| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran | |
| Security Council meeting on Iran delayed | |
| 2006-03-22 | |
 UNITED NATIONS - The UN Security Council on Tuesday postponed a scheduled meeting on the Iranian nuclear crisis to a later date, to allow France and Britain to draft a new text to take into account Russian objections, a Western diplomat said.
| |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #9 In mathematics generally means "in all cases". |
| Posted by: Rafael 2006-03-22 20:25 |
| #8 "generally" is a verrrrry loose term |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-22 20:12 |
| #7 Your posts are generally reasonable IMO. Nicest thing anyone's said to me today! |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-03-22 19:30 |
| #6 Security Council meeting on Iran delayed Another d@mned batch of bad caviar! |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-22 18:38 |
| #5 Iran will violate any resolution passed. The question is what Congress will support. They are going to want the fig leaf of lots of UN support for the attack. The speed at which Bush is moving indicates it won't happen till after the election, though the resolution will be before. I suspect next February. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-03-22 18:33 |
| #4 Security Council meeting on Iran delayed Another d@mned batch of bad caviar! |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-22 18:18 |
| #3 well theres two questions there. First, is it really necessary to have a unanimous vote on the UNSC, including all the non-permanent members. The diplos, in their professional wisdom, seem to think that adds weight to a resolution. My own opinion is that in the case of Iraq, the last Res that warned Iraq (I forget the number) we softened it to get unanimity, and that was a mistake. We'd have been better off with tougher resolution, but with some neg votes, as long as we could have gotten it past the P5. The other is getting all the P5 on board. If your goal is actually to pass a res, and not just provoke a showdown to show where people stand, getting the deal is a good thing. Now Im not against sometimes provoking a showdown to show where people stand. I think it might ultimately be worth doing that if Russia and China dont ever sign on - the Brits and French might not want to, since THEY (and the Germans) are the intended recipients of the lesson (that Russia cant be trusted). But I think for now Rice, Bolton, et al think that a res that advances the process can be passed. And they dont seem to see Iran having a nuke in the next 3 months. Oh, and I didnt mean to pick on you in particular, of course. Your posts are generally reasonable IMO. Just that rebuilding the US-EU relationship, and the work Rice has been doing in that area, seems like one of the less well told stories these days. Perhaps cause so many folks are either Bush haters, or EU haters. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-03-22 13:53 |
| #2 LH: I know, I know, I was being snarky. But it does seem that the perceived need to have a perfect draft, to which no one objects, is seen as more important than actually getting something done -- oh wait, it's time for lunch. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-03-22 11:05 |
| #1 they have to take into account the objections of countries with a veto. and yes, they do negotiate with the US about US objections. In this particular case UK and France seem to be coordinating closely with Germany and the US. So its really the four of them trying to overcome Russian and Chinese objections. Whether that works or not, we shall see. Whether its worth delaying an attack on Iran is worth debating. But positing a diff between the UK-French position and the US position at the UNSC on this, doesnt seem justified by the evidence. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-03-22 09:35 |