Example collocations logo

Diplomacy in sentence

1085 examples of Diplomacy in a sentence

This is bold diplomacy – for which China is given little credit – at a highly sensitive moment.
The growing role of the UN in this process puts the seal of international law and diplomacy over the global struggle against terrorism, and helps to reassure many countries that this is a true international effort, not just the US acting alone.
It was used to describe Obama’s new American diplomacy, particularly with regard to Iran, at least until the disputed elections in Iran last summer and the worsening domestic crisis that has ensued.
“We want the Middle East to be prosperous and stable, governed by political dialogue and diplomacy,” Davutoglu said after a visit to Teheran.
Brazil’s current criticisms of Iran, along with a request for dialogue with the opposition, weak as they may be, represent a change of position, which reflects the absolute priority of Brazilian diplomacy: permanent membership of the Security Council.
Critics also claim that missile defense will not work against incoming warheads surrounded by decoys, that it will be terribly expensive and that rogue-state proliferation can be better addressed through prevention (using diplomacy and export controls) and deterrence.
Paradigm shifts, particularly in diplomacy and security issues, are by definition major undertakings.
The Chinese School insists on adhering to Deng Xiaoping’s doctrine of maintaining a low profile in international diplomacy, while the traditionalist group advocates taking on greater international responsibility.
The German way of diplomacy consisted of avoiding hard choices between Paris and Washington, Moscow and Warsaw, the EU and NATO, big neighbors and small ones.
Tragically, the bridges to the US as well as to Central and Eastern Europe have been damaged by German diplomacy during the Iraq crisis, and the bridge to the smaller EU member states is now in the process of being damaged by the Teutonic colossus's noncompliance with the Stability and Growth Pact.
National identities cannot be negotiated away; but diplomacy can dilute their aggressive manifestations.
With the US increasingly prone to using its currency as an instrument of diplomacy, even of warfare – a process known in Washington as “weaponizing the dollar" – China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, for example, may well be reluctant to shift even more of their wealth into US Treasury bonds.
But if America’s next president is committed to a new direction, US foreign policy might again become more multilateral, more focused on international institutions and alliances, and willing to bring the relationship between military force and diplomacy back to within its historical proportions.
What this calls for, above all, is prevention of nuclear proliferation (beginning with Iran), whether through diplomacy and sanctions, or, if need be, through sabotage and military attacks.
Likewise, diplomacy can work in Syria only if it accepts the reality on the ground (including the survival of the Assad regime for the foreseeable future), rather than seeking to transform it.
The third option is diplomacy.
It will take a blend of the three options – the threat of military force, the reality of economic sanctions, and the resumption of diplomacy —to deal with North Korea’s challenge.
Conversely, Libyans must stop seeing conspiracies behind every move in international diplomacy.
Indian diplomacy faces a time of trial in both countries.
More than ever, we need an era of diplomacy that emphasizes compromise, not another round of demonization and an arms race that could all too easily spiral into disaster.
Like any cross-border initiative, the “one belt, one road” initiative will require wise diplomacy to manage relationships with diverse countries and careful planning to scale up effectively.
Contrary to conspiracy theories, the Commission has little power; but, like other informal channels of “track two” diplomacy, it allows private citizens to explore ways to manage thorny issues.
Of course, diplomacy needs to be backed by strength, but the US has plenty without militarizing the Asia-Pacific region more than it already has.
The late US statesman Richard Holbrooke once said to me that America since 9/11 had suffered a “militarization of diplomacy.”
Is that crisis an unfortunate exception, or, rather, a symptom of the failure of Obama’s Middle East diplomacy, from Egypt to Afghanistan?
He believes, however, that he can avoid extreme solutions; in diplomacy, anything can happen, and the worst-case scenario is never guaranteed.
Alas, one cannot rule out a scenario in which nothing – diplomacy, sanctions, or the push for a regime change – works.
Post-war global diplomacy might have to promote, perhaps more robustly than ever, the creation a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East, and thus address Israel’s nuclear capabilities, as well as the Palestinian problem – issues that Netanyahu has worked hard to ignore.
Furthermore, Chinese leaders point to what they regards as intrusive US human-rights diplomacy aimed at fomenting political protest within China (including Hong Kong) and undermining the regime’s domestic legitimacy.
In one corner stands the experienced, sophisticated grand old man of US diplomacy; in the other hulks the crude, braying archetypal man of Twitter.
BackNext