2. SummaryThis article critically evaluates the importance of negotiations and expansive discourse in the formulation of apologies, particularly in a political and diplomatic context. Focusing on two relevant China-US issues, viz. After the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999 by an American plane and the collision between a Chinese fighter plane and an American spy plane in 2001, the author evaluates the pragmatism of diplomatic apologies, with a specific reference to the American apologies addressed to China during these two events. Methodology and ObjectivesThis study was based on informal interviews conducted in late 2001 with four anonymous U.S. State Department officials involved in public negotiations over the U.S. apology. The author writes that his goal in conducting these interviews was threefold. First, he wants to clarify the intricacies of international diplomatic apologies. Second, he intended to “sound out” the opinion of official diplomats on such an apology. Finally, he hoped that this study would contribute to a better understanding of the characteristics of diplomatic apologies and the pragmatic aspects associated with them.ObservationsThrough this study, the author highlights the fact that most political apologies are formulated in such a way that both nations' real political goals are achieved. To achieve an act of apology, “the stage must be set through a process of negotiation and reconciliation” (Thompson 2005). Reflecting this idea, the author describes the type of negotiations that take place before a formal apology is placed in a political context. Based on the data collected from the interviews, the author writes that the US apologies to China for the two crises were "ambiguous" and negligent. The...... middle of paper ......n Monographs 51, no. 3: 227-242, accessed August 10, 2011, http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/13165_Chapter1.pdf. Gopen, George and Judith Swan. “The Science of Scientific Writing.” American Scientist, November 1990. Accessed August 10, 2011. https://www.americanscientist.org/issues/issue.aspx?id=877&y=0&no=&content=true&page=4&css=print.Strongman, L. 2011. 'Que devil ? : Understanding tolerance for ambiguity in business communication. PRism 8(1): 1-14, accessed August 10, 2011, http://www.prismjournal.org/fileadmin/8_1/Strongman.pdf. Thompson, Janna. 2005. “Apologies, Justice, and Respect: A Critical Defense of Political Apologies.” » Paper presented at the 12th Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics, Adelaide, September 28-30. Accessed August 10, 2011. http://www.unisa.edu.au/hawkeinstitute/gig/aapae05/documents/thompson.pdf.