Diplomacy is the act of dealing with other nations, usually through negotiation and discussion. Diplomacy involves meetings between political leaders, sending diplomatic messages, and making public statements about the relationship between countries. The American president, for example, often hosts leaders and chief diplomats of other nations at the White House in order to discuss a variety of issues. Most diplomacy occurs behind the scenes as officials hold secret negotiations or meet privately to discuss key issues.
Approaches to Diplomacy
States generally pursue diplomacy in one of three ways:
Unilaterally: The states acts alone, without the assistance or consent of any other state.Bilaterally: The state works in conjunction with another state.Multilaterally: The state works in conjunction with several other states.
There are pros and cons to each of these three approaches. Acting unilaterally, for example, allows a state to do what it wants without compromise, but it must also bear all the costs itself. Acting with allies, on the other hand, allows a state to maintain good relations and to share the diplomatic burden, but this often requires compromise
Discover the capacity of reinvent self.
<u>This is false.</u>
1. In Sumerian city-states, politics and religion were intimately related. <u>The governor was the Prince-priest. the "High priest" or "Patesi", who represented the deity. </u>The priest administered the government of the city, the income of the temple, led the soldiers, supervised the maintenance of the canals and organized the cult. The temple then played a fundamental role. It was the axis of political, religious and also economic life.
2. With the expansion of the Sumerian cities, <u>the administration becomes more complex and there is a change in the attributes of the Patesi, who will be dedicated exclusively to worship.</u>
3. Military leaders converted into Kings will perform the rest of the functions. <u>These kings will maintain the division of Mesopotamia into small states:</u> each city, was a state in itself, with its own institutions of government, did not depend on a regional or imperial major power.
Answer:
I believe its C - revolution against the russian govt.
If the story of "All Quiet on the Western Front" was told today, the story would be much different, especially if it was told from the viewpoint of an American soldier involved in the War on Terror. First, the protagonist would not be coming from a nation that is in a state of total war. The War on Terror is a limited war and does not require the undivided focus of the American government, industry, and economy. A soldier, today, would likely be volunteering to join the military, instead of being all but forced to like the characters in "All Quiet on the Western Front." Second, the total detachment the soldiers in "All Quiet on the Western Front" feel from their civilian lives would not be as pronounced, given how today's soldiers are able to communicate with their friends and family back home by way of email, online chat, and quicker postal service. Thirdly, today's American soldiers are provided with far better and more extensive military training than the soldiers in "All Quiet on the Western Front" are, hence they would be more prepared for the combat experiences they must endure.
