Cultural Diplomacy tutorial Part 3

Cultural Diplomacy tutorial Part 3

The case study in this tutorial is the example of how Jewish and Christian politicians and diplomats achieve the best dialogue, whether secular or faith based topics, with Islamic politicians and diplomats. My remarks include all the sects of Islam, specifically Shiite and Sunni, and also both the vast majority of Islam that is mainstream, and the minority of Islam that is extremist or terroristic.

My first point is that it is not necessary to be a believer of any faith, per se, in order to have a successful dialogue with Muslim countries. There is a long history of cordial and productive relationships between certain Muslim countries and countries that have either no declared faith, such as China or Russia during the time it was within the USSR, or countries with eastern faiths, such as India and Japan. These tend to be mutually beneficial cultural and economic (trade) relationships. Also, in the past, certain Muslim countries have sought “big brother” protection and alliance, such as has historically existed with the former USSR, as a counterbalance to countries who have been supported by the USA. There is less of a need for that now, but it is still a realistic and understandable underlying motivation, and I’d do the same thing if I were them. This, for those of you who are young to Middle East politics, is the reason that Russia belongs to what is called the “Quartet” of countries that try to assist in discussions for peace in the Middle East. One cannot bring both parties to the table if one party arrives with a superpower on its side while the other sits with a less developed country status and no ability to power share. So to summarize this point, Muslims do not look down on “non believer” countries and in fact have a proven history that extends itself every year with more and more relationships with countries of various faiths or no declared faith at all. A secondary point is that since Muslims lack having a country in the “superpower” category of countries, a survival instinct that is quite realistic and I would do it myself is to maintain a close “big brother or big sister” relationship with a superpower that is friendly and sympathetic to their situations. Do not view that as a negative, as that is a very reasonable and balanced thing to do.

My second point is to explain how diplomacy among Muslim countries and those that profess belief in the one monotheistic God (Christianity and Judaism) should provide a common basis of foundational comprehension, even in secular topics, but in the past the opposite has occurred. Let me first start with an analogy. If one has to negotiate a problem with, let’s say, how your neighbor is using his back yard, is it easier to negotiate with your neighbor if he is a stranger in the sense he is not related to you by blood or marriage, or if your neighbor is a relative of yours? It depends on the circumstances, but I think you see what I mean. The most bitter conflicts in domestic matters can be among relatives, each of whom “expects more and better” from the other because the other is a relative. So having a shared history, family or foundational belief is not a guarantee of better outcome and far from it, it can be much worse if one side feels bitterly betrayed on a personal level. This is important to understand even though I know that modern “secularists” might be all quivering with indignation if they read my words, arguing that one’s faith should have “nothing to do” with secular diplomacy. Well, duh. If you do not understand your partner or combatant’s faith stance in diplomacy, and they have a strong overriding faith, denying your own faith to yourself hardly equips you to better understand them! That would be like saying to your cousin, with whom you are quarreling over land that your shared grandfather left to you both, that you no longer believe that your grandfather ever existed, and hence he should not have any influence on the argument! How stupid would that be? Your cousin would think that you are crazy and likely evil, if you benefited by inheriting land through your grandfather’s will and legacy, and then denied his very existence while quarreling with another of his descendants over that land! So to summarize my second point, even if you represent a secular personal or governmental point of view, you must understand that your Islamic partner perceives a relationship with you and your country based on God, whether you believe in God or not. In fact, it is personally offensive to a Muslim, even if he or she does not show it, if you are the beneficiary of a shared faith history but you deny it. Again, I’m not saying that faith has to enter into a secular dialogue. But I am teaching you how to understand the point of view of the Muslims with whom you dialogue, if you represent a personage or country that seems to deny the “family” relationship of believing the same God. This is the crux of the problem with extremists and why they feel such a burning contempt for the West. But it is also a missed opportunity among mainstream diplomacy where Westerners seem more concerned with denying their own faith history than with being who they are authentically. Muslims respect authentic belief in God, and thus they respect the person who is not ashamed or in denial of that, even if it has nothing to do with the subject being negotiated or discussed.

My third point is related to the second, which is to address why, if Muslims respect belief in God, do they use the term of insult “crusader?” For those of you young to this topic, the term crusader comes from the “Middle Ages,” or early medieval times, roughly seven hundred to a thousand years ago, when armies from Christian nations attempted to “reclaim” the Holy Land, which had been seized by armies of Islam. Islam had been spreading through conquest throughout the Middle East, Africa and even Europe. Yet the Christian defenders and combatants were not called crusaders unless they were specifically sent to wrest the Holy Land from what were called the Mohammadans. Crusaders were organized and sent by Christian leaders and sponsored by whichever Pope occupied the Seat of Peter in Rome at that time. Crusaders wore the cross of Jesus Christ on their armor, and invoked his name in their activities. And there, you see, is the problem. Muslims perceived the Christians to be fighting in the name of Jesus Christ and not of God, the God they share with Christians. Muslims do not deny Jesus Christ at all, and in fact, the Qur’an has much honor and praise for him, recognizing Jesus as an authentic prophet from God given special miraculous capabilities directly from the Holy Spirit of God. But rather than seeing crusaders attempt to regain the Holy Land on behalf of the shared God who created both Muslims and Christians, Muslims perceived that Christians had “broken away” from God, in their eyes. This is why “crusader” is used as an insult, both then and today. A “crusader” is someone who seems to elevate Jesus Christ alone and who denies God.

I hope this helps people to understand, then, the strange paradox of extremist Muslims who consider the West to be “Godless” yet insult them with a term that seems to invoke God, which is “crusader.” The term crusader has endured because of that very perception, which has some foundation in truth. The term “Muslim” to a Muslim means someone who believes in the one God. This is why the Qur’an declares the Israelite patriarchs and prophets, such as Abraham and Jacob, to “be Muslims.” They are not doing a retroactive conversion. The term Muslim means a believer in the one monotheistic God, the God who self identified from Adam, throughout Israelite history, and to and including Jesus Christ. Muslims “keep their eye,” however, only on God. They revere the prophets and forefathers, but they would never fight in “the name” of any of them. Thus the Muslims during the time of the Crusades viewed the Christian crusader combatants of fighting in the name of Jesus Christ, but not in the name of God. Muslims were genuinely fighting in the name of God, believing that they were forcing the heathen, the pagan and also the Abrahamic faiths that had gone “astray” back to putting their attention and worship toward God and only God. That is why they swept through the Middle East, through much of northern Africa, and into southern Europe, until they were finally stopped by the Christian nations of Europe and the line held. But the term “crusader” was used with contempt not toward the defenders of the invaded countries, but because that was the term that those who came to liberate the Holy Land in the name of Jesus Christ adopted for themselves. So when a modern extremist Muslim uses the term “crusader” as an insult that is code language for accusing a Christian of being a nominal Christian who does not really believe in God.

Because during the Crusades to be Christian meant to be Catholic, since the Reformation was still several hundred years off in the future, Muslims maintained a suspicion of Catholics long after it was necessary. But in recent years through enhanced dialogue and more ecumenical education, Muslims have come to realize that Catholics do genuinely believe in the one God, despite what the actions of the historic crusaders seemed to indicate. And this is also why there are examples of countries, such as Syria and until recently Iraq, where the Christian Orthodox and Catholic faiths have peacefully co-existed within predominately Muslim countries all along. The Qur’an states that there should be peaceful co-existence. But the history of the Crusaders gave Muslims the perception that Christians go beyond “defending” their country from forced conversion by Muslims, and would, in fact, mount attacks to wrest back the Holy Land from the Muslims, who are descendants of the original occupants, while the Europeans were not. So where pockets of Orthodox and Catholics held on and continued to reside in the land of their ancestors, they were able to do so, though often under very harsh circumstances (such as in Egypt), since there is a continuity of these Christians in that land. But “crusader” has a connotation of an “invading outsider meddler.” Thus extremists will apply the code word “crusader” to even highly irreligious cultural mores that invade from the West, such as lewd entertainment, in the ultimate irony. Extremist Muslims use the term crusader as insult of even the behavior that true Christians disapprove of in agreement with them, which is the degraded cultural and societal behaviors that they deplore, since they perceive it as a degrading cultural invasion rather than a genuinely God fearing invasion. So to summarize, if one is to negotiate with Muslims, one must understand that when the term “crusader” is invoked, it is not a back handed compliment admiring someone’s adversarial faith (kind of a “Muslim versus Christian” slogan) but is instead, basically, code word for accusing the “crusader” of being an invading cultural anti-God and God denying force. Extremist Muslims are not “admiring” the faith of people they call “crusaders.” They are evoking the belief that “crusaders” abandoned worship of the one God and thus bring with them degraded cultural values and beliefs.

