Showing posts with label Diplomacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Diplomacy. Show all posts

Friday, July 24, 2026

Photo of the Day: Two Kinds of Toxic Environment

I took the image accompanying this post a week ago while I was still on vacation at the Chautauqua Institution, a lovely enclosed upstate New York community with numerous Victorian cottages that have helped make this picturesque place a National Historic Landmark.

As much as its cultural and intellectual atmosphere, habitual visitors glory in its physical environment. For the 30-odd years that I have come up here, I have made it a point, as long as the rain is holding off, to take daily brisk walks by Chautauqua Lake.

Until the last three days of this vacation, that is.

In the background, a particle-laden, milky uniformity had replaced sunlight streaks of the morning horizon. Never mind a wide view of what lay upon the waters: as you can observe in this image, nothing could be seen beyond the boats lined up at the marina.

Probably at no time, I suspect, since the height of COVID-19 up here, masks were being distributed and gratefully worn by many visitors on the grounds.

The first day of the wildfire, the designation was “Dangerous for Certain Groups”; the following day, the label became simply “Dangerous”: and by the third, the bad air quality had turned sufficiently dreadful to earn the term “Hazardous.”

This photo renders in literal terms a toxic physical environment. But it symbolizes what has increasingly become a toxic diplomatic one, as well.

At this moment, Donald Trump has chosen to do what he does best: make a bad situation worse. He’s taking literally the satirical South Park song “Blame Canada,” but without an iota of logic. Our nation up north is responsible for not maintaining its forests properly, he claims.

That’s pretty rich, coming from a President who has already laid off thousands of U.S. Forest Service workers and whose 2027 budget includes cuts of more than 70% to the agency. But his rationale would be hideous in any case because he refuses to accept the reality of human-caused climate change.

Super-hot temperatures in the areas around the wildfires, together with dry vegetation, resulted in “functioned like a chimney, a super long chimney shooting smoke into the upper atmosphere and then the jet stream” and then found its way to the US, according to Ava Berger’s NPR report last week.

This is a situation that calls for international cooperation to address causes, not finger-pointing—unless you’re Trump. Then he tells citizens of a country that he has not-so-jokingly called to be annexed into the U.S. that he’s going to levy “a big tariff” on their nation for the wildfires crossing the border.

Trump has turned the Ugly American stereotype of the Vietnam War era into an actuality. His default reflex—to blow smoke every time he finds himself in a difficult situation—has become literal this time, and it’s losing the U.S. a neighbor and friend it could always count on.

The smoky air has cleared from beautiful Chautauqua Lake, as well as other areas affected in the northern part of the U.S. last week. But before the end of this second Trump term, you can count on it coming back, perhaps at more hazardous levels.

And Americans had better accept that it’s going to take longer before the effects of Trump’s careless, toxic rhetoric dissipate.

From now on, traditional allies like Canada are entitled to wonder what got into Americans that they put in the White House a charlatan like Trump twice—and whether the Republican Party he has remolded in his image will nominate as his successor someone equally wedded to his agenda of environmental callousness and diplomatic exploitation.

Tuesday, April 28, 2026

Quote of the Day (Lawyer Allen Grubman, on the Best Results of a Negotiation)

“When you walk away from negotiation, both sides should feel the same way—happy, but also a little sad that they didn't get everything they wanted. That's a success. If you walk away delighted that you got everything, the guy who got screwed will be waiting for the opportunity to get you back. Getting everything you want is the beginning and end of the relationship.”—American celebrity entertainment lawyer Allen Grubman quoted by Holly Peterson, “Earn Your Luck: Allen Grubman,” WSJ. Magazine, Spring Women’s Fashion Issue 2026

This observation holds as true in high-level diplomacy as in business contracts or divorces. There’s at least one public figure I can think of (and I’m sure you can, too) who’s familiar with all three situations. These days, let’s hope he’s taken this advice to heart.

Sunday, March 29, 2026

Quote of the Day (John Kenneth Galbraith, on an Ironclad Rule of Diplomacy)

“There are few ironclad rules of diplomacy, but to one there is no exception. When an official reports that talks were useful, it can safely be concluded that nothing was accomplished.”—Canadian-American economist and diplomat John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006), “The American Ambassador,” Foreign Service Journal (June 1969)

In December 1960, President-elect John F. Kennedy sounded out John Kenneth Galbraith on chairing the Council of Economic Advisors in the new administration. The Harvard professor rejected that offer ("I didn't wish to come every day to the same discussion of the same questions around the same table mostly with the same people, not all of whom I wish to see").

