| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Britain | |
| Europe has failed us in the Iran crisis | |
| 2007-04-02 | |
by Malcolm Rifkind The Iranians are a sophisticated and sensitive people. From time to time, however, they do something dumb. The seizure of 15 British sailors and Royal Marines was one such example. Parading them on television and requiring them to mouth unconvincing apologies was another. These events have not happened by accident. For some time the more radical elements in the Iranian government have been trying to find a way of retaliating against the growing pressure from the United Nations in general and the United States in particular. They have been surprised and disturbed that as a result of their nuclear programme, Washington has now achieved a second unanimous Security Council resolution ratcheting up sanctions against Iran. The Iranians, of course, are indifferent as to whether the British were in Iranian or Iraqi waters. The British were taken for two specific reasons. First, the Iranians want to demonstrate that they will not be passive while UN pressure is increased on them. They can, and will, retaliate through their close links with the Shia militia in Iraq and Hizbollah in Lebanon. They can disrupt normal traffic in what used to be called the Persian Gulf. But they have a second objective. Some weeks ago the Americans arrested Iranians in the north of Iraq. They are still detained, accused of helping foment strife against the coalition forces. Tehran may be hoping to trade the British personnel for their citizens. | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #17 The challenge the British government faces is to find a means of putting real pressure on Iran that would hurt the regime without escalating the crisis and pushing the Iranians into a humiliating climb-down. What in hell is it with all this concern over the usual endless Muslim sensitivities? I full well comprehend that public humiliation is almost unendurable in high context societies, like Iran and all of Islam. Yet, isn't it about time we began subjecting these tyrannical regimes to crushing defeats and humiliating climb-downs? By walking on eggshells around these Islamic maniacs we balloon their egos even further and lend them ever greater credibility amongst their Muslim peers. I am well aware of how we seek to avoid any further antagonizing of these already hostile entities. My point is that by avoiding doing so in reality we only embolden them and actually exacerbate the situation all the more. Absent a clandestine campaign of selective assassination against Muslim terrorist leaders, halting Islam's threat will require the West to deliver a series of crushing defeats that will for once and all make clear just how much the MME (Muslim Middle East) has to lose. We ARE NOT going to achieve this by pandering to Iran's or anyone else's Muslim sensitivities. As Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali has said: "Given the world view that has given rise to such [Muslim] grievances, there can never be sufficient appeasement and new demands will continue to be made." [emphasis added] |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-02 21:55 |
| #16 My joke failed because I meant to write "War with France" for the second war there. Also, I am not joking. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-04-02 16:34 |
| #15 War with Iran. War with Iran. Call it a twofer. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-04-02 16:34 |
| #14 exJag, is it really the case that the Brits are the largest contributors to the EU? I thought that was the Germans in both absolute and per capita terms. Speaking of Brits and Germans: this past year the government share of the economy in the UK exceeded that of Germany's. There has been a huge socialization of the economy under Labor in the past ten years. Bodes very poorly for the future of the Brits as anything other than a docile tribe of EUnichs. |
| Posted by: Classical_Liberal 2007-04-02 15:20 |
| #13 Personally, I think the reason the UK doesn't leave the EU is battered woman syndrome. It's got that same illogical hysteria of the UK protecting it's abuser. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2007-04-02 14:48 |
| #12 Europe has failed There - fixed. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2007-04-02 14:18 |
| #11 Glenmore, You don't happen to have a link or name for that study do you? Thanks |
| Posted by: AlanC 2007-04-02 13:30 |
| #10 To paraphrase Napoleon; the two primary levers of motivation in man are fear and greed. It appears that the EU is more influenced by the latter. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2007-04-02 12:14 |
| #9 > Please don't ask why Britain doesn't secede from the EU; it's unthinkable, Well If the U.K. had had that referendum it wouldn't. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2007-04-02 11:13 |
| #8 The "unthinkable" part was the analogy, rj, not the tanks part. |
| Posted by: exJAG 2007-04-02 10:44 |
