From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Thu Mar 20 2003 - 02:55:05 MST
John K Clark writes:
> "Brett Paatsch" <paatschb@ocean.com.au> Wrote:
>
> > The current situation can be differentiated from Kosovo in that
> > unlike with Kosovo, the Security Council is "seized of the matter"
> > and the US has by signing off on 1441 acknowledged that the
> > UN Security Council is seized of the matter.
>
> They seized the matter and then took a nap, the New York Times
> had a interesting article on Monday about how that came about.
.
> When the USA was thinking about bringing 1441 to the UN
> Secretary Of State Powell first talked to Jacques Chirac the
> President of France, Chirac encouraged Powell to do it. Powell
> said don't vote for it unless you are prepared to enforce it. Chirac
> said don't worry you have my personal assurance that France will
> stand by you when the time comes. This is the reason this
> administration feels such rage against France, to be stabbed in the
> back by somebody you thought of as a friend is disturbing.
It seemed to me that President Chirac may have surprised by the
diplomatic tactics employed by President Bush. It was after all
President Bush's judgement and not Secretary of State Colin
Powell's, that he, (Chirac), had to reckon on as being decisive in
setting the US position.
Perhaps President Chirac took President Bush statements about
getting the security council members to put their cards on the table,
regardless of the outcome, so to speak, as a exercise in political
brinkmanship with him that President Bush would not back away
from. Indeed, given that the only operative provision in the
proposed resolution mooted by Spain, the UK and the US was
to determine that the "final opportunity" under 1441 had passed,
I know that I suspected that President Bush's intent was to put each
of the security council members who did not wish to take military
action into the spotlight and make them argue in front of each other
and the whole world that the "final opportunity" in 1441 had not
passed.
I reckon President Chirac probably did not have to fake surprise
that President Bush did not call for a vote that he had so publicly
stated he would call for. Who would have bet that President Bush
would blink in an exercise in brinkmanship after setting it up himself
in front of the media and in front of the American people?
Regards,
Brett Paatsch
PS: Have you noticed how often our elected leaders upon whose
personal judgement so much relies make use of the word belief ?
Maybe its just me. Every time I hear it, it's like I mentally substitute
the word "belief" with the phrase "you may be wise to consider I
may have suspended critical thought when I say"..
It sounds to me like I imagine the Iraqi leaderships statements
interspersed with "God willing" sound to other folks. Perhaps
someone ought to invent a 'Geiger counter' for such terms. I heard
Prime Minister Howard doing quite a bit of "believing" in his
statement tonight after the Opposition leader handed the media
legal advice critiquing that offered to him (Howard) and stating
that military action in the circumstances was illegal.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 20 2003 - 02:44:17 MST