Sir Jeremy Quentin Greenstock, GCMGis a retired British diplomat, active from 1969 to 2004... (wikipedia)
My hopes are quite high that there will be a large number of votes for this resolution.
There is only one reason for these continuing negotiations -- and that is to maximize the degree of consensus in the council. We are determined to bring this whole negotiation to closure in the next 24 hours.
Every time there is an incident like this, the place tips a bit nearer to being ungovernable.
Any resumption of fighting against the backdrop of the appalling and deteriorating humanitarian situation and the continuing displacement of people would be extremely bad news.
As I read it, the president is determined not to be forced into reductions that go against the trend of events. It would be rash to predict. I am sure there will be reductions, but the number will probably stay quite high.
It is well established that the authorization to use force given by the Security Council in 1990 may be revived if the council decides that there has been a sufficiently serious breach of the conditions laid down by the council for the cease-fire.
It's very serious. This is a tactic, to blow up a shrine rather than going for the civilian population, which is calculated by whoever did it to foment much larger violence between the communities.
It's really useful to talk these things through informally, without commitment, without being reported as your government position. I think the mutual understanding is growing, even if the mutual acceptance is not necessarily growing.
The important thing is that no one has a timetable. London, Washington and Baghdad will judge together by how things progress.