But another position intrigued him: US Ambassador to India, where he could see firsthand how the principles of international development he had taught for the past decade might work in an emerging nation. And so, 65 years ago today, the economist was appointed to the post.

I was all set to include a quote from Galbraith’s 1969 book Ambassador’s Journal about the embassy staff in India, as well as the Nehru government’s suspicions of the U.S. assistance program.

In addition to the diary entries and letters to JFK published in that volume, he was still passing on what he learned in his two years on the subcontinent in The Nature of Mass Poverty (1979), which cautioned that the international economy could inadvertently maintain large populations in conditions of want.

But as soon as I saw the above quote, it resonated with me, as I think it might with so many other Americans today.

Over the last month, the public has grown accustomed to the White House offering assessments of the Iranian War that—how shall I say this?—may be prematurely optimistic, including President Trump’s claim that “very good and productive” talks have been held with Tehran over at least ending the regime’s stoppage at the Strait of Hormuz, and maybe even bringing the conflict as a whole to a close.

More and more people are experiencing nightmares of long, inconclusive conflicts that drain American money and lives—the kind associated with Iraq, the kind that candidate Trump vowed never to begin.

Ambassador Galbraith was a caustic critic of such adventurism. Within a month of his appointment, he was explaining to JFK how the Bay of Pigs fiasco appeared to his Indian hosts (not good), and before long he was warning, in no uncertain terms, that conditions in Vietnam were "far more complex, far less controllable, far more varied in the factors involved, far more susceptible to misunderstanding" than his military advisers were saying.

It’s nice to think of a time when a President had the patience to read an adviser’s memos on matters like improving the US Information Service rather than emasculating it; why it would be a good idea to avoid military involvement in a land that posed no security threat to America; and how an administration would be more inclined to cajole and persuade other countries to our positions rather than bullying them, springing from what the Declaration of Independence called “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.”

Wednesday, April 3, 2024

This Day in Military History (Western Democracies Pledge Mutual Security With North American Treaty)

April 4, 1949—The countries who put their signature to the North Atlantic Treaty in Washington, DC, looked just like the Allied coalition that had recently won World War II in Europe—but with one notable exception: the Soviet Union, whose postwar threats to elected governments had alarmed its former partners.

Since the formation of this defensive pact, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has increased from its original 12 to 32 members. Its recent growth derives from the same factor that brought it into existence: a septuagenarian dictator who, in his quest to annex neighbors and subvert republics, inspires other nations to band together in mutual support.

Back in 1949, that authoritarian ruler was Joseph Stalin, who saw the chaos and devastation in the wake of WWII as an opportunity to expand Soviet influence, including through:

*reneging on its Yalta Conference promise of free elections in Poland;

*exploiting its continued military presence in Hungary to pressure non-Communist parties into submission;

*covertly backing an overthrow of the democratically elected government of Czechoslovakia by the nation’s Communist party;

*blockading Allied-controlled West Berlin in an unsuccessful attempt to incorporate the whole city into its orbit.

In 2024, the dictator is Vladimir Putin, whose revanchist nostalgia for the return of Russian influence has led him to invade Ukraine—a move that, in turn, led to a prompt application to join NATO by Finland and Sweden.

The West’s attempts to begin new eras of cooperation with Stalin and Putin quickly foundered as perceptions grew that these dictators were intent not just on cracking down on internal dissent but on posing a threat to Eastern Europe.

American, Britain, and French leaders had hoped to include the Soviets in a postwar Council of Foreign Ministers, according to a Truman Library oral history interview with John D. Hickerson, the Assistant Secretary of State generally credited with writing the text for what became the North Atlantic Treaty.

But, after 1947 conferences in Moscow and London that went nowhere because of Soviet intransigence, the three transatlantic partners determined to go their own way.

The genesis for the new system of cooperation came from British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, but the indispensable forces were the two American Secretaries of State when the treaty was hammered out in 1948 and early 1949, George Marshall and Dean Acheson.

The most important element of the North American Treaty may be Article 5, in which the signatories agreed that "an armed attack against one or more of them… shall be considered an attack against them all" and that following such an attack, each Ally would take "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force" in response.

The first time that mutual-aid pledge would be invoked came not in response to a move by the USSR, but after 9/11—and it did not involve the US coming to the aid of the organization’s European members, but them supporting us in the wake of the attack on the World Trade Center.

Hickerson’s oral history interview gives a strong sense of the improvisational nature of the discussions shaping the North Atlantic Treaty. 

