A More Acceptable Solution?
Well, no doubt about it, jaw-jaw is always preferable to war-war. Yes, it is certainly incumbent upon world leaders and international diplomats to explore every avenue of reasonable debate in an attempt to solve critical issues that rear their problematic heads from time to time. And often enough, such tete-a-tetes reveal a lack of understanding or communication between protagonists has led to situations requiring another tack to resolve.Sometimes, though, there is no mistaking the message being delivered. And when the message is sufficiently irksome to the point of representing itself as an existential threat, no amount of palavering is sufficient to even come close to solving the problem. There is nothing to solve. A dire and direct threat of aggression is unsolvable. Particularly when it's being offered by a body or an individual whose intent it is to destabilize through bombastic threats, with full intent to follow through with violent action.
One can submit to the threats in part and become a part of them, and in this instance give up all pretensions to neutrality and responsibility, as in the case of the United Nations and its member agencies conducting exploratory talks with a state entity such as theocratic Iran and it's implacably hard-line position on nuclear arming itself and its allied threat and intent to destroy a neighbouring country.
To state, as has Jiang Yu, an official UN spokesman: "We do not approve of easily resorting to threatening use of force in international affairs", is high-minded and a reminder of the function of the United Nations. Entirely reasonable. But reasonableness has its best-before date. To sit back reasonably, and wait for matters to resolve themselves, when that resolution results inevitably of a cataclysm that cannot be undone amounts to criminal negligence.
Iran has its defenders. Russia warns of catastrophic consequences, should Iran be bombed. China is highly critical of those sources which claim to be arriving at the end of their patience with Iran's irascibly-determined leader in theistic triumph and the steady descent of the country's devout search for nuclear, Allah-approved weaponry.
That UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon remains determined to extend the courtesy of diplomatic welcome to one such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is compellingly mindless of the thrust and intent of this man's ambition and direction in world affairs. Yes, the UN is the global forum where issues are discussed and solutions hammered out. In the best of all possible scenarios.
But issues such as Lebanon/Syria/Hezbollah, Sudan/Darfur, Israel/Palestinian Authority/Hamas for example, have been discussed ad infinitum, and where are the solutions, even working-level suggestions and recommendations from that august body?
Labels: Justice, World Crises
posted by Pieface @ Wednesday, September 19, 2007
<< Home