None of what I am teaching here, by the way, is justifying or excusing extremist Islamic beliefs. As I’ve blogged before one of the greatest errors among devout Islamic believers is that they believe they have a mandate from God to do what the Bible calls “smiting,” but, in fact, they do not have that mandate. However, one cannot productively dialogue with either moderates or extremists if one does not understand the origins of their point of view, and accurately decode their terminology and language of concepts.

So my fourth point is that either consciously or unconsciously, Muslims have higher expectations from Jewish and Christian individuals or countries because they have perfect understanding that all three faiths originate from belief in the same God. Muslims therefore, consciously or unconsciously, “expect” better behavior and comprehension of the complexity of issues from Jews and Christians. This is also why they have been bitterly disappointed when they do not perceive this common foundation of relationship. It is, like I used in my analogy, as if both cousins inherited land from a grandfather, but one denies that the grandfather even existed. Even if the reality of the grandfather is not pertinent to the topic under discussion, it is very disconcerting to the believer to be in dialogue with the non believer. Thus, as certain Israeli leaders have become more secular and less religious, rather than this being viewed as a reassuring development, to the Muslim it is very disconcerting. They view that as a development that increases the distance between the parties in dialogue, not narrows it. Muslims wonder how Israelis can understand their point of view if they no longer seem to believe in the same God, from which the Muslim point of view springs. So secular “logic” that advocates becoming more secular and faith neutral in negotiating is an advantage and a plus in negotiating is totally wrong. Modernists seem to think that separation of church and state, plus increased reliance on secular beliefs and reasoning is helpful to genuine diplomacy, but the opposite is true. Western countries and pro Israel organizations have completely erred in this regard. Trust me, a Muslim diplomat better understands an extreme Orthodox Jew than they understand a Jew who has become secular, because to a Muslim, a secular or a non-believer is unpredictable. Muslims understand people who are motivated by belief in the same God, but who may have vigorous disagreement about what share of God’s creation to allocate and claim. Muslims, especially extremists, do not understand former believers who seem to be motivated by degraded Western values rather than God.

Here are some examples of this. A Muslim can well understand combating with a Jew or a Christian over whose church, mosque or synagogue should occupy a given sacred space. That is easy to understand, even if the solution sure is difficult to reach, if even possible, for at least each side understands full well the other side’s motivation. Each side believes in their faith, in, ultimately, the same God, but is robustly combating for the upper hand in a sacred arena. This type of diplomacy opportunity may be difficult to resolve, if one and only one site is being fought over, but it’s not hard to identify and explore the options and have a fruitful dialogue, should everyone be motivated to pursue a solution. However, Muslims are totally baffled and enraged by actions that they believe originate from a denial of their diplomatic combatant’s own God. An example of this is the Israeli government’s policy of destroying the housing of the families of those they identify as terrorists. This is such a secular and cold determination of policy that Muslims cannot fathom it, and thus have an increased contempt, rather than an increased compliance. Likewise the hindering of basic needs for the Palestinians, such as being enfranchised in the economy, or as happened recently the ability to repair a burst sewage treatment pond that actually killed people, is just seen as evidence of a God denying secularism. The problem is that a Muslim is at a loss as to how to negotiate. I certainly sympathize, since it is a challenge to negotiate with someone who is fully absorbed with exercising secular power, regardless of their positive or negative underlying motivation. This is why Muslims may turn to more extreme advocates, rather than lesser, since they perceive the exercise of secular power as being a “pushing” without knowing where the pushing is going to end up, as if one is blindfolded and forced to walk backwards. When a Muslim argues with an Orthodox Jew, however, they both understand each other’s agenda and purpose, and are not obscured by wondering where the random reactions of secular decisions and exertions of power will take them.

