The Washington Independent - Latest Comments in Ties That Bind

Re: Ties That Bind

seoerjiang — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 08:47:30 -0000

New Era Caps is well known for his New Era Hats

Re: Ties That Bind

coach outlet — Tue, 31 May 2011 21:48:44 -0000

If we are going to cozy up to a Mujahadeen warlord to oust the Soviets
or a Philippine senator to repress communists, we ought not to choose
Osama bin Laden or Ferdinand Marcos.

Re: Ties That Bind

Soccer Jerseys — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 08:08:06 -0000

Thanks in advance for your help

Re: Ties That Bind

lacoste polo shirts — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 22:29:22 -0000

the most important relationship in the history of U.S. foreign relations was that between President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill

Re: Ties That Bind

ralph lauren polo outlet — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 08:33:46 -0000

If we are going to cozy up to a Mujahadeen warlord to oust the Soviets or a Philippine senator to repress communists, we ought not to choose Osama bin Laden or Ferdinand Marcos.

Re: Ties That Bind

north face fleece — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 02:59:41 -0000

Diplomatic relationships are no more personal than any others. Indeed, for good diplomats, they are likely less personal than most. Diplomacy (in all its forms) is ultimately part of the pursuit of national interests. Personal relationships can be important in that pursuit insofar as they foster communication -- Churchill's eagerness to write Roosevelt is evidence that he (Churchill) recognized the possibility of influence, or at least of making his voice heard -- but they do not, and cannot change interests. At best, they offer windows into others' policies and opportunities to make voices heard that might otherwise go unheard. Personal matter only insofar as they allow communication between states and statesmen (this is not to be overlooked: it the very essence of diplomacy ...and, sadly, conveniently ignored by the Bush administration for so long). And, it should be said, not just between statesmen in power (as the Churchill experience suggests). Diplomats and politicians who forget this do so at their own peril.

Re: Ties That Bind

louis vuitton outlet — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 00:22:24 -0000

President George W. Bush, like so many before him, succumbed to the illusion that a little personal diplomacy — oiled with a few billion in trade and aid — would secure a dependable ally in a strategic area of the world."

Re: Ties That Bind

moncler jackets — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 22:24:26 -0000

Diplomacy will always be personal, but the trick is not to let it get personal

Re: Ties That Bind

gucci web — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:22:03 -0000

The loans wouldn’t reset to higher payments until their third year or so. But during that time, the loan balance still grew, meaning borrowers would face monthly payments as much as $1,000 higher when the loans reset.

Re: Ties That Bind

discount Louis vuitton — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:56:49 -0000

Why? Because when the proverbial excrement hits the fan, you need someone to whom you can say, “Now, Boris.”

Re: Ties That Bind

Sarah Wallet — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:32:40 -0000

Diplomacy will always be personal, but the trick is not to let it get personal

Re: Ties That Bind

DanV — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:48:24 -0000

VERY GOOD ARTICLE! (I've bookmarked it to read again!).

And you state the very crux of the article first:

"President George W. Bush, like so many before him, succumbed to the illusion that a little personal diplomacy — oiled with a few billion in trade and aid — would secure a dependable ally in a strategic area of the world."

1. Bush thinks in terms of "cowboy" diplomacy which, actually, is no diplomacy at all. It's a "shoot first" philosophy. And in today's globalization, it stinks.
2. Bush's world is still steeped in back-slapping "good 'ole boys". That is his fantasy, his break from reality.
3. Bush succumbs to the theory that "liberty" "freedom" "democracy" are the only words you need when talking to people in troubled countries. He has no idea that those words have different meanings for different people.

I've long called Bush history's "Greatest Diplomatic Dimwit." People laugh when I say it, probably because they think there's more than a grain of truth in that title. But it's sad. His entire administration has become a "back hole" for diplomacy and it will take more than "a little personal diplomacy" for us to grapple up to where we were eight years ago.

Re: Ties That Bind

Arthur — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:25:20 -0000

"Diplomacy will always be personal, but the trick is not to let it get personal."

Nonsense. Diplomatic relationships are no more personal than any others. Indeed, for good diplomats, they are likely less personal than most. Diplomacy (in all its forms) is ultimately part of the pursuit of national interests. Personal relationships can be important in that pursuit insofar as they foster communication -- Churchill's eagerness to write Roosevelt is evidence that he (Churchill) recognized the possibility of influence, or at least of making his voice heard -- but they do not, and cannot change interests. At best, they offer windows into others' policies and opportunities to make voices heard that might otherwise go unheard. Personal matter only insofar as they allow communication between states and statesmen (this is not to be overlooked: it the very essence of diplomacy ...and, sadly, conveniently ignored by the Bush administration for so long). And, it should be said, not just between statesmen in power (as the Churchill experience suggests). Diplomats and politicians who forget this do so at their own peril.