From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Feb 22 2003 - 14:56:09 MST
Christian writes
> Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> > What I mean is this: to many in the U.S. (or the Anglo sphere?)
> > 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.
Thanks for your elucidation below, but what I wrote still sounds
like what he (and you) are saying.
> 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.
What? Are you saying that might makes right? So it's
okay that Germany or England speak up, but not appropriate
for the little guys? This really is a cultural divide
between you and the Anglosphere. In some places, like Oz,
giving the underdog a "fair go" is almost a national
obsession.
Even in the U.S., there exists an egalitarian spirit
that seems foreign to what you say. Besides, we have
this meme, this idea, especially on this list, that it's
okay for anyone to say anything they want. (We only
debate the *wisdom* of what they say, not the propriety,
or the wisdom of speaking up itself.)
Now if you or Chirac really blasted "those idiots" in
Eastern Europe "for wrecking the chances of peace", or
any other thing you might say, that would be one thing.
But to attempt to intimidate and threaten them---well,
we just shake our heads at that.
But thanks---it's becoming clearer that many Europeans
see power politics as more explicit (and less subtle)
than we do here. The bullying can be upfront, instead
of hidden.
> 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.
Okay, it's fair to question someone's motives too. But
this is to be done separately. After all, it's speculation.
Who knows what Byzantine motives people or nations really have?
> 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.
Okay, then you TELL THEM THIS. You TELL THEM THIS publicly, even.
And maybe---if you think that you can get away with it---you lower
yourself to privately threatening them. But if it comes out, then
(at least in the Anglosphere) you look pretty bad for doing it.
What was amazing to me, though you are helping to explain it,
is that to the French, and maybe Germans, Chirac didn't look
bad at all.
> If you want something from somebody, you don't start by offending them.
Indeed, for having plainly spoken their minds, those hopeful
entrants to the EU may have made a big mistake. One does
not dare question La France publicly. The very idea!
("Revenge" is a gallic word.)
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 22 2003 - 14:52:13 MST