[Mmwg] Re: putting working groups on the radar

[Avri Doria]

On 10 jun 2006, at 22.47, David Allen wrote:

> Bill has made clear, his conversations have surfaced more than  
> 'objections,' these governments simply don't want to do it.  (In  
> the archive of posts - I'll dig it out if useful.)

Yes, that would be useful.. I just did a quick pass through the  
thread and while i see fears that they may go for it, i see no  
evidence that they have been consulted and have decided against.

>
> Force:  Fortunately ... there is other than military force.  In  
> this case, the opposition is between committed cooperation and some  
> sort of leverage to compel engagement.  A 'wedge,' such as some  
> governments who come along when others say no, is an example.   
> Other sorts of leverage might be felt pressure, because something  
> was started when some parties had made clear their unwillingness.   
> This is the sort of opposite of cooperative behavior that can  
> forestall serious possibilities for cooperation.

Are you saying that there is only cooperation if there is 100%  
cooperation?  and that anything anyone does that is not in full  
cooperation somehow constitutes force?  As I understand the  
diplomatic activity, there is always game playing despite the  
incidence of lots of island of cooperation.  perhaps what i call game  
playing (aka negotiation) you call force.  personally, i prefer  
reserving such terms for real displays of abusive power.

(for clarity sake, i did not restrict force to the use of military  
force - note the modifier military.  if force was always military  
force then this would be a redundant phrase)


a.