![]() ![]() Is Farrow right? Has the United States turned its back on diplomacy, and on its diplomats? And if so, at what cost? Farrow makes a good case that we have, and that the cost will be high. ![]() To borrow from one of the great American diplomats of the 20th century, George Kennan, author of our postwar containment policy, “no parades will ever march, no crowds will cheer, no bands will play.” ![]() And for nearly as long, diplomats have toiled (there is little glamour to diplomacy) in the background, abroad, away from family and friends, with little fanfare. And, for as long as we have sought security, prosperity and the ability to shape our destinies in the wider world, we have needed diplomats to secure alliances, foster trade, make friends and confront adversaries. For the ambassador alone makes and separates allies the ambassador transacts that business by which (states) are disunited or not.”įor as long as humans have been contentious, we have needed diplomats to make and keep the peace. peace, and its opposite, war, on the ambassador. Ronan Farrow opens “War on Peace,” his cautionary tale on the demise of American diplomacy and the decline of American influence, with a 3,000-year-old quote from Hindu scriptures: “The army depends on the official placed in charge of it. ![]() 1 of2 Ronan Farrow Brigitte Lacombe Show More Show Less 2 of2 "War on Peace" Norton Show More Show Less ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |