Interesting

I'm not a fan but... I kinda support this. This lands right in an interesting gray area. Respecting others' way of life in their country is cool, but seriously that is some backwards submissive bullshit. imho Have at.

I think instinctively, my own rule would be "if I'm meeting you on your turf, I'll follow your customs; you step into my country then I'm going to do what the hell I want." But it would only be on the grounds of politeness--if there was even a whiff of requirement about it, then no, I don't think I would. From an international relations standpoint if nothing else, leaders on equal footing don't get to dictate what the other guy does.

Yes, interesting. You don't have to have a dog in the hunt to be interested in the outcome.

So she was not interested in learning anything. Apparently only wanted to tell a Lebanon top cleric how to think.

If there to learn, then she would have used a silly headscarf.

How dare the church require women to wear a headscarf in the Sistine Chapel or St Peter’s Basilica. How dare they ban men with exposed knees.

How dare a restaurant ban someone for not wearing a tie. Or clothes for that matter. How dare a restaurant ban a women for wearing risque clothing - inappropriate for the environment.

Do you want to tell them how to think? Or dress appropriately to learn something new?

tw wrote:

If there to learn, then she would have used a silly headscarf.

Since when is diplomacy about learning? Diplomacy is about power. If she wanted to learn she could get on Wikipedia (glib answer,) or consult her many ambassadors and advisors (actual answer, which she no doubt did.)

The article doesn't say where they were to meet, I doubt it was in his Mosque but it's possible.

Different but same happened in Iran with an official minister-level delegation from Sweden. The women all had a scarf, very loosly wrapped. They got a lot of BS especially because Sweden is very strong on equal rights. They said that wearing a scarf is nothing compared to the million$-contracts they managed to get signed and the discussions on top-level about women's rights.
Le Pen certainly knew before going that she would be asked to wear a scarf, but as she is far right and presidential elections are coming up in France this was just a show about sending a signal home. The mufti was a fool trying to meet her and not seeing that he was used in a political game. Or even worse he knew and they both agreed on the show so that both of them will be considered strong leaders who will impose their way of life. She for not wearing a scarf because of religious rules (islamic rules) and he for not bending the rukes to meet a female french islamophob politician. Both win, free world loses.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I think you hit the nail on the head, Pi. This was my own take on her actions too, but it didn't occur to me that he was playing the game too.

Clodfobble;982667 wrote:

Since when is diplomacy about learning? Diplomacy is about power.

When diplomacy is about power, then destruction (ie war) is acceptable. Diplomacy is always about learning. Learning is why people best meet face to face. To learn.

Why did Churchill spend two weeks in the White House in 1942? FDR and Churchill had to teach each other the many relevant concepts and experiences so that informed decisions could be made. The most important was an entire purpose of WWII. Unconditional surrender.

Reagan and Gorbachev met in Iceland to learn from one another many facts that might make possible an end to a Cold War. In order to eliminate distracting 'power' issues, they met alone only with two translators and two security agents. They almost eliminated all nuclear weapons. They didn't. But what resulted was mostly in what was learned by diplomacy in Iceland. It ended the Cold War (even though wacko extremists like Cheney insisted otherwise).

That is even why all nations have ambassadors in other nations. Diplomacy. To learn from others.

Diplomacy is always about learning - when a diplomat is working for the people. And not by Hugo Chavez, Milosevic, Hitler, or Pol Pot. Even Lt Calley could have negotiated with those Vietnamese villagers. But he was only interested in using big guns - power. And so he (and his superiors) created a My Lai massacre. They did not learn by being diplomatic. They were driven by power.

Le Pen has no interest in diplomacy. Even refuses to wear a headscarf. She is an extremist - not diplomatic. She is driven by power. She wants to power those clerics into what to believe. She has no interest in learning what those religious leaders know. She demonstrates when diplomacy is corrupted by power. When a diplomat is not diplomatic; is an extremist - an enemy of humanity.

BTW, we have a president who cannot be diplomatic. He already knows more than the generals. He is driven by power and self serving gratification. He clearly is not and never was diplomatic. And so we have the Bowling Green massacre and murdering immigrants raging in the streets of Sweden. Had he been diplomatic, he would have never said those things. He worships power - not diplomacy.

When in Rome,do as the Romans do. He is not visiting her. She is visiting him. Diplomacy (in order to learn) requires a modicum of respect.

tw;982847 wrote:

...

Diplomacy is always about learning. Learning is why people best meet face to face. To learn.

...

Reagan and Gorbachev met in Iceland to learn from one another many facts that might make possible an end to a Cold War. In order to eliminate distracting 'power' issues, they met alone only with two translators and two security agents. They almost eliminated all nuclear weapons. They didn't. But what resulted was mostly in what was learned by diplomacy in Iceland. It ended the Cold War (even though wacko extremists like Cheney insisted otherwise).

That is even why all nations have ambassadors in other nations. Diplomacy. To learn from others.
...

Wow. I have so much respect for this.

You know when learning-based diplomacy would NOT be considered effective? Only when "certain kinds of people" are not worthy of reciprocal respect. Diplomacy that says "I already know better than you" is NOT diplomacy. In the elegant, classical sense (so well put, here by tw).

The world has enough disrespect and lack of understanding. That's, actually, the whole problem. Putting ourselves at odds with billions of people by making grandstanding generalizations is what is going to get us all killed.

Both abroad, and at home, apparently.

The right wing power over diplomacy movement is happening in many countries, even if they claim it's better to negotiate from a position of power. They have no intention of negotiating at all, just dictating to weaker powers, welcome to the 19th century.

The real problem is the people who elect these clowns.

Globalization and free trade was about nations, world wide, coming together in a diplomatic tenor. Then extremists preached hate to adults who are children. Hate (and similar emotions) is how extremists get elected or steal power. They simply appeal to many who, for example, have no idea what a "New World Order" really meant. This inspired Ruby Ridge, the Michigan Militia, and Timothy McVeigh. The emotional were inspired by soundbytes to hate that President George Sr (a Republican) concept. For the same reason so many in the deep south were so racist. Diplomacy is irrelevant to the emotional.

That is now happening in many places worldwide. It requires "we are good; they are evil" thinking. Brexit is a perfect example. Bogeymen are created to inspire the emotional. Even creating contempt for free trade.

Pi;982810 wrote:

... Or even worse he knew and they both agreed on the show so that both of them will be considered strong leaders who will impose their way of life. ...

Reverse cowgirl diplomacy.