Iran has the fortune of sitting on a copious amount of oil. They export their precious commodity extensively, notably to China. This effectively buys Iran Chinese loyalty at the UN Security Council and makes stern measures from that body impossible. I’m sure China isn’t happy with the prospect of Iranian nukes, but they’re not the ones to do anything about it. Russia is equally unsuited to dealling with Iran as they have no intention of allowing even more ‘westerners’ to stampede across their back yard and moreover have an interest in keeping a balance of power in the region. The hot potato is passed to Europe.

At present, the European Union is still quite divided. France can court danger without fear, having learned from two World Wars that when the going gets tough, the US will save them anyway. French popular opinion is also overwhelmingly anti-American and sympathises with the Arab nations of the Middle East. Many other European nations join France in wishing to strengthen the European Union by opposing American hegemony. They also favour ignoring the problem entirely or taking Ahmadinejad’s words of peace on face value. The European nations that were part of the Coalition of the Willing, such as Spain, Poland, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK face a strong anti-American sentiment at home. Many of those nations have troops in Iraq and/or Afghanistan and would never be able to ’sell’ any kind of military action again Iran in the nearby future. The EU throws a long potato to the United States.

The US features a president who is constantly being criticised over the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Iraq War especially is seen as a fiasco and is sometimes called ‘The New Vietnam’. The new Democratic overlords would never okay a military strike on Iran under the present circumstances and polls show that such a move would be widely unpopular. The American people don’t prrticularly feel for a repear of the Iraq War, especially against a nation with a far stronger military than Iraq had.

Realizing the dangers of a nuclear Iran but unable to act upon it, the US President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice remind the world on a daily basis that they “favor a diplomatic solution”. At the same time, Bush glances to the side and says that he “would understand” if Israel were to launch a military strike against Iran, making a last-ditch Hail Mary pass of the hot potato to Israel.

Normally, Israel would be happy to oblige. Let us not forget that Israel destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor Osiraq in 1981, delaying Iraqi nuclear research by over 20 years. As it stands, however, the position of Israeli Prime Minister Olmert is not much stronger than President Bush’s position: Olmert led Israel into war against Lebanon with less-than-ideal results, the Gaza withdrawal of 2005 only led to more rocket fire and the IDF soldiers that were kidnapped last summer still haven’t been returned. The Israeli people suffer from war fatigue and will in no way support a large-scale attack against Iran. Hence, the Israeli government has stated that they’re sitting this one out, and proceed to pass the hot potato back to the international community. And thus the game progresses.

This cycle needs to be broken if the danger of a nuclear Iran is to be averted. I’m not saying that a military strike is the only option. But a diplomatic effort can only succeed if it’s backed up with military backbone. Right now, though, Ahmadinejad knows that he doesn’t have to fear a strike and can thus continue with impunity. Nothing is to stop him from stalling the UN for as many years as Saddam did in Iraq. Just offering a carrot without threatening the stick isn’t going to work, in my opinion, but I’ll write more about the negotion options with Iran soon.

France, which now has AA-guns in Lebanon trained on Israeli planes, warned Israel against reconsidering a military strike, saying it would be a “total disaster” in terms of implications for the entire world. And while I agree that it would be unwise for Israel to take on Iran on its own at this time, forgive me for taking French military advice with a grain of salt

Tags:ahmadinejad, bush, iran, iraq, israel, middle east, nuclear un

Rangel told CBS’ “Face the Nation” yesterday that “If we’re going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can’t do that without a draft”, adding that the war in Iraq is being fought by American soldiers who disproportionately are from low-income families and minorities and implying a desire to change that.

While this isn’t the first time Rangel has called for reinstating the draft, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) tried to spin Congressman Rangel’s words by saying that Rangel knows his legislation will not be successful but wants to use the center stage to underscore that the U.S. war effort should be a “shared sacrifice” and his legislation was “a way to make that point.” She added that she personally opposes reinstating the draft and that Rangel’s post in the House Ways and Means Committee will not give him an effective forum for pursuing his military draft legislation.

Years ago, Congressman Rangel defended his support of the draft by saying that “this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way.” While this might be the case, I think that if you suggest bringing back the draft just to make a point, you’re going to extremes that make millions of people anxious. Punishing the entire American youth just to flip off a few people in power smells like collective punishment to me. Polls show that over 70% of the American population oppose a reinstatement of the draft.

