From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Feb 02 2003 - 23:57:45 MST
James writes
> Actually, I'd say he's [Thomas L. Friedman] right
I have copied the Friedman remarks again at the bottom for easy reference.
Apologies to those who prefer bandwidth conserved.
> in many ways, although I think his analysis of the reasons for the
> mistrust of some Europeans is flawed. I think the Euro-scepticism
> is more complex than simply glorified jealousy, but in many
> circumstances equally silly.
Yes, one always runs grave risks when speculating about the
motives of nations or groups of people. On its best reading,
Friedman is referring to the (probably existing) resentment
and envy afflicting some proportion of Europeans. But by no
means can this suspicion be articulated against those who put
up logical arguments against U.S. policies.
> I don't think it's a matter of weakness so much as "just couldn't
> be bothered", and perhaps to some degree, fear.
Yes, that's also a component of the mix.
> Quite apart from it being laughably wrong, I find the whole "you
> hate us coz we're strong" argument to be quite narcissistic.
Agree totally. Even calling it an "argument" is being too
generous by far.
> Personally, I'm fearful of anyone who quotes god in every
> damn speech he gives.
Oh, I've heard every U.S. president from Eisenhower to Clinton
say almost the same thing (though perhaps less frequently).
The behavior, not the words, is what to watch.
> I'm more fearful of a system where this seems to be a requirement.
Seems logical, but again, I'm not sure that we've seen actual
evil consequences flowing from all the "God talk".
I totally agree with the remainder of James' review, especially
his summary statement.
> [Friedman]'s certainly right about the GMO issue, and I'll have to remember the
> GMO/smoking argument :) I'm sure there's many I can catch out with that
> one! (As an aside, there's a big push by Govt. here at the moment to ban
> smoking in pubs and restuarants, a major change given our pub culture. I
> guess they've realized that ciggy smoke doesn't pay much attention to
> smoking and non-smoking sections).
>
> I'd certainly agree with his disdain for the
> anti-globalization/war/GMO/next big thing crowd, I'm not fan of them
> myself. Speaking of the anti-war lobby, many of you may not know that
> little ol' "neutral" Ireland has been facilitating the movement of U.S.
> troops as part of the recent build-up maneuvers (I'm suspecting they're
> moving more than troops through too, but that's just my opinion). There
> have also been well reported (here) anti-war demonstrations outside the
> airport where this has been going on, who are also suspecting there's more
> being moved through than simply armed troops. I live very close to an
> Irish air corps base, and my wife has been awakened by some strange sounds
> coming out of it in the wee hours of the morning. I've heard such "noises"
> in the past myself, typically around times of "strife" in the Middle
> East/Yugoslavia. Since we have nothing more in our airforce than some old
> cast-off Magisters (and I've been at a few airshows in my time) I can tell
> you that, IMHO, it sounds awfully like a turbojet or two on reheat. But
> hey, that's just my ignorant opinion.
>
> I'm personally not all that bothered by the whole neutral or not argument
> that's going on at the moment (let's face it, our neutrality is a joke - do
> you think we'd be so obliging to Iraqi troops?). But I can tell you one
> things that's bugging me. Another item probably not reported in your local
> news is the recent breach of security at this airport by a member of the
> supposedly "peaceful" anti-war group. She proceeded to inflict a cool half
> mils worth of damage to one of the U.S. transporters. What bugs me is
> that; 1) The state has to pay for this, with my money no less, and 2)
> depending on the nature of the damage, she may very well have put lives at
> risk.
>
> And the kicker? RTE interviewed a spokesman for one of these groups, and
> he distanced himself from her actions but never once condemned it! Instead
> he gave some spiel about people being "frustrated" and such rubbish. What
> crap. The only ones complaining about it are pretty much all located right
> there outside the airport! The rest of us really couldn't be
> bothered. We've little appetite for war, and none for your average Middle
> Eastern dictator. And perhaps even less for most of the left wing tree
> huggers who have little better to do than camp outside airports and make
> mischief.
>
> Am I annoyed that the U.S. (plus allies) is going to get rid of
> Hussein? Not really. Beats having them financing the little bastard, I
> suppose. I would be much more impressed if they'd put away the 'going in
> to help the poor Iraqi people' tripe though, and stick to admitting they
> want him out. They may very well in fact provide the Iraqi people with a
> wonderful new chance, but no one's buying into that as a major policy driver.
