Politics: UN Security Council: Countries with 'veto powers' + Germany seeking resolution on sanctions against Iran
.
"UN veto powers" is an expression I came across in the article below, and misread its meaning on a first try. In a split-second, comprehension devolved into momentary semantic confusion. I had to stop the onward course, and re-read "UN veto powers" so that I could actually understand the intended meaning of the compact expression. But, the neologistic phrase itself does not ascribe any "veto powers" to the UN itself. Rather, the neologism refers to a certain set of nations which are Permanent Members of the Security Council of the UN and, thus, hold veto powers in regard to any proposed Security Council resolution or action. In this case, the neologism refers to a certain subsubset of UN members, distinctive because they each hold a veto power over UN Security Council resolutions or actions. Germany is presently a Member of the SecCoun, but does not hold veto powers over resolutions.
News item "UN veto powers and Germany fail to agree on Iran sanctions" (Dec5,2k6), M&NewsC:
Paris - There was still no agreement on imposing UN sanctions against Iran for its continued nuclear programme, following a meeting of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany in Paris Tuesday evening.I found the article to be quite helpful in relating certain complex elements influencing where the various leading countries stand, as to the issues of concern in the artcle. The central question being where do you stand on trusting Iran regarding its intended purpose in obtain the technical power to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes only.
The French Foreign Ministry said that there had been clear progress towards a UN resolution and that discussions would continue.
France, Germany and Britain have produced a draft Security Council resolution that is backed by the US and seeks punitive measures against Iran, which has refused international demands to halt uranium enrichment. Russia and China have so far opposed sanctions.
The statement by the French ministry said the six nations were close to finalizing an agreement, but that a number of issues remained open.
The US and others have accused Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons, while Tehran insists its programme is entirely peaceful."
--The above is © 2006 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
In closing this blog-entry, I note only that Germany's policy on Iran sanctions is the product of a Christian-Democratic government in coalition with the previous governing party, Social Democratic Party (minus the SDP's former leader of course--what was his name?). How this policy was formed must have been a fascinating process of debate, change of minds, and resoluton to an authentic and principled compromise from the original positions of each party.
Principled compromise ... but not the absolute truth, not absolutely r+t and all deviations wrong, not necessarily forever.
That's how I fantasize the way the responsible ministers of govt of Germany reached their policy position in the UN Security Council. However, I don't share in the approach of Germany (CDU and all). I simply do not trust the mullocrats who dominate Iran's civil order. I think they're largely a lot of dissemblers who are secretly committed to nuking Israel, thus to gain the international admiration of Muslims thru-out the world in the grand battle of Shi'ism vs Sunnism (of which Al Quaeda is the militant version of Wahabbist Sunni orthodoxy rooted in Saudi Arabia and by conversion of the Taliban to Wahhabism, also in Afghanistan). In the end, this main intra-Islamic sectarian conflict is the war for control of Mecca.
No comments:
Post a Comment