"Negotiation in the classic diplomatic sense assumes parties more anxious to agree than to disagree"
About this Quote
Acheson’s line is a polite way of drawing a boundary around the very idea of diplomacy: it only works when the combatants secretly want it to work. Coming from a chief architect of early Cold War strategy, the sentence doubles as diagnosis and warning. Diagnosis, because “classic diplomatic sense” isn’t nostalgia so much as a set of conditions - shared rules, mutual recognition, and a minimum appetite for stability. Warning, because if those conditions aren’t present, negotiation becomes theater: meetings for headlines, summits as stalling tactics, communiques that mask irreconcilable aims.
The craft here is in the asymmetry of the verbs. “Anxious to agree” suggests more than rational preference; it implies urgency, even fear - the sense that disorder is costlier than compromise. “Anxious to disagree,” by contrast, captures a darker motive: that conflict itself can be useful. States may need enemies to consolidate power, justify budgets, shore up ideology, or test resolve. In that world, talks are not a bridge but a battlefield, where delay, ambiguity, and performative reasonableness become weapons.
Acheson’s subtext is a rebuke to naive faith in process. You can’t proceduralize your way out of a clash of objectives. The real question isn’t whether the negotiators are skilled, or whether the agenda is well designed. It’s whether both sides see agreement as a strategic gain rather than a strategic surrender. Without that, diplomacy doesn’t fail because we didn’t talk enough; it fails because talking was never the point.
The craft here is in the asymmetry of the verbs. “Anxious to agree” suggests more than rational preference; it implies urgency, even fear - the sense that disorder is costlier than compromise. “Anxious to disagree,” by contrast, captures a darker motive: that conflict itself can be useful. States may need enemies to consolidate power, justify budgets, shore up ideology, or test resolve. In that world, talks are not a bridge but a battlefield, where delay, ambiguity, and performative reasonableness become weapons.
Acheson’s subtext is a rebuke to naive faith in process. You can’t proceduralize your way out of a clash of objectives. The real question isn’t whether the negotiators are skilled, or whether the agenda is well designed. It’s whether both sides see agreement as a strategic gain rather than a strategic surrender. Without that, diplomacy doesn’t fail because we didn’t talk enough; it fails because talking was never the point.
Quote Details
| Topic | Decision-Making |
|---|
More Quotes by Dean
Add to List
