and I'm glad about that as I was beginning to wonder. Furthermore, I'm also glad to see that he put the kibosh on his own side's ridiculous attempts to cover it up by coming clean.
Despite the "shocked" reaction of the hangers-on, I suspect the people least bothered about it are Milliband and Lavrov themselves.
On the subject of whether diplomatic language should be clearer, well it probably wouldn't hurt but 9 times out of ten I think we all know what the real meaning is anyway.
17 September, 2008, 05:37
Sir Walter Scott said it best in a poem, Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive .
17 September, 2008, 01:23
I think Russia should have went ahead and took over the capital Tbilisi. I cant imagine how all the rheteoric and BS coming from Tbilisi cant be infuriating to the leaders of Russia. The only reason I can think of for the capital not being taken is it would have caused massive casualties and damage to Tbilisi. However it seems like NATO and the EU is treating the issue like Russia did destroy the capital anyway so maybe Russia should have went ahead and done it.
Britain and the US are obviously behind all of this. Britain is affraid of Russia rising again and the US wants it all- all the oil, the middle east, central asia etc more and more - all of it. China should be concerned with this also because if the US takes control of central Asia there will be no problem controlling and blackmailing China either. I think China should be aware of this given its history of being a western pseudo-colony for hundreds of years. China is being quiet on purpose im sure.
NATO is a US tool to expand its power and Britain dominates the EU and thus helps the US keep western Europe against Russia even though the EU and Russia could both spur massive mutual prosperity if they really work together and the US and UK are very affraid of this possibility.
As far as diplomatic language goes - it should be straight forward as possible. Usually whichever side is using nonsense and ambiguous language it is hiding its real intentions and regards. It is obvious the US and Britain hold Russia in contempt and are trying everything they can to keep Russia weak.
The real trump card here will be the real stance of China. If China is pulled into the US-british game it would be game over for Russia I think. If China stays with Russia I think Russia can overcome its troubles eventually.
Once again Russia is the battlefield of the world and the Russian people are stuck in it.
16 September, 2008, 23:03
Yes, I think that in many circumstances diplomatic language should be more straightforward so that there should be no misunderstandings or misinterpretations on either side of the argument. Of course, this can be done in an intelligent and polite way without bullying and threatening. It's something I think American politicians and diplomats need more practice in.
16 September, 2008, 20:04
Three points:
1. There are three options to settle the world's problems; DIPLOMATIC, MILITARY AND ECONOMIC.
2. Solutions should be positive, honest,constructive and respectfully assertive.
3. Words should be backed up by actions, if needed!
16 September, 2008, 10:06
Yes, BUT if it takes more severe methods to try and get a message across to stubborn idiots, like Miliband, you have to. (A man has to do what a man has to do)
16 September, 2008, 03:35
If you adopt a more simplistic approach to diplomatic language, then people may take points of view, facts and comments out of context. Diplomatic communication in relation to complex subjects should be thorough, although not unduly magnified.
The British tabloids and western media are notorious for maliciously misrepresenting words and phrases which have damaged reputations, destroyed relationships and ruined lives. I would opt for a more attractive softly-softly approach, before western and Middle Eastern journalists are given a second chance to report disparagingly about events and current affairs in the future.
15 September, 2008, 22:52
A few points on diplomacy:
1. Diplomacy is putting an issue in a positive, constructive and respectfully assertive way.
2.Diplomacy is trying to solve a problem in a peaceful way.
3. Most diplomats are looking out for their own country's best interest, while trying to look like they care about the other country's concerns.
4. When all else fails, threaten to use the economic or military options!
Post comment