[eDebate] Consultantion Args from Johnny Prieur
Tue Oct 9 22:29:29 CDT 2007
Forwarded from Johnny,
Someone mentioned this thread to me and I decided to check it out. I don't
have much time for a discussion so this will be my only post. But nobody
seemed to be saying it and I thought it should be said...
How can you disregard consultation CPs on a diplomacy topic?
The topic specifically calls for a diplomatic engagement (consultation)
ultimately producing an offer (proposal of the plan) that can be either
accepted or rejected (its binding).
Granted, it is not a perfect parallel - we don't give Japan any foreign
assistance under "genuine consultation" - but its pretty damn close. Doesn't
the topic itself seem to imply that the practice of engagement and
diplomatic negotiation is in and of itself significant?
I mean really, how can you credibly discuss Lebanon without also thinking
about Syria? Afghanistan without Pakistan? Iran without Israel?
If your response is just "that is ok disad ground but not as a CP" than you
have missed the point of this topic - not only that there is value even if
the offer is rejected, but more broadly the importance of diplomacy and the
give-and-take nature of the international political system.
I think that that idea (its a disad not a cp) is exactly what has got the
current administration in a host of trouble, not wanting to hear or respect
the opinions of its allies and instead choosing to just deal with the
consequences. Maybe these types of arguments are more than timely...
University of Miami
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman