Re: Global Politics: Safire editorial

From: Christian Weisgerber (naddy@mips.inka.de)
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 13:50:41 MST


Robert J. Bradbury <bradbury@aeiveos.com> wrote:

> "Bad Herr Dye"

*Groan*

> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/23/opinion/23SAFI.html?pagewanted=print

This is a silly piece of polemics.

| The first was re-election last year, snatched from the jaws of
| defeat by his last-minute embrace of anti-American pacifism.
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This badly conflates two different sentiments. Are the same people
who oppose war pacifists when (e.g.) Chechnya is concerned, but
anti-Americans when Iraq is concerned?

Just what exact factors produced the election outcome if far from
clear. The pundits pointed to the flood, among other things. The
whole Iraq issue is completely overrated as far as Germany is
concerned, anyway. The German military has no means to project
force at the distance required. German troops cannot meaningfully
participate in a campaign against Iraq, no matter whether this is
desirable or not. And German approval or disapproval of military
action against Iraq is about as relevant as that of Liechtenstein.

| That energized the Green Party and empowered Germany's new
| isolationism.

The Green party profited from the singular popularity of Joschka
Fischer, the German foreign secretary, who consistently shows up
as the most popular politician in German opinion polls.

What isolationism?

| In its wake came the second Schröder triumph, his recent spinaround
| of Jacques Chirac of France.

No. The French are always very wary of American policy and have
been extremely restrained on the whole Iraq issue, not committing
to anything. As far as I can tell, there has been no change in
French policy at all. The coy girl has been saying "maybe" all
along, which seems to have been construed as "yes" before, as "no"
now.

Also, while currently much is made in this part of the world of the
newly found agreement between France and Germany on all kinds of
issues, the individual statements don't sound all that similar at
all. We're deep in the field of diplomacy here, admittedly an area
where the current US administration (with the exception of Colin
Powell) appears to be singularly lacking, with Rumsfeld only yesterday
behaving again like a drunk rhino plowing through a china store.

| In a stunning power play in Brussels, Germany and France moved to
| change the practice of having a rotating presidency of the European
| Council, which now gives smaller nations influence, to a system
| with a long-term president. This Franco-German czar of the European
| Union would dominate a toothless president of the European
| Commission, chosen by the European Parliament.

I didn't follow this too closely, but neither did this happen over
night, nor is it clear just what effect on E.U. politics this will
ultimately have. For years, French-German agreement have been the
engine that powered the advancement of the E.U., much to the chagrin
of the USA, I guess, for whom an eternally divided and infighting
Europe would be preferable.

I consider it highly unlikely that France will veto miliary action
against Iraq in the Security Council, nor do I believe that Germany
will eventually cast a (meaningless) nay. Look to Russia and China
for trouble.

| Schröder's third victory is less complicated. The image-obsessed
| politician is extraordinarily sensitive to personal criticism.

Yes, that seems indeed to be the case, providing for ongoing
amusement.

| What this final victory shows is that Schröder [...] does not
| share the free-speech values of the West.

Careful, careful. In Europe in general, "free speech" faces certain
limitations that prohibit hate speech and personal libal/insult/etc.
Schröder's court cases refer to the latter, where allegations were
made regarding the _person_ of Mr. Schröder, not the Chancellor.
Or so the courts found. The remarkable thing is that Schröder
insisted on resorting to legal means (which is entirely in his
right), instead of just ignoring and shrugging off this irrelevant
gossip like most people in the limelight do.

| The German design is apparently to saw off the Atlantic part of
| the Atlantic Alliance, separating Britain and the U.S. from a
| federal Europe dominated by Germany and France

Well, as one commentator remarked yesterday in response to Rumsfeld's
ill-advised ramblings: It is clear now that the USA seeks vassals,
not allies.

If there even is such a thing as a "German design", it is to position
Europe as an independent world player rather than a puppet of the
USA to slavishly follow each and every American command. And that
goes down well with the French. That Great Britain prefers to side
up with its former colonies rather than the continent is somewhat
vexing.

| reminds populous and powerful nations like India and Japan of the
| inequity of mid-sized France having the veto power

Veto power in the Security Council is bestowed on those with the
ability to project force. India is strictly a local power, Japan
only an economic one.

| The chancellor's Pyrrhic victories are part of the backdrop to
| the existential crisis that the Security Council is bringing on
| itself.

Needless to say, in this part of the world the USA is perceived as
the one demolishing the credibility of the Security Council.

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy@mips.inka.de


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:03 MST