Diplomacy

Walter Lippmann is arguably the most influential journalist in American history. From the time of Woodrow Wilson to the time of Lyndon Johnson, what Walter Lippmann said mattered. His word was valued because of his exceptional capacity for analysis, and because he had the rare ability to make complex ideas and problems manageable and understandable. Lippmann combined the practical and the theoretical and saw them as inseparable. He savored the life of the mind and relished the arena of politics. He was political philosopher, social commentator, political advisor and activist-intellectual.

As the country grappled with an impressive influx of European ideas and with the threatening press of European problems, so did Lippmann. Like President Wilson, he came to believe that the condition of the modern world required that America either act or be acted upon. New methods of communication and propaganda meant that ideas contrary to America's would be widely heard. Reformed liberalism and the projection of that liberalism into a troubled world were the best hedge against totalitarian schemes and imperialist aggression. The Stakes of Diplomacy resulted from Lippmann's assignment by Wilson's Secretary of War Baker, to a project for studying possible terms of peace and ways to influence the world in a liberal-democratic direction.

The Stakes of Diplomacy ends both with admiration for the peaceful nature of democracies and a plea for their further influence in the world, and with an understanding that democracy's influence will depend partly upon its physical might and geopolitical collaboration. Lippmann stands as a prominent figure in America's twentieth-century quest for power with honor. He concludes this volume with the warning that there is no safe way and no morally feasible way to turn back from our dangerous mission: "Unless the people who are humane and sympathetic, the people who wish to live and let live, are masters of the situation, the world faces an indefinite vista of conquest and terror."

An End to Evil charts the agenda for what’s next in the war on terrorism, as articulated by David Frum, former presidential speechwriter and bestselling author of The Right Man, and Richard Perle, former assistant secretary of defense and one of the most influential foreign-policy leaders in Washington.

This world is an unsafe place for Americans—and the U.S. government remains unready to defend its people. In An End to Evil, David Frum and Richard Perle sound the alert about the dangers around us: the continuing threat from terrorism, the crisis with North Korea, the aggressive ambitions of China. Frum and Perle provide a detailed, candid account of America’s vulnerabilities: a military whose leaders resist change, intelligence agencies mired in bureaucracy, diplomats who put friendly relations with their foreign colleagues ahead of the nation’s interests. Perle and Frum lay out a bold program to defend America—and to win the war on terror.

Among the topics this book addresses:

• why the United States risks its security if it submits to the authority of the United Nations
• why France and Saudi Arabia have to be treated as adversaries, not allies, in the war on terror
• why the United States must take decisive action against Iran—now
• what to do in North Korea if negotiations fail
• why everything you read in the newspapers about the Israeli-Arab dispute is wrong
• how our government must be changed if we are to fight the war on terror to victory—not just stalemate
• where the next great terror threat is coming from—and what we can do to protect ourselves

An End to Evil will define the conservative point of view on foreign policy for a new generation—and shape the agenda for the 2004 presidential-election year and beyond. With a keen insiders’ perspective on how our leaders are confronting—or not confronting—the war on terrorism, David Frum and Richard Perle make a convincing argument for why the toughest line is the safest line.
For nearly twenty years, Aaron David Miller has played a central role in U.S. efforts to broker Arab-Israeli peace. His position as an advisor to presidents, secretaries of state, and national security advisors has given him a unique perspective on a problem that American leaders have wrestled with for more than half a century. Why has the world’s greatest superpower failed to broker, or impose, a solution in the Middle East? If a solution is possible, what would it take? And why after so many years of struggle and failure, with the entire region even more unsettled than ever, should Americans even care? Is Israel/Palestine really the “much too promised land”?

As a historian, analyst, and negotiator, perhaps no one is more qualified to answer these questions than Aaron David Miller. Without partisanship or finger-pointing, Miller lucidly and honestly records what went right, what went wrong, and how we got where we are today. Here is an insider’s view of the peace process from a place at the negotiating table, filled with unforgettable stories and colorful behind-the-scenes anecdotes. Here, too, are new interviews with all the key players, including Presidents Carter, Ford, Bush forty-one, all nine U.S. secretaries of state, as well Arab and Israeli leaders, who disclose the inner thoughts and strategies that motivated them. The result is a book that shatters all preconceived notions to tackle the complicated issues of culture, religion, domestic politics, and national security that have defined—and often derailed—a half century of diplomacy.

Honest, critical, and certain to be controversial, this insightful first-person account offers a brilliant new analysis of the problem of Arab-Israeli peace and how, against all odds, it still might be solved.
Iraq has dominated international headlines in recent years, but its controversial role in international affairs goes back much further. The key arena for these power politics over Iraq has been the United Nations Security Council. Spanning the last quarter century,The International Struggle over Iraq examines the impact the United Nations Security Council has had on Iraq - and Iraq's impact on the Security Council. The story is a fascinating one. Beginning in 1980, in the crucible of the Iran-Iraq War, the Council found a common voice as a peacemaker after the divisions of the cold war. That peacemaking role was cemented when a UN-mandated force expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991, offering a glimpse of a new role for the UN in the 'New World Order'. But unilateralism soon set in, as the Security Council struggled under the weight and bureaucratic demands of its changing identity. The Security Council gradually abandoned its traditional political and military tools for the legal-regulatory approach, but was unable to bridge the gap between those who believed allegations of Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction and those who didn't. Growing paralysis led eventually to deadlock in the Council in 2002, with the result that it was sidelined during the 2003 Coalition invasion. This relegation, when combined with the loss of some of its best and brightest in a massive truck bomb in Iraq later that year, precipitated a deep crisis of confidence. The future role of the UN Security Council has now, once again, become uncertain. The paperback edition contains a substantial new preface covering recent developments. Drawing on the author's unparalleled access to UN insiders, this volume offers radical new insights into one of the most persistent crises in international affairs, and the different roles the world's central peace-making forum has played in it.
A man who had won the Nobel Peace Prize, who was widely counted one of the greatest UN Secretary Generals, was nearly hounded from office by scandal. Indeed, both Annan and the institution he incarnates were so deeply shaken after the Bush Administration went to war in Iraq in the face of opposition from the Security Council that critics, and even some friends, began asking whether this sixty-year-old experiment in global policing has outlived its usefulness. Do its failures arise from its own structure and culture, or from a clash with an American administration determined to go its own way in defiance of world opinion?

James Traub, a New York Times Magazine contributor who has spent years writing about the UN and about foreign affairs, delves into these questions as no one else has done before. Traub enjoyed unprecedented access to Annan and his top aides throughout much of this traumatic period. He describes the despair over the Oil-for-Food scandal, the deep divide between those who wished to accommodate American critics and those who wished to confront them, the failed attempt to goad the Security Council to act decisively against state-sponsored ethnic cleansing in Sudan. And he recounts Annan's effort to respond to criticism with sweeping reform—an effort which ultimately shattered on the resistance of U.S. Ambassador John Bolton.

In The Best Intentions, Traub recounts the dramatically entwined history of Kofi Annan and the UN from 1992 to the present. In Annan he sees a conscientious idealist given too little credit for advancing causes like humanitarian intervention and an honest broker crushed between American conservatives and Third World opponents—but also a UN careerist who has absorbed that culture and can not, in the end, escape its limitations.

©2019 GoogleSite Terms of ServicePrivacyDevelopersArtistsAbout Google|Location: United StatesLanguage: English (United States)
By purchasing this item, you are transacting with Google Payments and agreeing to the Google Payments Terms of Service and Privacy Notice.