Simulation: The Security Council Meeting
Please post your comments here. This posting is mandatory. In about a paragraph or two summarize the substance of the conference and the conclusion.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
About Me
-
- Name: Muqtedar Khan
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is a Non-resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002), Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations (Praeger, 2004).
Previous Posts
- Simulation – II 12.45 -1:25 The new President of...
- Guidelines for Posting 1. When you sign off, use ...
- The Media Reports The media should file their rep...
- Give us some dirt! C. Rice and other members of ...
- Simulation: Quartet Meeting with Israel and its A...
- Simulation: Quartet Meeting with Arab and Palesti...
- Simulation: Pro-Palestine Group Please post you...
- Simulation: Pro-Israel Group Please post your co...
- Simulation: The Security Council Meeting Please ...
- Hopes for peace as Hamas agrees to truce Agreemen...
18 Comments:
The Security Council started out discussing the past actions of the United States in the region, and the members expressed concerns about the US role and plan in the region. Myself and the president tried to mollify these concerns in an effort to move the discussion forward. The Security Council seemed to heavily support the idea of a UN presence in the region. The makeup of the force as well as the rules of engagement were currently being discussed.
Additionally the member from the EU had passed around a possible resolution. Due to the lack of time the resolution was not able to be fully debated and examined. But a key question was whether or not the US would continue to support Israel at its current level. Myself and the other members of the US delegation tried to make it clear that our primary goal was peace in the region and not support of Israel, but peace in the region might mean support for Israel at times. I believe that progress has been made and that in the near future the Security Council will be able to pass a resolutionn that benefits all parties involved.
The Quartet strangely began with only criticism directed at President Bush and having no plan for the Middle East. There was no sign of sympathy towards having lose our President Clinton.
Nevertheless, it was important that the international powers decide on a plan to ensure this catastrophe does not expand. President Bush laid out his plan to cut funding and support, especially militarily, to Israel while also ensuring their security and existence. I support his multilateral plan with the UN and Quartet to ensure peace. I was deeply concerned though that the extremists among the Palestinians and neighboring Arab nations like Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad would see this as an opportune time to cripple Israel and/or push US influence out of the Middle East. In order to ensure continuing stability, the Quartet agree to initially sending UN troops and demanding Israel return to pre-1967 borders. The international community truly wishes to see the Middle East become a peaceful and stable area despite the cost that Israel may have to concede. The specifics have yet to be ironed out, but I'm satisfied we've started off well.
- Peter Park
Senator Joe Biden, Foreign Relations Chairman
The ultimate objectives of this meeting between the U.N., the President, his senior staff members, and me were to open talks with the U.N. concerning the Middle East peace process, and open a dialogue with Iran. Though many of the U.N. members appeared to be in favor of a peaceful engagement, the EU representative was very concerned about what affects they would suffer from becoming involved. Additionally, other countries such as France were concerned with the finer details of engagement. It appears that most of the representatives agree that a multi-lateral approach is best and that the U.N. will assist in the Middle Eastern peace process. Though no official agreement has been made, the President and his staff are doing a fairly good job of not alienating the U.S. which will hopefully make it easier for me to wrap up negotiations shortly after I’m sworn in.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and I also had a brief discussion about a peaceful future in the Middle East and specifically denuclearization. Though initially President Ahmadinejad was very unwilling to negotiate, by the end of our meeting it did seem that we had made some progress. However, before we get into any serious discussions, he insisted that I ensure Israeli denuclearization. It remains unclear how serious Ahmadinejad is about such negotiations but Mrs. Clinton and I were elected on the promise of a nuclear free Middle East and though it may be a long process, it will be achieved.
The Security Council began with personal attacks on US President Bush and his administration. After that calmed down, we got to discussing the possible denuclearization of Israel. The EU also proposed the implementation of UN Resolution 242, calling for the withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territories to their pre-1967 borders and the cessation of all settlements and military operations within the Palestinian terrotories. We also agreed on a UN peacekeeping force in the West Bank and Gaza, though we did not yet get to which countries would contribute to the force and how many troops. There will also be a full investigation in regards to the missile that killed US President Elect Hillary Clinton.