The diplomats, he explained, were talking about “what we would do in the event of an attack, without considering anything beyond the political commitment to do that. And frankly in the back of our minds was the hope that that commitment itself would be enough to restrain any aggression.” 

It would not be until the following year, with the outbreak of the Korean War, before the “machinery” of NATO would be set up.

This brief history is worth keeping in mind in the present US. Presidential cycle, with one all-but-certain party nominee saying he would encourage Putin to do “whatever the hell they want” to any NATO member that falls behind on its defense spending guidelines.

That Presidential candidate’s complaint about failing to meet these guidelines echoes the chief  American opponent of the pact back in 1949, Robert Taft, who saw it as “arming Western Europe at American expense.”

But the deeply conservative, anti-communist Republican Senator from Ohio was under no illusions about Stalin’s intentions and never praised his “strength.”

Moreover, the national defense spending percentages on which today’s isolationists fixate are, as mentioned earlier, guidelines, not ironclad commitments.

The Cold War between the US and USSR was often conducted without nuance and sometimes risked catastrophe. But NATO created a defensive alliance based on collective security—an arrangement missing before WWII that would have eased the task of countering Nazi aggression.

That alliance resulted in 75 years of peace, encouraging international commerce—the kind of minimal-cost arrangement that one might have hoped a once and future businessman might have better appreciated.

(The photo accompanying this post shows President Harry Truman with the diplomats from the countries signing the North Atlantic Treaty.)

Tuesday, May 16, 2023

Quote of the Day (W.H. Auden, on ‘The Poetic Imagination’ and the Statesman)

"All poets adore explosions, thunderstorms, tornadoes, conflagrations, ruins, scenes of spectacular carnage. The poetic imagination is not at all a desirable quality in a statesman."— English poet, critic, and playwright W.H. Auden (1907-1973), "The Poet and The City," The Dyer's Hand and Other Essays (1963)

Monday, August 23, 2021

TV Quote of the Day (‘Yes, Prime Minister,’ on the Standard Diplomatic ‘Four-Stage Strategy’ for Crisis Responses)

Bernard Woolley [played by Derek Fowlds]: “What if the Prime Minister insists we help them?”

Sir Humphrey Appleby [played by Nigel Hawthorne, pictured]: “Then we follow the four-stage strategy.”

Woolley: “What's that?”

Sir Richard Wharton [played by Donald Pickering]: “Standard Foreign Office response in a time of crisis. In stage one, we say nothing is going to happen.”

Sir Humphrey: “Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.”

Sir Richard: “In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.”

Sir Humphrey: “Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.” — Yes, Prime Minister, Season 1, Episode 6, “A Victory for Democracy,” original air date Feb. 13, 1986, teleplay by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, directed by Sydney Lotterby

Over the past several months, whenever I’ve been able to do so, I’ve tried to carve out a half hour on Friday nights on a local PBS station to catch reruns of the 1980s British comedy Yes, Minister and its sequel, Yes, Prime Minister. Think of it as a transatlantic, male-oriented, less potty-mouthed predecessor of Veep.

The brilliance of the show, seen in the above lines, is its sharp, hilarious dissection of bureaucracy. Though some of its situations are unique to UK politics and government, it’s a delightful surprise to see how much of it translates stateside.

It can be enjoyed by conservatives or liberals alike, because though the policies of government officials may change, their behavior—protecting their turf, covering their rear ends—remains remarkably bipartisan, consistent with how people act in all large organizations.

The show’s co-creator, Antony Jay, described the inspiration for the series: “What I was told by a senior civil servant was that, in their heart of hearts, ministers really respect and admire civil servants and, in their heart of hearts, civil servants really despise ministers.”

His creative partner, Jonathan Lynn, later crossed the Atlantic to direct another political satire, Eddie Murphy’s underrated The Distinguished Gentleman, and the considerably more popular The Whole Nine Yards and My Cousin Vinny.

Monday, June 7, 2021

TV Quote of the Day (‘Yes, Prime Minister,’ on Surviving in Diplomacy and Politics)

Sir Humphrey Appleby [played by Nigel Hawthorne]: “Diplomacy is about surviving until the next century—politics is about surviving until Friday afternoon.” — Yes, Prime Minister, Season 1, Episode 6, “A Victory for Democracy,” original air date Feb. 13, 1986, teleplay by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, directed by Sydney Lotterby

Tuesday, December 29, 2020

Quote of the Day (Dean Acheson, on Thinking That ‘The Human Mind Could Be Moved by Facts and Reason’)

“I was a frustrated schoolteacher, persisting against overwhelming evidence to the contrary in the belief that the human mind could be moved by facts and reason."—American Secretary of State and Pulitzer Prize-winning memoirist Dean Acheson (1893-1971), Present at the Creation: My Years in the State Department (1969)

Saturday, December 12, 2020

This Day in Constitutional History (Birth of John Jay, Conservative Revolutionary)

Dec. 12, 1745— John Jay, who came late to the cause of American independence but then assured its security by negotiating its key early treaties, advocating for a strong central government, and serving as the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was born in New York City.

