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

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Ned
One thing that will change in the future is that France and Germany will no longer be consulted on international security issues.

Not a big loss, given the fact that anyway their opinion was considered only, if they nodded.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Ned
One thing that will change in the future is that France and Germany will no longer be consulted on international security issues. They were always the first to complain if the US decided to do something on security without first consulting them. Well if they really wanted closer cooperation with the US on security, they have really shot themselves in the foot.

I even believe this may have implications for cooperation on ME peace.

No offense intended, but this is a childish view of international relations. Look at the map of Europe, and cut out Germany and France, then take security measures ...

[badman]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Schroeder is an idiot. I support his cause (opposing the war) without approving the methods he uses. At the moment, the chances for him to get reelected are very low and would be even lower, if he would give in to Americas blackmailing. Unfortunately, the next elections are only in 2006.

exactly.

@ Ned:
But all those years, the American administration didn't do much about it. They didn't move more troops to the Middle East, they simply let Saddam pretty much do what he wanted to do except for some occassional threats and attacks on Iraqi ack-ack units.
I am not totally opposed to war like Schröder is but I feel that Bush is rushing to war without thinking about the consequences.
There is no need to go to war at March 17th, we can just as well let the inspectors continue their work.

@ MBD:
She had been a ministre and she lost her job after her stupid statement (actually she didn't compare Bush to Hitler but Bush's methods with Hitler's which is something different) so that was a pretty tough punishment and being in the cabinet does not mean that you have official approval.
And Sir Ralph is right when he points out that Rumsfeld is still in power after the comments he made on France and Germany.

[DanS]

But all those years, the American administration didn't do much about it. They didn't move more troops to the Middle East, they simply let Saddam pretty much do what he wanted to do except for some occassional threats and attacks on Iraqi ack-ack units.

Huh? You don't remember the 1998 bombing of Baghdad?

Removing Hussein is settled US policy.

[Drake Tungsten]

I've yet to see a convincing argument proving that France and Germany are not the ones most responsible for this current falling out. I guess it doesn't exist...

[Spiffor]

Drake :
According to a poll I've seen today on TV, 81% of the French blame the diplomatic downfall on the US (9% on France)

Trying to look for the culprit of the diplomatic downfall is about as absurd and as trying to look for the culprit of the hate between Israel and Palestine : it is impossible to isolate the culprit objectively (because it has to do with perceptions of reality), and it has no importance.

What is important is :

- to wonder why the diplomatic downfall occured. To find a satisfying answer, everyone must be ready to admit his mistakes (and not mindlessly waving his flag, by saying "No, YOU are wrong")

- to wonder if we simply want to heal the wounds. I'm wondering if most people want to salvage the relationship we had before.

- to accept making concessions to the other party. This includes accepting his own wrongs. I know I've already said so, but accepting his own wrongs is the only way to deal with a rift

[DuncanK]

I don't see any reason for them to cooperate anymore. A rivalry is beginning. Things will probably only get worse. The USSR really did help the US get along with most of the world.

[Spiffor]

About the first post :
It mentions a possible division within the EU. I don't think such a thing will happen over Iraq. We currently see spectacular divisions between countries, and laugh at the lack of unanimous voice in the EU.
The very idea of EU's actual foreign policy is something new (sure, it has been a fantasy since the 1920's, but the actual thing isn't). Before, a disagreement between European countries was only a normal international matter, and had nothing to do with the EU.
The EU remains the deep network of intertwined businesses and economic institutions. It progresses slowly on the path of integration, but progresses nonetheless (the Constitution should be drafted in June, I don't know when it'll get voted). In 1993, during the GATT round, people laughed at the lack of unanimous voice of the EU ; trade has now become the only responsibility of the Commission, not of the Member states. In 1993 also, people were sure the monetary union was dead because of the financial tensions ; 9 years later, the EU had a common currency.

The EU has known many divergences and crises in the past, but none has threathened its very existence. The diplomatic disagreement doesn't threaten anything, except maybe the French-German vision of the future Common Foreign and Security Policy.

