The Wages of Wuss-ism
Today Mr. Minority says we need to stomp North Korea. They have nuclear weapons (given to them by Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton), their leader is a wacked-out dictator who teases his hair, and they hate absolutely EVERYONE. They threaten the U.S. about three times a week, and the Japanese are concerned that a day will come when the Norks decide to pay them back for centuries of having their asses kicked.
Will we attack North Korea? Yes, probably. The day after they nuke Tokyo or San Francisco. Until then, the Norks can relax and give us and the rest of the world the finger.
Why? Because of Democrats and the Axis of Weasel.
Back in 2002, all the big international players agreed that Iraq was a serious threat, as did most Democrats here in America. People whine now about bad WMD information, but when Bush and Powell were making their case to the UN, everyone thought the information was sound. In fact, some of it came from the very weasels we were trying to persuade to help us. And even without it, the case for invasion was powerful.
The question wasn't whether Saddam needed to be deposed. The question was whether our pals at the UN wanted to help take out the trash. And they declined, mostly because many of them were making huge money by dealing with Saddam. I don't just mean the Oil for Food disgrace. The French, Germans, and Russians traded with Iraq on an enormous scale.
We invaded anyway, partly because the people who gathered intelligence exaggerated the Iraq threat, but also because our President isn't a weasel. He understood the political value of knocking this bum off; if you kick the crap out of the biggest bully in school, everyone else leaves you alone. At the time of the invasion, Democrats overwhelmingly supported it, and months later, John Kerry said it was the right thing to do regardless of whether the WMD's existed.
Then the election drew nearer, and assbites like Terry McAuliffe and Paul Begala and Joe Trippi and Dan Rather realized the only way to get rid of George Bush was to make Iraq look like Vietnam. Or rather, like the distorted picture of Vietnam we have come to accept after decades of liberal propagandizing. They had to make it look like a gratuitous waste of human life. A vanity project. A personal vendetta organized by a small-minded man who wanted to make his buddies rich and get back at Saddam for trying to kill his father.
None of it was true; Kerry's remark reveals how Democrats saw the war before the WMD search turned out to be disappointing. They thought the war was necessary. WMD's weren't the sole motivation, nor were they essential to the decision to go to war. They were just one important part of a big, complex picture.
Unfortunately, many citizens are stupid, and many who are not stupid are so biased they'll propagate and pretend to accept a lie in order to serve their comparatively petty political goals. So now a lot of people think the invasion was wrong. George Bush survived the election, but now he knows that if he goes to war again and things don't turn out perfectly—in other words, if the war is the way wars always are, except in the minds of deluded liberals—the GOP is going to pay a price that could last for decades. And he also knows the backstabbing parasites abroad who refused to help us are likely to shaft us again, because they were rewarded politically after screwing us in Iraq.
So now it's going to be harder to get the U.S. to go to war, regardless of the justification. We know the Syrians and Iranians are keeping the terrorism campaign going, and we know the Iranians are building nuclear weapons to use against Israel and possibly inside the US. We know the Norks are twitchy and bloodthirsty, and that there is a very real possibility that one day they're going to lob a missile at L.A. out of sheer craziness. But preemptive war is out of style, so the next American invasion will probably be launched in reaction to an unprovoked act of terrorism that kills thousands of people.
Funny, when we let that happen in 2001, people—including liberal New Yorkers—were outraged. “How did we let this happen?”, they whined. Well, brace yourselves, whiners. It's probably going to happen again, largely because you won't support the President's proactive policies.
In a sane world, every nation on earth would be united against North Korea, Iran, and Syria. Their borders would be sealed, and international forces would be poised to enter and kill everyone who resists. But this is the weasel world. The world of Janeane Garofalo and John Kerry and Jacques Chirac. If the U.S. goes in before a huge act of aggression takes place, we'll be subjected to the same whining and treachery we face now over Iraq.
So I agree with Mr. Minority, to the extent that I think it's time to be very, very tough with the Norks and Syrians and Iranians. But I think we're going to have to sacrifice thousands of American civilians before that happens.
When the nuke lands in San Diego, will that be provocation enough, or will it be proof—to opportunistic liberals—that George Bush made the world a more dangerous place?
When you aren't a doormat—when you fight back—you always make your world more dangerous in the short term. We should be taking the long view. But liberalism, almost by definition, is the philosophy of sacrificing the future for short term gain. Appease now; pay later.
I agree, Mr. Minority. I really do. But I don't think folks in California and New York and Illinois will agree until they look up and see mushroom clouds.
In The Battle of Loos many British soldiers lost their lives fighting alongside the French against the Germans. How do the French show their respect for British sacrifice on their behalf?
A BATTLEFIELD where soldiers from Norfolk died in one of the bloodiest episodes of the First World War is being turned into a rubbish dump.
This story may not be making headlines here, especially with France making headlines elsewhere, but the English are rightfully upset over this utter disrespect for their honorable dead.
I hope the feces are going to hit the air ventilation systems over this one. The Spanish parliament yesterday decided to consider José Couso, a Spanish camera man for TeleCinco, a victim of terrorism.
Couso was killed by American fire while filming from his balcony in the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad on April 8, during the American liberation of that city. There was an investigation by the US Army, which concluded that the tank commander acted correctly. There were snipers in the area, and the lense of a camera flickering in the sun can be similar to that of a sniper's scope or a spotter's binoculars. The U.S. Army did apologize for the matter to Spain's —then— Aznar government, which considered the matter closed.
Not so for the Socialists, and in their all-consuming hate for everything Aznar has done for this country, the prime directive for Zapatero's government seems to be to revise history wherever possible. Add to this the virulent anti-Americanism present in his government, and Prime Minister Zapatero's stance of actively undermining US foreign policy and thereby indirectly putting American GIs as well as the Iraqi population under increased threat, as well as seeking alignment with Arab dictatorships, the next low for the Spanish socialists had to be to accuse the Americans of terrorism.
The Communist left (IU) together with a regional ecological party have introduced a bill in parliament, which would consider José Couso's death an act of 'international terrorism'. Zapatero's Socialists have said to support the bill, focusing for their part on the state benefits his family will receive because of this, the intention of the bill is clear: The U.S. Army are terrorists.
If they want to pay his family benefits, there's a million different ways to do so in this Keynesian wet dream of a country.
Former Prime Minister Aznar's Partido Popular party is against it, logically one would want to think, but in this country I sometimes get the impression that everything has been put upside down since Al Qaeda chased them out of Iraq.
I sincerely hope the United States lodge a formal complaint with the Spanish government on this.
first published at Southern Watch.
Late last night I saw some footage from Spain's Socialist Prime Minister, José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, during his speech at the 59th UN General Assembly (or Assembly Of Generals, in reference to the many dictatorships holding equal votes as democracies).
I almost fell out of my chair. The integral text (pdf) of his speech can be found here. I've reprinted some excerpts below (emphasis mine):
…On Terrorism in Spain:
“I am speaking on behalf of a country that has had its share of difficult experiences throughout its history. A country in which still living generations have known a civil war, a dictatorship of almost four decades and a democracy that is now 25 years old. We have also experienced the scourge of terrorism for more than thirty years. Over the last thirty years we, Spanish women and men, have learned much about and from terrorism. We soon learned
about its iniquity. We have learned what it is about. We have learned how to defy it, how to withstand its blows with courage and dignity. We have learned how to fight it.”…On the Madrid attacks and subsequent Spanish response:
“Spanish women and men were not afraid. On the very next day after the bombings, millions of people left their homes, took to the streets and squares of the cities and towns of my country and, once again, we expressed our rejection and disgust, our unanimous contempt for terrorist brutality. From thirty years of terrorism we have learned that the risk of a terrorist victory rises sharply when, in order to fight terror, democracy betrays its fundamental nature, governments curtail civil liberties, put judicial guaranties at risk, or carry out pre-emptive military
operations. This is what our people have learned: that it is legality, democracy and political means and ways what makes us stronger and them weaker.”…On the 'root causes' meme:
