France has called for increased pressure in the row with Iran over its nuclear plans. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has written to the 27 members of the European Union calling for new sanctions.
He has petitioned fellow EU foreign ministers, claiming that Iran’s nuclear programme was giving it nuclear military capabilities, despite Tehran’s insistence that its uranium enrichment program is solely for peaceful energy generation.
In his letter he calls for urgency as Iran moves closer to the technology and urged the EU to “show its determination and set an example once again by taking the initiative of firm new measures."
Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed that he would never give in to international pressure. "On the nuclear issue, the enemies have assembled all they have but I tell the whole world that Iran has conquered difficult passes and no power can halt the successive victories of Iran," he was quoted as saying by the ISNA news agency.
Britain is firmly backing the French stance. Germany and Italy are against tougher sanctions and Spain is pushing for further diplomatic channels before resorting to sanctions. Germany and Italy both have important economic interests in Iran.
Last month Kouchner provoked global debate and an angry response from Tehran, by suggesting that the world should prepare for war with Iran. He said: "An Iran with a military nuclear capability is, for us, an unacceptable prospect."
The Islamic Republic retaliated by making an official complaint to France’s charge d'affaires in Tehran about his comments. France has taken a harder line against Iran since President Sarkozy was elected earlier this year.
- Mark Bentley
Thursday, October 4, 2007
France calls for a united EU to end Iran’s nuclear defiance
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I am very confused about Iran...
On one hand I think we should send some bombers and let Iran know that we do not want them to have nuclear technologies. With precision bombs it should be very easy to make an end on that.
But on the other hand I do not think we should interfer with internal affairs in a country - unless the country is a big threat to the surrounding countries. And I really do not think Iran is that right now.
They just have a crazy president, but lots of other countries have that, and we do not interfer there.
/Mikkel
We should bomb Denmark because there fucking Nazi's are freely gathering and I think that on both hands it's a threat to democracy.
Seriously, it's totally hypocritical to say "Iran can't have the nuclear energy" - or nuclear bomb because Iran is supposed to be on the "evil" axe according to his excellency Mr Bush.
Hypocritical because on the one hand, all the countries which are criticizing Iran and asking sanctions do have the nuclear weapon.
Hypocritical because Israel does have it too and nobody is complaining about it.
Ah yeah, I forgot to mention. I'm against every form of nuclear energy or weapon but I hate the "double standard" hypocrisy. So as long as country like France, the UK or the US do have nuclear things (or India and Pakistan backed by the US) why not Iran?
Nicolas
No matter what should or should not be done. I think the real problem here is the EU's lack of unity when it comes to foreign policy.
Paris and London root for tougher sanctions while Berlin, Rome, Madrid and Vienna prefere leaving the whole debate to the UN Security Council.
How can these 27 states ever hope that Europe will become a major player in world affairs when common foreign policies are impossible to formulate?
The funny thing is that I never believe all 27 countries would agree on foreign affairs.
Exactly because we are 27 different countries - and we all have different ideas how things should be done.
(and then we also have a very long history that can make it a bit difficult to agree upon everything).
/Mikkel
My point was not about Denmark.
Mikkel speaks about a "big threat to the surrounding countries".
Which countries? Syria? Irak? Lebanon? I don't think so. The only country at stake is Israel. And Israel has already the nuclear weapon. So again it's a double standard point of view.
If Iran can't have the nuclear weapon (and I defend this point of view), the "International Community" - this word really sucks , excuse me what's the meaning of it? - wants Iran to not have the nuclear weapon they first should ask Israel to drop its own. No?
And please, don't tell me "they just have a crazy president"...even before Ahmadinejad presidency, Iran was put on the evil axe by Bush after 9/11. Even though the president was a progressist guy.
Yes they do have a crazy president, but the French democratically elected him!!!
The row is more about Sarkozy and his ambition to make France an equally imperial power to the UK and therefore closer to the US. He wants to be seen as a great statesman and is following the same rhetoric and ideology of Tony
Blair. Dare I say he is looking to be the new number one, on the list of American arse-lickers.
Thankfully Gordon Brown doesn’t seem too interested in a bitch-fight for Bush’s affections; however, the British government would seem to have done a u-turn. Last year it was claimed that Tony Blair told George Bush that
Britain cannot offer military support to any strike on Iran, regardless of whether the move wins the backing of the international community.
In 1979, the Shah was overthrown in Iran. US President, Jimmy Carter, stopped all support to the toppled regime and offered no assistance in returning the Shah to power, thereby allowing a new regime and the Ayatollah Khomeini
to become Iran's new leader. Up until this time Iran was a political ally to the United States.
Let us not forget that the US then supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), providing him with military technology because he was the "lesser of the two evils". Interestingly, Britain, France, West Germany and the Soviet Union also supported Iraq. West Germany’s position in the current situation is interesting, because it is claimed that they now have economic interests in Iran, whereas up until 1988 they supported war against them.
The west is either paranoid or is creating paranoia. The perceived danger is that Iran poses a threat to their new “Democratic Republic of Iraq". If we are to believe in the west’s military capabilities, it could be argued that they are acting on military intelligence, however, how can any intelligence reports be taken seriously again after the WMD lies, which were passed off as “intelligence reports”.
Iran must obviously feel threatened and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is continuing the favoured rhetoric designed to unite the Muslim world, with quotes such as: “As God promised, the oppressors will have their noses rubbed in the dirt. Now they are fulfilling this promise by themselves.” He also pushes his belief in the "hidden" 12th imam
Mahdi, who Shiites believe disappeared 1,200 years ago and will one day return to save the world – which is not an
unfamiliar belief.
This whole episode is the lingering stench from the bullshit of Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction” and the murder of Saddam. The west is protecting its newly acquired riches and France wants a big slice of the cake.
I was not talking about Sarkozy, but Ahmadinejad - who was also elected.
You wrote you thought we should bomb Denmark, and then I just made a short statement that I believe in the right of people to gather - no matter what culture or belief they had.
And about Iran I mean we should let them do what they want to do - because they are not a threat to anyone.
But "YES" I believe Ahmadinejad is a crazy guy. Just a few of the funny quotes from that man:
"We do not have homosexuals in Iran!. We even do not know the phenomenon. Who has told you that there are homosexuals in Iran (translated from a Danish newspaper)."
"I do not believe in Holocaust, so I think there should be some research on this matter. It is something the Israelies have made up."
If these aren't signs from a crazy man - then I have no idea how to figure out who is crazy or not.
/Mikkel
Please remember to write your name in the end of your text...
/Mikkel
I was not talking about Sarkozy, but Ahmadinejad - who was also elected.
I know, I was being ironic, as well as satirically balanced, in reply to your comment.
- Mark
Sorry, I forgot once to write it at the end. Do you know something about irony, especially when you read my Danish reference?
Nico
High five for irony Nico
And no Nico - I do not see the line between the situation of Iran and the situation of Denmark.
We just fight for the right to gather and speak.
Other countries fight for their right for weapons of mass destruction.
And I think there is a difference here.
/Mikkel
My reference to Denmark was to show how stupid is the assertion "We should send some bombers blablabla".
Haha - ok.
But as written in some of the other comments, I believe we should just leave Iran alone.
/Mikkel
Post a Comment