I just wanted to put this in perspective

[Drake Tungsten]

it is impossible to isolate the culprit objectively

No it isn't. Just look at the levels of compromise on each side and you can quickly identify the intransigent side in the whole debacle.

and it has no importance.

I think it's very important. All these attempts to blame both sides equally are false and I'll be damned if I'm going to let the French off the hook for their treachery.

[Spiffor]

Fine, I'll go with the "French" perspective, and maybe you'll understand how much it has to do with perceptions. Please note that what I'll say in this post does not reflect my thoughts.

1. The US bring Iraq at the top of world's problem out of the blue, for domestic poltical matters.
2. The US wants war. It says so to Europe, and expects everyone to accept.
3. Given the high reluctance, the US goes to the UN to get a rubberstamp, to further their warmongering agenda. France accepts to draw 1441, rather than blocking the whole procedure altogether.
4. The US can only agree to an unclear resolution with unclear (albeit serious) consequences. It has shown no willingness whatsoever to find a peaceful way.
5. The US send troops to the Gulf, and expect everyone to shut up.
6. France and Germany voice their opposition.
7. Britain, Italy and Spain, like the good vassals they are, side with the American big brother. The Bush admin ridicules, insults and call names its allies who have simply voicced their opposition.
8. It is true France answered too vividly, and should have seeked to calm the cowboys.
9. Powell brings "decisive proof" that Iraq is a threat to the est. These proofs are nothing more than some rag-tag intel, on par with the British files directly copied from a student's work.
10. The US will do anything to have the UNSC approve the war, despite Blix saying the inspections are working.
11. The US do only want war, won't listen to anyone else, and are completely wrong.

This was a stupid and exaggerated point of view, and I'm sure very few Frenchmen are as exceccive as what I've described above. However, that's the spirit :
Bush only wanted war, and went to the UN to legitimize it. France and Germany merely voiced their opposition to a rushed war, and get insulted, and their viewpoint is absolutely not listened by a hegemonous and unilateral, arrogant USA.

Can you understand how such a debate can be stupid ? It is true the US brought Iraq on the international arena. It is true France wanted to find a diplomatic solution from the beginning. It is true Schröder surfed on pacifism to grab the few votes he needed to win. It is true the US couldn't bear French opposition. It is true France and Germany used the crisis to strengthen their position in Europe. It is true Rumsfeld couldn't help but calling names on France and Germany. It is true the American media spitted incredible amounts of Anti-French hate. It is true the US has always wanted to go to war with Iraq. It is true France and Germany never did (it is a tad more complex for France).
Now, since both sides have so much wrongs, can you tell me who is right ? The answer is no one. You can argue how France-Germany were more wrong than the US, or I could argue the opposite if I thought such a debate made any sense, but it doesn't.

I am riled by my pre-Apolyton experience of Israel / Palestine forums. Everytime a thread was about the hate between the two peoples, it became at some point historical, because someone wanted to explain how the Israelis / the Palestinians (pick the one you prefer) were wrong in the first place.
Not only were they twisting facts to adapt to their flawed right/wrong frame, but also it ruined any sensed conversation that could have existed before. A kind of Godwin's law of Israel/Palestine threads. Believe me, I've seen dozens of threads going down the toilet like this.

I want to have a sensed conversation on the US/EU rift. Calling names, or being sure to be right (or less wrong) than the other cannot bring anything good to such a debate.

[Drake Tungsten]

You can argue how France-Germany were more wrong than the US

I can and will. America (particularly Rumsfeld) has made its share of mistakes, but at least we've tried to compromise. France accepted all of our concessions and repayed us with a knife in the back. That's the truth, whether you want to deal with it or not...

[Spiffor]

That's your truth.

You can argue if you want. Just be warned it will make any thread related to the US-EU rift go down to the toilet while bringing nothing.

But maybe that's what you want.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't know why you think an objective discussion of the events will cause this thread to "go down the toilet". I gave examples of American compromise and simply asked for examples of French compromises. The fact that no one can think of any seems to indicate that France is the one precipitating this diplomatic crisis. How does such an analysis ruin the thread?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

You can argue how France-Germany were more wrong than the US

I can and will. America (particularly Rumsfeld) has made its share of mistakes, but at least we've tried to compromise. France accepted all of our concessions and repayed us with a knife in the back. That's the truth, whether you want to deal with it or not...

