Example collocations logo

Diplomats in sentence

395 examples of Diplomats in a sentence

The Palestinian Authority’s president, senior diplomats of the countries involved in the Palestine-Israel peace process, and the secretary general of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation all attended the two-day summit.
As one of the WikiLeaks documents revealed, American diplomats lobbied the Libyan government during the financial crisis to keep funds in US banks, and to invest directly in a troubled US financial institution.
Most Americans remember it as the country that abducted US diplomats soon after its Islamic revolution in 1979, holding them for no apparent purpose for 444 days.
First, the US should consider establishing diplomatic relations with Iran and putting diplomats on the ground.
The subject is avoided in history books, evaded by diplomats, and forms no part of domestic political discourse.
So Western diplomats who negotiate with China should call lower-level officials’ bluff, and focus on the signal-to-noise ratio, bearing in mind that, ultimately, decisions are taken quietly at a higher level by pragmatic leaders who are indeed susceptible to pressure.
(To be sure, the US delegation has also appeared inconsistent at times, often including officials vehemently hostile to Iran, along with disciplined diplomats seeking an agreement at Obama’s request.)
As for the expulsion of 50 Russian diplomats from America recently, this, of course, it is too much, although the British used to expel upwards of 100.
The US itself relied on the Convention in the case against Iran that it brought in 1980 before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, a year after Iranian students and others, with the revolutionary regime’s evident blessing, breached America’s embassy in Tehran and abducted its diplomats.
Many in Israel recognize this: 25 prominent Israelis, including former diplomats, army generals, and academics, signed a letter to Trump’s Mideast peace envoy denouncing the Jerusalem decision.
Russia’s diplomats have generally, but not always, adopted a harder line, while Rogozin has been pushing his own BMD agenda.
The Diplomacy of the BlindPARIS – Why do revolutions so often take professional diplomats by surprise?
As the German Democratic Republic was about to disappear, some top French diplomats in Germany were still assuring their government in Paris that the Soviet Union would never accept German reunification, so there was nothing to worry about: life would go on nearly as usual.
Historical and geographic proximity, together with energy dependency and fear of massive immigration, paralyzed European diplomats.
But there is something more fundamental underlying diplomats’ natural diffidence.
Revolutionary ruptures upset diplomats’ familiar habits, both in terms of their personal contacts and, more importantly, in terms of their thinking.
In the name of “realism,” diplomats and foreign-policy strategists are naturally conservative.
Is it more difficult to predict, and adjust to, the coming of a fundamental change, than to defend the present order, under the motto of “the devil you know is always preferable to the devil you don’t know!”But, beyond these mental habits lie more structural reasons for the conservatism of foreign policymakers and diplomats.
By requiring their diplomats to limit their contacts with “alternative” sources of information in a country, in order to avoid antagonizing despotic regimes, governments irremediably limit diplomats’ ability to see change coming, even when it is so close that nothing can be done.
In such cases, diplomats will too often merely report the regime’s reassuring yet biased analysis.
Diplomats, instead, should be judged by their ability to enter into a dialogue with all social actors: government representatives and business leaders, of course, but also representatives of civil society (even if it exists only in embryonic form).
With proper training and incentives, diplomats would be better equipped to anticipate change.
But one thing is clear: the more traditional foreign ministries tend to be, the more difficult it is for them and their diplomats to grasp change.
By being late in perceiving change that they do not want to see coming, Western diplomats run the risk of losing on both levels: the regime and the people.
Diplomats require openness and imagination in order to carry out their responsibilities.
China’s diplomats were urged to bear in mind that they are first and foremost “party cadres,” suggesting that Xi is likely to push the foreign policy apparatus toward greater activism, to give full effect to his emerging global vision.
But for diplomats and historians, understanding the concept of ripeness is central to their jobs: it refers to how ready a negotiation or conflict is to be resolved.
Today’s diplomats could do worse than recall the warning of the great French statesman Talleyrand: “ Surtout, messieurs, point de zéle .”
The other key reason behind the world’s silence is that the Sri Lankan government was relentless in banning independent observers – media, NGOs, or diplomats – from witnessing or reporting on its actions.
Many Western diplomats appear to be of the same superficial cast of mind as Sykes and Picot, believing that Assad’s fall from power would remove Syria from the Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas axis.
BackNext