Republican and Democratic leaders alike rushed to ensure the populace that they too oppose the draft. Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, told reporters “I don’t think we need it,” while the outgoing House Armed Services Committee chairman, Duncan Hunter (R-CA) said the military has been meeting its recruitment goals. “You have a draft and you have a lot of people who don’t want to serve … to force them to come in and take the place of volunteers doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

I can’t help but find all this very odd. Since the military draft was abolished in 1973 under the Nixon presidency, when the US was withdrawing from Vietnam, Republican presidential candidates are routinely asked whether they plan to reinstate the draft. Notably, president George W. Bush was asked this repeatedly when running for re-election in 2004. When, two decades earlier, president Reagan increased the defense budget, fears of the draft being reinstated were even more palpable.

Of course, neither Reagan nor Bush ever brought the question to the table. So I find it striking that a man who has been the Democratic Congressman for Upper Manhattan for the past 35 years mentions bringing back the draft as his first order of business once the Democrats gain control of Capitol Hill in January.

Rangel’s previous attempt to reinstate the draft in 2003 was defeated 402-2 in the House of Representatives. I don’t see his current attempt, which will come to a vote in early 2007, fare any better, but it’s funny to see him try.

Tags:congress, democrats, draft, house, iraq, military, republicans troops

Former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich spoke to Fortune magazine today about the 2008 presidential elections and whether he would run in them.

“You still don’t get it, do you?” he asks.

The radical realist who defied conventional wisdom 12 years ago by stealing the House out from under the noses of entrenched Democrats now plans a surprise attack for the presidency. “I’m going to tell you something, and whether or not it’s plausible given the world you come out of is your problem,” he tells Fortune. “I am not ‘running’ for president. I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen.” So he’s running, only without yet formally saying so.

Gingrich is approaching the presidential race in a fundamentally different way than other Republican presidential hopefuls such as John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. Gingrich tells Fortune that he plans to create a draft-Newt “wave” by building grassroots support for his health care, national security and energy independence ideas. He calls his GOP competitors “nice people” but says that “we’re not in the same business. They’re running for president. I’m running to change the country.”

Mr. Gingrich is not the first to run a so-called ‘movement’-campaign. Other famous examples include Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential bid and Ronald Reagan’s first attempt to reach the White House in 1976. Both of those are noted primarily for having failed. But the power of a movement-campaign doesn’t lie so much in winning the presidency as much as it does in influencing whomever does end up winning it.

“My hope is to create a wave that sweeps through that entire system, and in a context that obviously includes the presidency. Even if he’s not the nominee, Gingrich says he plans to throw the weight of what he’s built behind a “winning-the-future presidential candidate.”

I think Gingrich realizes that his chances to end up in the White House are about as bad as Kerry’s chances are. It has become conventional wisdom the Republicans can probably only hold on to the presidency by running a moderate such as Giuliani or McCain. Gingrich won’t persuade any Democrat to switch parties, but he can cause enough trouble for the front-runners come primary season that they will be forced to include some of his ideas in their own rhetoric to win the Republican nomination.

A moderate Republican might also consider asking Gingrich along as his running mate to pacify their core constituency, though I consider that unlikely as well. Then again, Newt Gingrich has made a career out of beating long odds. I can’t really picture seeing his name on the Republican ballot, but I can’t rule it out yet. Fortune mentions two recent polls that have him rank 2nd and 3rd in the GOP presidential nomination race. Recent polls I’ve seen mark him 4th and 5th, but Newt’s inclusion in the race should be interesting if nothing else.

Gingrich delineated his future moves as follows: come December, he will launch a 527 group, called “American Solutions for Winning the Future,” that will enable him to raise and spend unlimited money on behalf of this effort. Then in January, he will conduct a strategy meeting with advisors and will make his final decision next fall.

That would mean an extremely late start, but Gingrich has never exactly been conventional in his politics. In the words of his old friend, and occasional adversary, former House majority leader Dick Armey: “He’s never been a parochial member of Congress. He has big ideas, and has had them for a long time. He’s not going to appear to have just discovered them for the purposes of an election. And that’s a good place to be for an ‘08 candidate.”