I think you are just frustrated and BAMing now Drake. We respect your opinion here, but we would hope that you would respect other's opinions as well and not just disingenuously refer to them as knife-wielding traitors. Maybe you ought to take a break from Apolyton from a while and put things in perspective a bit old friend.

[Drake Tungsten]

Monkspider telling me to put things in perspective?



Thanks for the laugh. I needed that...

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Drake :
According to a poll I've seen today on TV, 81% of the French blame the diplomatic downfall on the US (9% on France)

Trying to look for the culprit of the diplomatic downfall is about as absurd and as trying to look for the culprit of the hate between Israel and Palestine : it is impossible to isolate the culprit objectively (because it has to do with perceptions of reality), and it has no importance.

What is important is :

- to wonder why the diplomatic downfall occured. To find a satisfying answer, everyone must be ready to admit his mistakes (and not mindlessly waving his flag, by saying "No, YOU are wrong")

- to wonder if we simply want to heal the wounds. I'm wondering if most people want to salvage the relationship we had before.

- to accept making concessions to the other party. This includes accepting his own wrongs. I know I've already said so, but accepting his own wrongs is the only way to deal with a rift

What diplomatic downfall? For most of its history America has favored isolationism. We are simply returning to the pre-WWII status quo. Most of Europe has never been an ally of the US. Why pretend any more? When push comes to shove, Europeans think americans are gauche and Americans think Europeans are snobs. Viva la difference! Its time for Europe to defend their own borders and clean up their own **** (such as Kosovo). We're gonna kick the crap out of Iraq. **** the concessions, tough **** if Europe doesnt like it.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Monkspider telling me to put things in perspective?



Thanks for the laugh. I needed that...

What's so funny?
Just trying to help out, old friend.

[Spiffor]

SpencerH :
I agree when you say Americans are considered gauche by Europeans, and Euros are considered snobs by Yanks
But I don't think the US is returning to the pre-WW2 status quo. It went in this direction when Bush was elected before 9-11, but it has now become a clear form of unilateralism, where the US is ready to go alone if needed anywhere in the world.
Very different with isolationism.

[DanS]

Unilateralism? This action will have a broad coalition. The terrorism coalition is broad. North Korea will be broad.

The UN is sort of a bastard form of multilateralism. It has its uses, but it's not the be all and end all.

[Spiffor]

DanS :
Please name the countries that participate in the coalition.
Please now name the countries among those that had an actual influence on the US' stance.
Thanks

[SpencerH]

Spiffor

Are you trying to ruin my rant with logic? You're right though, it isnt isolationism. Its just time for the 'one big happy post-WWII NATO family' to grow up and go separate ways.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by badman
But all those years, the American administration didn't do much about it. They didn't move more troops to the Middle East, they simply let Saddam pretty much do what he wanted to do except for some occassional threats and attacks on Iraqi ack-ack units.
I am not totally opposed to war like Schröder is but I feel that Bush is rushing to war without thinking about the consequences.
There is no need to go to war at March 17th, we can just as well let the inspectors continue their work.

You seem to contradict yourself a bit. First you assert the U.S. did nothing for years then you assert they are rushing to action. The truth is Republicans have been keen to take decisive action against Saddam since Bush Sr. was run out of office but the Clinton administration didn't want any large scale foreign adventures unless they couldn't be avoided. Different Presidents are going to have different approaches to dealing with problems; that's life.

BTW the Republicans don't feel they're rushing into anything. They feel they've had 12 years to consider the situation and they believe the pluses to removing Saddam out weight the potential minuses. That's just a difference of opinion and it has nothing to do with thinking or not thinking about consequences it has to do with interpreting the situation.

Lastly, you say "we can just as well let the inspectors continue their work" which is true, however, the real question is: Do you believe Saddam can be disarmed though inspections or not? If the answer is yes then inspections might be worth the effort; if the answer is no then we should move on to another remedy which will gain us the result we are looking for. Bush & Blair are obviously of the opinion that inspections haven't worked for 12 years and that they are unlikely to work no matter how much additional time is allotted.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Spiffor
DanS :
Please name the countries that participate in the coalition.
Please now name the countries among those that had an actual influence on the US' stance.
Thanks

I think if Britain had not stood with the US then it would have been much tougher for Bush to attack Iraq.

