Skip to main content

tv   Book Discussion on Change They Cant Believe In  CSPAN  January 13, 2014 5:30am-7:03am EST

5:30 am
5:31 am
5:32 am
5:33 am
5:34 am
5:35 am
5:36 am
5:37 am
5:38 am
5:39 am
5:40 am
5:41 am
5:42 am
5:43 am
5:44 am
5:45 am
5:46 am
5:47 am
5:48 am
5:49 am
5:50 am
5:51 am
5:52 am
5:53 am
5:54 am
5:55 am
5:56 am
5:57 am
5:58 am
5:59 am
6:00 am
6:01 am
6:02 am
6:03 am
6:04 am
6:05 am
6:06 am
6:07 am
6:08 am
6:09 am
6:10 am
6:11 am
6:12 am
6:13 am
6:14 am
6:15 am
6:16 am
6:17 am
6:18 am
6:19 am
6:20 am
6:21 am
6:22 am
6:23 am
6:24 am
6:25 am
6:26 am
6:27 am
6:28 am
6:29 am
6:30 am
6:31 am
6:32 am
6:33 am
6:34 am
6:35 am
6:36 am
6:37 am
6:38 am
6:39 am
6:40 am
6:41 am
6:42 am
6:43 am
6:44 am
6:45 am
6:46 am
6:47 am
6:48 am
6:49 am
6:50 am
6:51 am
6:52 am
6:53 am
6:54 am
6:55 am
6:56 am
6:57 am
6:58 am
6:59 am
>> certainly as the united states re-engages iran, the manner in which american diplomats engage rogue regimes and as essential, our roads engage the united states is worthy of consideration. i'm going to step back for a second and put on my historian nerd cap for a second. the concept of rogue regimes predates the united states by centuries. the statesman limited advantages
7:00 am
the gators had over democracies in diplomacy. dictators neither had to take popular will into account nor engage in debates about strategies. late 15th, early 16th writer and statesman machiavelli viewed diplomacy as the version a, dialogue one delay as states consolidator strength. what princes have to do at the outside, the outset of their careers, he argued, the public also must do until such a time as they become powerful and can rely on force alone. diplomacy was therefore used delayed rather than bypass war. the romans never had two very big wars going on at the same time, machiavelli absorbed. rather, after they selected their military targets they worked industriously to foster tranquility of them the rest until such a time when they
7:01 am
could turn their armies towards the secondary targets. the event of the century versions likewise described diplomacy as a cover for other activities. the basis for modern diplomacy is the in viability of agreement. machiavelli had little patience for such notions of honor. a prudent ruler ought not keep his faith when the doings of the against his interest, he wrote. the 30 years war provided 17th century dutch diplomats a backdrop for reflection. while today's diplomats debate the wisdom of engaging roads regimes, he argued there was no reason to conduct diplomacy with representatives of what he called wicked stage. western diplomacy evolved far from machiavelli today, but to assume that 21st century robust have made the same evolutionary leap is naïve. too often western engagement of rogue regimes seems a matchup
7:02 am
between machiavelli and neville chamberlain but in such circumstances chamberlain rarely wins. it's all well and good to discuss diplomacy with rogues but for the purposes of american diplomacy, what is a rogue? there's no consensus about what a rogue regime is a generations of diplomats have accepted the idea, it's a diplomatic equivalent of supreme court justice harvester quip about pornography. i know it when they see. still the rogue concept has been an element of american national security thinking for the better part of four decades. political scientist in the 1970s spoke of privacy but based their destination on those countries isolations and the hostility of its neighbors rather than moral judgment. against israel and taiwan along with south africa became a pariah state. the notion of pariahs or rogues


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on