Tags:election, gingrich, gop republicans

General Assembly resolutions are, by merit of not being binding, irrelevant. And the Security Council is, due to the veto-system, incapable of making decisions on many touchy subjects. Having to attain a majority of votes is usually such an arduous project that resolutions are watered down to a shadow of their original intentions and often achieve nothing.

Now, to move on.

The fact that member-states keep their full sovereignty is absolutely essential, of course. I don’t see the United States yielding an inch of sovereignty to the UN any time soon and I’m glad that it won’t. But it also means that resolutions that are, say, calling for a nation to stop nuclear research (such as Resolution 1718) or ones that call for a nation to disarm a terrorist group (such as Resolution 1701) can be ignored unhindered. Sometimes the offending nations get a slap on the wrist in the form of mild sanctions.

Since countries generally vote with their own political and economic agendas in mind, it’s often impossible to make any sort of resolution against an important trading nation succeed. Oil-rich, Middle Eastern states come to mind. At those rare occasions when the UNSC members do reach consensus on sanctions, they are usually either short-lived or circumvented - think of the Oil-for-Food(-and-Weapons) program. And since the UN usually shies away from threatening or engaging in military punishments, it was possible for a certain Iraqi ex-dictator to have ignored UNSC resolutions for 12 solid years. The ‘carrot-and-stick’ method doesn’t work very well if nobody believes you’ll use the stick.

Then there’s veto power. I’m happy that the US has it, otherwise anti-American and anti-Israeli resolutions would be accepted by the Securiy Council every single day. But I must admit that it seriously limits the possibilities of the Security Council. Veto-power basically means that any resolution against a nation, group or region important to China, France, Russia, the UK or the US, it fails immediately. A mere threat of a possible veto causes nations to radically rewrite the resolutions into the meaningless, impotent sheets of paper that I mentioned before.

The United Nations is a large and slow bureaucratic behemoth. Money vanishes into the bureaucracy and it takes far too long to change anything. If the UN can not change constantly with the times it needs to be replaced with something that can. It is simply unacceptable that the UN is still subsidizing the Military Staff Committee to meet every fortnight while that body has been dormant for the last 58 years. I also notice that the Trusteeship Council, officially inactive since 1994, still has a budget, a staff, offices and a huge auditorium.

The UN stance on human rights is a joke. Having Libya chair a commission on human rights removes any kind of credibility such a body might have had. Having human rights issues decided on by a majority vote of some of the world’s worst offenders is a very, very sad thing. Throughout its existance, the commission continuously condemned the US and Israel of violations of human rights while completely ignoring atrocities in many African, Asian, South American and Middle Eastern nations. The formation of the new United Nations Human Rights Council is slightly better, but not by much. The council aimed to keep out nations that don’t “uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights”. Last I checked, though, China, Cuba, Saudi-Arabia, Tunesia, Pakistan and Russia are not countries renowned for their tireless upholding of human rights.

General anti-American and especially anti-Israeli bias. The list is too long and deserves a post of its own, but a good summary can be found, for a change, on Wikipedia. That least is quite extensive, but I want to add that Israel is still the only member-state in the world that is not allowed to ever sit on the Security Council and that Israel alone is barred from membership in most committees. It has recently been allowed to enter some committees, after over 50 years of being excluded from all of them, but it’s still not enough. I doubt that a future Palestinian state would face the same restrictions.

UN Peacekeepers, if they are sent at all, are often sent with disastrously limited mandates, which have caused the Blue Helmets to be completely ineffectual in areas such as Rwanda, Somalia, Lebanon and Bosnia, sparking tragedies such as the Srbrenica Massacre. Peacekeepers also seem to cause many scandals, such as the prostitution scandal in Cambodia, the killing spree scandal in Haiti and of course the rape, pedophilia and human trafficking scandal in Congo.

While I certainly have more bones to pick with the United Nations, these are my main problems with it. If I haven’t quenched your thirst for UN wrongdoings, I suggest you take a look at DAHmich’s or G.T. Armstrong’s takes on the matter.

Finally, I want to say that I do respect what the UN set out to be. When Roosevelt and Churchill envisioned the United Nations, they had admirable goals, which I support. I also think the United Nations has made great steps towards eradicating hunger sheltering children and teaching them how to read, supplying water and protecting our natural and cultural heritage, to name but a few. I hope that one day, The United Nations will be a body that truly allows nation-states to work out their differences peacefully, one that will make the world a better place for future generations. I pray that it’s possible, but at this moment I don’t see how.