Kodwo Acquah - Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations
The arguments in the beginning of the meeting centered around incoming, current, and past presidents criticizing one another. One might question that President Bush's sudden action maybe to salvage his reputation, in fear of what criticism President Elect Obama may state following his taking the oath of office. In regards to the EU resolution, it failed to be passed around the table and many members were unable to read the details of the agreement.
Geoff Shulik
Senator Richard G. Lugar, Senator from Indiana, Foreign Relations Committee
After the initial rockiness, I laid down my plan to restore stability and bring peace to the Middle East. Although I labelled the plan my own, it is important to note that each independent actor, each member of the United Nation, is important to its successful execution. The plan begins with demanding Israel to remobilize their forces away from Palestinian territory, which is defined as territory belonging to the group prior to 1967. After the withdrawal to pre-1967 war borders, which includes abandonment of the settlements, a United Nations peacekeeping force, led by European nations, would move into Palestinian controlled areas to maintain stability.
The security council did not have time to focus on my plan for a nuclear-free middle east. That plan centers around simultaneous nuclear disarmnament by Israel and Iran. In all, the new direction I have set forth revolves around sacrificing relations with Israel for the sake of lasting peace in the region.
George W. Bush (David Giattino), President of the United States of America
At the beginning of the UNSC meeting there were various disagreements between some members, particularly Iran and the divided US delegation. While the European Union states and Canada stayed out of this fray, we soon joined in when the talk turned to peace keepers, particularly the question of if they were needed and who would put up the troops.
While a resolution was negotiated by the EU states and Canada, only a general direction of ideas was formulated and no formal resolution passed.
-Ted Prettyman
Nicolas Sarkozy, French Minister of the Interior and 2007 French Presidential candidate
As it has been mentioned by many of the other members of this discussion, the Security Council got off to a rough start. Jimmy Carter and President Bush were having a very public arguement about policy, while the members of the UN tried to come up with a resolution to this current situation. France, Canada, Russia, Great Britan, along with the EU representive proposed a military presence of UN members to patrol the 1967 borders of Israel with France and Canada offering to supply some troops. Even when Iran came and the group discussion was supposed to include Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it seemed like President Bush was very hesitant to do so. Not only that but it became more and more evident that President Ahmadinejad was growing restless on not being involved in the discussion. After some time, Barack Obama invited President Ahmadinejad over to where he was sitting and had a brief private discussion with him. I am not privy to the information that was exchanged there.
Finally, it seems like the meeting did not solve many problems if any at all. The only thing of value was the UN resolution which was passed around but not everyone agreed on. We kept going around in circles with mostly only the United States representatives dominating the discussions while the European powers and Canada where held in check.
-Chris Bednarski
Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
bgbgn
The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has not reflected as of yet on the U.N. Security Council meeting but as Al-Jazeera's United Nations correspondent I witnessed his emotional condemnation of America's policies in the Middle East.
As has been mentioned, the initial discussion on the floor of the Security Council proceeded more like a referendum on George Bush's Middle East policies than in formulating a lasting Palestinian-Israeli peace.
Ahmadinejad took little time in charging the current Bush administration with being the foremost obstacle to lasting peace and stability; following Senator Barack Obama's charge that "All you (Bush) have done is kill," Ahmadinejad cried out "...you bombed our cities, killed 30,000 of our people!"
With confidence of America's future role in a peaceful Middle East declining within the Security Council, the question remains if now is the time for the Arab states to assume the lead.
-Brendan Taubman Al Jazeera Correspondent
U.S. President Bush was very animate about how the UN should handle the situation with the Middle East, but lacked the suggestions that would be resourceful in implenting a policy towards Israel. The EU was dissapointed with President Bush and how litigation for a timeline of military intervention wasn't suggested. The limited amount of time that we had with the security council was futile, very little was accomplished and future negotiations with the west need to be more productive.
Members of The European Union was able to formualte a possible resolution, which was viewed be various members of the Security Council. I am not allowed to share that information since it is very early in the process, but I can say that The European Union will have a major role in finding an intermit resolution.
Matti Vanhanen
Prime Minister of Finland
President of the European Union
After what was some bickering and fighting between the United States past, current and future presidents, the US laid forth that they will be withdrawing support from Israel politically, economically, and monetarily.
