There are two diplomatic languages

Submitted by Rick House (United States), Nov 1, 2006 at 18:07

A diplomatic solution is a bit more complicated than you make it out. Today, the world speaks in two distinct diplomatic languages, the language of the West and the language of the East. Each langauge was created over centuries of negociations. Each has its own dialogue developed through its own set of traditions, religions, and customs...

When parties from the West meet with parties from the East, they are not speaking the same diplomatic langauage. There are countless examples of this. Think about the Arabs' belief that Britain could give them their state after WWI. Think about the time it took for India to become a nation... What did Gandhi say? "You will seemly leave, because 20,000 Brits can not control 200 million Indians." (paraphrased)

Some might say there are many examples where diplomacy has worked... And I'd counter that with no their isn't. We won because our military strength was stronger... The West always got what it wanted because it had the stronger position... That's changing now. Both sides are approaching an equilbrium. The West still has its military advantage but now the East has an advantage too -- oil and people, and soon nukes.

No. If the West still wants to retain its position, it needs to curtail Iran and its bomb.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".