The George and Mahmoud show
From Economist.com
The Iranian and American presidents both spoke to the United Nations’ General Assembly on Tuesday. Neither man is backing down from confrontation
IT WAS not a debate, at least not formally. But when George Bush and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad each took the stage on Tuesday September 19th, just a few hours apart, to speak to world leaders gathered at the UN’s General Assembly, it was clear that each president had the other man in mind.
Mr Bush said that spreading freedom is a good thing. Addressing various Muslims in the “broader Middle East”, he contrasted the lot of people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and Darfur. As well as “freedom”, he found another favourite word to use: “moderates”. He repeatedly contrasted the rival claims of “extremists” and moderates in the Middle East.
This seems to be an admission that America’s emphasis on spreading democracy has not gone exactly as planned. Mr Bush mentioned two adversaries, Hamas and Hizbullah, that have been elected to parliaments. The former is now part of a Palestinian unity government, the latter is in coalition in Lebanon. Mr Ahmadinejad also came to office in a vote last year that was—at least partially—democratic. So Mr Bush is now telling the Muslim world not merely to have elections, but to vote for moderates.
Mr Ahmadinejad was no more profound. He says—surprise—that the world’s big powers should not meddle in his region. Nor does he think the UN’s Security Council is run fairly. Big countries, he moans, are too strongly represented there. His grumbling follows the council’s resolution demanding that Iran suspend efforts to enrich uranium, which, most outsiders believe, is part of a plan to acquire nuclear weapons. A populist at home, Mr Ahmadinejad tried to generate international support too. He called for more poor countries to be represented on the Security Council, and to be given veto powers. His appeal may, just possibly, win him backing from a few of the many countries frustrated with the lack of UN reform.
The current veto-wielding members (China, America, Russia, Britain and France) will have the biggest say in what happens next with Iran. But little action seems likely soon. Iran will not suspend its enrichment activities, so some sort of targeted sanctions might be considered. But world leaders are split. France’s president, Jacques Chirac, met Mr Bush on Tuesday and the two presidents pretended they agreed on how to handle Mr Ahmadinejad. In fact, Mr Chirac is not convinced that sanctions will do any good soon. He rejects deadlines for Iran’s compliance and does not see the need for Iran to suspend its tentative enrichment efforts before talks with outsiders can begin. His flexibility is not shared (at least not in public) by Mr Bush.
America may yet come to agreement with France, which has joined some tough statements against Iran recently. But Russia and, especially, China remain stumbling blocks, opposed to sanctions. It is not hard to see why. Ilan Berman, an Iran-watcher at the American Foreign Policy Council, noted the huge scale of China’s economic ties with Iran in recent testimony to Congress. He points out that China—which is ravenous for more oil and gas—now gets 15% of its energy from Iran, more than from any other supplier. To ask China to slam the door on Iran’s energy exports is like asking America to do without Saudi oil, says Mr Berman. In other words, it is unthinkable.
Mr Bush offered some respectful words for Iranian people on Tuesday. And Mr Ahmadinejad found many occasions to mention “justice” and “love” among peoples. But neither man is budging. Mr Ahmadinejad also referred obliquely to the coming of the “perfect one”, meaning the “hidden imam”, that Shia Muslims believe will return to herald the end of the world. More reason to worry that the president is a millenarian zealot. On the other hand, Time magazine has reported that America has given some of its navy ships orders to “prepare to deploy” near Iran. A bluff, perhaps. But it has raised fears of an impending strike and of a clash of something more serious than words.
The Iranian and American presidents both spoke to the United Nations’ General Assembly on Tuesday. Neither man is backing down from confrontation
IT WAS not a debate, at least not formally. But when George Bush and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad each took the stage on Tuesday September 19th, just a few hours apart, to speak to world leaders gathered at the UN’s General Assembly, it was clear that each president had the other man in mind.
Mr Bush said that spreading freedom is a good thing. Addressing various Muslims in the “broader Middle East”, he contrasted the lot of people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and Darfur. As well as “freedom”, he found another favourite word to use: “moderates”. He repeatedly contrasted the rival claims of “extremists” and moderates in the Middle East.
This seems to be an admission that America’s emphasis on spreading democracy has not gone exactly as planned. Mr Bush mentioned two adversaries, Hamas and Hizbullah, that have been elected to parliaments. The former is now part of a Palestinian unity government, the latter is in coalition in Lebanon. Mr Ahmadinejad also came to office in a vote last year that was—at least partially—democratic. So Mr Bush is now telling the Muslim world not merely to have elections, but to vote for moderates.
Mr Ahmadinejad was no more profound. He says—surprise—that the world’s big powers should not meddle in his region. Nor does he think the UN’s Security Council is run fairly. Big countries, he moans, are too strongly represented there. His grumbling follows the council’s resolution demanding that Iran suspend efforts to enrich uranium, which, most outsiders believe, is part of a plan to acquire nuclear weapons. A populist at home, Mr Ahmadinejad tried to generate international support too. He called for more poor countries to be represented on the Security Council, and to be given veto powers. His appeal may, just possibly, win him backing from a few of the many countries frustrated with the lack of UN reform.
The current veto-wielding members (China, America, Russia, Britain and France) will have the biggest say in what happens next with Iran. But little action seems likely soon. Iran will not suspend its enrichment activities, so some sort of targeted sanctions might be considered. But world leaders are split. France’s president, Jacques Chirac, met Mr Bush on Tuesday and the two presidents pretended they agreed on how to handle Mr Ahmadinejad. In fact, Mr Chirac is not convinced that sanctions will do any good soon. He rejects deadlines for Iran’s compliance and does not see the need for Iran to suspend its tentative enrichment efforts before talks with outsiders can begin. His flexibility is not shared (at least not in public) by Mr Bush.
America may yet come to agreement with France, which has joined some tough statements against Iran recently. But Russia and, especially, China remain stumbling blocks, opposed to sanctions. It is not hard to see why. Ilan Berman, an Iran-watcher at the American Foreign Policy Council, noted the huge scale of China’s economic ties with Iran in recent testimony to Congress. He points out that China—which is ravenous for more oil and gas—now gets 15% of its energy from Iran, more than from any other supplier. To ask China to slam the door on Iran’s energy exports is like asking America to do without Saudi oil, says Mr Berman. In other words, it is unthinkable.
Mr Bush offered some respectful words for Iranian people on Tuesday. And Mr Ahmadinejad found many occasions to mention “justice” and “love” among peoples. But neither man is budging. Mr Ahmadinejad also referred obliquely to the coming of the “perfect one”, meaning the “hidden imam”, that Shia Muslims believe will return to herald the end of the world. More reason to worry that the president is a millenarian zealot. On the other hand, Time magazine has reported that America has given some of its navy ships orders to “prepare to deploy” near Iran. A bluff, perhaps. But it has raised fears of an impending strike and of a clash of something more serious than words.
posted by Marko at 9/21/2006 01:31:00 PM
<< Home