SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tekboy who wrote (73627)2/13/2003 4:32:22 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Second, the fact that the French and Germans are being truculent and childish is true but doesn't absolve the Bushies from blame


I think we have been very nice to them. And tried like hell to talk softly. But there comes a time when, if they are this truculent, "push" comes to "Shove." I have read that Chirac would be in the dock for his criminal behavior if he were not PM. Kelly did a great column the other day about the "jumped up" brawling street thug who is the Foreign Minister of Germany and had the nerve to lecture Rumsfeld over the weekend. These countries are not that important anymore. TWT.



To: tekboy who wrote (73627)2/13/2003 5:06:53 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
How to lose friends and insult people

Bush hawks bully allies over war opposition

By Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate
02.13.03


AUSTIN, Texas -- "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." -- Dwight David Eisenhower, April 16, 1953.

The news is not good. Osama bin Laden wants us to invade Iraq. We're at orange on the alert code. The economy is tanking. We're spending $1.08 billion a day on the military.

The president wants a $674 billion tax cut. In the first year, 50 percent of that tax cut would go the richest 1 percent of Americans and three-quarters of it would go to the richest 5 percent. In the years beyond that, the concentration at the top actually gets worse, according to citizens for Tax Justice. To pay for that, he wants to raise the rent on subsidized housing for the poorest people in the country and break up Head Start, sending it down to the states, where governments are frantically cutting everything they can. Money to pay for everything from cleaning up Superfund sites to leaving no child behind is being slashed to pay for this obscene tax cut.

We're about to got to war with a country that hasn't fired a shot at us or anyone else. Our war plan calls for us to "shock and awe" Iraq by smashing 800 cruise missiles into Baghdad in the first 48 hours of the war. That's one every four minutes night and day. According to Harlan Ullman, the "defense intellectual" who advocates the "shock and awe" tactic, it's supposed to work like the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. That worked, all right.

During the last Gulf War, we killed 13,000 civilians directly and another 70,000 died in the aftermath from no water, no food, no electricity, no medical care, etc. I'd like to get rid of Saddam Hussein myself, but how many lives is it worth? And do they get to vote on it?

Meanwhile, Al Qaeda -- the people who attacked us to begin with -- are still running around getting ready to deliver "packages." North Korea is busy building nukes. Our allies all think we're wrong, even if their governments have been strong-armed into supporting us. When all your friends think you're about to do something stupid, it might be wise to listen to them.

What passes for diplomacy in this administration is stunning. What in the name of heaven are we doing allowing people like Richard Perle to speak for us? According to UPI, Perle -- chairman of the Pentagon's Policy Advisory Board -- said Tuesday, "France is no longer an ally of the United States, and the NATO alliance ‘must develop a strategy to contain our erstwhile ally or we will not be talking about a NATO alliance.'" Do these people know nothing about how dialogue is conducted among civilized nations? Couldn't they at least read How to Win Friends and Influence People?

I have news for Mr. Perle. Our allies have democratically elected governments. Their people overwhelmingly oppose this war. What do we expect their governments to do? The antiwar sentiment ranges from 47 percent and rising in Britain (a full 81 percent now agree that a new UN mandate is essential before a military attack is launched), putting our friend Tony Blair in electoral peril, to 88 percent against the whole idea in Turkey, where the new government has been literally bribed into going along with us. Who knows what future reckoning it faces at the polls?

If 88 percent of Americans were opposed to this war, do you really think we'd be doing it? Would you want us to? Perle also referred to Germany's Gerhard Schroeder as "a discredited chancellor." The ever-tactless Donald Rumsfeld managed to lump Germany with Cuba and Libya. We don't have enough enemies that we have go around insulting our friends?