As a part of the UN, we decided that Israel must be required to move its borders back to pre-1967 borders and that it was only right for Israel to begin dismantling those settlements that lay between the old and new borders. As this may be a prime time for surrounding Arab countries to attack Israel, peace keeping troops were discussed and would optimately be placed on the borders of the West Bank and Gaza. We discussed where these troops would come, and as Prime Minister of the UK, find that we will be able to support with a few troops ourselves. We must ensure peace in the middle east and support the US in their decision making process.
It was tough for myself to hear everyone out and for us to make a move on where to go next. Hopefully the next Security Council meeting will resolve more of the issue.
Jennifer Seelin
Tony Blair, UK Prime Minister
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
(Mustafa Zia/ President of Iran, Mahmood AhmadiNijad)
The whole meeting was outrageous. If it wasn’t for request of so many high delegates from European countries and UN I would not have come to the meeting at all. Arriving was a mess to begin with when they interrogated me for hours, humiliating the President of a legitimate State. I don’t even know what was the purpose of inviting me to this meeting, since I was not asked to be involved in it at all. The whole meeting was about listening to this idiot (Bush) rambling about his selfish and idiotic interests. If it wasn’t for a request I would not have come to this Kafiristan, who are murderers of innocent women and children all over Middle East, just ask any of my Iranian people, they will tell you about these American atrocities. Each one of my countryman has either lost a son, father, brother or member of a family.
After listening to their discussions (which again I was never involved in at all) I find US’s position very hypocritical (as they always are), because they bombed my country by claiming that we had nuclear weapons, while the mere fact that their president was in Israel to talk about denuclearization resulted in her getting assassinated, with 300 of other civilians. If this had happened in Iran, they would have nuked us, but no, it’s Israel and they are not doing anything to denuclearize or punish Israel for their actions this is absolutely hypocrisy, and there needs to be an end to this. The only person who seemed to think that Bush is an idiot too, was Barack Obama who despite the fact that he is American seemed a little reasonable to me. The end of time is close, and I am waiting for coming of Mahdi, such a delightful day it will be when the unbelievers will pay for their atrocities to my nation and all Muslims around the world, InshALLAH!
May Allah destroy those who wage war against Islam and its followers!! AMEEN!
I really don't like to see Iran so upset. It was somewhat nervewracking, discussing the part of about denuclearising both Iran and Israel. We don't want Iran as a nuclear power, and we certainly don't want it as an enemy. I negotiated discretely with the security council over passing the resolutions because the last thing Russia needs is for Iran to know that a country both sharing a border and within firing range is responsible for even the slightest inconvinience. We have vowed to veto any resolution that imposes economic sanctions on Iran, our hands are tied if that is the measure the rest of the UN will take.
We like to keep Israel happy too, since they are one of our best customers for fossil fuels, and many are also Rossiaskie.
vladimir putin
Russian Federation
It was as if no one wanted to come to the table and give an idea of what they thought was the best way to go. Mr President was insistent on describing what he had already ordered his people to do, adn when he did begin to offer some sort of idea, he was blasted by the president elect. His advisors did defend what he said very well. The security council come into the meeting with what it wanted to do, however, no one proposed them, and very soon the meeting broke into two parties that were unwilling to even discuss any of the matters at hand. Iran wanted the denuclearization of Israel and the SC wanted to begin to pass resolutions that would aid the Palestinians hope for statehood.
One concern was that Bush was too willing to hurt Israel for the sake of Iran, who is a much greater threat to the US than Israel has ever been (politically at least), however Mr Hadley and the President assured every one that proper measures would be taken.
that last post was from the NATO Secretary General
(Jimmy Carter)
The meeting began with a severe question of what President Bush was planning to do?! He seemed very unclear as to just what his response would be. The president then gave his best effort to discredit me as being the only President of the United States to criticize a current president. He was merely using this as a ploy to try and spin the situation into making myself look like the enemy who is not in favor for peace. I made an effor to speak my opinion and push for a new negotiation of UN peace resolution 242, and the new amendments to it (that i had submitted ideas for). the future looked very bleak after this meeting as the president seemed rather indecisive on exactly how firm he would be with Israel. He didn't seem to concerned about public opinion considering his time was up anyway.
Post a Comment
<< Home