| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| France "no longer NATO partner" according to Pravda |
| 2003-02-06 |
| Americans are really unhappy about Germany’s and France’s refusal to approve the Iraq campaign Don't make us mad, you really won't like us when we're mad. The Pentagon struck France out form the list of USA’s allies. The closer the war in Iraq is, the less patient the White House gets. American officials keep expressing their indignation about the stand of their NATO allies – Germany and France, first and foremost. This indignation is set out more and more often. Diplomatic decencies are not observed anymore – they do not pay any attention to them. The squabble between Washington on one part and Paris and Berlin on the other part get rougher and rougher. Let's play Hahhdball! As UPI news agency reported, Richard Perle, an adviser to the Pentagon, released a very scandalous statement during his speech at a press briefing in New York. This statement will make the relations between the USA and France get even worse. Richard Perle claimed that France was no longer an ally of the United States and NATO. Now the alliance will have to elaborate a strategy to restrain the former ally, as if the alliance is going to fall apart over to the French negative attitude regarding Iraq. There is a simple strategy if one can extend the good Mr. Perle's remarks: France either gets back on the wagon or it can walk away. We really won't care which and it'll be the same as the sign says at the discount store: "all sales final." Germany’s position regarding the USA’s intentions about Iraq does not differ a lot from the one that France has. However, Perle only said that Germany's refusal to back the military operation in Iraq is nothing but a mistake, which was made by the discredited German chancellor. The French stand seems much more important to America, for French President Jacques Chirac is allegedly certain deep in his heart that Saddam Hussein is a lot better than any of his successors. We could allege a lot of things for certain about Jacques. And we could wonder whether any of Mr. Chirac's successors would be better. Perle claimed that France wants to diminish the USA’s role in the world with its position to denounce any military action that is not approved with a special resolution from the United Nations. Consistent with their foreign policy, France is scared of America's "hyperpower" status: it tends to make people notice that France, well, really doesn't matter much. Such perfidy must not be allowed to stand! As a matter of fact, Richard Perle should have some experience of a psychoanalyst, not a Pentagon advisor, since he knows so much about the French president's heart. Being By George, I think they've got it! Sing it again, Liza! It is not hard to understand the indignation of the White House. The alliance makes decisions on the joint basis, with the participation of its every member. Except when Article V is invoked, in which case all the members who weren't attacked work in concert to If two countries (such respectable countries as France and Germany) say no to the war in Iraq, NATO will not be able to send its soldiers to the Persian Gulf. However, it seems that other members’ opinion is not really relevant for the USA and Great Britain. "The r-a-a-in in Spa-a-in falls m-a-a-inly ..." Washington’s attempts to make Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder support the war in Iraq were over with nothing. On the other hand, all other NATO members expressed their intention to back the military operation in Iraq. It is Paris and Berlin that undermine the picture of freedom-loving people’s unity against malicious Saddam. "... in the pl-a-a-in." This way or other, but the Iraqi issue has become a big test for NATO. Time will show, what will happen to the alliance after this test ends. Most likely, the USA will manage to show it to everyone that alliance is nothing without the American support. The United States is likely to prove that it is too much for a NATO country member to have an opinion that differs from the one of Washington. More likely we'll show the other NATO countries that if you sign a treaty pledging to defend each other, and then ignore us and undermine us when we're attacked, then we'll show you the meaning of the word "perfidy." |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #5 Yank - agreed - I feel safer knowing the Europeans have weak militaries. Two wars in Europe were enough. |
| Posted by: paj 2003-02-06 20:13:00 |
| #4 Don't write off France yet. There are now over 20 anti-jihad websites in France, including www.aipj.net, versus only a couple a year ago. Also a self-described "Resistance" has formed in Corsica, and have claimed least two bombings of Maghrebi targets. En garde, Abdullah!!! |
| Posted by: Crusader Fromage 2003-02-06 18:04:51 |
| #3 Quite honestly if the French vote against or use their veto, then its time to take the 'ol buick (NATO) for a re-alignment. Even the Russians right now would make better allies. (Get them into NATO, what a thought) There's no reason to be so obstructionist about this, unless you don't want to lose billions in trade with Iraq, in which case you're putting your financial welfare ahead of your ally's personal welfare, in which case you're not really an ally are you. On the other hand, if I may be permitted to venture, some of this may have to do with another topic: American support of Israel. Whenever I speak to normal Europeans (I personally don't know any other kind), they put increasing blame on Washington for the troubles in the land of the holy. I wonder how much of this has permeated into political circles in Europe. |
| Posted by: Rw 2003-02-06 14:26:15 |
| #2 We demand more proof, i.e., a "smoking gun" before we accept the fact that France is not our true-blue NATO ally....It is inconceivable that a member of NATO would do such a thing (well, they did walk out before, but that was DeGaulle, see) |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-02-06 13:26:46 |
| #1 From Mark Steyn's colum in the National Post: ...Meanwhile, the peacenik predisposition of the other Continentals is a useful cover for French ambition. Last year Paavo Lipponen, the Finnish Prime Minister, declared that "the EU must not develop into a military superpower but must become a great power that will not take up arms at any occasion in order to defend its own interests." This sounds insane. But, to France, it has a compelling logic. You can't beat the Americans on the battlefield, but you can tie them down limb by limb in the UN and other supranational bodies. In other words, this is the war, this is the real battlefield, not the sands of Mesopotamia. And, on this terrain, Americans always lose. Either they win but get no credit, as in Afghanistan. Or they win a temporary constrained victory to be subverted by subsequent French machinations, as in the last Gulf War. This time round, who knows? But through it all France is admirably upfront in its unilateralism: It reserves the right to treat French Africa as its colonies, Middle Eastern dictators as its clients, the European Union as a Greater France and the UN as a kind of global condom to prevent the spread of Americanization. All this it does shamelessly and relatively effectively. It's time the rest of the West was so clear-sighted.... |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-02-06 02:00:25 |