Robert Seeberger wrote: > I would describe it as "sub-formal". The Security Council is > substatially mired down in other concerns that is less than optimally > effective as it might be. IMO the terms should be clear to all: "You > won't or else.....you shall not use such weapons or else.....you will > not make threats concerning use of such weapons or else". The threat > is much too dire for an understanding of anything less.
See the prolem here, as far as I can make out, is this: the only nations which are actually in the position to issue such ultimatums are also the countries who have no moral standing to do so. It is *very* hard to convince people that nukes suck and ought to be avoided when you are backed by a huge nuclear arsenal and are in no hurry to disarm yourselves. "Do as I say, not as I do" has never been a convincing argument. > > Isn't that why Iran is so dead-set against being referred to the > > Security Council for removing the seals? > > I think Iran is set on building influence and power. I hypothesize > that Iran is one of those nations with an ancient and storied > past and > that many there feel their nation has an inherent right to be a > "Playa" both regionally and on the world stage. It seems to me that > such memes are often enough a part of a (non-economic) conservatism > that sometimes involves a distinct nationalism/fascism but almost > always plays well in the home park. These memes always play well in the home park. Think 'manifest destiny' and 'shining city on the hill'. > I think too North Korea plays into this somewhat. > They had nukes, were part of the Axis of Evil, and were not > invaded. Iraq didn't and was. I don't think this was missed > by everyone, and now it may be seen as > desireable to possess nukes as a hedge against invasion by more > powerful nations. Yep, I made that point in my response to your first mail in this thread [don't go checking the mail - I never got around to sending it]. > It may be that the ease with which the US swatted Iraq down surprised > much of the developing world Uh, no. Think of the size and condition of Iraq's army and you'll see why no one was surprised. > I agree. > I have no expertise in this area and am really just guessing about > motives and movement. I'm wondering if Andrew or Ritu have any > interesting comments on the subject. It is almost always quite > instructive to hear from people distinctly outside the American pool > of opinion. (Not that Russell is mistaken for an American<G>) Ah well, I'll try and finish the first mail then and send it. It is the one I mentally call 'Fat in the fire'. :) Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
