Foreign Policy
|
|
Washington Post foreign policy reporter Peter Slevin comes to the Web to discuss the latest developments in U.S. foreign policy — from the State Department to the frontlines in Iraq, join Slevin every Thursday to discuss the diverse factors that shape U.S. foreign policy and how it impacts our lives and the world. Editor’s Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. ________________________________________________ Peter Slevin: Greetings, on a day when President Bush is away on Sea Island, Ga., at the G-8 Summit and the focal point of Washington is the Capitol Rotunda, where Ronald Reagan is lying in state until tomorrow’s funeral. Things continue busy, though, with the U.N. resolution on Iraq and today’s news of a reported Libyan plot against the Saudi crown prince. _______________________ Alexandria, Va.: The Bush White House is portraying the U.N. resolution as a victory. Was it? Did they get what they wanted originally, or did they need to make some compromises along the way? Peter Slevin: If it was a victory, it should carry an asterisk because the most important factor in the unanimity of the Security Council was the Bush administration’s willingness to give something up — to make concessions. The resolution was quite different than the one originally submitted by U.S. and British diplomats. In fact, it was the fifth version that finally succeeded. It gave more explicit authority to the interim Iraqi government and provided many more details about the future than U.S. authorities had originally wanted to yield. That said, it’s notable that the Security Council endorsed the interim Iraqi government by a 15-0 vote and, in the process, supported the beginnings of the Bush administration’s endgame in Iraq. |