You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Europe
Anglo-French talks try to heal Iraq rift
2003-05-10
AprÚs le row, le rapprochement. In a unique joint interview, Britain's Europe minister Denis MacShane and his French counterpart Noëlle Lenoir promised to heal the Anglo-French rift opened by the divisions on Iraq. "We did not share views on one subject, the Iraqi crisis, but and it should have consequences has not and must not interrupt our wider relations," Ms Lenoir insisted after talks on the constitution of Europe.
Oh Noelle, you kidder you!
Ms Lenoir, a lawyer and former civil servant, was appointed by President Jacques Chirac last summer. She insisted her boss has never stopped talking to Tony Blair.
The question is whether Tony stopped talking to him. And what Tony stopped saying.
She denied that France was bent on setting itself up as a rival to the US since it isn't possible. The French believed "Europe has to be a superpower — as strong as the United States because that is good for Europeans and good for the world, including the Americans".
Noelle, honey, wake up from the dream.
Mr MacShane said: "Europe is falling behind economically, militarily and morally. We have become so engrossed by socialism politics in Europe that we are not noticing that we are becoming poorer and poorer relative to the US. This is not a huge diplomatic game. If France and Britain fall out, no one in Europe will benefit".
Except for the Brits, the Spanish, the Poles, the Italians, the Czechs, ...
Mr MacShane, the government's leading polyanna europhile, is working tirelessly to patch up relations. He travelled with Ms Lenoir to Latvia last week to discuss EU enlargement, held talks in London this week and next week will share a platform in the Dordogne on the future of Europe with the French prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin. But the diplomatic task is mountainous. The two politicians were speaking on Thursday — the day, elsewhere in London, the defence secretary Geoff Hoon had assembled military chiefs from 15 countries to create a stabilisation force in Iraq outside the umbrella of the UN or Nato. France, along with Germany, did not join the discussions and weren't invited anyway, a sign that reverberations of the row will continue at the UN. Ms Lenoir preferred to concentrate on areas where France and the UK could work together. "We have never stopped discussing defence... We are both preoccupied by the fact that EU nations' defence budgets are falling."
Unlike the US and the Brits, the French aren't willing to do anything about it.
She asserted that France was not interested in any kind of European defence role that duplicated or usurped Nato.
One that could replace NATO, however, would be of interest to them.
There had been misunderstandings about the defence summit France held with Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg. "If you look closely at the declaration it is perfectly compatible with what was agreed between ourselves and the British at the St Malo summit where we also accomplished nothing of importance." Mr MacShane also appeared relaxed about the Belgian summit. "In the wake of the Iraq crisis, more attention was paid to that meeting than it warranted since it meant nothing." Ms Lenoir also argued that the French and British were now at the helm of the economic reform programme. "We have never stopped working hard on the economic strategy agreed by the EU at Lisbon. "Our market culture in the past has been different to Britain, but we are now determined to reform drastically the market in France through liberalisation, in every area — gas, electricity, post office, financial services, ports."
"Unless it causes us pain, or our unions strike, or it means forsaking any of our six weeks vacation. Then it's back to business as usual!"
Mr MacShane argued that on the convention on the future of Europe, there was a near identical view between the countries. "On the issues that are of the highest importance, France and the UK are speaking as one."
How did he manage to say that with a straight face? Man, diplomacy is tougher than it looks.
Posted by:Steve White

#19  Aris: we haven't forgotten the help the Germans and other Eurpoean nations gave us in Afghanistan. We also haven't forgotten how the French refused to complete strike missions we asked them for.

And if the French attacked Saudi Arabia (how? with planes from the Charles de Gaulle? If it ever gets out of port, maybe). Most Americans would say Hoo-ah! Do it Jacque. Let's see if you got it.
Posted by: R. McLeod   2003-05-11 04:02:45  

#18  And if France had decided to launch an attack on a dictatorship such as Saudi Arabia which you've been defending nail and tooth, I wonder how would you have reacted?


With WHAT, pray tell? Or does Chirac have imperialistic plans for the new EU force to make up for the loss of preferential oil prices from Saddam's Iraqi oil wells (now Iraq's Iraqi Oil wells.)

Really, if you wanted to beat us over the head with something really juicy, you should have mentioned how the United States kept the imperialist England and France from attacking Saudi Arabia when the latter nationalized the Oil Wells. Biggest damn mistake WE ever made, letting the Saudis get all that money in the supid name of letting a nation control its own natural resources, so that they could finance Wahabbism and terrorism world-wide.

