Europe-US Split ... Ramifications May Last For Years - Page 2

notyoueither · March 10, 2003, 06:56

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
You're right that there is a rift NYE, and it will get much larger before it will get smaller, at least, if things follow their present course. There is no hand that has been dealt, nothing is written in stone.

I'm afraid much of it has already been written, MS.

The damage done to US-French and US-German relations is severe, I would guess. Whether the French and Germans intended that break is debatable, however the mood of the US administration, and many Americans (a majority?) is decidely unpleasant towards their former(?) allies. That is what I observe.

What we are seeing is a sea change, very likely. It is very likely one of those moments in history when things are distinctly different from then on than from what they were before.

HershOstropoler · March 10, 2003, 06:59

"The damage done to US-French and US-German relations is severe"

Both sides ****ed up diplomatically. But at the core of the dispute is one thing: If the Bushies had been content with disarming Iraq instead of being hellbent on having a war, we could have done without all the crap.

notyoueither · March 10, 2003, 07:08

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"What are the consequences for the US legally if they invade Iraq?"

Without SC resolution? The war is an illegal war of aggression, then. Consequences: All UN members are entitled to take repressalia against the US, responsible US leaders are criminally liable in the Nuremberg/Tokyo tradition.

Of course enforcement of those consequences is highly unlikely. But there are legal consequences. And lack of enforcement does not necessarily render a law void.

The real consequences are the cost to the US' diplomatic standing in the world. In EU2 terms, it gets close to "hated throughout the world".

I am glad that we can agree that it would take fairly severe offences before there were any consequences for the US administration. The Nuremburg and Tokyo trials were quite unique.

As far as an illegal act of aggression, what is the status of the United States vis-a-vis the cease fire at end of Gulf 1? I seem to recall that they were a party seperate from the UN in that kerfluffle. If so, I think they have ample grounds to renew hostilities for Saddam's disregard for the terms of the cease fire. Maybe that's just me though.

It will be interesting to see how much of the world follow France and Germany, and how much follow the Americans.

In the end, it will be very sad though. The Atlantic community will be severely strained and the ability for us all to effect the world will be impaired as the US and Europe squabble over zones of influence.

The Europeans might just want to spend a few more defence dollars though, if you want to sway many people who need any sort of protection. Having at least one carrier group that could be put up against a US CVBG would help, but then again, they have about 10 of them. Get out your wallet.

HershOstropoler · March 10, 2003, 07:14

"The Nuremburg and Tokyo trials were quite unique."

I think the precedent is still valid. And that makes simply starting such a war a crime.

"I seem to recall that they were a party seperate from the UN in that kerfluffle."

There were some bilateral agreements at the technical level, not sure about something else. But it would be irrelevant. The ceasefire conditions are in a SC resolution, and an attack even based on broken conditions is illegal if it is not in delf defense.

"The Europeans might just want to spend a few more defence dollars though, if you want to sway many people who need any sort of protection."

Like whom?

The US can be glad we were not politically capable and willing to play hardball on this. On many things, we don't need aircraft carriers for that.

notyoueither · March 10, 2003, 07:27

The thing is that the French and Germans are taking Europe down to the hard ball pitch with the US. They are setting themselves and Europe up as competitors for influence and interests. Hense the break.

Was this necessary? Was this good for Europe as a whole in the long run? Will France and Germany be willing to pay the price to back up the blustering of the last few months? Will any of us really like where this all ends up? I fear not.

Harovan · March 10, 2003, 07:30

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
The Europeans might just want to spend a few more defence dollars though, if you want to sway many people who need any sort of protection. Having at least one carrier group that could be put up against a US CVBG would help, but then again, they have about 10 of them. Get out your wallet.

Although you're right about the need to increase defense spendings in Europe, I don't think the investment in carriers would be wise. Aircraft carriers have nothing to do with defense. They are a solely offensive weapon, which purpose is to project power to a region different to the own location. A defensive army doesn't really need them, continental airbases suffice. I doubt anybody in Europe wants to compete with Uncle Sam a world police.

HershOstropoler · March 10, 2003, 07:37

"The thing is that the French and Germans are taking Europe down to the hard ball pitch with the US."

Not really, at least as of yet.

