Skip to main content

Seven Questions: How to end Violent Conflicts

A tall-order to end all world conflict, to be sure, but as FP [Foreign Policy] writes:

"When the world goes to hell, policymakers often turn to Gareth Evans for solutions. For this week’s Seven Questions, FP asked the International Crisis Group chief for his take on the Bush administration and our collective responsibility for crises in Burma, Iraq, and possibly Iran."

The answers to the seven questions posed to Evans - a former Foreign Affairs Minister in Australia - are interesting, such as this:

FP: What is your take on Iran? Is an attack inevitable, and what would be the repercussions of a nuclear-armed Iran?

GE: My organization and I are a bit at odds with current thinking in the U.S. and EU, which is wholly tactical and not at all strategic. While an ideal solution would have been to persuade the Iranians through a package of incentives to accept international fuel, I doubt it was ever deliverable. It’s not deliverable now. There’s too much pride; there’s too much testosterone; there’s too much sense of regional significance among the Iranians. What has to happen now is a new red line beyond “Thou shall not enrich.” The real red line should now be: “Thou shall not translate thy technological capability to military form; thou shall not enrich to weapons grade; thou shall not make nuclear bomb devices; thou shall be very careful about what kind of missile delivery system you put in place.” If you draw that red line and make it absolutely clear that if there’s any move towards militarization, then basically all hell will break loose and there will be a unanimous international response to it.

People keep telling me there’s still a 50 percent chance of the U.S. taking military action against Iran. I’ve been inclined to not put it as high as that, but that’s probably getting closer to reality. It would unleash an absolute flood of terrorist assaults, attacks, and destabilization efforts. All bets would be off.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reading the Chilcot Inquiry Report more closely

Most commentary on the Chilcot Inquiry Report of and associated with the Iraq War, has been "lifted" from the Executive Summary.   The Intercept has actually gone and dug into the Report, with these revelations : "THE CHILCOT REPORT, the U.K.’s official inquiry into its participation in the Iraq War, has finally been released after seven years of investigation. Its executive summary certainly makes former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who led the British push for war, look terrible. According to the report, Blair made statements about Iraq’s nonexistent chemical, biological, and nuclear programs based on “what Mr. Blair believed” rather than the intelligence he had been given. The U.K. went to war despite the fact that “diplomatic options had not been exhausted.” Blair was warned by British intelligence that terrorism would “increase in the event of war, reflecting intensified anti-US/anti-Western sentiment in the Muslim world, including among Muslim communities in the

An unpalatable truth!

Quinoa has for the last years been the "new" food on the block for foodies. Known for its health properties, foodies the world over have taken to it. Many restaurants have added it to their menu. But, as this piece " Can vegans stomach the unpalatable truth about quinoa? " from The Guardian so clearly details, the cost to Bolivians and Peruvians - from where quinoa hails - has been substantial. "Not long ago, quinoa was just an obscure Peruvian grain you could only buy in wholefood shops. We struggled to pronounce it (it's keen-wa, not qui-no-a), yet it was feted by food lovers as a novel addition to the familiar ranks of couscous and rice. Dieticians clucked over quinoa approvingly because it ticked the low-fat box and fitted in with government healthy eating advice to "base your meals on starchy foods". Adventurous eaters liked its slightly bitter taste and the little white curls that formed around the grains. Vegans embraced quinoa as

Climate change: Well-organised hoax?

There are still some - all too sadly people with a voice who are listened to - who assert that climate change is a hoax. Try telling that to the people of Colorado who recently experienced horrendous bushfires, or the people of Croatia suffering with endless days of temps of 40 degrees (and not much less than 30 at night time) some 8-10 degrees above the norm. Bill McKibben, take up the issue of whether climate change is a hoax, on The Daily Beast : Please don’t sweat the 2,132 new high temperature marks in June—remember, climate change is a hoax. The first to figure this out was Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who in fact called it “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” apparently topping even the staged moon landing. But others have been catching on. Speaker of the House John Boehner pointed out that the idea that carbon dioxide is “harmful to the environment is almost comical.” The always cautious Mitt Romney scoffed at any damage too: “Scientists will fig