After the Resolution

Gaya : Well here’s an interesting scenario I picked up from the random commentary floating around :

By David Blacker

Maybe the GoSL set the tone of the debate :

1. It set up an LLRC to fact-find, then criticized the facts and the method of finding them.

2. Then, when the US pushed us to implement the LLRC recommendations, we resist, and call them nasty names.

3. The US invites us to be a part of drafting a document that will ask us to do what our own commission recommends, but we refuse, in spite of the fact that human rights activists condemn the resolution as pointless.

4. Then we complain about the wording that we refused to help write.

5. We take a hard stand against the resolution as if it is a damning indiction, when in reality it means little. We badger our allies to oppose it.

6. Our badgering convinces the diaspora that the resolution is a useful one and they lobby their own governments to support it, scenting a victory, ironically a pyrrhic one.

IF the resolution is now passed,

1. The diaspora will declare victory and call for an investigation on the strength of the resolution, not understanding that they’ve been screwed over by the US.

2. We claim that the resolution is a toothless one, and half-heartedly implement some of the LLRC recommendations, thereby looking cooperative to the naive international audience, but losers to the naive locals who protested the resolution.

3. Our allies scratch their heads and carry on.

IF the resolution fails,

We declare victory, pissing off the diaspora further but winning points with the locals, and stall on the LLRC recommendations until next time.

Our allies scratch their heads and carry on.

Shortlisted for the Gratiaen Prize 2004.

Comments

  1. For once I agree with you Blacker. 😀

Speak Your Mind

*