"They are setting themselves and Europe up as competitors for influence and interests. Hense the break."

That alone would not be enough. There is a genuinely differing world view from the nutjobs in the Bush admin.

"Was this necessary?"

A real rift yes yet to come. I say it is close to inevitable.

"Was this good for Europe as a whole in the long run?"

Absolutely.

"Will France and Germany be willing to pay the price to back up the blustering of the last few months?"

What price?

notyoueither · March 10, 2003, 07:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

Although you're right about the need to increase defense spendings in Europe, I don't think the investment in carriers would be wise. Aircraft carriers have nothing to do with defense. They are a solely offensive weapon, which purpose is to project power to a region different to the own location. A defensive army doesn't really need them, continental airbases suffice. I doubt anybody in Europe wants to compete with Uncle Sam a world police.

Then why stake so much by interfering with Iraq?

I understand the views of many Europeans (and people in general) that wars are not good things, but why thrust a stick in Uncle Sam's eye in an area where Europe can't hope to effect the ultimate outcome?

You are right, if you never want to project power beyond the range of land based air, then Carriers are unnecessary. However, if Europe doesn't want to play the game, why pull up a seat at the table?

If France and Germany did not intend to break with the US and go their own way I can understand. However, I think their politicians have severely misjudged the US administration and the general mood in the United States.

notyoueither · March 10, 2003, 07:49

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"Will France and Germany be willing to pay the price to back up the blustering of the last few months?"

What price?

Being marginalized until they are willing to pay in dollars for the forces to back up their desires for influence.

I would hazard a guess that it will be a long while before the US administration puts a very high priority on any request from the governments of France or Germany, or gives any consideration to their interests.

HershOstropoler · March 10, 2003, 07:52

"Then why stake so much by interfering with Iraq?"

To stop the Bushies from shooting America and Europe alike in the foot by this silly war.

"I would hazard a guess that it will be a long while before the US administration puts a very high priority on any request from the governments of France or Germany, or gives any consideration to their interests."

No problem. The US needs them more than the other way round.

notyoueither · March 10, 2003, 07:55

Well, that's different at least.

However, good night.

Lancer · March 10, 2003, 08:27

Be warn euros...If France vetos, my days of Pricey French wines and Fancy German cars are OVER!

Dauphin · March 10, 2003, 08:29

Looks like the UK has managed to improve its US diplomatic and public relations, without really upsetting the rest of Europe. Woohoo!

Kropotkin · March 10, 2003, 08:32

Look out Europe, Lancer's switching to french cars and german wines!

Lancer · March 10, 2003, 08:39

Harovan · March 10, 2003, 08:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
Be warn euros...If France vetos, my days of Pricey French wines and Fancy German cars are OVER!

Yea, mum, and if you won't let me watch that late movie, I won't eat my dinner!

chequita guevara · March 10, 2003, 08:55

Actually, going to the UN wasn't a compromise for the US. It was simply a better way to acheive their aims. By going before the UN and allowing the inspectors into Iraq, the US gained the time it needed to build up its forces with which to attack Iraq. With the UN debate as cover, regardless of how it turns out, the US can claim to its own citizens it has done what was required of it, rather than simply looking like a naked aggressor. Our aggression is properly clothed.

Lancer · March 10, 2003, 08:56

Dear Sir Ralph's mum,

Please let him watch the late movie as we wouldn't want him to starve to death.

Thanx,

Lancer

CerberusIV · March 10, 2003, 08:58

Faults on both sides to be sure. I suspect the seeds of this were sown in some of the long running Europe-US trade disputes, bananas anyone?

Shortly after Bush came to power he introduced punitive tariffs on steel imports. As a way of keeping cheap Far East steel out of the US no problem. There was some dumping of steel in Europe but we could have introduced import tariffs too. The real annoyance was that the tariffs were applied to specialist steels not manufactured in the US but imported from Europe, particularly the UK. That sent the message that Bush was US first, last and everywhere in between - all take and no give (and that he can't shoot straight).

It is unforgiveable that Chirac and Schroeder have chosen to play out internal European politics on who influences Europe on the world stage but hopefully they will face the consequences for that directly.

The bottom line is that the size of the rift will depend which of the current leaders are still in power in two or three years time.

