EU fires first warning shot over weapons

HeXp£Øi±

HeXp£Øi±

Well-Known Member
EUOBSERVER / LUXEMBOURG – The European Union is advancing slowly with plans to form a policy against rogue nations that have weapons of mass distruction.

Prompted by the crises in Iraq and North Korea, EU foreign ministers meeting in Luxembourg on Monday, have asked for concrete proposals to be drawn up on how to deal with states possessing so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

The EU’s High Representative, Javier Solana, in a letter sent to Ministers before Monday’s meeting said that a long-term solution to the problem of WMDs was an "urgent political priority" before adding, "a lot of work will be needed quickly." Ministers have asked for the final proposals to be presented in June.

Apparently heedful of the damage done by not forging a common position on Iraq before events tie the hands of member states, ministers have called on the Commission, the high representative (Javier Solana) and the Political and Security committee – a council body responsible for crisis monitoring - to set out methods for dealing with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Proposals are expected to include strengthening export restrictions and the production of a list of countries, which have WMD programmes, and how these programmes are verified. On this, there is said to be general agreement, but the tricky part remains over the decision on how to deal with countries that flout the rules.

Multilateral
Foreign ministers agreed on Monday that the International Atomic Energy Agency - the body responsibly for verification that states are complying with international non-proliferation treaties - had a key role to play.

Diplomats say there are a number of benefits to this approach not least strengthening the IAEA, sending a clear message to non-compliant states such as North Korea and Iran but also drawing all parties, including the US, into a set, multilateral process.

The US has been consulted on this matter extensively at the highest level, according to a spokesperson for Mr Solana – who discussed the matter with US vice president Dick Cheney last week during a trip to Washington.

Foreign ministers also called for a report from the EU’s Situation Centre on the global threat posed by weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?sid=9&aid=10927
 
The question is, if they decide to use sanctions against WMD countries, will they have the balls to enforce the sanctions? Sanctions don't enforce themselves.
 
Professur said:
The oil sanctions against Iraq worked really well.
Click to expand...

They punished the people, while Saddam continued to get rich and spend money on his military. They became a propaganda weapon for him against the Coalition. The Oil for Food deal was offerred to relieve the suffering of the people, but he refused to accept it until control of the revenues was given over to him. He was then able to use the revenue for himself, his followers and his WMD programs. The UN had chided him numerous times because he wasn't placing orders for humanitarian aid.

He was also able to use the oil contracts to bribe the French and Russians into working against enforcement of the sanctions. Besides the money he was making from the Oil for Food program, he had started smuggling huge amounts of oil out of the country through Syria, Jordan and Turkey. That was money that could go straight into his pocket to be spent as he liked.

Basically, Saddam used a divide and conquer method to split the Coalition and render the sanctions ineffective. If we want to use sanctions, rather than war, against other WMD countries we have to understand the problems with sanctions and come up with solutions to make them work.

Problem 1: Sanctions punish the people. We have to collectively accept that fact, and place responsibility for their suffering on the offending regime. We cannot let the responsibility for it be turned back on the Coalition enforcing the sanctions.

Problem 2: The world has to be united in the resolve to enforce the sanctions, and have in place, up front, clear punishments for those who violate them. Those punishment have to be automatic, to preclude any debate about who we will enforce them against and who we won't.

Problem 3: The use of force cannot be precluded as an ultimate response to the country developing WMD. If they don't respond to sanctions within a certain amount of time (5 yrs?), then we must respond militarily. It should be known up front that there will be a military response for non-compliance if the deadline isn't met.

Under those conditions (and probably some others I can't think of off the top of my head), sanctions might work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top