Sunday, September 14, 2003
11:35 am
Waving the Veto - 14th September 2003, 11.23
Britain retained the pro-US stance that it has taken throughout this year in the meeting of the permanent members of the Security Council. Under the supervision of Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the five members attempted to reach a consensus for a new resolution that allowed a greater role for the international community in Iraq.
The diplomatic divisions, as reported, were between the United States and France. The United States wishes to 'internationalise' the occupation and spread the costs beyond its own stretched budgets. France has called for a strict timetable of one month for returning full sovereignty to the Iraqi nation and their representatives. This would overturn the role of the US led administration and, as a consequence, ensure that Europe (France) obtained a role in shaping the future of the country.
These stances are too far apart to secure the necesary consensus required for a United Nations resolution. Whilst the United States has shown some flexibility in the transition process of returning Iraq to sovereignty, because of the pressure of events, France has capitalised on this by presenting an almost impossible target - one month. The French have again abandoned the politics of diplomacy for the politics of posture, perhaps viewing the turn to the United Nations by the United States as a similar 'stunt'. Negotiations under these circumstances will prove drawn out and fruitless, as France is unable to play the game very well. You don't bluff when your hand is visibly weak.
The French cards only contain the veto at the United Nations, a strength that the Germans do not even share. The budget deficits of both France and Germany are already too high to support a rise in military expenditure or the transfer of substantial numbers of troops on peacekeeping duties to the Middle East. All 'Old Europe' has is the threat of a UN veto, and in order to demonstrate their willingness to deploy this diplomatic bombshell, thay are forced to take positions that the United States or Great Britain is unable to accept. This is because they have nothing else to bring to the table.
Britain retained the pro-US stance that it has taken throughout this year in the meeting of the permanent members of the Security Council. Under the supervision of Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the five members attempted to reach a consensus for a new resolution that allowed a greater role for the international community in Iraq.
The diplomatic divisions, as reported, were between the United States and France. The United States wishes to 'internationalise' the occupation and spread the costs beyond its own stretched budgets. France has called for a strict timetable of one month for returning full sovereignty to the Iraqi nation and their representatives. This would overturn the role of the US led administration and, as a consequence, ensure that Europe (France) obtained a role in shaping the future of the country.
These stances are too far apart to secure the necesary consensus required for a United Nations resolution. Whilst the United States has shown some flexibility in the transition process of returning Iraq to sovereignty, because of the pressure of events, France has capitalised on this by presenting an almost impossible target - one month. The French have again abandoned the politics of diplomacy for the politics of posture, perhaps viewing the turn to the United Nations by the United States as a similar 'stunt'. Negotiations under these circumstances will prove drawn out and fruitless, as France is unable to play the game very well. You don't bluff when your hand is visibly weak.
The French cards only contain the veto at the United Nations, a strength that the Germans do not even share. The budget deficits of both France and Germany are already too high to support a rise in military expenditure or the transfer of substantial numbers of troops on peacekeeping duties to the Middle East. All 'Old Europe' has is the threat of a UN veto, and in order to demonstrate their willingness to deploy this diplomatic bombshell, thay are forced to take positions that the United States or Great Britain is unable to accept. This is because they have nothing else to bring to the table.
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2003
(696)
-
▼
September
(45)
- Soldiers have a right to life One of the more di...
- Job Done: A Tory Endgame for Iraq In the Guardian...
- East Of Suez One of our remaining commitments is ...
- Britain accepts PKK as a terrorist organisation, a...
- IGC: Stormclouds Looming The forthcoming intergov...
- Private Widdle Speaks It appears that the Chief o...
- Pocket Battleships An extremely good article fro...
- Galileo: A Commercial Rival to GPS The satellite ...
- The Politics of Incoherence
- The Beeb's pro-war bias I always thought that it ...
- The Telegraph had an interesting article on Hitler...
- The great question From the left wing blog Nobo...
- Further detail on the defence concessions that Bla...
- Blair has shown that he is still trying to walk th...
- Placemen, Puppets and Toadies The reform of the ...
- The Latvians have voted "Yes" in the final enlarge...
- Visit The Foreign Office - 20th September 2003, U...
- Biased Brent Coverage Cut into jerry built studio...
- Wat Tyler's Organisation - 18th September 2003, 21...
- Prodi's Pronouncement - 18th September 2003, 21.00...
- We Want Space and We Won't Wait China to launch i...
- Overreaching - 16th September 2003, 23.03 With th...
- Zimwatch: Closing the presses One question that ...
- Assassination: Politics by other means? The assas...
- 112 Gripes about the French - 14th September 2003,...
- Waving the Veto - 14th September 2003, 11.23 Brit...
- Forum Europe - 12th September 2003, 15.55 What ar...
- Remember, Remember the 11th September - 11th Septe...
- A Trend? - 11th September 2003, 22.29 In the Prim...
- Martyr for the Yes Vote It won't win me a prize f...
- REQUIRED URJENT ASSISTANCE DEAR SIR / MADAM, I A...
- Adam died on a Zebra Crossing - 9th September 2003...
- Euroluvvies - 7th September 2003, 20.38 We are al...
- Sweden's Euro 2003 Qualifier - 7th September 2003,...
- Oi, Nutter Michael Meacher hasn't seen a cause th...
- On:Message, Repeat, Ad Infinitum - 5th September 2...
- PRESS RELEASE FROM THE CENTRE FOR THE NEW EUROPE h...
- One Opens, Another Closes - 3rd September 2003, 22...
- Hutton: The Pit and the Pendulum - 3rd September 2...
- The 'Internationalisation' of the Iraqi Conflict -...
- Second XV limber up for Convention rematch - 2nd S...
- Now Brussels wants homeowners to pay tribute Mort...
- Autumnal reading There are three columns worth re...
- Navigating Division - 1st September 2003, 22.20 D...
- Free Life Commentary Issue Number 111 Monday, 1st ...
-
▼
September
(45)
0 comments:
Post a Comment