 |
| |
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
EU clinches landmark trade accord with Syria
Financial Times.
By Judy Dempsey in Brussels
Published: May 27 2004 19:13 | Last Updated: May 27 2004 19:13
European Union member states clinched an agreement on Thursday on a landmark trade accord with Syria, ending months of haggling over a clause on weapons of mass destruction to be included in the deal.
The agreement inside the EU had been held up since December when the European Commission, the union's executive arm, negotiated the trade accord with Syria after several years of talks.
The accord, however, goes beyond the standard EU format because for the first time the Commission inserted a clause on weapons of mass destruction.
It stipulates that Syria must implement all international non-proliferation accords, co-operate on countering the proliferation of WMD and set up effective controls for the export, transit and end-use of WMD-related goods and technologies. If not, then the trade accord would be suspended.
The agreement required the consent of the member states. Britain, Germany and until recently the Netherlands opposed the wording of the WMD clause, wanting tougher language to be inserted.
British diplomats said they were seeking more specific and tougher language related to the export, transit and end-user controls of WMD related goods and technologies.
Other member states that had few objections with the Commission's original text, suggested it should be accepted without change otherwise Syria would not accept the terms of the trade accord.
Diplomats said the new text would be sent to Damascus in the coming weeks. Although Syria may balk at the tougher wording on WMD, diplomats said it was hardly in a position to reject the accord given how the US recently imposed sanctions on the country for allegedly harbouring and supporting terrorist movements.
The WMD clause is not retrospective. But Commission officials said it would be inserted when trade agreements have to be amended. That would mean inserting one in the accord with Israel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who likes the idea that Syria and Israel should not be treated differently on the WMD issue?
There is a pattern. Everytime the US sanctions a country, the EU begins to trade with that country.
Maybe the trade flow already shifted in Europes favour before the sanctions, and this in turn is perhaps what initially sparked the US pressure?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanielXY
|
|
Germany
Dec 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Who likes the idea that Syria and Israel should not be treated differently on the WMD issue? |
So we may get an trade-embargo on Israel cose they have nukes? Interesting...
I dont think Israel should be handled the same like Syria or the like... I mean they are less likly to sell technologie or nukes or whatever to ppl. that actually plan to use them (terrorists, dictatorships...). If simply for the fact that Israel would be one of the prime-targets for such lost nukes...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
The fact that Germany is against weapons embargo against Israel is that they just sold two subs to them.
Meanwhile I understand that Israel has sold advanced AWACS technology to the Chinese.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
Israel still sold Awacs technology to India, did they not?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
quote:
Who likes the idea that Syria and Israel should not be treated differently on the WMD issue? |
I do!  |
What Id like to ask Sen. John Kerry.
Dear Sen Kerry
You have stated your strong support for Israel, your support for sanctions on Syria, and your support for a tougher line with Saudi Arabia. I presume you also are intent to make sure that Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons.
At the same time you have stated your attempt to have a more multilateral foreign policy, particularly contrasting your view with the administrations policy on Iraq. Since the US did not go into Iraq alone, I can only presume that you mean that we should only use force in such situations with the consent of the UNSC. And that we should use economic and political sanctions before resorting to force.
How, then sir, do you make these sanctions effective? While you support sanctions against Syria, the EU intends to engage with Syria, and some members of the EU, like France, with substantial support from the politically active members of their populations, oppose such sanctions, citing Israels possesion of nuclear weapons. Similarly, what will you do, if and when Iran acquires nuclear weapons? Will you go to the UNSC?? What will you do when you are told there by France that no action is warranted, since Israel also posseses nuclear weapons? And that France will veto any move to sanctions, much less military action, against Iran? Will you simply accept that Iran will have nuclear weapons and there is nothing we can do about it? Can you reconcile that position with your claim to be strong on national security?
I ask you this sir, not out of preference for your Republican opponent, who has made many mistakes, who is a reactionary on domestic policy, and whom i would be happy to see replaced, but out of concern for how you and your foreign policy advisors, Misters Holbrooke, Berger, et al would deal with a real world in which our nominal allies DO NOT share the strategic goals and views you have eloquently enunciated.
Sincerely
Lord of the Mark
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
I ask you this sir, not out of preference for your Republican opponent, who has made many mistakes, who is a reactionary on domestic policy, and whom i would be happy to see replaced, but out of concern for how you and your foreign policy advisors, Misters Holbrooke, Berger, et al would deal with a real world in which our nominal allies DO NOT share the strategic goals and views you have eloquently enunciated. |
Well, the sad issue is that soverign states get to act in a soverign manner- we can make our reasons known to Europe-that is as far as it goes. The Europeans favor internationalism, evcen if they know the US does not share their strategic goals (like with regards to Syria).