[Kramerman]

1. The US bring Iraq at the top of world's problem out of the blue, for domestic poltical matters.
2. The US wants war. It says so to Europe, and expects everyone to accept.
3. Given the high reluctance, the US goes to the UN to get a rubberstamp, to further their warmongering agenda. France accepts to draw 1441, rather than blocking the whole procedure altogether.
4. The US can only agree to an unclear resolution with unclear (albeit serious) consequences. It has shown no willingness whatsoever to find a peaceful way.
5. The US send troops to the Gulf, and expect everyone to shut up.
6. France and Germany voice their opposition.
7. Britain, Italy and Spain, like the good vassals they are, side with the American big brother. The Bush admin ridicules, insults and call names its allies who have simply voicced their opposition.
8. It is true France answered too vividly, and should have seeked to calm the cowboys.
9. Powell brings "decisive proof" that Iraq is a threat to the est. These proofs are nothing more than some rag-tag intel, on par with the British files directly copied from a student's work.
10. The US will do anything to have the UNSC approve the war, despite Blix saying the inspections are working.
11. The US do only want war, won't listen to anyone else, and are completely wrong.

This was a stupid and exaggerated point of view, and I'm sure very few Frenchmen are as exceccive as what I've described above. However, that's the spirit :
Bush only wanted war, and went to the UN to legitimize it. France and Germany merely voiced their opposition to a rushed war, and get insulted, and their viewpoint is absolutely not listened by a hegemonous and unilateral, arrogant USA.

I certainly hope none of the anti-war people use these for arguements... unfortunately most, and by most i mean all of the anti-war people i know in RL use these arguements. There whole reason for not going to war is that "war is bad...". Everytime i hear this, i say to myself, jesus christ, these damn kids have been living to well of lives for too long and are taking it for granted. They dont understand, that although war is terrible, sometimes it is necessary. When I tell them all of the reasoning behind the war, they hesitate, and then all they can say is that Im lying and making it all up. I cant win with them.

I respect those who have opposed views from me, if they have viable arguements to back their position. But these guys have nothing.

[DanS]

Here's the list as I know it.

UK (large influence, high value)
Spain (small influence, high value)
Australia (small influence, medium value)
Bulgaria (small influence, medium value)
The rest of New Europe (limited influence, medium value)
Saudi Arabia (small influence, high value)
Jordan (small influence, medium value)
Kuwait (large influece, large value)
UAE (limited influence, limited value)
Qatar (limited influence, large value)
Japan (limited influence, medium value)
South Korea (limited influence, limited value)

In addition, Turkey may come along, in which case it will have had a large influence and is a high value coalition member.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Spiffor

Are you trying to ruin my rant with logic? You're right though, it isnt isolationism. Its just time for the 'one big happy post-WWII NATO family' to grow up and go separate ways.

We are agreed. I wouldn't mind a friendly separation though

[DanS]

Ugghh! Given the above list, why on Earth are we going for a second resolution? It will be better if France vetoes it and then we will be unshackled by the UN.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
Here's the list as I know it.

UK (large influence, high value)
Spain (small influence, high value)
Bulgaria (small influence, medium value)
The rest of New Europe (limited influence, medium value)
Saudi Arabia (small influence, high value)
Jordan (small influence, medium value)
Kuwait (large influece, large value)
UAE (limited influence, limited value)
Qatar (limited influence, large value)
Japan (limited influence, medium value)
South Korea (limited influence, limited value)

In addition, Turkey may come along, in which case it will have had a large influence and is a high value coalition member.

Thanks for the list
What do you mean by "value" ? Does it assess the military help they'll bring, or the importance these countries have in the American opinion ?
And why I see the influence of Britain, and somehow the influence of Spain, I fail to see the influence of other countries on the general objectives on the war with Iraq. Did you mean they'll have an influence on the strategies employed there ? Or do they have intense backstage negociations where Kuwait's pressures are approx on par with Britain's ?

