 |
| |
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:26
|
|
Everyone:
I found the following story while scanning the raw news wires at work earlier tonight. Per my occasional custom, the story is posted in its entirety below; read through it and contribute to this thread as you see fit afterwards.
***
quote:
Europe and U.S. face growing split far beyond Iraq
By BARRY RENFREW
Associated Press Writer
LONDON (AP) — Despite efforts on both sides of the Atlantic to limit the damage, the bitter dispute over Iraq has split Europe between countries that support America and those who see it as a global menace.
The division shows Europe’s inability to create a united, credible voice in world affairs and threatens the unity of the West and decades of close trans-Atlantic relations, politicians and experts say.
‘‘If the Americans and the Europeans don’t exercise great care in the next few weeks and months we’re going to be left with an absolute shambles,’’ said Francois Heilsbourg, an independent defense analyst based in London.
European governments also are worried about the damage the rift is causing to the institutions that have been the foundation of Western unity for decades — NATO, the European alliance with the United States, the United Nations and the European Union. So far, analysts say, nobody is saying how it can be fixed.
Britain, Spain and Italy support the United States, which has said Iraq’s time to give up its weapons of mass destruction is running out and is mobilizing for military action. The Bush administration has proposed a March 17 deadline for Saddam Hussein to disarm but said it could go to war without U.N. approval.
France, Russia and China — which along with Britain and the United States have veto power as permanent U.N. Security Council members — are leading opposition to the war.
‘‘This is a very important episode ... The unhappiness on the European side with the unilateralist, militarist, pre-emptive inclinations of this (U.S.) administration is pretty deep,’’ said analyst Michael Emerson of the Center for European Studies, a think tank in Brussels, Belgium.
American menace?
The unease is reflected among many ordinary Europeans, millions of whom have rallied to protest U.S. policy on Iraq. A European Union poll in March reported a majority of Europeans see America as a threat to peace — 46 percent to 32 percent in a survey of 16,074 people across the 15-nation bloc. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
If the United States chooses increasingly to go its own way internationally rather than seek Western consensus, trans-Atlantic cooperation, vital to political and economic stability, could be badly damaged, analysts say.
NATO, torn by wrangling over its possible role in a war with Iraq, might never fully recover, analysts say. To have real credibility, members and opponents of a defense alliance must believe it will act if faced with a threat — something that is now in doubt, they say.
Many fear the United Nations also is looking weak with the United States, Britain and other allies determined to act without its approval if necessary.
European unity non-existent
Disagreement on how to disarm Iraq has torn the EU down the middle, exposing deep divisions over whether it should be primarily a trade bloc or a global power with effective political and military muscle.
‘‘The time has come where we need a confrontation on what are our strategic needs’’ in Europe, said Ulrike Guerot, an analyst at the German Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin.
France, which has never accepted its loss of global power, has long wanted a united Europe that could present an equal front and be a counterweight to what it sees as an overly powerful United States.
Britain and others oppose what they see as a drive for a federal state in which national governments would answer to the EU as a whole, giving up control of their foreign and security policies.
Roiled waters for years to come
Looking ahead, analysts say Washington’s relations with those nations that have defied it over Iraq will be badly strained, possibly for years to come. Talk of massive U.S retaliation is played down, but trade and other areas, already under strain, could be badly hurt.
‘‘The problem is spilling over into the economic field and the United States has adopted a negative attitude toward what it considers to be old Europe and vice versa,’’ said Professor Pedro Videla of the University of Navarra in Spain.
The United States and the EU need each other and new ways to handle relations will have to be worked out, analysts say. But they add it may take years and the departure from office of some of the leaders who figure in the current dispute. |
***
The last paragraph is accurate, IMHO. Schroeder, Chirac and Bush will have to go, and never be allowed back into power.
But all I can say right now with certainty is this: The only folks who will benefit from any long-term damage resulting from piss-poor political/economic/military relations among the nations of the West will be the enemies of the West.
Perhaps it's best for all nations concerned that a middle ground be found, and the sooner the better. I know — easier said than done, and I acknowledge that. I, for one, could settle for another three months or so of inspections if, in exchange, the backbiting between France and the United States would end. I doubt it will happen, though; U.S. troops are massed for an attack within days, maybe a week or two, and France is hellbent on showing the world that it can piss on Uncle Sam's foot and get away with it by not supporting any sort of deadline for Iraq.
