http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030224-423466,00.html Some interesting points: It sounds like he is trying to give the Bush Administration a way out of this that doesn't involve war and doesn't compromise future US foreign relations. He is starting to give the US credit for showing a military threat as a way of getting Saddam to comply with inspections. Then Iraq complies and the inspectors do their job. Then the US troops come home without going to war and Bush comes out looking like a strong statesman. It would be a nice solution and seems to be a nice bit of diplomacy on Chirac's part. Although I was annoyed by Chirac's backhanded compliment to the US when he said that he loves our fast food and always comes home from the US a little fatter. Murf
You know the sad thing about it is if this is how it goes down, Bush's show of strength and determination towards war = disarmament through a peaceful resolution, Domestically Bush will not get the credit he deserves. In all honesty (call me naive), this has been Bush's plan all along. I am completely serious in this. We have had a formal authorization of the use of force from Congress for quite some time. Until the first bomb drops, I will just think this is some expensive ploy to win an election and get Iraq to disarm. A really great ploy if you ask me.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...o/eu_gen_eu_chirac_eastern_europe_1&printer=1 Chirac was angered when EU candidates Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined pro-U.S. EU members such as Britain, Spain and Italy last month in a letter supporting Washington's line on Iraq against the more dovish stance of France and Germany. Paris was further upset when 10 other eastern European nations signed a similar letter a few days later. "Concerning the candidate countries, honestly I felt they acted frivolously because entry into the European Union implies a minimum of understanding for the others," Chirac told reporters after an emergency EU summit on Iraq. LOL...Chirac...LOL
Here is CNN's take on Chirac: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/02/18/sprj.irq.chirac.reut/index.html This response really makes it clear that France is not opposing this war for the reasons they describe so well in UN speeches. This is pure power politics at its worst. Here are some of the interesting quotes: "These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position," Chirac told a news conference after the emergency EU summit on the Iraq crisis. A desperate attempt to restore France to a dominant position in Europe? He warned Romania and Bulgaria they had been particularly incautious as they were still seeking membership of the now 15-strong bloc, saying that if they wanted to reduce their chances "they could hardly find a better way of doing it." Now who is the bully? He might as well have said that France will not tolerate any views but their own. First, he calls them reckless for having the audacity to support the American position and then he threatens them. Branding joint letters signed by Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic with EU members Britain, Spain, Italy, Denmark and Portugal, and by the so-called Vilnius 10 group of EU and NATO candidates "infantile" and "dangerous," Chirac said: "They missed a great opportunity to shut up." His outburst looked set to stoke tension between the continent's east and west during Tuesday's visit to Brussels by leaders of the 13 European Union aspirants, already irked not to have been invited to the bloc's emergency summit on Iraq. Britain and Spain, two leaders of the pro-American faction, demanded in vain that the candidates be invited to Monday's summit. No open discussion of the issue is allowed. Only France and Germany get to decide. This shows the true future of the EU. We should have a thread "France tells world to shut up and oppose the war or else" European Commission President Romano Prodi said he was saddened rather than angry with the candidates because their pro-Americanism was a signal they had failed to understand that the EU is more than a mere economic union. He (Chirac) warned that Europe's divisions now risked reinforcing "a feeling of hostility" towards enlargement in existing EU member states, and the whole process could be derailed if even one of those countries voted against it in a referendum. In other words, they failed to understand the desire by some (especially the French) to use the EU to thwart American interests around the world no matter what the cost. I guess the EU will have to send out a memo making it clear that member states and candidates had better be against the US if they want to be part of the EU. Obviously these states don't feel threatened by America the way that France does.
What they are saying is that there is no point in these countries joining the EU if they are merely going to act as puppets of the US - this applies to all issues, not just Iraq. If they want to be puppets of the US, they can join it instead. It should also be pointed out that it would not be unusual for these Eastern countries to act as the puppet of a superpower. I wonder where they got that idea from?
Follow up reaction from some of the Eastern European countries....if his defense minister actually said those things, that person should get the boot. Astonishingly snide. http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters02-18-034117.asp?reg=EUROPE SJC4ever, I don't quite think that those EE countries actually want to maintain "puppet" status, given a choice....do you? I'm so tired of this blowhard Chirac, it defies description. This buffoon has been trying to throw his weight around NATO ever since they came back in in '94 or '95 (I forget) after a very long absence and well after the main reason for the existence of NATO ceased to exist (ah, the bravery of it all!). If we apply his "fraternity pin number" method of dealing with the EU applicant states to NATO (& how seriously we should take the French, given their lack of commitment and support to NATO over the last 30+ years)..... It will never happen....but I'd certainly use this as a starting point to end the US involvement in NATO.
