From: Christian Weisgerber (naddy@mips.inka.de)
Date: Thu Feb 27 2003 - 08:06:33 MST
Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
> > Let's start with a dose of reality: Just what significance has the
> > position of Poland etc. in the big picture? [...]
>
> What? Are you saying that might makes right?
Huh? How do you get that notion?
I'm merely pointing out that there are only two European countries
you have to take serious in the context of the Iraq conflict: Britain
and France. Those have some non-negligible military reach, and
they have veto power in the Security Council. They are the ones
for which a pro-war decision would inflict direct costs. Everybody
else does just political posturing, which is cheap.
> So it's okay that Germany or England speak up, but not appropriate
> for the little guys?
My reality check wasn't about speaking up but about whose voice
matters. Britain and France are relevant here, at least if you go
the Security Council road, Spain and Germany as temporary members
rather less, and the rest of Europe is irrelevant.
> 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.
So I hope those places of the Anglosphere are cheering for Iraq in
the upcoming military conflict, where "underdog" is too favorable
a description for a country that in its present state could have
been blasted by any of the major combattants of WWII.
> Even in the U.S., there exists an egalitarian spirit
> that seems foreign to what you say.
I think you are totally misconstructing what I say.
> 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.
Intimidate? Threaten? Chastising unruly children is more like it.
The message is that associating yourself with the USA to gain
political leverage against the EU when you are about to join it
will backfire badly.
> 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.
I have no idea where that conclusion comes from, especially since
it's just the opposite of the commonly held view.
> > 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.
That's just what Chirac did. The "family" thing and all.
> 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!
Nonsense.
-- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 27 2003 - 08:35:21 MST