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

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more