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

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by monkspider
You're right that there is a rift NYE, and it will get much larger before it will get smaller, at least, if things follow their present course. There is no hand that has been dealt, nothing is written in stone.

I'm afraid much of it has already been written, MS.

The damage done to US-French and US-German relations is severe, I would guess. Whether the French and Germans intended that break is debatable, however the mood of the US administration, and many Americans (a majority?) is decidely unpleasant towards their former(?) allies. That is what I observe.

What we are seeing is a sea change, very likely. It is very likely one of those moments in history when things are distinctly different from then on than from what they were before.

[HershOstropoler]

"The damage done to US-French and US-German relations is severe"

Both sides ****ed up diplomatically. But at the core of the dispute is one thing: If the Bushies had been content with disarming Iraq instead of being hellbent on having a war, we could have done without all the crap.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"What are the consequences for the US legally if they invade Iraq?"

Without SC resolution? The war is an illegal war of aggression, then. Consequences: All UN members are entitled to take repressalia against the US, responsible US leaders are criminally liable in the Nuremberg/Tokyo tradition.

Of course enforcement of those consequences is highly unlikely. But there are legal consequences. And lack of enforcement does not necessarily render a law void.

The real consequences are the cost to the US' diplomatic standing in the world. In EU2 terms, it gets close to "hated throughout the world".

I am glad that we can agree that it would take fairly severe offences before there were any consequences for the US administration. The Nuremburg and Tokyo trials were quite unique.

As far as an illegal act of aggression, what is the status of the United States vis-a-vis the cease fire at end of Gulf 1? I seem to recall that they were a party seperate from the UN in that kerfluffle. If so, I think they have ample grounds to renew hostilities for Saddam's disregard for the terms of the cease fire. Maybe that's just me though.

It will be interesting to see how much of the world follow France and Germany, and how much follow the Americans.

In the end, it will be very sad though. The Atlantic community will be severely strained and the ability for us all to effect the world will be impaired as the US and Europe squabble over zones of influence.

The Europeans might just want to spend a few more defence dollars though, if you want to sway many people who need any sort of protection. Having at least one carrier group that could be put up against a US CVBG would help, but then again, they have about 10 of them. Get out your wallet.

[HershOstropoler]

"The Nuremburg and Tokyo trials were quite unique."

I think the precedent is still valid. And that makes simply starting such a war a crime.

"I seem to recall that they were a party seperate from the UN in that kerfluffle."

There were some bilateral agreements at the technical level, not sure about something else. But it would be irrelevant. The ceasefire conditions are in a SC resolution, and an attack even based on broken conditions is illegal if it is not in delf defense.

"The Europeans might just want to spend a few more defence dollars though, if you want to sway many people who need any sort of protection."

Like whom?

The US can be glad we were not politically capable and willing to play hardball on this. On many things, we don't need aircraft carriers for that.

[notyoueither]

The thing is that the French and Germans are taking Europe down to the hard ball pitch with the US. They are setting themselves and Europe up as competitors for influence and interests. Hense the break.

Was this necessary? Was this good for Europe as a whole in the long run? Will France and Germany be willing to pay the price to back up the blustering of the last few months? Will any of us really like where this all ends up? I fear not.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The Europeans might just want to spend a few more defence dollars though, if you want to sway many people who need any sort of protection. Having at least one carrier group that could be put up against a US CVBG would help, but then again, they have about 10 of them. Get out your wallet.

Although you're right about the need to increase defense spendings in Europe, I don't think the investment in carriers would be wise. Aircraft carriers have nothing to do with defense. They are a solely offensive weapon, which purpose is to project power to a region different to the own location. A defensive army doesn't really need them, continental airbases suffice. I doubt anybody in Europe wants to compete with Uncle Sam a world police.

[HershOstropoler]

"The thing is that the French and Germans are taking Europe down to the hard ball pitch with the US."

Not really, at least as of yet.

"They are setting themselves and Europe up as competitors for influence and interests. Hense the break."

That alone would not be enough. There is a genuinely differing world view from the nutjobs in the Bush admin.

"Was this necessary?"

A real rift yes yet to come. I say it is close to inevitable.

"Was this good for Europe as a whole in the long run?"

Absolutely.

"Will France and Germany be willing to pay the price to back up the blustering of the last few months?"

What price?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Although you're right about the need to increase defense spendings in Europe, I don't think the investment in carriers would be wise. Aircraft carriers have nothing to do with defense. They are a solely offensive weapon, which purpose is to project power to a region different to the own location. A defensive army doesn't really need them, continental airbases suffice. I doubt anybody in Europe wants to compete with Uncle Sam a world police.

Then why stake so much by interfering with Iraq?

I understand the views of many Europeans (and people in general) that wars are not good things, but why thrust a stick in Uncle Sam's eye in an area where Europe can't hope to effect the ultimate outcome?

You are right, if you never want to project power beyond the range of land based air, then Carriers are unnecessary. However, if Europe doesn't want to play the game, why pull up a seat at the table?

If France and Germany did not intend to break with the US and go their own way I can understand. However, I think their politicians have severely misjudged the US administration and the general mood in the United States.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"Will France and Germany be willing to pay the price to back up the blustering of the last few months?"

What price?

Being marginalized until they are willing to pay in dollars for the forces to back up their desires for influence.

I would hazard a guess that it will be a long while before the US administration puts a very high priority on any request from the governments of France or Germany, or gives any consideration to their interests.

[HershOstropoler]

"Then why stake so much by interfering with Iraq?"

To stop the Bushies from shooting America and Europe alike in the foot by this silly war.

"I would hazard a guess that it will be a long while before the US administration puts a very high priority on any request from the governments of France or Germany, or gives any consideration to their interests."

No problem. The US needs them more than the other way round.

[notyoueither]

Well, that's different at least.

However, good night.

[Lancer]

I'm all for the rift.

Be warn euros...If France vetos, my days of Pricey French wines and Fancy German cars are OVER!

[Dauphin]

Looks like the UK has managed to improve its US diplomatic and public relations, without really upsetting the rest of Europe. Woohoo!

[Kropotkin]

Look out Europe, Lancer's switching to french cars and german wines!

[Lancer]