The question is not really about a shift to the economic cone where officers are writing about the balance of payments and the need for economic stabilization.
From Lawrence Eagleburger
The point is, once they have a missile that can hit the United States, we are now back in the kind of game we used to worry about with the Soviet Union, only the Soviet Union was more mature about this whole thing than I think the North Koreans will be.
That said, there is a tendency to help the large industrial conglomerate more quickly than the small company you have never heard of. That is something in the culture we are trying to change.
Some day, somebody is going to have to start talking about what happens to us all a decade from now if we let these North Koreans and the Iranians go forward with their nuclear weapons program.
Small- and medium-sized companies do not know what we have to offer and that needs to be changed. We must react just as strenuously on their behalf as we do for larger companies.
Now there is a cultural change under way in the Foreign Service.
My point here is I think international pressures of our acting unilaterally again are going to be such that the administration will say, well, we just can't take this on now.
In the best of all worlds everyone in the Embassy is doing something to assist U.S. exports.
In a time of constrained resources we will have to shift emphasis. but not necessarily from the traditional Political Officer to the traditional Economic Officer.
I think what he's - what he believes, and he may be correct, I don't know, that we have some intelligence information that leads us to know some things about what's going on in Iraq that we haven't revealed to others.
4 perspectives
3 perspectives
1 perspectives