No. War will happen, and the fractures among the Western nations — and the greatly weakened United Nations — will only serve the long-term interests of those who genuinely oppose the Western way of life (i.e. personal, political and economic freedoms at an individual level). The latest infighting among the UN Security Council members — both permanent and rotating — already reveals, I fear, the fact that the UN is really impotent when it comes to shove. It seems to have served its purpose during the Cold War, but now that era is gone, and the world is fracturing again into a multi-polar, "Great Power," landscape, it may very well go the way of the League of Nations. Which is a shame, really, because UN humanitarian programs are very useful, IMHO.
Which nations and/or groups benefit the most from Western in-fighting? That's the million-(insert currency of choice here) question, isn't it?
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
I don't think the split within the EU and even across the Atlantic is that deep for now. The European public and a large junk of the american public are thoroughly unconvinced if the need for this war. And even Blair, in contrast to Bush, does not want this war under all circumstances.
The outcome is pretty open. As for the EU, it has always developped along the lines of crisis and progress. From a cynic's point of view, a royal US ****up in Iraq will greatly promote the EU's common foreign and security policy.
The enemies of the West profit from this, for sure. but they have been profitting from the Bush administration since it came to power...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
They don't have to fight. They don't have to send units.
They also do not need to stand in the way and throw a huge hissy fit over it..
It is the US taxpayer that is paying the bills to keep the lid on Saddam. Should they have to do that forever before they say, pfft... strike three, you're out?
And like it or not, the US administration links Saddam to their current crusade in the aftermath of 9/11. You may not see it. I may not see it, clearly. However, they see a link. It was a very large miscalculation on the part of the French and Germans to have got in front of that train. And it certainly is not something anyone who wanted to be considered an ally would do. |
The US asked for UN approval. The French, the Russians, the Germans and the Chinese all have seats on the UNSC. They all have to have something to say about it. That's their job. You're asking them to abstain or be silent just because the US wants something?
Not having an unnecessary war is incredibly important to the European public. By your logic, the US admin should keep its mouth shut and not go to war so as not to endanger the friendship.
The fact is that they see things differently. And they both have the right and the responsibility to play it as they see it, while at the same time trying to work towards a common goal. I've seen little to no movement on either side, so they're both to blame.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Frogger
The US asked for UN approval. The French, the Russians, the Germans and the Chinese all have seats on the UNSC. They all have to have something to say about it. That's their job. You're asking them to abstain or be silent just because the US wants something?
Not having an unnecessary war is incredibly important to the European public. By your logic, the US admin should keep its mouth shut and not go to war so as not to endanger the friendship.
The fact is that they see things differently. And they both have the right and the responsibility to play it as they see it, while at the same time trying to work towards a common goal. I've seen little to no movement on either side, so they're both to blame. |
Sorry, but the hew and cry from day one of the Saddam debate from hither and yon was to go through the UN. Fine, Bush said on Powell's advice, let's give the UN a chance.
Bit him in the ass, it did. I doubt any US administration in the near or distant furture will forget the lesson.
Bottom line, the US is in a struggle with elements of the Muslim world. They will do various things in the next 5 to 10 or 20 years. I severely doubt they will submit another such issue to the UN. There goes whatever influence the French ever had a hope of having in events upcoming.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
America compromised by going to the UN for approval. America compromised by giving the French their second resolution. America compromised by not going into Iraq after Blix's first report. What has France done to compromise with us? Good luck trying to find an example... |
The US was legally required to get UN approval. The US is legally required to get a 2nd resolution. The US was legally required to not go to war after the first Blix report.
Compromise, my ass.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
NYE:
"The US can do nothing without UN approval?"
1. Can do and must not do can diverge.
2. Who said "nothing"?
Grenada - violation. Panama - IIRC there was a clause in the Canal Treaty. Vietnam - The south was attacked.
DT:
"You act as if the US has to follow international law"
Of course it has to. If US violations of international become even more blatant, you'll get a nice backlash.
"The US doesn't have to get a UN resolution authorizing force, as Kosovo showed."
A one time violation without a new opinio iuris is not sufficient for desuetudo.
"If the US really wants to, they can justify an attack based on 1441"
How so? Where does 1441 say "The US may attack Iraq at her plesaure" ?
"And America could've declared Iraq in material breach of 1441"
Not your business, the SC has to decide that.
Last edited by HershOstropoler on 10-03-2003 at 15:45
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"What are the consequences for the US legally if they invade Iraq?"
Without SC resolution? The war is an illegal war of aggression, then. Consequences: All UN members are entitled to take repressalia against the US, responsible US leaders are criminally liable in the Nuremberg/Tokyo tradition.
Of course enforcement of those consequences is highly unlikely. But there are legal consequences. And lack of enforcement does not necessarily render a law void.
The real consequences are the cost to the US' diplomatic standing in the world. In EU2 terms, it gets close to "hated throughout the world".
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-03-2003 13:54
|