We sound just as bellicose and arrogant as the anti-American faction in Europe accuses us of being.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing this week revealed that plans for a post-Saddam Iraq are virtually nonexistent. "Who will rule Iraq and how?" asked Sen. Richard Lugar. "Who will provide security? How long might U.S. troops conceivably remain? Will the United Nations have a role? Who will manage Iraq's oil resources? Unless the administration can answer these questions in detail, the anxiety of Arab and European governments, as well as that of the American public, over our ‘staying power' will only grow." The Defense Department has been moving troops to the Middle East for months, but it opened an office of postwar planning only three weeks ago.

And for a final piece of bad news to complete your day, the antiwar movement has disgraced itself by refusing to allow Michael Lerner, the editor of the intelligent (and very liberal) Jewish magazine Tikkun, to speak at the San Francisco peace rally this Sunday. Lerner was blackballed by the most left-wing of the four sponsoring peace groups, something called ANSWER, for being "pro-Israel."

I am completely disgusted. Why should there be any ideological litmus test for being antiwar? Why isn't the peace movement looking for as broad a coalition as possible? This seems to be the season for stupidity.

workingforchange.com



To: tekboy who wrote (73627)2/13/2003 6:04:54 PM
From: Win Smith  Respond to of 281500
 
European insults fall on deaf ears in America's heartland GERARD BAKER:
Financial Times; London (UK); Feb 6, 2003; Baker, Gerard;

[ the retrieval service I have access to doesn't have today's column yet, but I thought the one from last week was amusing enough. Preview for the local rabble: "Outside a small claque of rightwing ultras in Washington led by Mr Rumsfeld (and even he has the good grace to differentiate between good Europeans and bad Europeans), and a few belligerents in the predictable parts of the press, real anti-European feeling in America is largely mute." Guess that tells us where the dominant FADG faction sits on the spectrum . ]

Donald Rumsfeld's aspersions on old Europe signal to some a rising tide of anti-European sentiment in the US. If it were true, it would be unsurprising. "C'est un animal mechant," the French say; "quand on l'attaque, il se defend."

For years Americans have got used to being condemned as global bullies by critics in Europe. In the past six months Americans have watched as European politicians have lined up to castigate their supposed imperialist designs. They have witnessed popular demonstrations on the streets, an election campaign in Germany that turned on a hostile representation of American policy, crude lampoons of their president and his administration in the European media and, two weeks ago, an ambush by the two biggest countries on the old continent to condemn US policy in Iraq. Americans could surely be forgiven for feeling inclined to return some of the bile that has been sprayed their way.

But the real story here is the almost complete absence of genuine anti-European sentiment on this side of the Atlantic. Outside a small claque of rightwing ultras in Washington led by Mr Rumsfeld (and even he has the good grace to differentiate between good Europeans and bad Europeans), and a few belligerents in the predictable parts of the press, real anti-European feeling in America is largely mute.

Members of Congress report no spike in angry correspondence calling for US troops to be pulled out of Europe. Polls suggest little change in public views from where they have been for the past 20 years. Yes, some countries are viewed more favourably than others; none is viewed as favourably as is Britain. But the suggestion of, for example, Timothy Garton Ash, a British academic, in an epistle in the latest New York Review of Books, that there is a "growing contempt for, and even hostility" to Europeans, is utterly without foundation. Mr Garton Ash relies for evidence principally on the conservative Euro-baiters in the press, plus some casino-goers in Kansas and a handful of students in Missouri.

Of course, European gutlessness - particularly French - has always been the butt of American jokes. Bart Simpson's characterisation of the French as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" springs to mind - but that dates to the mid-1990s, a period of relatively warm transatlantic comity.

But while grotesque caricatures of gun-toting cowboys, money-grubbing casino capitalists and oil-grabbing Uncle Sams routinely grace the pages of even serious European newspapers, I am at a loss to think of a single identifiable caricature of either a European nation or the continent as a whole that resonates broadly in the US.

I entered "Anti-Americanism in Europe" into a Yahoo search and got an initial response of 21,400 matches. (Note the round number - it is Yahoo's way of saying: "we haven't got a clue how many are out there but here's the first batch.") "Anti-Europeanism in America" produces 358.