The son of a New York aristocrat of Huguenot descent and successful lawyer in his own right, Jay exerted significant influence in the Continental Congress and in the period between the end of the American Revolution and the establishment of the federal government. But he was not in Philadelphia for the two early events that marked the founding of the nation: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

That factor meant that his birthday would not be celebrated by schoolchildren or that he would become the subject of a musical, in the way that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Hamilton have entered the inner circle of best-remembered Americans of the Revolutionary period.

For instance, before I started researching this post, what I knew about Jay could be boiled down to a few bullet points:

*his years of birth and date;

*his education at King’s College (later Columbia University, where a residence hall is named after him);

*his service as governor of New York State;

*his short stint as the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court;

*his negotiation of an extremely controversial treaty with Great Britain named after him.

In my opinion, few Patriots were held in higher regard among their peers—or have been as neglected by the general public today—as Jay. He deserves far better than this, though, and I hope with this post to raise consciousness, at least among my readers, of his achievements.

A Scottish visitor to the United States, Henrietta Liston, described him in this way at the height of his career in 1796: “his appearance is rather singular; in dress and manners strikingly like a Quaker; –His eye penetrating, his conversation sensible and intelligent.” That was the same impression he made on those he encountered in the law, government and diplomacy.

As a member of the Continental Congress, Jay had helped create the “Olive Branch Petition,” a last-ditch attempt at reconciliation with England. But with independence declared, he cast his lot irrevocably with the Patriots. He was held in such high regard by other delegates at the Congress that he was chosen to lead it in 1778.

The four figures carved into Mount Rushmore were meant, according to sculptor Gutzon Borglum, to commemorate “the founding, growth, preservation, and development to the United States of America.” But if a non-President could be added to the group, Jay would deserve serious consideration.

His triumph in negotiating the 1783 Treaty of Paris ending the Revolutionary War lay not merely in securing American independence, but also the country’s right to all the territory east of the Mississippi, south of Canada and north of Florida. That immediately made the new nation geographically larger—richer in resources—than Britain, France and Spain.

And Jay did this under challenging circumstances. The other American treaty diplomats were not there at first to join him (Henry Laurens had been captured at sea by the British, John Adams was negotiating a loan with the Dutch, and Franklin came down with a bad case of gout), and Congress had instructed him to do nothing without involving America’s French ally. But Jay succeeded in making Spain (France’s other ally) and Britain, go along with his non-negotiable demand for the area east of the Mississippi.

The best compressed depiction I know of for Jay comes from historian Joseph J. Ellis’ The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789, which praised his “massive probity” and “persistent geniality.” Even a crankier appraisal, in Forrest McDonald’s The Formation of the American Republic, 1776-1790, before calling him (with little to no substantiation) “pompous and pathetically vain,” also referred to him as “a brilliant and almost pathologically honest New York aristocrat, [and] a dedicated nationalist.”

Jay’s well-known nationalism led to him being frozen out of the New York delegation at the Constitutional Convention by Gov. George Clinton, the closest figure at that time to what we consider a political boss. But he could not be taken out of the fight for long.

Sickness prevented Jay from writing more than five of the eventual 85 essays in the key pro-Constitution documents, The Federalist Papers, but—as the politician who had spent the longest time in the public eye and the senior member of the trio—he was more crucial in lending prestige to the early stages of the ratification struggle than the younger contributors to the project, James Madison and Hamilton. He and Hamilton then proved shrewd in delaying New York’s vote until a positive vote by Virginia persuaded delegates at New York’s convention in Poughkeepsie that they should not be isolated from the new nation.

With ratification secured, George Washington offered Jay any position he wanted in the new government. The former Chief Justice of New York’s Supreme Court took the similar position at the national level.

Due to circumstances largely beyond Jay’s control, that choice proved frustrating. During Jay’s five years on the court, he and the associate justices ruled on only four cases. Not only were justices expected to “ride circuit”—i.e., hold hearings twice a year in one of three judicial districts—but some (e.g., James Wilson) missed attendance because of land speculations and the resulting need to avoid debt collectors.

The issues that Jay faced in his quarter-century career continue, in one way or another, to figure in American political dialogue:

*A strong, united federal government. Jay’s anxiety in watching the young nation flounder under the Articles of Confederation led him to press for a stronger form of government, in what eventually became the Constitution. He warned, in Federalist No. 3, against the nation fracturing into “three or four independent and probably discordant republics or confederacies.” He looked to the trans-Allegheny territory just won at the negotiating table as a means of binding the nation together further through commerce. When he lost his first race for governor of New York in 1792 because of questionable vote counting, he urged his supporters to accept the results with grace. All of this stands in marked contrast to the current post-election atmosphere in which Presidential vote counts are endlessly litigated and Rush Limbaugh has talked loosely about secession.

*The proper government response to health emergencies. As New York Governor, Jay faced a stark challenge during the yellow fever epidemics of the mid-1790s. In a blog post in March of this year, Robb Haberman, associate editor of The Papers of John Jay, analyzed how Jay transitioned state health policy from private philanthropy to government action, through measures instituting a quarantine and better sanitation.

*Race relations. Jay had inherited slaves from his father, but by the mid-1780s he had publicly turned against the practice, becoming the first president of the New York Manumission Society. As governor of the state, he finally won passage, after five tries, in 1799 of a law calling for emancipation in the state to take effect in 20 years.

*Congressional opposition to treaties negotiated by Presidential envoys. The Iranian nuclear deal, concluded by Barack Obama and abandoned by Donald Trump, does not come remotely close to engendering the same level of controversy as the Jay Treaty. Jay accepted Washington’s request to negotiate with Great Britain reluctantly, and only because he believed it would be the only way to avert war only a decade after the American Revolution had ended. The outcome of the negotiations— requiring Britain to stop “impressing” or capturing sailors, but granting “most favored nation” status as trading partners—formed one of the wedge issues spurring the rise of Thomas Jefferson’s more Gallic-oriented faction, the Democratic-Republican Party.

As he left office in 1801, John Adams appointed Jay to return as Chief Justice. But Jay declined, citing his poor health and the lack of the “the energy, weight, and dignity” needed to support the court. That opened the door for John Marshall to take the post.

Jay lived another 28 years, but was deeply saddened that shortly after his retirement from public life he lost his beloved wife Sarah. Yet now he was content to enjoy, untrammeled, private life as a gentleman farmer.

Thursday, January 30, 2020

Quote of the Day (George Bernard Shaw, on Diplomacy as a ‘Lawless Affair of Family Intrigues’)


“Political science has been as recklessly neglected by Governments and electorates during my lifetime as sanitary science was in the days of Charles the Second. In international relations diplomacy has been a boyishly lawless affair of family intrigues, commercial and territorial brigandage, torpors of pseudo-good nature produced by laziness and spasms of ferocious activity produced by terror. But in these islands we muddled through….Nature gave us a very long credit; and we abused it to the utmost. But when she struck at last she struck with a vengeance.” —Anglo-Irish playwright and Nobel Literature laureate George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), “The Practical Business Men,” Preface to Heartbreak House (1919)

“A boyishly lawless affair of family intrigues…”

Hmmm….I can’t think of anything like that, can you?

Monday, December 11, 2017

Quote of the Day (Clare Boothe Luce, on Statesmen)



“Nature abhors a vacuum, even in the heads of statesmen.” —Clare Boothe Luce (1903-1987), (R-Conn.), former playwright and future Ambassador to Italy, “America in the Post-War Air World” speech in the House of Representatives, Feb. 9, 1943

Clare Boothe Luce was a staunch Republican and, obviously, a tart critic of diplomats. But I wonder if even she might have protested Rex Tillerson’s mad plan to thin out the ranks of the State Department?

Remember, people: This man at one point was hailed as one of the steady “adults” in the Trump Administration. But the damage this supposed managerial expert will do, in what increasingly looks like only a year on the job, will be enormous. 

Anyone who could ask consultants to, in essence, support a move he had already decided in advance does indeed have a vacuum in his head, even if he does hold the title of Secretary of State.

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Quote of the Day (Adlai Stevenson, on Flattery)



“I have sometimes said that flattery is all right, Mr. President, if you don't inhale it.” —Opening sentence of American politician Adlai Stevenson Jr.'s first appearance as the American Ambassador to the UN, February 1, 1961, in Looking Outward: Years of Crisis at The United Nations (1963)