ABSTRACT
Diplomacy is by its very nature an intrinsically anthropocentric endeavor, and as such its traditional practitioners most often define power and agency in purely human terms. It is therefore not surprising that the active expression of human language – both literally and symbolically – is the focus of both scholars and practitioners of diplomacy, rather than the silence that precedes or follows words. In this light, silence is often seen as a passive absence rather than an active presence. Listening, in turn, which requires choosing silence, becomes a passive act that primarily stands as a means to a more effective use of the words that will inevitably follow.
