The Screaming Pen

Providing Global Insight, Context, and Perspective

This is Chess not Checkers That’s a Warning Shot

The Deadly Paradox of the Big Six’s Iranian Accord

It’s hard to suppress feelings of glee upon reading the headline “Six World Powers Agree on Iran.” This is the exact foundation that any diplomatic solution to the Iranian quandary must be based upon: a united international alliance providing Iran with a choice between carrots if it agrees to halt uranium enrichment and sticks if it doesn’t. A common diplomatic front brings the world one step closer to the chance for a peaceful solution; however, if the chance proves illusory it will also bring the world one step closer to war.

In the run up to Iraq in 2003, there were many arguments against the U.S. invasion, many of which could be reasonably discounted at the time. War is an extreme last resort, but the argument that it should never be used is flawed: when squared off against a murderous dictator conflict can become justifiable. Nor was U.S. belligerence a stand alone sound argument. Despite bellicose rhetoric from George Bush, Saddam Hussein had violated 18 U.N. resolutions and was sidestepping weapons inspectors. The most valid pre-war argument against going to war: that the Bush administration hadn’t exhausted all diplomatic options.


It’s your Turn, Khameini. Whatcha Gonna Tell ’em ya Big Bearded Fella?

The Diplomacy this Time

The Bush administration seems to have painfully learned how to go about building its case without alienating virtually every non-holder of an American passport. It first relied on negotiations led by the “European 3” – Britain, France, and Germany – during which Iran acquiesced to halting enrichment for a time. But Iran knew that the European trio’s silent partner held the key to the only concession vital to its survival: security. So Iran once again began work on its centrifuges.

Steadily advancing its nuclear know-how, Iran’s fiery president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently sent an 18-page letter to George Bush, which was touted as being the first direct communication between the two nations since the 1979 hostage crisis. Accustomed to years of frosty, static relations, Secretary Rice made a knee-jerk announcement that the letter suggested nothing new, and perhaps it didn’t. Then just this week Iran called for direct talks with America, which in the absence of a U.S. response gave Iran the impression of being patient and reasonable. So until the United States replied to these overtures – no matter the political or public relations intentions behind them – Iran would appear to be holding out the olive branch. America had to respond.

With the six-party agreement on Iran it did, and with perfect timing to boot. Iran will be presented with a package of incentives in return for a “verifiable” halt to its enrichment activities. If it continues to pursue nuclear weapons further Security Council action could follow. Clearly, Iran has to make the next move, and crucially, America will appear to have dutifully followed a diplomatic approach supported by the Security Council nations.

This appears to be good news for advocates of multilateralism and supporters of a peaceful, diplomatic solution. It’s good news for those who wanted Europe to face up to legitimate security threats, which due to pride and matters of the heart it could not with Iraq. And it’s good news for those who want to see more than obstructionism and the unbridled pursuit of resources from Russia and China.

The Ball’s in Their Court

Thus, the question now becomes, “What will Iran do?” The preferred choice is for it to accept the incentives offered and abandon its desire for nuclear weapons (merely nuclear energy, it says). This is possible but would likely only come in the form of a comprehensive strategic agreement leaving Iran assured of its own security. Observers should also note that the Iranian issue is not confined to uranium enrichment: Iran plays a powerful role in neighboring Iraq, has long supported insurgents in Lebanon, Palestine, and elsewhere; and exercises more power than many realize. It recently won backing for its nuclear program from Indonesia, and China and Russia usually provide solid political cover. These will have to be addressed.

The true test of the “Big Six’s” solidarity will come if Iran decides to balk: will the world support increasingly tough sanctions, or will views diverge? Governments around the world – now realizing that true threats must be confronted – may be more likely to follow, because they too have played an active diplomatic role this time round. Despite this, these countries’ citizens will have seen Iraq and the gruesomeness of war and are likely to feel much the same as they did before Iraq.

Will Iran stall, varying negotiations with concealment? Probably. This much is true, however: until now, with a dire situation in Iraq and virulent anti-Americanism everywhere, talk of military action against Iran seemed distant. Yet now, if diplomacy is given a fair chance and fails nonetheless, Iranian rejectionism will leave us on the precipice of Iraq redux. And this time – no matter the political logic beforehand– military action would be no more likely to create a stable or friendly or democratic country out of Iran than Iraq.

– DML

 2006. All rights reserved.

Note: The Iranian situation is highly fluid at present, with half a dozen diplomatic developments and announcements (see links below) being made in the past few days alone. Contrast this with the lack of bilateral contact that existed for the past 27 years between the two countries. As stated above, this will either lead to a breakthrough or a serious deepening of the standoff. Keep watching.

U.S. Offers to Join European Three in Talks with Iran
Iran Welcomes Talks, Rejects U.S. Conditions
Iran Considers Offer from Big Six
Washington Post Analysis

June 2, 2006 Posted by | Asia, Author: DML, China, Europe, France, Germany, International Relations, Iran, Iraq, Middle East, Nuclear Weapons, Oil, Palestine, Politics, Russia, United States, WMD | Leave a comment

Cours, camarade, le vieux monde est derrière toi !

On the Anniversary of a Riot

On May 17, 1968, a general strike paralyzed France. Started by angry students at Paris’ Sorbonne, the powerful French Labor unions eventually joined, resulting in millions of French workers walking out of work demanding economic and social change. A week later, on May 24 1968, radical students raised a red flag over the Paris Stock Exchange and threatened to burn it to the ground. Eventually, Prime Minister Pompidou negotiated with prominent Union leaders and appeased the students by passing legislation that improved education funding and guaranteed minimum working conditions. French politicians, eager to please their constitutents and afraid of radical rabble rousers, passed increasingly socialist legislation in the following years that created an almost unpenetrable labor market for outsiders, strict hiring and firing laws, high costs for employers, and near ten percent unemployment. Although some good came out of changes brought on after the 1968 riots, the employment situation caused by socialist French employment policies has resulted in a nation in dire need of labor market liberalization. We will evidence this by adding context and perspective to two subsequent riots, those that took place in Fall of 2005, and the most recent riots related to Chirac’s CPE.

When thrown, stale baguettes make surprisingly effective projectiles
Fast Forward

Initially incited by the accidental death of a muslim youth, the riots that shook France in the Fall of 2005 lasted over twenty days, as disaffected muslim youth in the suburbs of Paris burnt cars and businesses. Seen as a threat to the French secular model, French muslims of North African descent face discrimination in an almost impenetrable workplace. Unemployment among native born French university graduates of North African origin is estimated by the BBC to be 26.5%, compared to white graduates’ 5%. According to BBC, “a French non-profit group said that after they sent identical curriculum vitaes (CVs) to French companies with European- and African or Muslim-sounding names attached, they found CVs with African or Muslim sounding names were systematically discarded. In addition, they have claimed widespread use of markings indicating ethnicity in employers’ databases and that discrimination is more widespread for those with college degrees than for those without.” It is evident that the riots that gripped France in the Fall of 2005 were the result of an unemployed, disenfranchised population who were fed up with their treatment at the hands of the society that has failed them.

When clowns cry

The CPE

In an attempt to liberalize the choked up French employment situation, Prime Minister Dominique De Villepin proposed the CPE, an amendment that attempted to tackle double digit unemployment. In France, after you are hired by a company, it is almost impossible to be let go, barring factors such as being violent on the job. This makes it extremely hard to fire incompetent workers or those not suited for the position, causing employers to be reluctant to hire. The CPE’s most controversial element was that it allowed workers under the age of 26, or who have been there less than two years, to be let go if the employer did not think they were right for the position for whatever reason. The proposal of the CPE was met by riots and protests as over three million demonstrated on April 4, 2006. The CPE was withdrawn on April 10, 2006.

Let them eat brie

Conclusions

It is apparent that employment has been a contentious issue among the French for the past few decades. The riots in 1968 helped bring about the socialist employment practices that have been partly responsible for the high unemployment rate today due to employer’s reluctance to hire new workers. It is also apparent that the French muslim underclass, who are discriminated against in the workplace, desperately need measures such as the CPE to be passed in order for their condition to be improved, as a loosening of hiring restrictions would allow them to prove themselves as equals in the workplace. The mostly white protesters that were protesting the CPE could have been doing so in an attempt to retain their status in a country that is increasingly threatened by the pressure of globalisation, something that will eventually cause the French to modernize or face serious economic and social consequences.

-JPL

May 18, 2006 Posted by | Author: JPL, Europe, France, Globalisation, Uncategorized, Unemployment | 1 Comment