[DanS]

By influence, I mean how much influence they have had on the US conduct of diplomacy, military action, or the aftermath.

By value, I mean the diplomacy, military, strategic location and $$$ that they bring to the table before, during, and after.

Laying out the list, it strikes me that this coalition is a very strong one. Maybe not as big as Gulf War I, but more durable.

Edit: I note that the Gulf countries' value and influence will skyrocket if Hussein steps down or is otherwise removed before an attack takes place. Perhaps I should upgrade their value, even if the chance of happening is small...

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

Yep. I found another piece that thread participants — and any newcomers to this thread — may wish to examine and then add their thoughts afterwards. Read on:

***

Dispute over Iraq fractures western alliance formed after WW I|

By Gregory Katz
The Dallas Morning News

PARIS — The Eurostar train that links London to Paris is working perfectly, providing a potent symbol of the ties that bind Britain, France, Germany and the rest of Europe. But the political ties have been damaged by a deepening divide over war with Iraq.

On one side is Britain, where Prime Minister Tony Blair has cast his lot with the United States; on the other side are France and Germany, which are using all their diplomatic skills to try to frustrate a U.S.-led war effort.

Now the crisis, which has seriously called into question the future of the successful western alliance forged after World War II, is coming to a head with France’s threat to use its U.N. Security Council veto to block a U.S. and British resolution that would authorize war against Saddam Hussein.

French President Jacques Chirac told a nationwide TV audience Monday night that France would vote against a second U.N. resolution if needed to prevent a war, but he said U.S. officials probably didn’t have enough support in the Security Council to pass the measure, making a French veto unnecessary.

‘‘Whatever the circumstances, France will vote against this resolution because there is no case for war,’’ he said. ‘‘War should only be a last resort.’’

Analysts in France say they believe the prime motivation for Chirac’s decision to challenge the political clout of the United States is an all-consuming desire to restore France’s diminished role on the world stage. Secondarily, it is said that Chirac is convinced that war with Iraq would make the world more dangerous, not safer.

‘‘It’s a matter of principle, but at the end of the day it’s about glory, and glory for France,’’ said Dominique Moisi, deputy director of the French Institute for International Relations. ‘‘It’s not about economics or business interests; it’s about being taken seriously for resisting the big America.’’

British and U.S. diplomats, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, have warned of serious consequences for France if it uses its veto against the United States at such a critical juncture.

A vote may come as early as Wednesday, and France — rather than backing down — has sent its foreign minister to Africa seeking support for its antiwar stance among the three African nations now on the Security Council.

‘‘It would be an unprecedented challenge to the alliance,’’ said one British official contemplating the impact a French veto would have on the future of the United Nations and on longstanding institutions like NATO and the European Union, which are based on the assumption that the allies can find common ground when challenged.

And European Parliament member Jean-Louis Bourlanges warned that the United Nations, the European Union and NATO are being humiliated and divided in a willful dismantling of the institutions used to keep the peace since World War II.

Adversarial France?

France and the United States have sparred in the past over environmental and trade issues and squabbled over which country would assume key NATO commands, but the allies have always managed to pull together on vital security issues.

Anti-American snobbery is common in France, and there is resentment about the spread of U.S. fast food franchises and the pervasive influence of Hollywood films, but in the past American officials have been able to count on a deep wellspring of affection dating back to the U.S. role in the liberation of France at the end of World War II.

The current disagreement, however, threatens to break these bonds. Diplomats warn that the stakes extend beyond the confrontation with Iraq. U.S. officials have already indicated they may reduce U.S. troop levels in Germany — where Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has said he will not back a war under any circumstances — and the U.S. commitment to NATO may waver if key NATO allies block U.S. policy.

Already, the French press is warning that the Bush administration and a majority of Americans may come to view France as an adversary, not a trusted ally.

Chirac wasn’t always anti-American

The central player in the unfolding drama is Chirac, the French president who is, at age 70, an unlikely foe of the United States who has throughout his long political career repeatedly expressed his ardent admiration for U.S.-style democracy and the American way of life.

