Friday, March 30, 2007

Resolve vs. Resolutions   [Mark Steyn]

Re: that pathetic U.N. resolution declining to “deplore” the Iranian action but agreeing to express “grave concern”:

What difference would that make either way? Would “deploring” persuade Tehran to release the sailors while “grave concern” lets them humiliate them for another few weeks?

Look at the timeline 25 years ago:

On April 2^nd, the Argies seized the Falklands, which were all but undefended.

On April 5^th a British task force of over 100 ships and 28,000 men sailed from England for the South Atlantic.

In three days! Talk about a rush to war, eh?

Furthermore, because the British were known to be contemplating a credible response, the U.N. – instead of twittering about “grave concern” – passed a resolution on April 3^rd ordering Argentina to withdraw from the islands. And that was in the bad old days of the Cold War. Yet, within 24 hours, the Russkies and ChiComs had been prevailed upon not to monkey around.

Just as importantly, all further diplomatic discussion took place while that task force was sailing toward the Falklands, getting closer, day by day, hour by hour. In other words, Mrs. Thatcher put a clock on events – which is the only way to persuade transnational diplomats to get real. Otherwise, they just sit around talking till everyone’s dead – see Darfur, Rwanda, etc – and it’s too late to do anything even if you wanted to.

03/30 01:48 PMShare