So to summarize, Muslims are Muslims because they believe in the one God, and thus they have less understanding of “cultural Jews” and “cultural Christians” and their motivations. Just as westerners worry about “how far will Islamic extremists go?” in truth Muslims worry and wonder “how far will western secular extremists go?” Muslims, especially the clergy, feel that westerners, including the Israelis, have no self restraint and thus are totally unpredictable in what they will do, and that is very worrisome. And please, I am not at all diminishing the genuine self restraint that Israel and its people have repeatedly demonstrated as they have tolerated continual terrorist attacks. What I mean is that the overall agenda and the specific tactics of westerners and the Israelis seem, to Muslims, to be “open ended” and anything might happen, including totally illogical and counterproductive movements and decisions. We all know that random behavior is the most challenging to deal with in all aspects of life. Muslims feel that secular believers have removed their own norms and commonality of expectations and thus “anything goes” as far as the westerners and Israelis are concerned. This has been one of the fundamental root causes of the lack of progress in the resolution of the problems in the Middle East. Muslims have had to negotiate with many unpredictable partners.

My fifth point is that during times of uncertainty people adopt the old adage “any port in a storm.” That expression means that a boat that is in danger of sinking must dock at the first port it finds, even if that is really not an ideal place. Thus people will ally themselves with some very dubious beliefs and cohorts if they feel pressurized in chaotic conditions. All sides in the Middle East situation have done this. The Israelis hooked up with certain Evangelical and other outlying Christian groups who view Israel just as cannon fodder for conversion and the “imminent” “battle with the Anti-Christ.” I will say one thing; at least these nuts have made Catholics look good again. Muslims have come to learn to distinguish between Christians who are mainstream and are not presuming to dictate who is doing what to whom “according to the Bible” and those who are trying to use the conflict in the Middle East as some sort of stage for their Anti-Christ play. Israelis in their desperation for peace and normalcy have taken money and listened to the horrible advice of many Christian nut jobs. I can’t think of too many worse combinations that Jews who have lost their own faith and who take advice from Christians who are lost in a confrontational fantasy. This in fact harkens back to the crusader problem where some sort of new age crusaders have run around in Israel influencing secular leaning Jews toward thinking of the Muslims and themselves as participants in some end of times tableau. This is a sane diplomat’s worse nightmare, LOL. Muslims would find it much easier to negotiate with solid Orthodox or Conservative Jews who have the discipline and self contained restraint of mainstream beliefs. What is really sad is that when conservative Jews backlash, often they hit the Christians who are not the nut jobs, especially Catholics and Orthodox. So Jews bog down in arguing about whether Pope Pius XII was all he could have been in helping Jews in World War II, rather than wondering why so many Christians are running around Israel looking for the Anti-Christ and predicting how many Jews will die and how many will convert before “the end of times.” Muslims, on the other hand, have come to discern between whacky Christians and the mainstream Christians, notably the Catholic Church, and thus things are improving and options are opening up. So my advice to any diplomat who has to deal with issues regarding Israel is to be aware that for decades now certain Christian nut jobs have pulled strings behind the scenes among the Israeli government and populace, stirring up an “end of times” mentality that is contrary to diplomatic good faith efforts.

This is one reason why Iran has become so outspoken regarding their Shiite Twelver beliefs. The Iranian clergy and government are fully aware that certain secularists and Christians have influenced Israelis with their manufactured “end of times” narrative and expectations. As I’ve explained, Muslims of all sects have a justifiable suspicion that Christians have, in general, abandoned the one God. Remember, crusaders are, to them, secularized Christians who promote Jesus Christ and deny God. So it’s not like Iran decided to suddenly spout what westerners may deride as apocalyptic and “extremist Islam beliefs.” Rather, Iranians view themselves as “setting the record straight.” From the point of view of the clergy and the government of Iran, they perceive that Israel has become overrun with unpredictable crusaders and secularized Jews. Contrary to popular thought and as I discussed above “secular logic,” Iran is not reassured by less devout Jews. Greater devotion and mainstream faith is stabilizing on all sides, among Muslims, Jews and Christians alike. This is why the clergy of Iran, the President, and other government representatives constantly reiterate their faith context within documents of even only secular scope. They feel they must repeatedly refute and restore what they consider to be a mainstream context for what they think is often irrational secular or cultist influences. Western governments and the media erroneously portray Iran as like suddenly coming up with strange ideas while the opposite is true. They view themselves as speaking up, louder and louder, as they see a jumble of marginal cultist beliefs and secularization invade their own region of the world, specifically Israel. The last thing Iranian clergy wants are nominal Christians telling the Israelis that they “know” that the Anti-Christ is this or that and that the end of time is “coming” here or there on such and such a place. Mark my words, behind the scenes “end of time” nut job advocacy has set back peace in the Middle East. This became clear to the Iranians and others when they observed some of the muted but unmistakable behind the scenes apocalyptic dialogue that informed the invasion of Iraq by the USA. So to summarize this point, a diplomat who dialogues with Iran must realize that Iran is not trying to be extremist in their beliefs or out of the mainstream but, rather, Iranians feel they must speak up with what they view as the correct and less specific interpretations of end of time theology. Like the Catholic Church, Iranians in general believe that only God knows those times and that those events and their timing cannot and should not be manipulated by human beings. Thus it is an error for diplomats to view the faith based verbiage of the Iranian government to be provocative. In fact, the opposite is true, where Iranians feel that reiteration of their faith context is mainstream and helpful to stabilizing what has been an increasingly unstable and chaotic fragmentation in their part of the world.

