Dan - Times like these, it's hard to be nuanced, because nuance tends to get ignored or smashed into pieces by the sledgehammer swung blindly in the dark. You make a terribly nuanced point.
In principle (love that diplomatic phrase), of course it make sense to support reform, IF the objective of the reform is to make the institution better, faster, stronger, more relevant and effective, more prepared to take on the task at hand etc.
Of course that IF is a pretty big IF in the current case. And to me, we need wait no longer to discover the real objective behind the proposed reform/downsizing, notwithstanding the platitudes mouthed by the hollow and powerless (not to say craven) secretary of state. If we're going to throw out the architecture of the global system without second thought, and take the side of our principal strategic enemy against our (former?) allies, partners, and friends, what might the purpose of reform be? If we're going to abandon our longstanding ideals, values, and interests without clear explanation, to what end reform?
For that reason alone, this moment calls for more categorical pronouncements in defense of our democracy, our constitutional system, and the institutions that sustain them, including our career diplomacy.
I appreciate you engaging with the nuance here. My point was simply to suggest I believe we need to continue to engage in public debate and put forward good ideas. There are still people in positions of authority who will benefit from well-informed discussion.
Dan - Times like these, it's hard to be nuanced, because nuance tends to get ignored or smashed into pieces by the sledgehammer swung blindly in the dark. You make a terribly nuanced point.
In principle (love that diplomatic phrase), of course it make sense to support reform, IF the objective of the reform is to make the institution better, faster, stronger, more relevant and effective, more prepared to take on the task at hand etc.
Of course that IF is a pretty big IF in the current case. And to me, we need wait no longer to discover the real objective behind the proposed reform/downsizing, notwithstanding the platitudes mouthed by the hollow and powerless (not to say craven) secretary of state. If we're going to throw out the architecture of the global system without second thought, and take the side of our principal strategic enemy against our (former?) allies, partners, and friends, what might the purpose of reform be? If we're going to abandon our longstanding ideals, values, and interests without clear explanation, to what end reform?
For that reason alone, this moment calls for more categorical pronouncements in defense of our democracy, our constitutional system, and the institutions that sustain them, including our career diplomacy.
I appreciate you engaging with the nuance here. My point was simply to suggest I believe we need to continue to engage in public debate and put forward good ideas. There are still people in positions of authority who will benefit from well-informed discussion.