“Nothing justifies terrorism. It is irrational, like the Black Death, but the roots of terrorism, like those of the plague, can and must be uncovered. We can and must
rationally analyse how it emerges, how it grows, so as to be able to fight it rationally. Terrorism is insanity and death and, regrettably, there will always be fanatics who are ready to kill to impose their insanity through force. Ready to disseminate the seed of evil. The seed of evil cannot take root when it falls on
the rock of justice, well-being, freedom and hope; but it can take root if it lands on the soil of injustice, poverty, humiliation and despair. Thus, redressing the major political and economic injustices that affect our world would deprive terrorists of their popular support. The more people there are who enjoy dignified conditions around the world, the safer we will all be.”…On Iraq and Spain's retreat:
“In this context, I would like to speak about Iraq. But above all I would like to speak about the thousands of victims of this conflict, about the Iraqis and about the
soldiers and civilians who lost their lives. We express our permanent solidarity to them and to their countries. The overwhelming majority of people in Spain spoke out
against the war. We were not persuaded by the reasons given by those who promoted the war. We expressed this view both at the Spanish Parliament and in the streets. We spoke out loudly, we shouted. We also said that winning the war would be much easier than winning the peace. Peace must be our endeavour. An endeavour that requires more courage, more determination and more heroism than the war itself. That is why the Spanish troops returned from Iraq.”…On the Alliance Of Civilizations:
“Peace and security will only spread over the world with the strength of international legality, with the strength of human rights, with the strength of democracy, of abidance by the law. With the strength of equality: equality between women and men, equal opportunities, no matter where people are born. With the strength of our rejection against those who manipulate or want to impose any kind of religion or belief. With the strength of education and culture: culture is always peace; let us ensure that our perception of others is coloured with respect. With the strength of dialogue among peoples. Thus, in my capacity as representative of a country created and enriched by divers cultures, before this Assembly I want to propose an Alliance of Civilizations between the Western and the Arab and Muslim worlds. Some years ago a wall collapsed. We must now prevent hatred and incomprehension from building a new wall. Spain wants to submit to the Secretary General, whose work at the head of this organisation we firmly support, the possibility of establishing a High Level Group to push forward this initiative.”
On Spain's lessons from 'thirty years of terrorism' (interesting sidenote perhaps, Zapatero starts refering to ETA as terrorists from the death of dictator Franco onwards. ETA was founded in 1969. Does he think they were 'freedom fighters' or 'the resistance' before his death?), Zapatero mentions that Spain has learned that pre-emptive military operations have not worked. Excuse me? I was not aware that Spain even so much as carried out punitive military actions. Except perhaps he is comparing his Socialist predecessor's GAL death squads with the pre-emptive military operations of a democratic nation Like the United States of America? He would be saying the same as Spain's Attorney-General if he did imply that.
After that big slap in the face, there is more. Zapatero brings up Iraq and seeks to explain why Spain retreated in the face of a terrorist onslaught at home (something I'm sure will go down in history as The Big Frustration of this government). Basically, he says that because after the toppling of Saddam's regime, the hard part started, the going got tough, and Spain did not want any part of that. So it wasn't Al Qaeda, he's just a coward in general. And the quote on the peace being an endeavour which requires more courage, heroism even, than war itself. Doesn't that sound like “the peace of the brave”? I'm sure his Foreign Minister and Arafat-buddy Miguel Angel Moratinos was smiling contently when he said that.
The biggest shocker to me, was his suggestion the UN create an 'Alliance of Civilizations', including the Western World and Arab and muslim nations. It is the clearest sign to me that Zapatero has absolutely no clue as to what the War On Islamic Terror is about. It is also a word for word repetition of Irani 'President' Khatami's 1997 call for dialogue with the West.
Zapatero fears that 'hatred and incomprehension' will cause a separation between the islamic Arab world and the West. But he's refering to 'hatred and incomprehension' coming from the West, not the hatred shown in New York, Bali, Istanbul, Casablanca, Ryaad, Madrid, Beslan. A hatred which is as much directed at our lifestyle as it is against the Arab dictatorships with whom Zapatero now wants to form an alliance.
The War on Islamic Terror is not about separating the West from the rest of the world, or 'minding the Gap' in the words of Thomas Barnett. It is about pulling these Arab nations into the fabric of globalization, interconnected economies and free flows of information and ideas. It is about pushing them to reform, while assisting them in the eradication, pre-emptively, of their terrorists. To form an alliance on equal footing with these dictatorships does nothing but sustain the status quo. In fact, it gives them, by siding with the oppressors, yet another tool with which to supress their own peoples and to push us for more concessions on Israel, through incitement of their own populations via mosques and media. Meanwhile feeding the real source of terrorism, not poverty, but Salafist Islam.
At best, I can see Zapatero's pro-Arab government angling for a key role in the UN's Mideast policies, hoping to continue the center stage role under the Aznar government, albeit with a different audience.
At worst, Zapatero is moving his country towards the Arab world, literally positioning itself on the bridge between the West and the Orient. Thoughts of Al Andalus will have passed through a lot of sick minds, yesterday.
first published at Southern Watch.
Through an online ad, sent by email, depicting one picture with the Twin Towers, and next to it without them:
“You can do a lot in one single day; just imagine what can happen in three months”
The picture can be seen here.
Apologies, not a lot of opinion this time, but I felt so outraged that I wanted this ad to be seen by as many as fast as possible. Welcome to Socialist Spain, folks.
So why DID Sadaam Hussein invade Kuwait? And what about locking up his son Uday for murder?
According to the political editor of England's Sun newspaper, answers to these questions were provided when the former Iraq dictator was grilled in captivity. Some tidbits from the article by Trevor Kavanagh:
—WHY HE ATTACKED KUWAIT IN 1990:”The tyrant admitted he attacked Iraq’s neighbour to keep his troops occupied and stave off a military coup.” Makes sense to us. Foreign policies are not always sparked by foreign events but can reflect domestic political pressures. In a dictatorship, they take a different form.
—HOW HE JUDGED THE REALISTIC CHANCES FOR WAR: Very poorly:” He let slip he was SURPRISED the Coalition launched the attack to liberate the country last year. The deposed dictator said he had been counting on United Nations’ bickering over Weapons of Mass Destruction to save him.” Sadaam again proved himself The Master of Miscalculation.
—HIS PROBLEMS WITH HIS LATE SON UDAY: Well, they were the kinds of problems any father could have with a son:
He said his psychopathic son Uday, 40, bludgeoned an innocent man to death — for playing music too loudly. The despot threw his unstable son into solitary confinement as punishment.But Uday is also understood to have beaten Saddam’s valet and food taster to death in 1988 for introducing a new lover to his father. And he tortured Iraqi footballers for failing to win international competitions.
Maybe his son was just “acting out.”
In any event, the article says Sadaam was very careful not to say anything that might incriminate him. But if his comments are true we know this: he was not half as smart as we — and Washington policymakers — thought. His judgement was (ahem) flawed………
From The Australian:
Mr Chirac warned against trying to impose democracy from outside the region. “Democracy is not a method, it's a culture,” he said. “Reform is not imposed from the outside. It is accomplished from the inside.”
— statement by the President of France at the recent G8 summit, apparently in reference to the 6 June 1944 imposition of a culture of democracy on France by outside forces.
by Gabriel Gonzalez (Paris, France)
After reading Kenneth Timmerman's condemnation of France in his recent article “The French War For Oil”, and my own recent article “From Madrid to Paris,” some commentators have expressed the view that France is just an ordinary country defending its interests and is no different than any other country, including the U.S. Indeed, for some in the anti-war camp France is even assumed to be necessarily a morally superior nation.
This view is so thoroughly ignorant of French foreign policy realities that it should really be put to rest once and for all.
JERUSALEM POST: Berlin museum displays life-size Hitler wax figure
A life-size wax figure of Adolf Hitler has gone on display in the heart of Berlin in what museum officials say is the first such public exhibition of the Nazi dictator in post-war Germany.“Provided it's all just art, it's permitted,” a Culture Ministry spokesman told Reuters on Tuesday, when asked if the Hitler waxwork was breaking Germany's tough anti-fascist laws banning the use of Nazi symbols and insignia.