Harovan · March 10, 2003, 09:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
Please let him watch the late movie as we wouldn't want him to starve to death.

Thanks for caring so much for me

. What I didn't mention is, that my hypothetical mum wanted to force me to have my dinner at McDonalds.

Seriously, consumer level boycotts are so silly. Did you buy French wine and German cars so far (if at all) because you like France and Germany? Hardly. You, or let's say most customers, bought them because they're good. Now let's assume you and a few of your fellows really boycott them in the future. This will mean, you at free will switch to second tier products. The company you attack won't be harmed much, they will either sell more cars in other countries, or they have to fire a couple of workers. Perhaps a few from unrentable Chrysler? Which brings to me another question. Would you buy a Chrysler?

Lancer · March 10, 2003, 09:20

Nah, I'm a Ford guy, just had a nice rant. My wine is usually twist off, a tech the French haven't figured out yet. Though I recently graduated to wine from Chile. Priced like a twist off, but uses a cork.

Kropotkin · March 10, 2003, 09:27

Yes Lancer, obviously the reason why imported french wine bottles aren't twist off instead of with corks is 'cause the french haven't got the technology to do so.

Lancer · March 10, 2003, 09:31

Harovan · March 10, 2003, 09:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
Nah, I'm a Ford guy, just had a nice rant. My wine is usually twist off, a tech the French haven't figured out yet. Though I recently graduated to wine from Chile. Priced like a twist off, but uses a cork.

I don't drink wine at all (I'm a beer guy

) and am driving a japanese car. I wouldn't consider to buy an American car (not even Ford or GM/Opel, which are produced here), but that has more to do with quality and less with foreign policy. I wouldn't consider to hurt myself with a silly self-restriction. Despite the fact, that I don't like (may I say really hate) the current regime in Washington, America is still an amazing country for me and many Americans are good friends. Why should I hurt them? And btw: I don't like Schroeder either.

Lancer · March 10, 2003, 09:47

SR, you know...you sound like you're old enough you shouldn't have to do everything mum says...

SpencerH · March 10, 2003, 10:01

I've maintained for a long time that France and Germany are not our allies. They only think with their pocketbook, and in this case, that would be hurt by changing the Iraqi regime. Its time to withdraw our troops from continental europe and stop helping their economies.

Harovan · March 10, 2003, 10:07

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH
I've maintained for a long time that France and Germany are not our allies. They only think with their pocketbook, and in this case, that would be hurt by changing the Iraqi regime. Its time to withdraw our troops from continental europe and stop helping their economies.

Another cheapo hype argument.

It's true, the US forces will be completely withdrawn. This is known since long and has nothing to do with the current disharmony. They go to Eastern Europe for 2 reasons. 1- it's cheaper there and 2- they're closer to Russia. If it were for the current argument, explain me why they'll be withdrawn from UK and Italy as well, although both countries support the US?

SpencerH · March 10, 2003, 10:16

I'm not saying that the current problems have triggered any troop withdrawals from europe, just that they should be speeded up.

Harovan · March 10, 2003, 10:24

It really doesn't matter much. There are, what, some 70,000 left here, most of which are absent most of the time anyway (in Yugoslavia/Afghanistan/Gulf region etc) and this way can't raise our economy significantly.

The big cut already was in the early nineties, when the occupation of Germany ended and the US forces were reduced from several hundred thousands to the mentioned 70,000 NATO contingent. Mind you, that time it was Germany, who asked the US forces to leave. So the economical drawback couldn't really hurt much.

What concerns the upcoming complete withdrawal of the US forces... well, you are overestimating our interest. It's not that we're saying "Holy ****, now that will hurt us severely!"

. Neither will we dance in the streets. The reaction most likely will be "So the Americans pull their forces out. And what else did happen?"

Traianvs · March 10, 2003, 10:36

Quote:

The use of the phrase "old Europe" is a sign of the infamous american hybris. Since the birth of the american nation there has been in their self image as the worlds last hope, a priore a little bit better than the "old world". Sometimes it's portrayed in biblical word, sometimes it's not. It has always been a obstruction to more objective analysis in the history of american international politics.

That's right, and in the ancient Greek plays, hybris always led to a downfall