As a young man he worked various jobs in the United States — both as a soda jerk and a construction laborer — and he comes from a right-of-center, conservative political tradition close to that of President Bush.

After the Sept. 11 atrocities in Washington and New York, Chirac was the first foreign leader to visit the United States to show solidarity against the terrorist threat.

Times have changed

But French analysts believe Chirac has come to the conclusion that he can expand French and European influence in the world by staking out an antiwar stance. And they point out that this view is extremely popular with the French public.

A poll in the leading Le Monde newspaper indicates that more than 75 percent of the French public opposes war with Iraq, putting Chirac completely in tune with the public mood. Schroeder’s stance gets similar backing from the German public, polls suggest.

Above all, French citizens seem to reject the idea that being part of the western alliance means following U.S. policy even when they strongly disagree.

‘‘How can we be anti-American with all the American soldiers buried in the cemeteries at Normandy?’’ asked Alex Parigi, 28, a student. ‘‘And we are all at risk for terrorism. But the young people in France do not believe a war with Iraq makes sense. It would destroy many countries close to Iraq and destroy many economies.’’

Iraq viewed as non-threatening

Interviews in Paris reveal strong support for Chirac’s viewpoint and a general rejection of the U.S. and British claim that it is nearly time to use force against Iraq. Saddam is not widely viewed as a threat to France or to other western democracies.

‘‘I think we should let the United Nations do their job first,’’ said Stephanie Halimi, 30. ‘‘I’m not absolutely opposed to war, but I’m opposed to the U.S. acting without U.N. approval. I think that would be arrogant. I think the Americans mainly want to control the oil in Iraq, and there is some unfinished business for Bush from the first war in 1991.’’

She said she was proud that France was taking a stand against the rush to war.

One French army officer who asked that his name not be used said he believes the current U.N. inspections are bearing fruit and should be allowed to continue.

‘‘Little by little, Saddam Hussein is destroying his weapons,’’ he said. ‘‘It’s a little bit slow and difficult but it’s better than a war, which would destabilize the whole region.’’

French Muslims, other factors

Chirac is also getting support from many of France’s roughly 5 million Muslims, who represent a substantial and growing minority within French society.

His political hand was strengthened last year by his commanding re-election victory and the fact that his party also seized control of both houses of congress. Analysts say Chirac believes this has given him a free hand to try to expand France’s influence on world events.

He is motivated, observers say, by a belief that there must be a counterweight to growing U.S. power throughout the world and that only Europe is in a strong enough position to challenge the influence of the United States, which has grown substantially since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Anti-France attitude in America

This position has led to growing anti-France sentiment in the United States, where late night comedians and talk show hosts have been making fun of France’s dismal defense against the invading Germans at the outset of World War II.

The term ‘‘cheese eating surrender monkeys’’ has entered the political lexicon, and, on a more serious note, some U.S. congressmen have introduced measures designed to punish France for its perceived disloyalty.

Some congressional leaders have suggested legislation to make it harder for France to market wine and mineral water in the United States; others have suggested a boycott of the Paris Air Show, an annual exposition of military hardware that usually draws an international audience. Some have gone so far as to demand an inquiry into French treachery.

French citizens say they are aware of the anti-France sentiments growing across the Atlantic, but they maintain they will not fight fire with fire.

‘‘This is not an anti-American country,’’ said George Lecler, 52. ‘‘We all have friends in the United States and visit whenever we can. I’ve been to Mesquite and Dallas many times. But the American government has not yet made a convincing case for war.’’

He said the human cost of any war against Iraq would be devastating and unacceptable until all possible solutions had been tried.

‘‘They say we must attack but I don’t agree,’’ he said. ‘‘I have seen what war does. My parents and grandparents fled two wars, and our lives were destroyed and my uncle was killed and I ask why. So I am not in favor of a war without knowing why.’’

***

Regarding the last two paragraphs, I can understand his viewpoint. But I can also understand the other viewpoint as well — the viewpoint that demands one be eternally vigilant so the horrors of the past can neve rear their heads again in our time, our any future time.

It's been more than 55 years since World War II came to an end, and I think memories do fade into the complacity of time.

Gatekeeper