It's when they start making him larger-than-life-sized again is when you should be concerned.
This is actually subtle for the Chinese. In 1996, the Chinese were even more blatant.
China, whose 2.5 million-strong military represents the world's largest standing armed forces, threatened Taiwan with missile tests and war games in the run-up to the island's first direct presidential elections in 1996 to try to dissuade voters from re-electing President Lee Teng-hui.Americans have much in common with the Taiwanese and I regret the US showed a lack of will in allowing Taiwan to be kicked out the UN in 1971 and replaced by mainland China. As we repeatedly fail to learn from history, allowing pragmatism to triumph over principle causes greater problems in the future. We should have stuck to our principles and make recognition of an independent Taiwan a requirement for mainland China's admittance to the UN.
The move backfired and Lee won by a landslide.
Despite our reluctance to take a firm stand on this issue, the US has been a good friend to Taiwan and would most likely defend the Taiwanese in the face of a Chinese attack. The actions of both the Chinese and the Taiwanese are not surprising, both have been very open about their long term objectives. The Chinese hope to absorb Taiwan as they have done with Hong Kong (by treaty) and Tibet (by conquest). The Taiwanese hope to maintain their independence.
The involvement of the French is disappointing, but the only thing surprising about their involvement is that they are now openly helping China attempt to intimidate Taiwan. France is primarily interested in making money and instead of trying to do so with honest competition, their large corporations target markets that are forbidden to firms that reside in more principled countries. For example, the French were heavily involved in oil and weapons contracts with Iraq at a time when more principled countries refused to do business with Iraq (and France violated UN resolutions in doing so). Europe has an embargo on selling advanced arms to China. The French have been doing their best to overturn this ban. You may not be surprised to learn that Chancellor Schoreder also wants to remove the ban.
German Chancellor gerhard Schroeder and French President Jacques Chirac are proposing that Europe lift its arms embargo against China, imposed in 1989 after the crackdown on China's democracy movement at Tienanmen Square.
…the move seems to be prompted by political expediency and commercial opportunism. It would enable the sale of quiet German submarines and advanced French Mirage fighters to a weapons-hungry China, a country that is one of the major sources of tension in the East Asia region.
I hope and expect the Taiwanese people to stick to their principles and vote in favor of their referendum. I hope the European Community maintains their ban on selling advanced weapons to China. As an official Taiwanese spokesman explained, We don't want to see the situation where China is using French weapons to fight the Americans.
I remain guardedly optimistic that as China becomes more democratic, more Christian, and more interdependent on trade with the US, it will eventually become a much more stable and friendly country. French efforts to help stir up trouble are only in best interests of those who don't mind blood money so long as there is plenty of it.
Via Commonsense & Wonder:
* * *
Why English is the new Lingua Franca
An officer in the U.S. Naval reserve was attending a conference that included admirals from both the U.S. Navy and the French navy. At a cocktail reception, he found himself in a small group that included personnel from both navies. The French admiral started complaining that whereas Europeans learned many languages, Americans learned only English.
He then asked: "Why is it that we have to speak English in these conferences rather than you speak French?"
Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied:
"Maybe it's because we arranged it so you did not have to speak German."
* * *
Hmmm. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to be "semi-French" or "semi-detached."
This is a fascinating letter and response on Mark Steyn's web site. (Scroll down and check out his... "Letter Of The Week - THE GREAT DIVIDE").
* * *
Letter Of The Week
THE GREAT DIVIDE
I am a Canadian recently moved to the USA with my American wife, and one who has read all your columns for years now, starting with your beloved column in the National Post (R.I.P.).
The other day I saw a piece on the front page of the New York Times saying something about how Canadians and Americans are on diverging political and social paths, with Canada taking the more European route. Even though I've read all your stuff about the EU and Trudeaupia, etc, I still can't seem to get to the essence of the "divergence" being referred to here.