So, those are my thoughts. What are yours?

Tags:human rights, peacekeepers, resolution, security council, un, united nations united states

Bolton yesterday -in a slightly roundabout way- suggested that the United Nations might not be “capable of playing a helpful role in the region”, referring to the Middle East, and said that anti-Israel bias is “a decades-old, systematic problem that transcends the whole panoply of the UN organizations and agencies.”

What really struck me, though, was when Bolton said that “In a larger sense, the United Nations must confront a more significant question, that of its relevance and utility in confronting the challenges of the 21st century. We believe that the United Nations is ill served when its members seek to transform the organization into a forum that is a little more than a self-serving and a polemical attack against Israel or the United States.”

Personally, I’m inclined to agree with Mr. Bolton on this. It seems to be that the UN is little more than a paper tiger that is doomed by its structure to be completely ineffective in dealing with complex situations. General Assembly resolutions are, by merit of not being binding, irrelevant. And the Security Council is, due to the veto-system, incapable of making decisions on many touchy subjects. Having to attain a majority of votes is usually such an arduous project that resolutions are watered down to a shadow of their original intentions and often achieve nothing.

The United Nations have done fine works through agencies such as UNESCO and UNICEF, but I feel that a lot must change before the UN is capable to responding clearly and decisively to crises. However, I am not convinced that it’s possible to reform the UN into the body I’d like it to be.

Meanwhile, it’s hard for me to see why the United States should put up with the United Nations. You can read more about my thoughts on the UN in this article. Meanwhile, what I really want to know is what your opinions are about the future of the US in the UN. I’ve included a handy poll below for you to vote on. I also enabled comments and invite you to let us know exactly how you feel about this issue.

I think that the United States should see if its possible to reform the UN into the effective body that Roosevelt and Churchill intended it to be. If not, I don’t see why the US should spend more money, time and effort on a heavily anti-American organization - the US leaving would create a massive shockwave and further question the relevance of the UN. Maybe then we can start our own, better version. But what do you think?

Tags:bolton, un, united nations, united states us

Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry said on Sunday he is still considering a second run for the White House in 2008, despite public criticism of what he has has called a “botched joke” about the Iraq war.

In an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Kerry was asked he had given up on a presidential run after the flap over his comment to students that they could “get stuck in Iraq” if they did not study hard enough.

“Not in the least. I am looking at it in the same way. The people that I have talked to across the country, my team’s confident and strong. I don’t know what I’ll do.

“I’ve apologized and we have to move on to the real issues that face this country.”

Kerry said that he, unlike some other presidential hopefuls, would not yet set up an exploratory committee, deferring the decision for a bit longer. “I’ve said this all along, my decision would be somewhere around the turn of the year, the beginning of the year,” he said.

He calls it a botched joke, others think more in the direction of a baseless stab at the American troops in Iraq by a guy who bases his political career on his military record - you decide. If it was a joke, it certainly wasn’t a funny one. The picture I saw posted at Little Green Footballs in response to Kerry was, in my opinion, hysterical.

But I have to disagree with the other pundits, who say that Kerry is just not a funny guy. Kerry is hilarious. Does he actually believe he has chance to both win his party’s nomination and beat the likes of Rudy Giuliani or John McCain? Two years ago he was running against an incumbent president whose approval rating was very low. It was said that the people wanted change, but they obviously didn’t want it enough to propel John Kerry into office.

There won’t be an incumbent running in 2008, though. Every candidate will represent change in one form or another. If he would end up on the Democratic ticket, his likely opponents would be either a) a bona fide war hero of much greater stature than Kerry or b) the ‘Mayor of America’. I wouldn’t bet money on those odds. But even thinking he would win nomination is a stretch: Kerry consistently ranks 5th in recent opinion polls on Democratic candidates after Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Al Gore and his former running mate John Edwards.

Still, I’m looking forward to seeing him on the campaign trail. I can always use a good laugh.

Tags:bush, democrats, election, kerry president

Prominent politician Walid Jumblatt warned his party members today that “the (pro-Syrian) opposition groups are on the verge of announcing a coup in the country and we (the anti-Syrian parliamentary majority) should take the brave decision to confront all options.” Jumblatt is the Druze leader of the Progressive Socialist Party, the second largest party in the Lebanese parliament and a member of the coalition.

