E-mail: [email protected] Tel. In their quest for new instruments that might be useful in an era of instability and help to emasculate the old rules of the game, diplomats and international affairs experts increasingly often resort to dialogue.
Apparently, they see dialogue as an effective alternative to a show of muscle in conflict management. Almost everyone practically always vows commitment to addressing issues through dialogue. In Hamburg in , Donald Trump tried to find a common language with the Russian leader and it looks he was not left disappointed either. Trump, who has little trust in any institutions let alone international ones , prefers one-on-one contacts and appears to be an ardent enthusiast of dialogue.
The recent G20 summit confirmed that such meetings bilateral and trilateral receive the greatest attention from the media and pundits because it is there at least, the media and analysts think so where all decisions of global importance are made.
Some skeptical voices, however, are spoiling this perfect harmonious chorus. For instance, Avigdor Lieberman does not see even the slightest chance of settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through bilateral talks and he did not hesitate to say as much in blunt terms to a leading Russia media outlet.
It does not belong to a foreign minister albeit a former one to call in question the merits of direct dialogue, but obviously Mr. Lieberman knows what he is saying. He views the settlement problem in the pan-regional context and in a historical perspective Israeli, of course. It is widely believed that before the collapse of the world order, which was a result of several world wars, countries knew how to come to terms. In the s and s, a more or less common system of coordinates and a corresponding vocabulary were formed.