I mean, I know what all the manifest differences are (the nanny state, PC, foreign policy, etc) but what is really at the heart of this fundamental (and historic) split in the Western world? I realize that the same split also divides the USA itself in many ways. If you had to sum it up in a paragraph, what would it be? (And I don't mean just "Democrat" vs. "Republican", or "left" vs "right", since the split doesn't seem to entirely respect these ideological categories.)
Michael Dennis
Dobbs Ferry, New York
MARK REPLIES: If you look at it objectively, the two countries are bound to have diverged somewhat and to diverge further. This continent was originally settled by men and women of similar stock some of whom had a falling out with the Crown, some of whom stayed loyal. But that aside, the two halves of North America had much in common. What’s happened in the last 40 years is that the Liberal Party reinvented the old Britannic Dominion of Canada as an explicitly un-American project: mere political policies – socialized health care, gun control, peacekeeping – were elevated to indispensable components of Canadian identity, as if they date back to the 18th century rather than the 1960s.
Furthermore, since Quebec separatism established itself as a permanent component in Canadian politics, what old-time Brit military types still call “the senior Dominion” has ceased to be an effective part of the Anglosphere. Britain and Australia fought alongside the US in Iraq, but Canada, being semi-French, is a semi-detached member of the Anglosphere. The disproportionate influence of Quebec in Canadian life means that its particular characteristics – post-Christian secularism, pacifism, anti-Americanism – are amplified nationally. Take Quebec out of the equation, and anglophone Canadians were comparatively supportive of American policy in Iraq.
But even that’s changing. Canadian immigration policy is designed to shore up the Liberals’ re-invention of Canada: the principal sources of US immigration (Latin America) and Canadian immigration (the Islamic world, Eastern Europe) widen the differences still further. During the last three decades, as Americans have become more conservative, Canadians have moved closer to a European Union social democracy that somehow wound up on the wrong continent.
* * *
Does this mean that Canada is a semi-member of the Axis of Weasels?
Per Merde in France:
* * *
French prime time across-the-board anti-Americanism / L'anti-américanisme universel franchouille
'Les guignols' layed it on thick last week with a sketch that portrayed a visit by a French crew of journalists to a US Army barracks in Iraq. One soldier is shown crying while looking at pictures of his family. An other GI grabs a journalit's microphone to scream to his mother that he wants to go home. A third GI hangs himself with his boot laces. A background voice says 'that's one less that will be wasted by the Iraqis' and 'that's the world's leading Army looking good'. 'Les Guignols' is an extremely popular weekday show which is repeated on Sunday afternoons and is widely quoted and imitated by every school brat in France who download the show's popular OBL voice to the cellphones.
* * *
I wonder why the French journalists ignore these stories.
(Via Silent Running...)
Which, lets be honest, is simply returning the EU's serve. Turns out the European Jewish Congress has grown a few stones of late. They're defying Brussels and have made a copy of the report into anti-semitism on the continent publically available.
Yes, it IS supposed to have been oficially suppressed.
* * *
Download a copy of the report before the Fourth Reich's Peoples Commissar for Good Taste and Breeding orders it taken down.
* * *
Let's go back to basic principles. Why is a European Union - a "United States of Europe," if you will - a good thing?
I believe that any move toward - or even in the direction of - one world govenment, or even less governments in the world, is bad.
The thing people too often forget is that having MANY DIFFERENT governments (provided they are free and democratic) is a good thing. This is because it provides that thing we in free democracies love: COMPETITION.
If you have only a few governments to choose from, it is much easier for ALL of those governments to become less free. At some point you're going to be stuck with what's here unless you go invent your own country on Mars or Titan or something.
In short, fewer free democracies in the world will have the inevitable result of lessening everyone's freedom over time.
So, in my view, fewer free democratic nations is a bad thing - and is to be DISFAVORED - unless there is some affirmative good that outweighs this lessening of, shall we say, competition for people and wealth among competing free nations.
And, I would add, the combining of the European nation-states into a political union creates, for many (if not all) practical purposes, a new nation. So, whereas a Frenchman might have previously moved to Britain for more and/or better freedom (or vice versa, for that matter), NOW that same person just has a monolithic EU to live in. That person's number of choices of free nations in the world just got a lot smaller.
