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

To: tekboy who wrote (74332)	2/15/2003 7:02:21 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

and no, I don't think what the French, or the Germans, are doing is either gracious or wise. But just because they're misbehaving doesn't mean we should too, and in fact, one might say that we have the greater obligation to be big about things and take their churlishness in stride Josh Marshall makes similar charges against the Bush administration. Dan Drezner points out that it's not just the US against France-Germany-Belgium, it's the rest of Europe against them too: WILL IRAQ DESTROY THE EUROPEAN UNION?: Josh Marshall has been pretty consistent in blaming the U.S. for the current fraying of transatlantic ties, specifically NATO. [Doesn't Marshall refer to non-European areas as well?--ed. Yes, but that's not what this post is about.] I've written that the U.S. could have been more tactful in their dealings with France and Germany, but Marshall has to face facts -- the current fracas is largely a result of Franco-German bullying and blundering, not U.S. bellicosity. Critics of the U.S. posture are forgetting that the current split among European countries is not just about Iraq, but the future of the European Union. France and Germany have tried to restore their co-leadership of the EU. They've blocked agricultural reforms, propsed reforms to the European Commission that would weaken the influence of small republics, and generally been prancing around convinced that their bilateral comity would cause the rest of Europe to march behind them. Well, they screwed up. As the Economist points out, "The [pro-U.S.] gang of eight have, quite deliberately, undermined the idea that the Franco-German couple can continue to set the EU's agenda." Recall Bill Safire's description of the genesis of the gang of eight: "The draft document was then circulated by the Europeans among other leaders thought to be (1) critical of the Franco-German proposal to assert dominance in the European Commission; (2) genuinely worried about their nations' exposure to weapons of mass destruction being developed by Saddam; and (3) eager to express solidarity with the United States, which three times in the past century had saved them from tyrannous takeover." The (now) 18 European countries are sympathetic to the U.S. position on Iraq, but they are most decidedly opposed to the French and Germans trying to speak for them. Marshall's railing about the fraying of NATO, but neglects to point out that this isn't a case of the U.S. vs. France, Germany, and Belgium -- It's the other fifteen NATO members vs. France, Germany and Belgium. No wonder a German analyst was paraphrased in the New York Times stating, "the debate over Iraq has left in shambles Europe's own supposedly growing unity on the most basic matters of foreign policy and defense." Now, according to the FT, these intra-European divisions are threatening the EU as well: "there is a growing sense of foreboding in European capitals that the summit could turn into a showcase of EU division and disharmony. Romano Prodi, European Commission president, warned that the "total lack of a European common foreign policy" was a disaster in the making. 'If Europe fails to pull together, all our nation states will disappear from the world scene,' he told the European parliament in Strasbourg. 'Unless Europe speaks with a single voice, it will be impossible to continue working closely with the US on a longstanding basis while retaining our dignity.'" Read the FT article -- there's some good stuff in there about how France, Germany and Belgium are blocking the participation of Eastern European candidate members precisely because of their pro-American views. The U.S. has not been blameless in recent transatlantic tiffs, but Marshall makes a mistake in apportioning most of the blame on the Bush administration. France and Germany started this latest row, and they now stand to lose the most if these disputes continue. drezner.blogspot.com BTW, you haven't yet explained how the US was supposed to be "big about things" and still get a UNSC resolution or two passed.

To: tekboy who wrote (74332)	2/15/2003 7:42:40 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 281500

Tekboy, All due respect, I think you are wrong. The US went to the UNSC, Powell spent 7 weeks negotiating 1441 and the French backstabbed Powell and then the UN gave the French a hearty round of applause for doing it. Take a hard look at Powell's face on Friday. He sold Bush on going to the UN and the UNSC lied to him and betrayed the American people with a spurious argument that offers no security. The idea that this happened because Bush is rude is not credible. Bush took a tough stand, no doubt, but the UNSC has demonstrated exactly why that stand was necessary. The notion that the outcome would be any different if Bush had taken the polite and nice path is unconvincing to me. If the UN was able to make tough decisions, Saddam wouldn't be in power today. I am glad to find out now that they would be untrustworthy again if another hard decision is needed. Better to go alone than to go with weakness. Saddam Hussein is making the UNSC look like a joke. God Bless George Bush for saving some sense of dignity from this mess. The idea of Bush needing to be nice is simply a desire to maintain the status quo. The status quo ended on 9-11. Paul

To: tekboy who wrote (74332)	2/16/2003 3:06:35 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi tekboy; Re: "In the style of its foreign policy, as opposed to the substance, the Bush administration has acted like a rude crude nouveau riche jerk, throwing its weight around with nary a thought for how others might feel or think. That is simply not how to go about leading the world; it's not even a good strategy for dominating it." I'm stunned to hear such strong words from you (though I agree with them). Is this a common belief in Washington? -- Carl