This could be a good idea

[follower]

The article below briefly mentions something largely reported here, a suggestion sent to Mr.Kofi Annan by brazilian president Lula, an idea that could give peace a chance. At least something similar is working on venezuelan crisis so far, I refer to the group of countries friends of Venezuela. It was a brazilian diplomatic initiative as well, based on Lula?s idea. I hope Mr.Annan give it some attention.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...86&e=13&u=/nm/20030313/wl_nm/iraq_un_annan_dc

Annan Urges U.N. Council to Pull Together on Iraq
Thu Mar 13,10:56 AM ET

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) called on all members of the deadlocked 15-nation U.N. Security Council on Thursday to work together to break an impasse over how to ensure Iraqi disarmament.

Annan also said that Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) had assured him this week that Britain was genuinely searching for a way forward on Iraq (news - web sites) that could lead to peaceful disarmament rather than seeking a hidden trigger for war, as suggested by France and Russia.

"I know that strenuous efforts are being made by council members to compromise and break a deadlock. I think these efforts should be taken seriously and I would urge all council members to cooperate and to work in search of that compromise," Annan told reporters.

"I think what is important (is) that governments have to find a way of working together. Regardless of how this crisis ... is resolved, the council will have to work together and the member states will have to work together to deal with the situation in Iraq, in the Middle East and in many other issues," he said.

Britain has proposed an informal list of tasks Iraq would have to carry out to convince the Security Council that it was fully committed to ridding itself of any weapons of mass destruction, as demanded by council resolutions.

The goal of the British proposal is to attract more support to a draft resolution backed by the United States, Britain and Spain that would require Baghdad to demonstrate its full commitment to disarmament by March 17 or face war.

Annan said that in his conversation with Blair, which took place on Monday, the British leader "seemed very genuinely looking for a compromise and a way forward."

Blair "indicated to me that if, in his judgment, Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and the Iraq leadership were to meet the criteria or the tasks set, and one were to conclude that he was genuinely disarming, we should accept it. And of course if he failed, then the consequences should follow," Annan said.

He also noted that he had received a suggestion from Brazilian (news - web sites) President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva that the United Nations (news - web sites) convene a summit of world leaders who are not Security Council members to help search for a compromise acceptable to all sides.

 

[deep in HELL]

This is good for anyone who truly wants Saddam to disarm.

With a concentrated effort and united UN cooperation this will happen.

Bush can claim he made it happen.

And most would accept that.

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

deep in hell, you appear to have issues. you ok?

 

[deep]

.

 

[deep]

he's a mess



i'm ok

 

[JOFO]

look, I personally don't get this.

the british propose a plan that basically gives saddamm a chance to come clean, and that's that. but what do the french do? yep, that's right, they say no.

who's in the wrong here now? who with a conscience can actually disagree with the british plan? what the hell is the problem? everyone says "yes, saddamm is a bad man; he needs to disarm". but then someone comes up with a plan that, yes, that's right....gives saddamm yet ANOTHER CHANCE to avert war, and what happens?? the french say nope.

look, I'm not a war mongerer...personally, I hope we don't go.
but I cannot believe the french position on this.

and: I have not seen the french come up with a plan to avert war and still dissarm iraq. (and just continuing the inspections is not the answer...sorry).

*thinks of american soldiers liberating paris in 1945*

way to go frenchfolk

 

[diamond]

deep in hell, you appear to have issues. you ok?

 

[Clark W. Griswold Jr]

but I cannot believe the french position on this.

way to go frenchfolk

Could it be that any kind of compliance on Saddam's part will show exactly how far France has gone in bed with Iraq?

Nah, they're all about peace, what the hell was I thinking....

 

[follower]

Apart from the first reply, it seems that you didn?t get my point here. Still waiting for comments/discussion on the main purpose of this thread, which is:
Lula?s suggestion for a summit of world leaders who are not Security Council members to help search for a compromise acceptable to all sides.

I bet you can come up with something better than just criticising/bashing France, thank you.

 

[JOFO]

Apart from the first reply, it seems that you didn?t get my point here. Still waiting for comments/discussion on the main purpose of this thread, which is:
Lula?s suggestion for a summit of world leaders who are not Security Council members to help search for a compromise acceptable to all sides.

I bet you can come up with something better than just criticising/bashing France, thank you.

well, of course that is a good idea. everyone should be involved, working around the clock, searching for a solution.

amazing thing though; all that has to be done is have saddam come clean....but he has not, has he?
and we're all still arguing, turning our frustration into anger towards one another, those of us around the world who are "allies", and where is the anger towards saddam hussein? I would love a serious response to that question.

 

[follower]

JOFO, I?ve seen too much France bashing lately, and I didn?t want this thread to turn into that sort of thing.

With that said, I don?t think it?s so obvious that it is a good idea. Some people might think that it could diminish the ability and power of the Security Council to actually do something.

But I think it would be good to have other leaders involved, mainly for those countries that are non-permanent members, like the African ones, Chile and Mexico. I think that the pressure over those countries, their weakness facing superpower, the burden they have to carry, especially Mexico, might not allow them to make an unbiased decision. And this whole thing wouldn?t be any more than just theater.

 

[melon]

I think the structure of the UN is flawed anyway. Essentially, we've created a facade of an international body that is really run by five nations--the U.S., France, Russia, China, and the U.K. I say we should do away with the "Security Council" altogether, and make a truly "equal" body of nations. Of course, the (super)powers that be won't like that at all.

Let's face it. The UN is not going to agree to anything as designed.

Melon

 

[Klaus]

follower:

I guess it's a good idea, but i'm affraid some states don't want a compromise.

I read today that Russia wasn't interested in a compromise and i just heared in the news that USA, GB and Spain meet to discuss Iraq war and they said "this is the last try to avoid the war". I'm surpised that the 3 pro war fractions don't want to listen to the peace fraction to avoid war, but maybe it was all just blahbla.

Klaus

 

[Beefeater]

the british propose a plan that basically gives saddamm a chance to come clean, and that's that. but what do the french do? yep, that's right, they say no.

The french are doing exactly the same thing, just in the opposite manner that many are accusing the US of doing.. People say that the US is just putting up a front with all these diplomatic talks when they're going to attack anyways.. giving no credence to the UN discussions et al... France too is giving no credence to the UN discussions, by stating that they're going to veto a UN resolution if it passes regardless of evidence presented or cases made.

On another note, The UN should represent the world as it is, representing the balance of power that exists as it is. The recent days events have been nothing short of embarrassing to America, but the longer this irrelevent diplomacy continues.. the more delays that occur, the more it actually embarrasses the UN and its inability to solve any issue and be effective in their goals.

Beefeater

 

[deep in HELL]

On another note, The UN should represent the world as it is, representing the balance of power that exists as it is .

Beefeater

what do you mean by this?

 

[diamond]

'deep' issues

 

[follower]

what do you mean by this?

Exactly. I don?t get it either.

I hope it?s not UN = US

 

[follower]

'deep' issues

Why do I feel this weird sensation that you?re "diminishing" the subject discussed in this thread?