If you really want to be serious, demand full open books on the proposed US/Britain co-mandate over the Iraqi Oil fields, including sales, purchases, and proofs of disbursement.

Provided, of course, you'd open the Oil for Palaces, er food, program books, AS WELL AS demand an accounting of EU donations to Yassir Arafat and the PA.

No? Oh, don't tell me. Let me guess. BOTH used Arthur Andersen, right?
Posted by: Ptah   2003-05-10 16:09:51  

#17  Why Aris. Are you really that computer-challenged that you can't press the button on this page and submit such an article?

Or are you afraid we'd counter-post comparisons as to who's donating how much?
Posted by: Ptah   2003-05-10 15:51:27  

#16  People keep on forgetting it seems, that USA didn't militarily intervene in WW2 until Japan had "intervened" in Pearl Harbour.

The support European nations gave you over Afghanistan has obviously been forgotten. Who's the ungrateful one here?

And if France had decided to launch an attack on a dictatorship such as Saudi Arabia which you've been defending nail and tooth, I wonder how would you have reacted?

France followed its interests. America has been following its. That's all.

And now EU aid has been flowing into Iraq, and will keep on flowing, and I somehow doubt we'll hear anything in this site about *that*, any more than we hear about European soldiers stationed in Afghanistan or the US usage of bases in Germany or Greece or other such places.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2003-05-10 15:22:16  

#15  "This anti French crap is really getting tired..."

Actually, Not Mike Moore, I'm really getting into it. This morning I bought a small appliance that is American-made instead of the French one that first caught my eye. I don't think it's going to hurt our interests to "Buy American", do you? Or do you just not care about the well-being of your country?
Posted by: Tom   2003-05-10 14:55:14  

#14  To Not Mike: you've already been educated here as to the French. No one here would have a problem with the French if France had simply said, "we disagree with what you're doing in Iraq and won't support you." But they did far more: they shared intel, sold weapons, provided advice to Saddam, and worked actively around the world to stop us. They did this for the crassest of reasons: economic gain.

Now a leftie like you should understand how crass that is, since you're always railing about it when Americans do it.
Posted by: Steve White   2003-05-10 14:27:02  

#13  Not Mike Moore (and other non-history buffs).
The Gov of France has never been a friend of the US. From the beginning of ALL dealings between the US and them, they have used whatever was available to interfere with the major power(for the first few years they were interfering with GB and could care lessabout the rebel upstarts).
Posted by: xcasson   2003-05-10 11:41:56  

#12  May they should bring Rummy in to moderate the discussions.

Mark IV: Really nice catch on Rochambeau/deGrasse.
Posted by: Matt   2003-05-10 10:12:38  

#11  Not Mike Moore: Here's some numbers for you:
Epinal:5255
Aisne-Marne:2289
Brittany:4410
Lorraine:10489
Normandy:9386
Oise-Ainse:6012
Rhone:861
Somme:1844
St. Mihiel:4153
Surenes:1541

The total is 46238. That's the number of Americans still buried in American Military Cemetaries in France from World Wars I and II.
I think the debt to Admiral Rochambeau was paid with interest along time ago.
But maybe they were all right wing nuts, too.
Think about that when you're enjoying your wine.
Posted by: tu3031   2003-05-10 09:57:48  

#10  "the founders slobbered all over France in the way that we rewarded even the most minor allied contribution during the recent war in Iraq"

But then some of the same founders practically had to toss a coin to decide if we were going to fight the Brits or the Frenchies in the War of 1812. Tensions were high with both.

Lafayette was chased out of France, one step ahead of the guillotine.

It is not true that General Pershing said "Lafayette, we are here, and you aren't." But he could have.
Posted by: Fred   2003-05-10 08:31:52  

#9  Wow, what a selectively poor memory NMM has! Crystal clear when it comes to events over 200 years ago, but totally missing it when it comes to WWII, some of whom fought it are still alive.

And you don't wonder why we despise such stupid idiots?
Posted by: Ptah   2003-05-10 08:10:13  

#8  Rochambeau was a General (of French troops at Yorktown). The Admiral in the story was de Grasse, who sailed up from the Indies with a fleet to bottle up the Brits, and some additional troops. Both were key to the victory at Yorktown, and good on 'em.