This is so ridiculous and insulting. Of course, then the United Kingdom, Denmark, Spain, Italy (to name a few) are puppets as well. What's the problem with a few more "puppets" in the EU. An expanded EU is way too important to fvck with because of disagreements like this. Chirac is proving himself to be a short-sighted bully here. I do like your idea about Eastern Europe joining the USA. Let's get the ball rolling on that one.
Well, they should. This is because the existing members of the EU are not approaching these countries for our own present benefit. Existing EU money will largely be re-distributed to these new members, harming our already weak economies for their benefit! This means that the decision to admit (or not admit) these countries is already delicate for economic reasons. Everyone has seen the problems that Germany has had after absorbing the East. So these countries taking attitudes which are barely compatible with the attitudes of the existing members is hardly going to aid their cause. ------------------ BenReilly - there is a subtle difference between the existing members and the candidate countries. The existing members (even the UK) do not wholly support the US line - indeed, some argue that it was Blair who forced Bush down this "multilateral" route over Iraq. The candidate countries, however, appear to be slavishly pro-US.
Yeah, I see your point. My favorite part of the Marshall Plan aid to Germany & France after WWII was the part about required political kow-towing to the line eminating out of Washington....ah, well...never mind.
I think you'll find that they did accept the Washington line for the duration of the Marshall aid period, which ended in 1951. http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/marshall/mars.html
Basically, Chirac has no problem with the countries that are up for EU membership acting as "lapdogs." He's just mad that he's only got two dogs in his lap and we've got 18 in ours. Who's the unilateralist?
What you all have to bear in mind over there is that the French are, well, just being French. It is the French way to disagree. There's never any logic or reasoning to this diagreement, it's just that the French are genetically compelled to adopt a contrary position. It is what gives the French identity. Take Quebec. The French there all speak perfect English, but they probably all speak French to be awkward. I doubt they even want an independant state really. On the other hand if French Canadians truly acted like the French from France it wouldn't be the French Canadians who'd be the ones demanding Quebec becomes a separate state.
RichardL, when I hear a comment or speech by T. Blair, I keep in mind he isn't speaking for all of your people. Same thing with Bush and Americans or any other chief of state. Why do you think it would be any different in the case of France and its president? In this particular case, Chirac's comments about eastern european countries, I happen to believe he is the one who lost a good opportunity to keep his mouth shut. Whatever your feelings are about the French ( and they are your concern only, not mine), please keep this in mind and avoid generalisations.
Are You telling Chirac to leave pressures and blackmails to those who have no problem in using them? For example it's been said that the US administration thought to retire his nato bases and related investments in germany. Then we have the danger of the "US sanctioned" UN irrilevance. And so on. I don't know if it is correct to let one part to use all its arms while you play the gentleman. I mean this US administration is teaching any country in the world to think about its own interest without caring about UN's or other's states point of view. The least we (europeans) can do is to learn the lesson as soon as possible.
Sardinia, it's mostly the way he went about this that I have a problem with: his patronizing tone and downright insulting comments. This can only result in antagonizing these countries (and others) populations. There have to be better ways to communicate between EU (or future EU) nations.They can privately find common ground, that would be alright with me ( as the 15 EU nations did for a common declaration regarding Iraq a couple of days ago) Respect for all and their opinions isn't an option, it's a must. Just my views on this subject.
Neo-Gallist chauvinism combined with being Iraq's #1 trading partner = French defense of Iraq. For those who remember, they did the same thing just prior to the 1991 Gulf War. Its also funny to remember the 4 billion dollar French oil deal with Saddam and their constant insistence since 1991 to lift sanctions and leave him alone. The reason Saddam threw the UN inspectors out of Iraq in 1998 was because France resisted tougher sanctions from the UN Security counsel. Now De-Chirac wants the rest to the EU to fall in line behind his country's interests, plain and simple. They envision the EU as a future superpower under French leadership and control. Those in Europe who do not see it now will see it in the very near future.
Sweet merciful crap, this lie has been resurrected more times than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion!