From: Christian Weisgerber (naddy@mips.inka.de)
Date: Sat Feb 22 2003 - 08:31:57 MST
Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
> What I mean is this: to many in the U.S. (or the Anglosphere?)
> it seems overweening and arrogant for Chirac to say to the
> hopeful entrants to the EU: "You must do as I say. You may
> not have your own opinion. You will be sorry for speaking
> your own opinions. Just wait and see."
Well, that's not what he said.
Let's start with a dose of reality: Just what significance has the
position of Poland etc. in the big picture? These countries cannot
project military force; if any of them happen to be in the Security
Council they have no veto power; they do not have the financial
resources to significantly contribute either to a war effort or to
the rebuilding afterwards. In short, their position is irrelevant
in practice and only an expression of moral support and political
association.
You might be under the assumption that those countries expressed
their true support for the USA because of a common stance against
totalitarianism etc. Around here, the perception is that they
rather sucked up to the USA out of political opportunism.
As you may know if you follow European politics, there have been
ongoing efforts for the last several years to forge a common European
foreign policy in order for Europe to be able to speak with a single
and correspondingly more powerful voice. The candidate countries--who
after all have much to gain from EU membership--now seem to be
sabotaging this effort, which is already painful enough as is.
That the French, who usually employ much more diplomatic language,
choose such direct and forceful expression should be evidence in
itself just what an affront this has been.
The way this mess should have played out instead is that the EU
sits down, after much painful negotiation comes to a common position
and declaration, and of course it is expected that the countries
poised to join the Union share the common values and policy and
agree with this (or diplomatically shut up). If you want something
from somebody, you don't start by offending them.
> For example, intimidating Iraq is okay, but if Bush
> was to secretly say to the leader of Spain, "you better sign
> that letter or else you'll be sorry when it comes to the
> next round of trade negotiations!", it would be ABSOLUTELY
> DISASTROUS if that leaked out (as it invariably would).
> It would be seen as attempting compulsion.
Funnily enough, around here the view is that's exactly what's going
on now as the USA is rallying up votes from the non-permanent members
of the Security Council. (Not regarding Spain of course, but
concerning countries susceptible to US foreign aid, loans, etc.)
-- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 22 2003 - 09:33:37 MST