Europe just does not animate Americans as America does Europeans. I will wager that, rough as the diplomatic road may get with the Europeans, no American will throw a brick through the gaslit windows of bijou brasserie chains in the Midwest, or carve rude messages about German labour-market rigidity into the back of a Porsche 944.

Americans, despite all the stereotypes about arrogant, swaggering know-alls, are ambivalent about Europe. Certainly there is disdain for the apparent unwillingness of European governments to confront global threats; but many Americans also still harbour a kind of cultural inferiority complex.

For every Euro-hater in the conservative establishment there are at least half a dozen Americans ready to laud Europe. The cultural elite still likes to decry US TV and it longs for the virtues of British television, blissfully unaware that almost every piece of trash on American TV screens - from American Idol to I'm a Celebrity, Get me Out of Here - has a British provenance. Many will witter fondly about French cinema - though I doubt any of them has actually seen a French film since Belle de Jour.

You can still reduce Americans to whispering awe by telling them that you attended Oxford or the Sorbonne, even though the average State University of Wherever knocks the best European academic institutions into a cocked hat. And they might scoff at the nonsense of medieval pageantry, but they will roll over like a royal corgi at the prospect of an honorary gong.

And it is not just the National Public Radio-listening, Chablis-swilling, cosmopolitan elite of Washington and New York I am talking about, either. Out in the great heartland, you will find attitudes to Europe that are far from hostile. More American students each year spend a term or two in Europe. Some of them doubtless come back with anti-European prejudice reinforced but most find it a horizon-broadening experience.

The real surprise is that there is not more derision, given that the US surpassed Europe as the pre-eminent power decades ago. Given, too, that its political system has been a continuous exercise in democratic self-expression for 200 years or more - not quite the European experience. While French revolutionaries were lopping each others' heads off in the name of liberty, equality and fraternity, American revolutionaries were arguing over the merits of the impeachment clause of the US constitution. And given that it has twice sent its sons and daughters to die to save ungrateful Europeans from themselves.

This enduring tolerance of Europe's foibles owes much to the fact that, even today, many Americans claim a European heritage. Almost every American you meet will tell you that he hails from Galway or Padua or Leeds. It emerges only later that he has spent his entire life in Wisconsin but that his great-great-grandfather escaped the old continent a century ago and he is still wistful about it. His ancestors left, of course, because the old country was so horrible.

But, mostly, it is because Americans do not really care very much what Europeans think. America's pre-eminence and Europe's irrelevance have numbed US citizens to anything Europeans say about them.

I was going to suggest that it might at last be time for a bit of real anti-Europeanism in the US. But that would not be the American way. Instead Americans should just look across the Atlantic at the impotence- and stagnation-induced posturing of the old continent and smile. Or better still, laugh.



To: tekboy who wrote (73627)2/13/2003 10:18:17 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Respond to of 281500
 
Second, the fact that the French and Germans are being truculent and childish is true but doesn't absolve the Bushies from blame. Again, with great power comes great responsibility--we should be "big" enough to take their shenanigans in stride and simply go about our business, rather than persisting in a petulant flame war.

I'm sure the Bushies would love to ignore the French and simply go about their business. Unfortunately, the French still have their stinking UNSC veto to threaten us with, truculently and childishly. So some friendly - or not so friendly - persuasion is in order.



To: tekboy who wrote (73627)2/14/2003 11:23:20 AM
From: Win Smith  Respond to of 281500
 
Tartuffe and the shock-jock gird for war GERARD BAKER:
Financial Times; London (UK); Feb 13, 2003;

[ I'm not entirely sure Orwell would approve of "fissiparous forces". ]

Great, fissiparous forces are behind the events that have driven the civilised world to diplomatic disarray in the past few weeks.

The imminent and unprecedented exercise of US hegemony over Iraq is splitting a nervous and volatile Europe from an increasingly aggressive US. Europe's nations are themselves asunder on how to deal with it. A new world disorder is busy being born.