From Haaretz:

Nasrallah urged his followers in his speech to be “psychologically” ready to take to the streets in mass demonstrations to support Hezbollah’s demand for a national unity government.

Nasrallah’s speech comes amid mounting political and sectarian tensions in Lebanon in the wake of Hezbollah’s 34-day war with Israel last summer

The militant group has demanded that Lebanon form a national unity government that would give it veto power over major decisions. But negotiations among groups broke down recently, and six Cabinet ministers, including two from Hezbollah, resigned.

In my mind, this political tension and coup-mongering attests to desperation in the pro-Syrian camp. The Lebanese government last week approved a draft agreement with the UN to establish an international tribunal to prosecute the suspected killers of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Prominent Lebanese pro-Syrian politicians are thought to be accomplices in the murder and are likely to be implicated if the tribunal goes ahead. A national unity government would give Hezbollah, a member of the ruling coalition, to veto this and potential future inquiries in to Hezbollah war crimes in the recent war with Israel.

Of course, I don’t think Nasrallah should be worried about that last part. The UN is far too busy condemning Israel for killing civilians that Hezbollah used as human shields for their fighters and weapons stockpiles. It is unlikely to be concerned with the people who deliberately put those civilians in harm’s way to up the body count and deter Israel from defending itself. I don’t think I could handle such a shocking display of competence from the UN.

Meanwhile, I’m curious to see France’s reaction to a coup in Lebanon. France has a vested interest in Lebanon and the Lebanese think highly of the French. So I’m wondering whether Chirac’s eagerness to appease Middle Eastern regimes will allow him to watch by the sidelines as Lebanon becomes a Syrian vassal state again

Tags:hezbollah, israel, lebanon, middle east, nasrallah, syria war

The resolution calls for an immediate end of Israeli incursions in Gaza and Palestinian rocket fire into Israel. It also calls for an immediate investigation into the recent Beit Hanun shelling, where a few misfired shells killed 19 Palestinians, to be set up by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. The investigation is likely to be headed by former US president Jimmy Carter. There is no mention of the Hamas-led abduction of Israeli corporal Gilad Shalit.

This resolution was presented to a vote in an emergency session of the General Assembly called by Qatar and passed by 156-7 with 6 abstentions. Voting “no” were the United States, Israel, Australia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau. Abstaining were Canada, Ivory Coast, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

All this reminds me of a famous quote by Abba Eban, Israel’s first ambassador to the UN: “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” As usual, Eban wasn’t that far off from the truth.

I have to say that this not entirely horrid news for Israel. I remember the days when only the United States, Israel and Micronesia voted against blatantly anti-Israeli resolutions (I still have a shirt I bought in Jerusalem with the text “We’ll Always Have Micronesia”). Having 4 more allies is a good thing. Of course, with respect, Palau and the Marshall Islands vote blindly with the US while Nauru votes along with Australia, but it’s certainly very nice to have Australia’s support. Canada also hasn’t always been a staunch supporter of Israel, so their abstention is noted.

What’s disappointing is that the entire European Union voted in favor of the biased resolution. While this doesn’t surprise me from nations such as France and Belgium, I expected more from the UK and Germany. While the EU-states did manage to remove some of the harsh language of the resolution, it is far from what one could call a ‘balanced resolution’.

Since General Assembly resolutions are not binding, Israel is widely expected not to pay much attention to it. Still, it does little to improve Israeli faith in the United Nations. Then again, Israel has never had any faith in the UN, as evidenced by the words of Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion: “Um, Shmum” (translating roughly into “UN, ShmUN”).

Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman walked out of the session in protest, calling the proceedings a “circus” and a “humiliation and cynical exploitation of the UN”. His deputy noted that the resolution equated terrorism with “the action taken by Israel in self-defense in fighting terrorism”.

The US ambassador to the UN John Bolton called the resolution unhelpful “Unfortunately this type of resolution serves only to exacerbate tensions by serving the interests of elements hostile to Israel’s inalienable and recognized right to exist,” he said and added that it might lead some to conclude that the UN is incapable of playing a helpful role in the region.

