Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

EU 3 meeting with Iran today

by whataboutbob Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 05:04:17 AM EST

From EUPolitix: EU3 holds emergency talks with Iran

French, German and UK foreign ministers hold unscheduled crisis talks with Iran's chief negotiator Ari Larijani in Vienna on Friday.

The move is an EU bid to try and revive negotiations on Iran's nuclear programme before Tehran is referred to the UN security council by the International Atomic Energy.

"We want to show other countries that we are willing to work towards diplomatic solutions," an EU diplomat told FT Europe, adding "But I don't have any great expectations of a breakthrough."

El Pais suggests that a US-India nuclear deal, Delhi has not signed the non-proliferation treaty, will impact the EU-Iran talks.

Notice this last sentence...the US is doing arms and nuclear deals with India...who is not a a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty...so why should Iran now be motivated to cooperate?


Also, lets look back in on a prior discussion on Iran: Gnomemoot: Iran - problem summary and more questions.

Display:
The deal between the US and India becomes even more interesting, IF the US knows the EU3 and Iran were going to meet today (which I would think they would know about, yes?). What is the message there, exactly?

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
by whataboutbob on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 05:06:06 AM EST
Starts with 'F', ends with 'U'.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 05:07:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, yeah, apparently Bush is now going to have to strong-arm the US Congress into repealing this quaint law that says the US can only share nuclear technology with countries that have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I bet the Iranians will have a field day with that at the UN Security Council.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 05:19:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Geez...I ddn't know this...well, the plot thickens. Making agreements that break US laws...laws = quaint to the Bushistas

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
by whataboutbob on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 05:58:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Detroit Free Press: U.S.-Indian nuclear deal swiftly rebuked (March 3, 2006)
India first tested atomic weapons in 1974, but it never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which subjects countries to international oversight of nuclear programs. U.S. law bars the export of nuclear technology to nations that haven't signed the accord, and Bush will have to persuade Congress to change the law for the agreement to be ratified.


A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 06:06:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Good points, and it is a flawed logic.  But I wonder, at a pragmatic level, does it matter to you that one of these countries is openly talking about wiping another country off the face of the map?  
by wchurchill on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 05:59:11 AM EST
Does it matter to you that India has been at war with Pakistan three times in the last 60 years, and that they both have nukes, and that they are outside the NPT?

It is a lot more likely that India and Pakistan will nuke each other than that Iran will actually be able to strike Israel.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 06:01:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
bring it up in the context of the debate.  Personally, I see a huge difference between the outright threats of Iran, and hatred to Israel.  If you don't, and want to see Iran have nuclear weapons, argue your points there.
by wchurchill on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 06:06:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I argue here because it is a direct response to your comment here. Feel free to quote me, with links, "in the context of the debate".

India and Pakistan do a lot of posturing, just like Iran and Israel do towards each other. Of the 4 countries...

  • which ones have not signed the NPT?
  • which ones are US allies?
  • which ones have nuclear weapons?
  • which ones have gone to war with each other?
  • which one is a military dictatorship?


A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 06:11:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't agree with any country saying another country should be wiped off the map. I personally don't have a pro- or anti-Iran stand...I'm reporting this as news, is all. I don't particularly like the current Iranian government's hard.right wing stand, and as I know people who do humanitarian work in Iran, I've learned interesting things about that society that is unsettling.

But...when one looks at the behavior of the Bush led US govt., which has been to do its own thing and consistently break international laws, start unilateral wars (and now, apparently, sign illegal treaties)...it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to see why a country like Iran may want to nuke up, just out of self-protection.

My point being, America is really behaving strangely here...

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia

by whataboutbob on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 06:10:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I fail to see your point: thinking that helping out non-signatories to the NPT who have proven that they are diverting from their civilian to there military programme with nuclear technology while sabre-rattling over the possibility that a signatory to the NPT might want nukes is a bit bizarre is hardly equivalent to wanting Iran to have nuclear weapons. No one here wants that. I would suggest that few here want any nuclear weapons lying around. Sounds to me as if your internalising "you're with us or against us" a bit too much.

Does it bother you that the US has a first-use and tactical use doctrine for nuclear weapons?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 06:12:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I said it is flawed logic--the US position.  But,,,,do you want Iran,,,etc.
by wchurchill on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 06:18:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I see...well, it wouldn't be the first time someone accused me of having flawed logic...but thankfully now understand you were talking about the US (this time!).

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
by whataboutbob on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 06:55:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But hopefully you will put this point into the context of the "Gnomemoot: Iran - problem summary and more questions" debate.  that would be helpful to see if this irony stands up to challenge.
by wchurchill on Fri Mar 3rd, 2006 at 06:03:00 AM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]