Then we negotiated the peace with Britain, with some help from the Comte de Vergennes, until we realized that the French had used us as a stick to beat Britain with, and then wanted us to be less than sovereign. As John Adams said, Vergennes "means to keep his hand under our chin to keep us from drowning, but not to lift our head out of the water."

SS,DD.

So France was doing a little Realpolitik of its own, and while we appreciate it and all, it was over 200 years ago and has been more than amply repaid since. Watching Europe commit cultural suicide is one thing, but tolerating active French complicity with our enemies is another.

Thanks for the history lesson and please help support Scotland's distilleries.
Posted by: Mark IV   2003-05-10 08:05:26  

#7  I'm a beer drinker myself, but I had some good austrailian wine the other day that was out of this world. I'd take a tall glass of German or English brew anyday over wine.
Posted by: George   2003-05-10 05:20:22  

#6  "I'm shocked and amazed they support CA wineries--since we know they are all run bby radical liberals like me"

So Australian it is, then. Boy, it's good to have self-loathing lefties around to tell you how to kick them in the balls hardest.
Posted by: Bulldog   2003-05-10 04:28:28  

#5  Individual Frenchmen such as the Marquis de Lafayette fought in the revolution out of admiration of the cause, but the French Monarchy (which, you will note, no longer exists) was mainly interested in giving the English Monarchy a hard time.
Posted by: mojo   2003-05-10 02:57:33  

#4  Left wing nuts like Not Mike Moore always forget that without our interventions in WWI and WWII, there would be no France. And the French intervention during the Revolutionary War occurred only after the French had figured out that we were going to win. In their naivete (or just plain Francophilia?), the founders slobbered all over France in the way that we rewarded even the most minor allied contribution during the recent war in Iraq. American generosity and a willingness to think the best of our allies remains unchanged over two centuries.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2003-05-10 02:21:39  

#3  While I think that some French bashing in the U.S. is over the top I try to see the reason.
It's a fact that Russia and France had the highest stakes in Iraq: France was about to secure extensive drilling rights and made nice profits with the oil for food (or whatever Saddam spent the money on) program. Russia's interest in avoiding a war were even higher: Not only would Russia lose its lucrative contracts, falling oil prices would put Russia's own oil economy in jeopardy.
I think the U.S. government (at least secretly) acknowledges that nations are reluctant to act against their own economic interest (even if it is for a common good cause).
But France did more: France used the Iraq conflict to screw the U.S. politically (dragging Germany into it doesn't make me feel more sympathetic either). De Villepin went travelling in Africa to convince African states to vote against the U.S. in the UNSC. And he did it to shove it into America's face literally, making America (and the U.K.) act own their own (with all the image problems coming with it). This is more that an ally can possibly do. Russia didn't even do this and it's not an U.S. ally.
If France went around lobbying other nations to oppose Germany in something Germany sees as its vital interest (and fighting states that sponsor terrorism and develop WMD is a vital interest of the U.S.) I think Germans wouldn't buy too many cases of Mouton Rothschild either.
Posted by: True German Ally   2003-05-10 02:18:57  

#2  Sorry Not Mike, it wasn't the US that forgot that France was a friend of ours, it was France that forgot they were a friend.

And it isn't just "right wing nutz" (do extremist liberals make up words to convince themselves they really are bleeding edge cool?)who have gotten the message, loudly, that the French actively tried to sabotage our efforts in Iraq and have gone out of there way to behave like enemies of the United States.

Only 28% of Americans feel France is an ally of the US. 50% felt that way three years ago.

It's interesting that French products, including wine, have taken a beating in the US market...particularly when the "boycott" has been principally "grassroots" in origin. Reminds me a lot of the grape boycott against growers in the 60s and 70s. There was some organized effort to promote that, but it worked because ordinary people just didn't want to support something that was wrong.
Posted by: R. McLeod   2003-05-10 01:55:09  

#1  Would you right wing nutz please flash back to the Battle of Yorktown? Without Admiral Rochambeau's fleet there would be no U.S. Talk about French ingratitude!? This anti French crap is really getting tired--I went out and bought CASES of French wine--since it is the best--California wines are second rate--but for the right wing nutz in this site--I'm shocked and amazed they support CA wineries--since we know they are all run bby radical liberals like me
Posted by: Not Mike Moore   2003-05-10 01:34:23  

00:00