I continue to be amazed by Israel’s tenacity in remaining a member of the UN. Israel is as of yet the only member of the United Nations that cannot sit on the Security Council or any other committees, it has to frequently deal with lopsided resolutions and is still expected to pay arrears.

There is much left to say about Israel and the United Nations and I plan to start a series on it shortly. Watch this space!

Tags:bolton, gaza, hamas, israel, palestinians, resolution, un united nations

For now it is seems like the ‘ones to beat’ in the upcoming primaries will be Rudy Giuliani and John McCain for the Republicans, while the Democratic nomination will probably be fought out between Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards and Barack Obama, with Clinton as the clear front-runner. But what do we know? Most mainstream media made Howard Dean out to be the favorite in 2004 and look what happened there.

Therefore, it would be wise to keep track of the other names that are mentioned. People like Joe Biden, Wesley Clark, Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson and Evan Bayh for the Democrats and Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Bill Frist and Sam Brownback for the Republicans.

Starting today, The Armchair Politician will be hosting a weekly ‘Spot the Candidate’-article, tracking the presidential hopefuls of both parties on the campaign trail. This will become more frequent as the race intensifies. For now, a recap of the current candidates and the main headlines:

*On the Republican side, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and Senator John McCain of Arizona have set up presidential exploratory committees, joining Rep. Duncan Hunter of California who already did so before the recent midterm elections. John Cox of Illinois and Michael Charles Smith of Oregon have officially announced their candidacy.

*Meanwhile, on the Democratic side of the aisle, Tom Vilsack has officially announced his intention to run for presidency, joining former Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska, who did so last April.

*Last Thursday, John McCain, in a manner reminiscent of Ronald Reagan in 1976, outlined his ideas for a new direction for the GOP. The message centered on a return to “our conservative principles”: restrained spending, smaller government, lower taxes, a strong national defense and family values. Over the past month, McCain has been spotted making campaign contributions to Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire while his aides have been frequenting those states.

*Also on Thursday, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney announced his intentions to appear at an anti same-sex-marriage rally this coming Sunday. He will demand that lawmakers vote to end same-sex marriages in his state. Proponents of same-sex marriages accuse Romney of using the rally as a vehicle to showcase himself to conservatives across the country.

The latest polls have John McCain and Rudy Giuliani locked in a very tight race for the Republican nomination with Hillary Clinton as the clear favorite for the Democratic nod, with Barack Obama trailing her by 12 points.

Tags:clinton, democrats, election, giuliani, mccain, obama, president, republicans romney

Blix warned the world not to strike a quick disarmament deal that doesn’t have appropriate verification measures in place, saying “cosmetic inspection is worse than none because that can lull states into a confidence that is false, and you can have very unpleasant surprises”. And here I thought that Mr. Blix was fine was the cosmetic inspections Saddam gave him of the Iraqi facilities throughout 2002.

Regarding last month’s atomic test by North Korea, Blix noted that most experts believe it was only partially successful, but warned the world against being complacent. “If they didn’t succeed this time, how much time will it take them before they perfect it?” he said.

I’ve never held Blix in high esteem. He seemed to me the stereotypical UN diplomat: all talk and no action. Blix struck me as a naive man who always assumes best intentions rather than waking up to smell the music. Remember, before the Iraq disarmament crisis of 2002, Hans Blix visited the Iraqi nuclear reactor Osiraq numerous times during the 70s, before its destruction by the Israeli Air Force in 1981, and failed to discover that Saddam was researching nuclear weapons at that very site - a fact widely believed at the time and extensively confirmed since.

Nevertheless, his image as a dove is precisely what makes this message carry such weight. We know that Blix wouldn’t be making a fuss unless he was genuinely worried. Even though Blix is no longer the head of the UN Monitorying, Verification and Ispection Committee, he is still held in high regard, especially in the European Union. His statements strengthen the U.S. position on North Korea.

Just after Blix’ comments, President Bush spoke about North Korea at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. “It’s important for the world to see that the Security Council resolutions which were passed are implemented” against North Korea, Bush said. “So part of my discussions will be how we fully implement those sanctions that the world has asked for”.

Check this space over the space of the next few days for in-depth analyses of the North Korean nuclear issue and what the world should do about it.

Tags:blix, bush, kim jong il, north korea, nuclear wmd