>
> Do I believe he's been a naughty boy with regard to ABC weapons? Most
> likely. Do I believe that there's evidence linking him to Al-Qaida? I've
> not seen it, so I can't say I'm convinced that it exists. But the more
> time goes on, the fewer reasons I can think of for not nailing the Bollocks.
>
> In summary, I think the author was right but for the wrong reason. Except
> in the final paragraph. I think he was on to something there.
>
> James...
> (Married to an American and perhaps biased, but not as a result of that! )
Ah, Those Principled Europeans
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
BRUSSELS -- Last week I went to lunch at the Hotel Schweizerhof in Davos,
Switzerland, and discovered why America and Europe are at odds. At the
bottom of the lunch menu was a list of the countries that the lamb, beef and
chicken came from. But next to the meat imported from the U.S. was a tiny
asterisk, which warned that it might contain genetically modified organisms
< G.M.O.'s.
My initial patriotic instinct was to order the U.S. beef and ask for it
"tartare," just for spite. But then I and my lunch guest just looked at each
other and had a good laugh. How quaint! we said. Europeans, out of some
romantic rebellion against America and high technology, were shunning
U.S.-grown food containing G.M.O.'s < even though there is no scientific
evidence that these are harmful. But practically everywhere we went in
Davos, Europeans were smoking cigarettes < with their meals, coffee or
conversation < even though there is indisputable scientific evidence that
smoking can kill you. In fact, I got enough secondhand smoke just dining in
Europe last week to make me want to have a chest X-ray.
So pardon me if I don't take seriously all the Euro-whining about the Bush
policies toward Iraq < for one very simple reason: It strikes me as deeply
unserious. It's not that there are no serious arguments to be made against
war in Iraq. There are plenty. It's just that so much of what one hears
coming from German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder and French President Jacques
Chirac are not serious arguments. They are station identification.
They are not the arguments of people who have really gotten beyond the
distorted Arab press and tapped into what young Arabs are saying about their
aspirations for democracy and how much they blame Saddam Hussein and his ilk
for the poor state of their region. Rather, they are the diplomatic
equivalent of smoking cancerous cigarettes while rejecting harmless G.M.O.'s
< an assertion of identity by trying to be whatever the Americans are not,
regardless of the real interests or stakes.
And where this comes from, alas, is weakness. Being weak after being
powerful is a terrible thing. It can make you stupid. It can make you reject
U.S. policies simply to differentiate yourself from the world's only
superpower. Or, in the case of Mr. Chirac, it can even prompt you to invite
Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe < a terrible tyrant < to visit Paris just
to spite Tony Blair. Ah, those principled French.
"Power corrupts, but so does weakness," said Josef Joffe, editor of
Germany's Die Zeit newspaper. "And absolute weakness corrupts absolutely. We
are now living through the most critical watershed of the postwar period,
with enormous moral and strategic issues at stake, and the only answer many
Europeans offer is to constrain and contain American power. So by default
they end up on the side of Saddam, in an intellectually corrupt position."
The more one sees of this, the more one is convinced that the historian
Robert Kagan, in his very smart new book "Of Paradise and Power," is right:
"Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus." There is now a
structural gap between America and Europe, which derives from the yawning
power gap, and this produces all sorts of resentments, insecurities and
diverging attitudes as to what constitutes the legitimate exercise of force.
I can live with this difference. But Europe's cynicism and insecurity,
masquerading as moral superiority, is insufferable. Each year at the Davos
economic forum protesters are allowed to march through the north end of
town, where last year they broke shop windows. So this year, on
demonstration day, all the shopkeepers on that end of town closed. But when
I walked by their shops in the morning, I noticed that three of them had put
up signs in their windows that said, "U.S.A. No War in Iraq."
I wondered to myself: Why did the shopkeepers at the lingerie store suddenly
decide to express their antiwar sentiments? Well, the demonstrators came and
left without getting near these shops. And guess what? As soon as they were
gone, the antiwar signs disappeared. They had been put up simply as window
insurance < to placate the demonstrators so they wouldn't throw stones at
them.
As I said, there are serious arguments against the war in Iraq, but they
have weight only if they are made out of conviction, not out of expedience
or petulance < and if they are made by people with real beliefs, not
identity crises.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 23:54:54 MST