| #7 Please don't ask why Britain doesn't secede from the EU; it's unthinkable, like asking why Ukraine never seceded from the USSR. So you mean tanks would roll and crush Britain for seeking seccession? That's a lame analogy. You might try Belorus which seems to be Russia-light and staying close because of common this and that rather than fear but the Ukraine was kept in line because the Russians had tanks and would have crushed them. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-04-02 10:23 |
| #6 gorb, Re. "rivalries would win even in the face of an awareness of the problem?" There was a psychological study some years ago where the participants were given real money and offered various choices on its use; the most popular choice was to spend real money in order to cause more real money to be taken from other participants. Not accrued to the spender - just made to go away from the competitor. People will knowingly hurt themselves if they believe they are hurting their competition more; it's about relative position in the hierarchy, not absolute position in real space. So, yes, France would hurt itself if it thought it could hurt Britain more. They don't regard Islam as a competitor the way they regard Britain. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-04-02 07:08 |
| #5 gorb, it's not rivalry with Britain so much as with the US. The driving force of European integration has always been to set up a "counterweight" to US power, particularly since the end of the Cold War. With the failure of the Constitutional Treaty, the EU is anxiously scratching for an alternate way to progress with European integration. The one major item that remains is constructing a common EU foreign and defense policy. Britain has always been the major obstacle to full European integration (and all parties knew it would be, which it why they were not allowed to join the EU until 1973, after de Gaulle was out of the picture). Upon Britain's entry, the EU realized that there was actually an advantage to be had, in that the British treasury could be milked dry. So even though Britain is the EU's biggest contributor, and by far enforces EU law most zealously, it has also insisted upon national sovereignty and keeping its "special relationship" with the US, to include procurement, NATO obligations, etc. Their alliance with the US in Iraq has proven, once again, that they are not "good Europeans." Conseqently, the EU's current approach to building a common foreign and defense policy is to drive a wedge between Britain and the US. For example, all EU member states are being required to sever procurement ties with the US and buy only from EU companies -- hitting Britain the hardest, which is precisely the intention. Early on, the EU was France's way of subordinating and punishing Germany; now it's Britain's turn. The EU is simply reminding Blair that Britain chose its alliance with the US over "European solidarity," with the goal of influencing future British governments not to make the same mistake. Britain must learn to behave and be "good Europeans"; the EU is simply demonstrating the consequences of failing to do so. Please don't ask why Britain doesn't secede from the EU; it's unthinkable, like asking why Ukraine never seceded from the USSR. |
| Posted by: exJAG 2007-04-02 06:22 |
| #4 The EU's refusal to suspend 14 billion euros in trade with Iran isn't just about greed or perfidy; it's a chance to teach Britain a lesson. Seems to me as though they are only hurting themselves in the long run. Are you suggesting rivalries would win even in the face of an awareness of the problem? They're acting like they are not fully aware or are afraid of something or know something I don't. Which is possible, I suppose. :-) |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-04-02 04:10 |
| #3 "This lack of agreement shows how hollow are the aspirations to a common European foreign policy." That was my first reaction too, but there's more to it than that. It underscores Britain's subservient status in the EU: Britain is accepted as an equal member so long as it shuts up and writes checks. When the Brits go off and unilaterally sign on to Yanqui military adventures, however, they're on their own, and owed no assistance. So really, from the Brussels' point of view, the EU is doing just fine with a common foreign policy: everyone else agrees that Britain's cheese should be left out in the wind. The fact that Britain expects the entire bloc to support them only proves that Britain, with its continued belief in sovereignty, national interests, and a transatlantic alliance, is the odd man out, and therefore getting its just deserts. The EU's refusal to suspend 14 billion euros in trade with Iran isn't just about greed or perfidy; it's a chance to teach Britain a lesson. |
| Posted by: exJAG 2007-04-02 03:18 |
| #2 Pull out of Germany, NOW. Pull out of Italy NOW.Let the euros eat shit. |
| Posted by: newc 2007-04-02 03:06 |
| #1 EU is done, they can't even muster up economics sanction. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2007-04-02 01:17 |