Then:
“I don?t think there is any role for the U.N. in the short term in searching for, or identifying, or securing weapons of mass destruction, but we do not necessarily rule out some kind of U.N. role down the road.” That’d be U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton.
Today, things are different:
“The United States has started discussions with the International Atomic Energy Agency to make arrangements for IAEA teams to return to Iraq to determine what may have been stolen from nuclear sites, a State Department official said yesterday.”
I note this not so much because I don’t think it’s OK to change your mind. I do that all the time. It’s more because I keep seeing people talking about how this Presidency is a straight-shooting Presidency that means what it says. Also because when I point out that a political stance is untenable, and then that political stance changes, I like to crow about how I’m right.
One Comment
But that’s how international diplomacy works – the language almost never contains absolutes. “I don’t think there is any role in the SHORT TERM…doesn’t rule out…some kind of role…down the road.” I think this government digs in its heels on clear-cut matters of national interest, (ie. the decision to use force regardless of the Security Council’s decision) while leaving the door open for possible future concessions in matters of lesser importance.
Germany and France painted themselves into a corner early in the game by refusing to back force, NO MATTER WHAT. The U.S. left open a diplomatic solution and still extended a 48-hour deadline. So they threw the French a few crumbs – that’s how this game is played. And for allowing them to save some kind of face, what do they gain in return, relatively little, and both sides can report that they won a concession. Childish and tedious perhaps, but that’s how high stakes poker is played.