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

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Ned
One thing that will change in the future is that France and Germany will no longer be consulted on international security issues.

Not a big loss, given the fact that anyway their opinion was considered only, if they nodded.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Ned
One thing that will change in the future is that France and Germany will no longer be consulted on international security issues. They were always the first to complain if the US decided to do something on security without first consulting them. Well if they really wanted closer cooperation with the US on security, they have really shot themselves in the foot.

I even believe this may have implications for cooperation on ME peace.

No offense intended, but this is a childish view of international relations. Look at the map of Europe, and cut out Germany and France, then take security measures ...

[badman]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Schroeder is an idiot. I support his cause (opposing the war) without approving the methods he uses. At the moment, the chances for him to get reelected are very low and would be even lower, if he would give in to Americas blackmailing. Unfortunately, the next elections are only in 2006.

exactly.

@ Ned:
But all those years, the American administration didn't do much about it. They didn't move more troops to the Middle East, they simply let Saddam pretty much do what he wanted to do except for some occassional threats and attacks on Iraqi ack-ack units.
I am not totally opposed to war like Schröder is but I feel that Bush is rushing to war without thinking about the consequences.
There is no need to go to war at March 17th, we can just as well let the inspectors continue their work.

@ MBD:
She had been a ministre and she lost her job after her stupid statement (actually she didn't compare Bush to Hitler but Bush's methods with Hitler's which is something different) so that was a pretty tough punishment and being in the cabinet does not mean that you have official approval.
And Sir Ralph is right when he points out that Rumsfeld is still in power after the comments he made on France and Germany.

[DanS]

But all those years, the American administration didn't do much about it. They didn't move more troops to the Middle East, they simply let Saddam pretty much do what he wanted to do except for some occassional threats and attacks on Iraqi ack-ack units.

Huh? You don't remember the 1998 bombing of Baghdad?

Removing Hussein is settled US policy.

[Drake Tungsten]

I've yet to see a convincing argument proving that France and Germany are not the ones most responsible for this current falling out. I guess it doesn't exist...

[Spiffor]

Drake :
According to a poll I've seen today on TV, 81% of the French blame the diplomatic downfall on the US (9% on France)

Trying to look for the culprit of the diplomatic downfall is about as absurd and as trying to look for the culprit of the hate between Israel and Palestine : it is impossible to isolate the culprit objectively (because it has to do with perceptions of reality), and it has no importance.

What is important is :

- to wonder why the diplomatic downfall occured. To find a satisfying answer, everyone must be ready to admit his mistakes (and not mindlessly waving his flag, by saying "No, YOU are wrong")

- to wonder if we simply want to heal the wounds. I'm wondering if most people want to salvage the relationship we had before.

- to accept making concessions to the other party. This includes accepting his own wrongs. I know I've already said so, but accepting his own wrongs is the only way to deal with a rift

[DuncanK]

I don't see any reason for them to cooperate anymore. A rivalry is beginning. Things will probably only get worse. The USSR really did help the US get along with most of the world.

[Spiffor]

About the first post :
It mentions a possible division within the EU. I don't think such a thing will happen over Iraq. We currently see spectacular divisions between countries, and laugh at the lack of unanimous voice in the EU.
The very idea of EU's actual foreign policy is something new (sure, it has been a fantasy since the 1920's, but the actual thing isn't). Before, a disagreement between European countries was only a normal international matter, and had nothing to do with the EU.
The EU remains the deep network of intertwined businesses and economic institutions. It progresses slowly on the path of integration, but progresses nonetheless (the Constitution should be drafted in June, I don't know when it'll get voted). In 1993, during the GATT round, people laughed at the lack of unanimous voice of the EU ; trade has now become the only responsibility of the Commission, not of the Member states. In 1993 also, people were sure the monetary union was dead because of the financial tensions ; 9 years later, the EU had a common currency.

The EU has known many divergences and crises in the past, but none has threathened its very existence. The diplomatic disagreement doesn't threaten anything, except maybe the French-German vision of the future Common Foreign and Security Policy.

I just wanted to put this in perspective

[Drake Tungsten]

it is impossible to isolate the culprit objectively

No it isn't. Just look at the levels of compromise on each side and you can quickly identify the intransigent side in the whole debacle.

and it has no importance.

I think it's very important. All these attempts to blame both sides equally are false and I'll be damned if I'm going to let the French off the hook for their treachery.