The obvious example of any port in a storm is the attraction of extreme Hadassah teachings and militant Palestinian organizations, giving rise to what is called Islamic extremism. When people feel disenfranchised and continually pushed by what they consider to be unpredictable and randomly pushing forces, they join up with forces that they feel can push back. Some of it is so frustratingly predictable. For example, people have known for years that the legal Palestinian organizations, led by Arafat, were at best inexperienced and at worst corrupt regarding the financials of aid that was given to them by the rest of the world. But rather than send a lot of boring accountants and viewing that as a problem that needed to be solved, those who oppose the Palestinian agenda laughed in their hands at the hapless and corrupt looting and wasting of money. However, suddenly there is no laughter when the people, who are no fools, elect Hamas into power. Suddenly there is outrage and puzzlement, how could the Palestinians vote in even worse extremists! I found reading such reports in the newspapers to be too foolish to even put up with. Everyone knew full well that the Palestinian government was wasting and looting, as just about every immature government agency will do, and they just let it happen rather than donate and even insist on financial advisors. But every wise option was blocked by the view that it was “aiding terrorists” when one helps the Palestinians. That is what I mean by the feeling that secularized Jews have, to Muslims, an alarmingly unpredictable set of reactions and the international community, including the UN, has been naïve, to say the least. I would have sent a boatload of accountants to the Palestinian authority along with the financial aid and as a condition to it, and that’s a fact. I mean, it must have been twenty years ago that I heard on a NYC TV news station report chuckling about how Arafat has part ownership of a bowling alley in Manhattan. How stupid is this? Everyone was laughing up their sleeves at how the Palestinians mismanaged their aid money, and the people suffered, and then they are surprised when finally the Palestinians “threw the bums out” and elected Hamas? Then you heard squeals and howling of “outrage” all the way to the supposedly democracy advocating White House. The average Palestinian family has been looted every which way imaginable, and everyone has been “in on it,” including the USA and Israel. And then people wonder when they continue to despair and adopt “any port in a storm.”

My sixth point is about the terminology “Zionist entity.” Westerners and the Israelis view the use of this term by Muslims as a slur, just like the term crusaders. Diplomats need to not be so simplistic and understand, just as I explained crusader, the nuance and origins of the term. Muslims use the term Zionist in order to avoid using the terms “Jewish” or “Israelite,” those two terms which they have no desire to insult. Muslims share the faith history preserved in the Jewish Bible of the ancient Israelites and confirm in their own Qur’an that Judaism is one of the God believing faiths. They, correctly, observe that the secular state of Israel has a government that is neither Jewish, as in being a theocracy or state religion, or Israelite, as in mandated and structured as the Kingdom of Israel of old. Thus the Muslims who use this term are taking care not to call Israel something that they feel it is not (which is, as I explained, a faith based structure as was in the past) but to characterize it as what they think it is, which is a created construct. Israel was created, as many countries in the world have been, as a result of the end of colonialism, armed conflict and UN or other governing mandate. This makes the state of Israel, in the eyes of many, to be the “Zionist entity.” It was the Zionist political movement, in reaction to the Holocaust during World War II that resulted in the creation of a state that then became populated by immigrant Jews. I’m not making a statement as to the justification of the state of Israel either way, so I’m not being critical or “taking sides.” I’m explaining the mindset and historical facts that any diplomat needs to appreciate. When someone refers to the “Zionist entity,” sure, they are not being complimentary. But one must understand the nature of the slur in order to successful comprehend diplomatic positions.

Iran serves as an excellent example in the Zionist entity discussion. Many westerners insist on thinking that Iranians hate Jews, and when they hear Iranians use the term “Zionist entity” they think that is a slur referencing that supposed hatred. But that is not true. There is a minority Jewish population in Iran and they have a parliamentary representative who occupies the seat reserved for Jews. Whenever that representative or others state that Iranians do not hate Jews, they are accused of being brainwashed, controlled, and oppressed or, not to be indelicate, to use American slang referring to servants “the house Jew.” I mean, if you want to believe that a country hates your faith or your culture, even if that is not true, I guess it’s a free world and you can think what you want. But any of your diplomatic endeavors will of necessity go awry due to this lack of misunderstanding. “Zionist entity” is a code word that is not just a slur regarding the belief that the state of Israel is a false and artificial construct, but it also a positive validation that the speaker is not using the term “Jewish” or “Israelite” as a slur. Diplomats need to understand precisely what the parties to negotiation are actually saying and what they actually believe.

My seventh point is that when stances are misunderstood, over simplified or painted as cartoons, rather than being clarifying, greater confusion results. To use the previous example, if one insists in believing that Iran “hates Jews,” one has swept off the table multiple diplomatic options that are valid but presume that Iran does not hate Jews. Thus simplistic and erroneous thought and speech eliminate valid diplomatic options rather than make the problem easier to solve.

My eighth point is that extremist speech tends to breed more extremist speech in response. Many people are outraged by what the President of Iran says about the Holocaust. But if you were experienced diplomats who understand human nature, you’d recognize that “pressing buttons” is a common reaction to being characterized in cartoon terms one’s self. If people are going to insist that one is a “Jew hater” when one is not, one loses motivation to defend the accuracy of what you do believe, and it is common to respond by shrugging and pressing some buttons in return. Genuine diplomats recognize that and put it in their proper context. As a diplomatic pointer that I may give to those who are outraged by comments such as questioning the Holocaust. It is diplomatically a sign of weakness and insecurity to obsess over and freak out about a statement that one knows is untrue. Every poker player knows that if your opponent stops the game to tell you that your mother wears combat books and is a linebacker on the Green Bay Packers, that you do not stop the game to get “proof” that your mother does not wear combat boots and that she is not a hefty linebacker for an American football team. And you do not obsess during the rest of the game with thinking that your opponent “really believes” that your hefty combat boot wearing mamma spends her Sundays playing on the gridiron. I try to think back to the last time I observed a genuine deft diplomat on the public stage and I must confess, I really cannot think of any recently. The Americans in particular seem so eager to get into tit-for-tat name calling while actually holding their “diplomatic” portfolios that it is just pathetic.

My ninth and final point, for this particular blogging, is that diplomats must avoid using bad or otherwise inexplicable behavior as “input” to unrelated situations being negotiated without fully understanding its context. Here I am referring to the relationships between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Westerners observe outbreaks of horrible violence and merciless cruelty between these groups as somehow being informative of the character of the people and the faith in general. That sounds like a powerful argument that no one can refute, that surely there is something “wrong” with a faith where the believers of different sects can bomb each other’s shrines and mosques, torture civilians, murder children, and describe them as unbelievers. However, here is the danger of drawing a cultural conclusion from those events. If an observer had arrived on earth for the first time in the 1970’s and 1980’s and their only exposure to Christian Protestants and Catholics was to be Northern Ireland, what would they “learn” and conclude? They would see Protestants and Catholics do unspeakable things to each other. If they left earth at that point and told their colleagues what they saw, what valid conclusions could they have taken back with them based on witnessing what came to be called “The Troubles?” Likewise diplomats must take great care to not draw broad based conclusions when they witness terrible sectarian violence among Muslims. It is factual information that must be considered in context (and indeed was not considered by the Americans at ALL when they invaded Iraq, to the woe and detriment to all), where one knows that the potential for such a conflict exists, just as it did in fact exist between Protestants and Catholics in the power keg of Northern Ireland. Diplomats constantly “mine” for information and perspectives that are fully informed by the context and the factors that could precipitate those conditions, but they are very cautious about sweeping generalities of culture and character, which would in the large part be proven disastrously wrong.

Well, I hope that you, dear readers, have found my thoughts here to be helpful. I feel I must make some sort of joke about being a diplomat with an invisible and very low paying portfolio, ha.