Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 04/02/2007 View Sun 04/01/2007 View Sat 03/31/2007 View Fri 03/30/2007 View Thu 03/29/2007 View Wed 03/28/2007 View Tue 03/27/2007
1
2007-04-02 Britain
Europe has failed us in the Iran crisis
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve White 2007-04-02 00:00|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 EU is done, they can't even muster up economics sanction.
Posted by djohn66 2007-04-02 01:17||   2007-04-02 01:17|| Front Page Top

#2 Pull out of Germany, NOW. Pull out of Italy NOW.Let the euros eat shit.
Posted by newc">newc  2007-04-02 03:06||   2007-04-02 03:06|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-04-02 03:18|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-04-02 04:10|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-04-02 06:22|| Front Page Top

#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">Glenmore  2007-04-02 07:08||   2007-04-02 07:08|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-04-02 10:23|| Front Page Top

#8 The "unthinkable" part was the analogy, rj, not the tanks part.
Posted by exJAG 2007-04-02 10:44||   2007-04-02 10:44|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-04-02 11:13|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-04-02 12:14|| Front Page Top

#11 Glenmore,

You don't happen to have a link or name for that study do you?

Thanks
Posted by AlanC">AlanC  2007-04-02 13:30||   2007-04-02 13:30|| Front Page Top

#12 Europe has failed us in the Iran crisis, as usual

There - fixed.
Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut  2007-04-02 14:18||   2007-04-02 14:18|| Front Page Top

#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">Silentbrick  2007-04-02 14:48||   2007-04-02 14:48|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-04-02 15:20|| Front Page Top

#15 War with Iran. War with Iran. Call it a twofer.
Posted by Excalibur 2007-04-02 16:34||   2007-04-02 16:34|| Front Page Top

#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||   2007-04-02 16:34|| Front Page Top

#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">Zenster  2007-04-02 21:55||   2007-04-02 21:55|| Front Page Top

01:07 Mohammed was a pedophile
01:01 Mohammed was a pedophile
00:49 Mohammed was a phag.
00:46 Mohammed was a phag.
00:44 Mohammed was a phag.
00:15 Muhammad_is_a_Phag
00:09 Muhammad_is_a_Phag
23:55 Jesing Ebbease3087
23:46 Mac
23:43 JosephMendiola
23:37 3dc
23:35 Mike N
23:13 Zenster
23:08 JosephMendiola
23:00 CrazyFool
22:15 trailing wife
22:08 Dave D.
21:58 ed
21:57 Sneaze
21:55 Zenster
21:52 sinse
21:48 sinse
21:45 sinse
21:43 sinse









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com