Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (11610)	2/18/2002 5:36:00 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

TransAtlantic [put your favorite misnomer here]... R.I.P. Why should Bush take Europe seriously? "Simplistic", "absurd" and in "unilateralist overdrive". Europeans know what they don't like about President Bush's "axis of evil". But if the European Union can't get its own foreign policy act together, nobody is going to listen Steven Everts Sunday February 17, 2002 Across the Atlantic, the gloves are off. The phase in which European leaders pledged their "unlimited solidarity" with the US is over. It has only taken five months for Europeans to go from unity to megaphone diplomacy. The US, which had said that the transatlantic alliance was "the bedrock" of the global coalition against terror, is considering what to do next - alone. There is now a striking difference in atmosphere on the two sides of the Atlantic, which could easily degenerate into a major confrontation in the months ahead. The dominant mood in Washington is one of restrained triumphalism. Military unilateralism, many are keen to point out, has worked. The sceptics' dire predictions turned out to be mistaken. America was not sucked into a long and inconclusive military campaign in Afghanistan. The proverbial "Arab street" has, so far at least, not exploded. And with Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan probably has its most enlightened ruler for decades. Osama bin Laden may be missing, but the speed at which America has achieved most of its objectives has whetted the appetite for more. Hawks such as Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz have the upper hand within the administration. Colin Powell, hero of all European governments, [huh?! ] looks isolated. George Bush's "axis of evil" State of the Union address came packaged with a de facto "war budget" to Congress, allocating a further $48bn in defence spending in case the original $330 billion did not inspire enough awe. If implemented, the Bush proposals will mean US defence spending will be greater than the total defence budgets (in 2000) of the next 15 countries combined, 13 of which are declared allies of the US. By contrast, European diplomats and politicians feel rising irritation. Even among America's most loyal allies in London there is disappointment, even frustration, at the persistently unilateral character of most US foreign policy decisions. Europeans repeat to each other the long list of US "opt-outs" from international agreements - the Kyoto Protocol, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Landmine Treaty, UN convention on small arms, and the International Criminal Court. Despite European hopes, September 11th did not lead to a rethink of these decisions. Instead, the United States has added a few more. [snip] observer.co.uk [] iht.com Excerpt: It started when France's foreign minister, Hubert Vedrine, dismissed Bush's approach to Iran, Iraq and North Korea as "simplistic," and Secretary of State Colin Powell shot back that his French colleague was "getting the vapors." Then, all last week, there was a far more telling war of words between Powell and Christopher Patten, the European Union's foreign affairs commissioner. Until a few days ago, he had been a favorite of Washington conservatives for the tough line he took against China while serving as Britain's last governor general to Hong Kong. When Patten started off the tiff by accusing Bush of taking an "absolutist" approach to the world, Powell shot back that his old friend deeply misunderstood and said, "I shall have a word with him, as they say in Britain." Before he had a chance, Patten published a lengthy rebuke of the administration in The Financial Times, saying that U.S. success in Afghanistan had "reinforced some dangerous instincts," including the belief that "the projection of military power is the only basis of true security," that "the U.S. can rely only on itself," and that allies were "an optional extra." [...] ____________________________