Historians will doubtless focus hard on the big anonymous forces: US economic and military supremacy, an increased sense of American vulnerability since September 11 2001, European military and diplomatic weakness. But great nameless historical impulses also require individual, named human beings to shape and direct them.

With the right people in charge these forces can be harnessed, or at least softened, and violent collisions can be avoided. With the wrong people in the vanguard the impact can be bloodier and less reparable. Gulfs widen, resentments are magnified.

It is a tragedy that the two principals in the struggle are firmly in the latter camp. If Donald Rumsfeld and Jacques Chirac are allowed to proceed on their course, the gap between the world's most important allies - the US and Europe - will soon be unbridgeable.

Mr Rumsfeld is the shock-jock of diplomacy. Smart and calculating, he has an unerring eye for the weak spot of anyone he engages. His extemporised insults are not gaffes at all but carefully conceived and delivered provocations that rarely fail to hit their mark.

When some are striving to pour oil on troubled waters, Mr Rumsfeld is out there setting fire to it. If there is a festering wound between nations, Mr Rumsfeld emerges from the salt mines ready to supply his own special balm.

It is a disgraceful indictment of the Bush administration that this man has become the most identifiable spokesman for US foreign policy. There have been provocateurs before in powerful positions in the US government - Caspar Weinberger liked nothing better than to throw darts at soft and vulnerable European hindquarters; Jesse Helms preferred to light fires in the same vicinity. But these needlers were always balanced by those who figured US interests would be better served by forswearing the temptation to kick their critics at every available opportunity.

In the Bush administration, however, Mr Rumsfeld has been given free rein. No sooner has Colin Powell carefully constructed the architecture of US foreign policy than Mr Rumsfeld dynamites it into the abyss. Has any government official said anything consequential on Middle East policy to compare with his "so-called occupied territories" last year?

His most recent obiter dicta, casually bracketing Germany with Cuba and Libya for its refusal to support force against Iraq, were especially offensive and unnecessary. Current German policy may be misguided but to equate the government that has contributed to US-led military action in the Balkans and Afghanistan with pariah states is beyond a joke. At times you have to wonder whether the defence secretary is trying to sabotage his own government's diplomatic efforts.

Three weeks ago, Paul Wolfowitz, his deputy, laid out a powerful, thoughtful case for Iraqi co-operation in the disarmament process, following the model of South Africa, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. But it was the same day that Mr Rumsfeld chose to make his "old Europe/new Europe" distinction. The Wolfowitz case got buried in the avalanche of attention paid to his boss's withering remarks.

If Mr Rumsfeld is the Howard Stern of US policy, Mr Chirac is the Tartuffe of European diplomacy. Like Molie`re's villain, the French president has his eye on the main chance and no intrusion of principle, truth or honesty will stop him from getting there.

His commitment to multilateralism on Iraq is so strong, apparently, that he is prepared to dismantle the most important multilateral institutions of the postwar era - the UN, Nato and the EU - in pursuit of his objectives. By the time he is finished, perhaps the World Trade Organisation and the International Olympic Committee will be on the bonfire of French principle.

Mr Chirac's proclamation of the multilateral imperative was always suspect in the context of the French adventures he has led in Rwanda and Ivory Coast. His impassioned defence of the case for international consultation was always questionable in light of France's refusal to integrate within Nato's military command for 40 years. But now, after his latest moves on Iraq, it is clear what this multilateralism amounts to. It is conditional - and the principal condition is: if France opposes, it will not happen. If you find yourself outvoted in Nato on the relatively simple issue of protecting a fellow alliance member, just say "Non". If you find yourself confronted with a clear breach of a UN Security Council resolution you yourself insisted on in the first place, just casually ignore it.

Tartuffe himself captured well the French president's exceptionalism - his well developed sense of invulnerability to principles and rules and decency. "It's true that Heaven frowns on some dark acts; Though with great men, our Lord makes higher pacts."