So, I gather that the EU-philes out there believe that there IS some affirmative good that makes a European political union a good thing - despite the lessening of competition among free nations. What is this affirmative good?
Of course, the above concept - that competition among free nations is a positive good - is hardly a new idea.
What is it, a Constitution or a novel?
I didn't think a Constitution was supposed to have things like, um, character development and a plot.
What do they say in this tome anyway? Oh boy. I wish it WAS a novel. This is bad:
* * *
EU law “shall have primacy over the law of the member states” (article 10).
The EU would have a single legal personality, allowing it to sign international treaties.
In over 30 policy areas, decisions that currently require unanimity would be agreed by majority vote. This means no national veto over EU laws, for example on asylum, immigration and border control.
A new clause would allow the veto to be removed in future from other policy areas (such as tax and foreign policy) without the consent of national parliaments.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights would be incorporated, damaging the UK’s common law tradition and introducing a range of loosely-defined ‘social’ rights (such as the right to strike and the right to bargain collectively) throughout wide-ranging EU law, which the European Court of Justice would enforce.
European Governments would elect a President to lead the European Council and 'speak for Europe'.
The EU’s power will be extended into the field of criminal law for the first time.
As drafted, the EU Constitution would create a rival to NATO, with its own mutual defence pact and its own 'common defence'.
* * *
I don't think I'm going to like the way this book ends.
There is an online petition for a referendum on this ... book.
For comparison purposes, here are links to the United States Constitution and the proposed European Union Constitution.
The above version of the U.S. Constitution is 18 pages. The above version of the EU Constitution is well over 200 pages.
Here's another link to the text of the U.S. Constitution, with some explanatory notes.
Not all of the French hate America and George W. Bush. Sabine Herold leads the group Liberte j'ecris ton nom. This new French libertarian organization sprang up when people, long frustrated with union thugs shutting down the French economy to force the government to bend to their wishes, took to the streets in massive numbers in May and June of 2003. Twenty-two year-old Sabine Herold is the best thing happening in France today.
Here are some excerpts from an article in the Daily Telegraph on Ms. Herold:
* * *
Dubbed France's Lady Thatcher by the newspapers, Mademoiselle Herold has been leading the rallies against the unions who have been crippling her country. Standing on a telephone box in her pearl earrings and high heels, she addresses crowds of 80,000, urging them to rise up against the striking teachers, Metro workers, rubbish collectors and air traffic controllers who are ruining people's lives. With her student friends, she has set up an organisation: Liberte J'Ecris Ton Nom, which has thousands of members, demanding that France reforms.
* * *
Here, she has been called Joan of Arc. "That is stupid," she says. "I love Britain. I love Margaret Thatcher. I love the way you have overcome the unions and are not afraid to privatise. I love the way you work so hard. In France, we have become lazy and staid. We think only of weekends, holidays and how great we once were. We need a dose of Thatcherism."
She doesn't want to go to Wimbledon. "No, I am here to work. Margaret Thatcher lived on five hours' sleep; so can I."
* * *
Back on Oxford Street, she wants to go to the cheapest stores. "Our Left-wing newspapers say that I must be rich not to champion the workers. They say I dress only in Hermes. But my coat is from Etam. My mother is a school teacher who refuses to strike, my father a professor. My brother is a table-tennis player. We are from a small village near Reims. We work hard but I have no family money."
* * *
At supper, she meets three of the youngest high-flying Tory MPs: Boris Johnson, MP for Henley; David Cameron, MP for Witney; and George Osborne, MP for Tatton. She is smitten. They start talking about the 48-hour working week. "In France, it is 35 hours - ludicrous, no?" George Orwell's Animal Farm, she tells them, was the first political tract she ever read. "It blew me away. In France, communism is not a dirty word - many of the trade unions are openly communist. Being Right-wing and libertarian is considered dangerous."
* * *
We arrive at the paintings of the Battle of Trafalgar and the Battle of Waterloo. "It is a pity that France and England still fight," she says. "President Chirac was spineless over the war. I led a pro-war rally. I almost collapsed in shock when I heard he was up for the Nobel Peace Prize. It was Saddam Hussein's regime, not President Bush's, that was despicable. I adore France. I will never leave - I love my cafes too much - but that does not mean I hate Britain or America."