Sadly events show we lack the power to go at it alone.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
quote:
I ask you this sir, not out of preference for your Republican opponent, who has made many mistakes, who is a reactionary on domestic policy, and whom i would be happy to see replaced, but out of concern for how you and your foreign policy advisors, Misters Holbrooke, Berger, et al would deal with a real world in which our nominal allies DO NOT share the strategic goals and views you have eloquently enunciated. |
Well, the sad issue is that soverign states get to act in a soverign manner- we can make our reasons known to Europe-that is as far as it goes. The Europeans favor internationalism, evcen if they know the US does not share their strategic goals (like with regards to Syria).
Sadly events show we lack the power to go at it alone. |
We may lack the power to effectively change regimes, but thats not really whats at issue wrt Iran, or Syria for that matter. Would a Pres Kerry launch a preemptive strike on Iran, IF he saw with certainty that Iran had a nuclear weapon, and IF the UNSC refused to back him due to a French veto, leaving Pres Kerry with the choice of accepting Iranian nukes, or taking "unilateral" (IE with the support of UK and others, but not UNSC sanction) military action. I know what choice GEPap would make - Im interested in what choice a Pres Kerry would make.
BTW, AFAIK Sen Kerry has not said that "we lack the power to go it alone" rather that we are better off acting multilaterally, not the same thing. Also, though he has not formalized any proposals yet, it seems he will suggest an expansion of the army, which would increase our ability to go it alone.
I presume from what i know of Richard Holbrooke, who seems on the fast track to be Kerry's Sec of State, is that he thinks the above scenario wouldnt come up, because he would outmaneuver the French. By taking a more conciliatory line to Europe, he wouldnt change French minds, but he WOULD reconcile Germany, and have more support among the electorates in UK, Italy and elsewhere. In such a situation France would be less willing to use their veto than they were in Feb 2003. Im not sure if that is realistic. I can see that it cant really be enunciated in public.
Last edited by lord of the mark on 28-05-2004 at 23:09
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:36
|
|
LOTM:
Be aware that I'm not France. I am a French Commie, independent minded at that. In the last elections, only 3.6% of my (very right-wing) city voted for me.
In the end, it is obvious the realpolitik types, in France and in the EU, will make our foreign policy, not my idealistic self. Do not assume that my suggestions of foreign policy will be followed.
Edit:
Besides, don't misunderstand my position. I'm all for using our weight for pushing Syria to disarm. Just like I'm all for using our weight for Pushing Israel to disarm. I fundamentally think that WMDs are extremely dangerous in the area, and that Israel is not less dangerous than Syria or other non-fundy Arab countries.
Last edited by Spiffor on 28-05-2004 at 23:12
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:36
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap
quote:
I doubt Senator Kerry reads this. |
 Yes, i know that. It was simply a way of expressing my concerns here.
quote:
But my point still stands- other states get to make their own foreign policy. Our sanctions will do nothing to disarm Syria-until Syria no longer sees a reason to be armed they won't give them up whatever we do short of attacking, and the problems in Iraq make that highly unlikely. |
1. Im not sure what reasons Syria has for keeping them. As you have stated so eloquently, CW is of limited military use. Whatever prestige reason, bargaining chip reasons, or other reasons will have to be weighed against the consequences of sanctions.
2.As far as limits due to overstretch in Iraq
A. An attack on Syria would likely be by air, not ground forces. No overstretch there at all
B. A threat of attack over CW would likely be tied to an ultimatum to stop Syrian support of insurgents/terrorists within Iraq - it would thus make the situation EASIER in Iraq
C. Were not talking short term. Kerry wont be in office till Jan 2005 (if he wins) and will be in office till 2009. I dont think we will be in overstretch for that entire period.
quote:
We are also not likely to carry out any pre-emptive attacks against Iran, and if iran follows NK and pulls out of the NPT we won't even have a legal excuse for it. I seriously doubt even the UK would go along with us to strike Iran. And in the end, if they pull out of the NPT, Iran will have as much a right to nukes as we do. We only have a right to ***** at Iran for its nukes becuase they are in the NPT system. |
I wonder if Kerry and Holbrooke share your belief that the US has no right to a preemptive strike against NKor or Iran even if they have nuclear weapons. If so Id like to see them state it. I dont think they trust MAD to work in those cases, and I dont think they are willing to lose an American city to preserve the sanctity of the Treaty of Westphalia and the UN charter. Again, Im NOT asking for your views on the proper conduct of international relations, Gepap, i think i have a good idea of them by now. Nor am i advancing my own views. I AM trying to reconcile what seem to be contradictory aspects of Sen Kerrys views. I am as yet undecided how I will vote in November. I am impressed with some aspects of Kerrys speech the other day, and some aspects of Holbrookes record - but I need to get around the contradictions, which are by no means minor in IMHO. Since I dont think you share the viewpoint of Kerry and Holbrooke, perhaps you are not the best to defend it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
I'd impose some sort of penalty on the EU... trade wise... if they want to go *** for tat on trade sanctions/penalties over Syria... then so be it. |
Sort of a repeat of the Helms- Burton act on Cuba?
Here European companies are not allowed to trade with the US if they trade with Cuba.
You want all trade to go to the US, and you can't even pay for it.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-05-2004 20:49
)
And we should give our friends a hard time if they trade with evil asswipes.
|