Reply
Fri 18 Jun, 2004 10:28 am
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/18/iran.iaea/index.html
A France/Germany/Britain resolution that harshly condemns Iran on the issue of nuclear cooperation with the IAEA has passed, but does not include a trigger mechanism.
In my opinion, other nations will be wary of doing so given their concerns about US intentions after the war in Iraq.
IF they are harsh enough and include a trigger mechanism sending it to the SC they might worry that the US will use it as the basis for an act that none of them agree with.
Does anyone else think that resolutions of this ilk will be mitigated by concerns that the US will use their wording to justify acts that they are opposed to?
That's a possible. It's also possible that the US and/or UN will not shoot at all, after considering the likely hood of being accused of shooting from the hip. It is also possible the UN will adopt this line of thinking to excuse an endless series of toothless resolutions.
Hmmm - if I were a UN delegate I would certainly be thinking very carefully about trigger mechanisms re countries the US has expressed belligerence towards.
I suppose a brighter side of this might possibly be that the UN will be thinking in a more focused and clear way about whether it would, or would not, be really committed to doing anything about resolutions it passes?
If I were in their place, I would treat the USA like a tiger in the house.
Well, interestingly, Iraq was a war waged in a situation in which some of the UN's countries took special care to deny any trigger mechanisms in the resolution.
Deny that they existed, or try not to put any in?
Steadfastly refused to include any.
Ok - I'm officially lost.
There were no trigger mechanisms in the Iraq resolution - because some states didn't want any - how are things different now? Some states STILL don't want any.
They don't want 'em more fervidly now?
I think it started right then. Our intentions in regard to Iraq were pretty clear at that point.
Aaaaaaaah! Gotcha. Hmmm - well, it would be moot at present whether the UN could render itself more toothless through watering down resolutions than the US has made it by ignoring it.
Was having a UN/Iraq discussion the other day - friend thought that Germany and France etc had acted wrongly (as did the US, of course, for the sake of this discussion that is assumed) in taking such an implacable stance - that, if a more open stance had been taken it might have been possible to reach some sort of joint agreement - ie that both sides backed themselves into symmetrical corners.
I note the UN being more co-operative now - fear or better thought out tactics, I wonder?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace