"We've talked to the Europeans about it. It's clear if those negotiations fail, then we are agreed with the Europeans that the next step is to take the matter to the U.N. Security Council"
About this Quote
Diplomacy is doing two things at once: looking reasonable and tightening the screws. Hadley’s sentence performs that double act with bureaucratic calm. The surface message is procedural - talks with Europeans, negotiations, escalation to the U.N. Security Council. The real work happens in the phrase “it’s clear,” which tries to launder a political choice into an inevitability. Clarity here isn’t a discovery; it’s a pre-authorization.
The line is also a subtle exercise in coalition management. “We’ve talked to the Europeans” signals legitimacy to multiple audiences: allies abroad, skeptics at home, and potential fence-sitters at the U.N. It implies the U.S. isn’t acting unilaterally; it’s moving with a bloc. That matters because Security Council action depends on persuading, pressuring, or cornering other major powers into going along - or at least not vetoing.
Notice the conditional: “if those negotiations fail.” Failure is framed as the other side’s fault, not the coalition’s. It sets a trap-door: once talks “fail,” escalation becomes the responsible next step, not a strategic escalation. And “take the matter” is a tidy euphemism for what usually follows - sanctions, formal condemnation, and the slow construction of a case that can justify harder measures later.
Contextually, this is post-9/11 foreign policy language at its most polished: multilateral packaging for a coercive trajectory. The intent is to make pressure feel like due process, and to make due process feel like consensus.
The line is also a subtle exercise in coalition management. “We’ve talked to the Europeans” signals legitimacy to multiple audiences: allies abroad, skeptics at home, and potential fence-sitters at the U.N. It implies the U.S. isn’t acting unilaterally; it’s moving with a bloc. That matters because Security Council action depends on persuading, pressuring, or cornering other major powers into going along - or at least not vetoing.
Notice the conditional: “if those negotiations fail.” Failure is framed as the other side’s fault, not the coalition’s. It sets a trap-door: once talks “fail,” escalation becomes the responsible next step, not a strategic escalation. And “take the matter” is a tidy euphemism for what usually follows - sanctions, formal condemnation, and the slow construction of a case that can justify harder measures later.
Contextually, this is post-9/11 foreign policy language at its most polished: multilateral packaging for a coercive trajectory. The intent is to make pressure feel like due process, and to make due process feel like consensus.
Quote Details
| Topic | Peace |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Stephen
Add to List



