Bush, Blair, and Aznar have gone over to the Azores to talk in regard to invading Iraq.
My question is why do they have to proceed to this far away place to talk together.
With the instant telecommunication ways and means available today for heads of states to talk to each other, seeing each other’s image and hearing each other’s voice instantly, simultaneously, and clearly, is it not wasting time and courting danger leaving their capitals to meet to talk in the Azores?
My general question is why do leaders of states and rich powerful people have to meet at all in close physical proximity to see and talk to each other, when they can do effectively as well with the ways and means of telecommunication available today; then it would save so much time, trouble, and keep them from harm’s way.
[list=1]
[li]because a face-to-face talk allows the reading of body-language etc. cues that videoconferencing is too crude to convey. Consider the well-known failings of e-mail communications in that regard: if international talks had been exclusively by e-mail (or by telex before the advent of e-mail), World War Three would be old hat and we’d be on to World War Seven or Eight.[/li][li]to not also talk, but also to emphatically put it on the public/historical record that talks have taken place. In this case: for Bush to emphasize that two persons outside the US agree with him, for Blair and Aznar to emphasize that they had been found worthy of being consulted by the emperor. A meeting might make it into the history books, a conference call of the same real import probably not.[/li][/list=1]
And the reason why the Azores specifically, the symbolic reason is because it’s out in the middle of the Atlantic, and they are emphasizing their Atlantic organization, as opposed to a European or American organization. If the meeting had been held in the U.S., it would have looked liek an American show with a couple of small powers signing on to it. If it had been held in Britain, it would have looked like a ploy to boost Tony Blair, who is in trouble at home.
So instead, they hold it halfway between the two continents, and suddenly it’s not about an individual country, but an alliance.
And, to add to what Sam Stone suggests as to why the Azores specifically: they have a small population (under 250 000) and it’s expensive to get there. The conference - and the coverage of it - is less likely to be beset by distractions.
Because they know damn well that hundreds of thousands of people in all three countries have been massing to protest this warmongering, so they went to a little island to thwart the protests from getting anywhere near them.
For one, I would think there’d be less chance of the communications being intercepted. I’m sure all three nations have secure lines, but these still have to be transmitted, and there is always a way to intercept. Not that I think Iraq would be capable of doing so, but this is a matter that interests a lot of other nations – Russia, Germany, France, et al – who do have sophisticated intelligence opporations. And if Bush, Blair and Anzar were discussing actual war preparations, the talks might be highly sensitive.
Also, the Azores are a trip of about equal length for all three parties.
On a slightly more practical note, the Azores are the closest thing to equidistant for the leaders involved. The speed with which the meeting materialized, its short duration, and the unsettled political situation of Blair et. al. probably made it important to minimize the amount of time these world leaders spent hung up in airplane isolation.
When I saw a clip from the press conference, there were four podiums and sets of four flags. I saw four men come out to the podiums - Bush, Blair, Aznar, and the mystery man - so who was the fourth? Prime Minister of Portugal? All the news reports only seem to report the attendance of Bush, Blair and Aznar.
Why do you go to your friend’s wedding 2,000 miles away?
Why do you go to your grandmother’s funeral instead of send a card?
Because everyone knows that it MEANS MORE if you are THERE. By having the leaders meet, it lends weight and importance to the meeting; much more than could be achieved by each individual “conferencing” with the others.
The location of the meeting has been adequately addressed by others already. The importance is the attendance!
Portugal, of course, being the country of which the Azores are part. Besides hosting the US base at Lajes it also has the longest-standing defense alliance with Britain.
Everyone mentions Bush/Blair/Aznar because it’s the US/UK/Spain who are behind the proposed “Final” Resolution in the Security Council.
Another theory I had about the Azores is that they were chosen for security: they’re remote, and there’s unlikely to be a terrorist presence there. Entrance and egress from the islands is more easily controllable than any venues in Spain, Portugal, the UK or the UK, and the short notice wouldn’t give Al Qaeda or whoever any time to get over there.
…and they don’t mention the Portugese PM because Portugal is not currently a member of the Security Council, and therefore doesn’t have a vote, one way or the other.
