[ARTICLE] Bullyboy Tactics over Iraq?

Sand · 19-02-2003 1:51am #1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2775579.stm

It seems nations arent allowed to exercise their democratic right to disagree with the position of larger nations without fearing spiteful reprisals. Is this what they mean by speaking with one voice? - or else?

therecklessone · 19-02-2003 1:55am

Originally posted by Sand
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2775579.stm

It seems nations arent allowed to exercise their democratic right to disagree with the position of larger nations without fearing spiteful reprisals. Is this what they mean by speaking with one voice? - or else?

Possibly learnt it from the NY Post?

therecklessone · 19-02-2003 1:56am

The attitude that is, not the threat...

Of course, its nothing the US wouldn't try, is it?

bonkey · 19-02-2003 10:52am

Chirac made an ill-timed observation that the best thing these member-candidates could have done was kept quiet - as that way they would not have risked offending either camp which exists within the EU at the moment.

To be honest, I dont think thats an untrue statement, but it was definitely ill-considered, and the reaction to it has been staggering.

At least he refrained from calling them "sausage-eating war mongers" or an "axis of suckups" or something though.

He also managed to refrain from stating that the fact that these nations didnt bow down and do his bidding unquestioned threatened their membership and/or the existence of the organisation as a whole.

No - such excesses have been limited to the US political and media reaction to the world not obeying their every wish on this issue.

So if you're trying to show that Europe is just as bad as the US here, Sand, I think you'll need a bit more ammo. Yes, Chirac was out of line, but compared to the US - at least he can still see where the line is.

jc

therecklessone · 19-02-2003 2:30pm

Actually, I felt he didn't have the US in mind at all bonkey.

I don't know whether he realised the irony of criticising the French for something that the US has done since the end of the 2nd World War.

Sand · 19-02-2003 7:55pm

No Reckless, I was appreciating the irony of France arguing that it had a right to disagree with the US, that it could disagree with the US and still be its friend and that the US shouldnt take it personally. And what do they do when smaller nations disagree with them? Practice what they preach? Pfffft. You might argue the US uses similar bullyboy tactics but its hilarious to see France argue for the rights of smaller nations in the face of bullyboy tactics whilst *at the same time* using such bullyboy tactics and threats to silence any dissenters. Thats the real irony:)

Chirac made an ill-timed observation that the best thing these member-candidates could have done was kept quiet - as that way they would not have risked offending either camp which exists within the EU at the moment.

It seems what he said was that countries which exspressed support of the US were threatening their potential membership of the EU - It seems that under the French model European membership requires certain conditions in the fields of economics, humand rights, competition and finance - and also its a damn good idea to think what France thinks or shut the hell up. Tony Blair and the other pro- US european leaders made no threats against the candidates to influence their decisions. Blair has in fact come out saying that all nations should be free to make up their minds.

So if you're trying to show that Europe is just as bad as the US here, Sand, I think you'll need a bit more ammo. Yes, Chirac was out of line, but compared to the US - at least he can still see where the line is.

True - in the US media commentators call the French names, in France, Chirac, leader of his country, threatens to throw a spanner in the works of nations entry to the EU unless they follow the French line. Its on an entirely different scale as you say. The reaction of the candidates is extremely predictable to such cheap threats, much as is Chiracs attitude. The French have always viewed the European project merely as a chance to build a Greater France.

therecklessone · 20-02-2003 3:48am

Originally posted by Sand
No Reckless, I was appreciating the irony of France arguing that it had a right to disagree with the US, that it could disagree with the US and still be its friend and that the US shouldnt take it personally. And what do they do when smaller nations disagree with them? Practice what they preach? Pfffft. You might argue the US uses similar bullyboy tactics but its hilarious to see France argue for the rights of smaller nations in the face of bullyboy tactics whilst *at the same time* using such bullyboy tactics and threats to silence any dissenters. Thats the real irony:)

Fair enough point. Slightly similar to one I raised today with a Sinn Fein supporting mate of mine who would be slighly wary of the US to say the least. My own opinion was that to do as Chirac is reported as doing, he loses much of the legitimacy he has in arguing against the US on its stance regarding the current crisis. He appears no more a diplomat than Bush does.

True - in the US media commentators call the French names, in France, Chirac, leader of his country, threatens to throw a spanner in the works of nations entry to the EU unless they follow the French line.

Yes, but when the US chooses to deal with lesser nations than France it chooses far more than name calling...economic pressure for a start. There is little difference in general policy, both choose to exert influence by whatever means possible.

20-02-2003 10:18am

True - in the US media commentators call the French names, in France, Chirac, leader of his country, threatens to throw a spanner in the works of nations entry to the EU unless they follow the French line. Its on an entirely different scale as you say. The reaction of the candidates is extremely predictable to such cheap threats, much as is Chiracs attitude. The French have always viewed the European project merely as a chance to build a Greater France.

Just as Ireland viewed joining the EU, as a way to receive grants. Everyone that joined the EU have their own ideas of what they should receive from it.

No Reckless, I was appreciating the irony of France arguing that it had a right to disagree with the US, that it could disagree with the US and still be its friend and that the US shouldnt take it personally. And what do they do when smaller nations disagree with them? Practice what they preach? Pfffft. You might argue the US uses similar bullyboy tactics but its hilarious to see France argue for the rights of smaller nations in the face of bullyboy tactics whilst *at the same time* using such bullyboy tactics and threats to silence any dissenters. Thats the real irony

However we're on the global scale at the moment. These countries shouldbe able to interact, agree or disagree and move on. I'm sure the British & the US have disagreed on a number of points, and moved on as allies regardless. It just shows the world that France & The US, are incapable of being leading powers. Politics, especially on the world theatre, involves compromise, and these nations have to learn to fold gracefully.

The other point is the scale of bullying. The US has been bullying nations as to what they wish, since the end of WW2. France tends to bully only when its an issue that really matters to them.

bonkey · 20-02-2003 10:50am

Originally posted by Sand
True - in the US media commentators call the French names, in France, Chirac, leader of his country, threatens to throw a spanner in the works of nations entry to the EU unless they follow the French line. Its on an entirely different scale as you say.

I was talking more about rhetoric like "you're either with us or against us", the increasingly frequent comments about how not subserviently following the US line means the UN is becoming irrelevant, that France is no longer an ally, and in fact is threatening the NATO alliance through its disagreement etc. etc. etc.

You know - the "entirely different scale" we have heard from the US administration, senate representatives, and other senior members of government when discussing this and/or issuing general rhetoric about the whole issue?

This is a little bit more than the US media calling Europe names, wouldnt you agree?

But I suppose the US isnt repeatedly issuing and re-iterating these thinly veiled threats, just stating facts, or something.

Chirac, though, would be clearly a sabre rattling hypocrite.

Like I said...a long way...only I wasnt talking just about the reporters. Thats why I used the term "political and media reaction" and some other references to the political statements which have come from the US. I would have thought it made it clear. Obviously I was wrong.

jc

Victor · 20-02-2003 2:54pm

Perhaps it hasn't been articulated very well, but the EU has a developing Common Foreign & Security Policy. This is why the Greek Presidency should have brought in the candidate states to the summit and why they should not have spoken out before discussions. In a fight at a football match you expect your teammates and fans to be on your side.

Originally posted by bonkey
Chirac, though, would be clearly a sabre rattling hypocrite.

Probably, but it also proves the point with regard to American policy.

daveirl · 20-02-2003 8:00pm

This post has been deleted.

shotamoose · 20-02-2003 8:26pm

But America couldn't care less why European countries back them, as long as they do. They can do it out of financial necessity or greed (Turkey, although they might yet price themselves out of the market), or out of loyalty and some muddled concern for the TransAtlantic Alliance (UK) or because they think it's part of a grand project the next steps of which are to solve the Palestine problem and promote democracy all around (your example). This is a matter of supreme indifference to America, since they will consider themselves under no binding obligation to do anything about Palestine even if they have to promise it now to get support.

daveirl · 20-02-2003 8:31pm

This post has been deleted.

Sand · 21-02-2003 1:38am

the increasingly frequent comments about how not subserviently following the US line means the UN is becoming irrelevant

It could be argued that an organisation seemingly devoted to human rights, democracy etc etc which is seemingly hell bent on preventing a war against a tyrant is either suffering an identity crisis or yes, irrelevant in the field of deposing tyrants and extending the reach of human rights, democracy, etc etc.

Chirac, though, would be clearly a sabre rattling hypocrite.

Seeing as hes criticising the American actions youre mentioning and yet using the same strategy himself- umm, yep. That would be a good definition of a hypocrite all right.

This is why the Greek Presidency should have brought in the candidate states to the summit and why they should not have spoken out before discussions.

Possibly, but then the candidate members would have looked at the fact that the current EU memebers seemingly have the right to articulate their own views as exspressed in the letter of 8 which the candidate countries later endorsed to the anger of France, as it increasingly undermined their position.

It's a real pity that Europe couldn't have got a united foreign policy on this issue.

I entirely agree with that statement re: the hypothetical policy you outlined. It would seemingly depend on who France had oil contracts with though:|

[ARTICLE] Bullyboy Tactics over Iraq?

Comments