[Spiffor]

Fine, I'll go with the "French" perspective, and maybe you'll understand how much it has to do with perceptions. Please note that what I'll say in this post does not reflect my thoughts.

1. The US bring Iraq at the top of world's problem out of the blue, for domestic poltical matters.
2. The US wants war. It says so to Europe, and expects everyone to accept.
3. Given the high reluctance, the US goes to the UN to get a rubberstamp, to further their warmongering agenda. France accepts to draw 1441, rather than blocking the whole procedure altogether.
4. The US can only agree to an unclear resolution with unclear (albeit serious) consequences. It has shown no willingness whatsoever to find a peaceful way.
5. The US send troops to the Gulf, and expect everyone to shut up.
6. France and Germany voice their opposition.
7. Britain, Italy and Spain, like the good vassals they are, side with the American big brother. The Bush admin ridicules, insults and call names its allies who have simply voicced their opposition.
8. It is true France answered too vividly, and should have seeked to calm the cowboys.
9. Powell brings "decisive proof" that Iraq is a threat to the est. These proofs are nothing more than some rag-tag intel, on par with the British files directly copied from a student's work.
10. The US will do anything to have the UNSC approve the war, despite Blix saying the inspections are working.
11. The US do only want war, won't listen to anyone else, and are completely wrong.

This was a stupid and exaggerated point of view, and I'm sure very few Frenchmen are as exceccive as what I've described above. However, that's the spirit :
Bush only wanted war, and went to the UN to legitimize it. France and Germany merely voiced their opposition to a rushed war, and get insulted, and their viewpoint is absolutely not listened by a hegemonous and unilateral, arrogant USA.

Can you understand how such a debate can be stupid ? It is true the US brought Iraq on the international arena. It is true France wanted to find a diplomatic solution from the beginning. It is true Schröder surfed on pacifism to grab the few votes he needed to win. It is true the US couldn't bear French opposition. It is true France and Germany used the crisis to strengthen their position in Europe. It is true Rumsfeld couldn't help but calling names on France and Germany. It is true the American media spitted incredible amounts of Anti-French hate. It is true the US has always wanted to go to war with Iraq. It is true France and Germany never did (it is a tad more complex for France).
Now, since both sides have so much wrongs, can you tell me who is right ? The answer is no one. You can argue how France-Germany were more wrong than the US, or I could argue the opposite if I thought such a debate made any sense, but it doesn't.

I am riled by my pre-Apolyton experience of Israel / Palestine forums. Everytime a thread was about the hate between the two peoples, it became at some point historical, because someone wanted to explain how the Israelis / the Palestinians (pick the one you prefer) were wrong in the first place.
Not only were they twisting facts to adapt to their flawed right/wrong frame, but also it ruined any sensed conversation that could have existed before. A kind of Godwin's law of Israel/Palestine threads. Believe me, I've seen dozens of threads going down the toilet like this.

I want to have a sensed conversation on the US/EU rift. Calling names, or being sure to be right (or less wrong) than the other cannot bring anything good to such a debate.

[Drake Tungsten]

You can argue how France-Germany were more wrong than the US

I can and will. America (particularly Rumsfeld) has made its share of mistakes, but at least we've tried to compromise. France accepted all of our concessions and repayed us with a knife in the back. That's the truth, whether you want to deal with it or not...

[Spiffor]

That's your truth.

You can argue if you want. Just be warned it will make any thread related to the US-EU rift go down to the toilet while bringing nothing.

But maybe that's what you want.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't know why you think an objective discussion of the events will cause this thread to "go down the toilet". I gave examples of American compromise and simply asked for examples of French compromises. The fact that no one can think of any seems to indicate that France is the one precipitating this diplomatic crisis. How does such an analysis ruin the thread?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

You can argue how France-Germany were more wrong than the US

I can and will. America (particularly Rumsfeld) has made its share of mistakes, but at least we've tried to compromise. France accepted all of our concessions and repayed us with a knife in the back. That's the truth, whether you want to deal with it or not...

I think you are just frustrated and BAMing now Drake. We respect your opinion here, but we would hope that you would respect other's opinions as well and not just disingenuously refer to them as knife-wielding traitors. Maybe you ought to take a break from Apolyton from a while and put things in perspective a bit old friend.

[Drake Tungsten]

Monkspider telling me to put things in perspective?



Thanks for the laugh. I needed that...