* * *
The stories in our newspapers fascinate her. "What is this anti-smacking law? What is wrong with a quick smack? I thought only the French liked these silly laws. In Finland, men are made to do 40 per cent of the housework. Libertarians in every country should rise up against this madness."
She wants to go to a bookshop. We pass the pile of Harry Potters, but she heads straight for Wilkes and Burke: "Your great writers about freedom". She is surprised by the amount of books that are anti-American. "I thought it was just us. In France, we are taught in school about American imperialism, that all Americans are either fat or work in sweatshops."
* * *
As we head for the Eurostar, she is wistful. "I would love to live here, but my place is in France. I want to make us great again."
* * *
Sabine Herold is also featured in this month's Reason Magazine, in an article by blogger Matt Welch.
In today's Winds of Change.NET guest blog feature, Gabriel Gonzalez of Paris, France, writes about some French intellectuals making strong, beautifully-argued cases against the growing tide of hatred and idiotarianism there. These guys are good, too - I'm talking Mark Steyn or Victor Davis Hanson class. You owe it to yourself to get to know them better.
Gabriel's post is especially timely in the wake of P.'s exchange with Norwegian Blogger about the EU and the future of Europe, and chilling pieces from Israeli writers like Hillel Halkin who openly wonders "Will Jews have a place in the new Europe?" Thankfully, Sabine Herold isn't the only brave voice in France these days. But will it be enough?
Finkielkraut et. al. - The Coming Anti-Semitism
by Gabriel Gonzalez
The right-leaning French newspaper Le Figaro published an interview last week with leading French intellectual Alain Finkielkraut entitled "The Coming Anti-Semitism." The article (English translation here), as its title suggests, focuses on anti-Semitism, but deals more generally with the radicalization of the French Left around an extremist and simplistic Anti-Americanism which has been fused with Anti-Semitism. A few passages:
"After a brief interlude, the grand simplifiers are back. We have seen, since the end of Communism, a stupefying re-Stalinization of part of the intelligentsia and the progressive movement… [The] image of an all-powerful America breathes new life into the pernicious notion that politics is responsible for everything: all disasters are perceived as crimes; the objective universe appears to be made up of subjective wills, those that fight against evil and those that foment it. Thus conspiracy thinking is again taking over simple minds, and conspiracy leads sooner or later to the Elders of Zion."
Reaping the World's Disfavor (washingtonpost.com)
The author is right about one thing: our ability to wage war is unparalleled in history and is even more remarkable when you consider our ability to minimize civilian casualties: 3240 for the Iraqi war. As for our popularity and our soft power -- the ability to sway people through diplomacy -- it's a secondary consideration. I'd rather be feared and unpopular but still do the right thing, than be loved and do the wrong thing.
There are a couple of interesting points here: the idea the the EU will act as a counterweight to the U.S. and the related idea that a western alliance -- the one the author says is coming unglued -- is even necessary.
Regarding the EU as a counterweight to the United States, it doesn't matter if the EU grows in strength relative to us or not. How many parents have told their children that "I love you both equally"? There's some wisdom in that statement. Even if the EU emerges as a strong military and economic force, they aren't taking anything away from us; we'll continue to do the right things -- hopefully -- and continue to prosper and have a strong military. Economics is definitely not a fixed pie and seeing the EU prosper creates customers and employers for us. In world affairs, unless the EU planned to go to war with us, I don't see how we lose anything.
As for the Western alliance -- read "NATO" -- it's a relic of the Cold War and I'm surprised we're even still in it. The only real benefit I see -- and it's not for us -- is the recent expansion to include former Soviet countries. It provides them with some assurance that they will remain unmolested by Russia or some other enemy. Of course, we could establish treaties with these countries in place of NATO and accomplish the same thing.
The last paragraph of this column -- where the author calls President Bush a xenophobe -- is libelous. An outright lie. Just because the President doesn't favor multilateral institutions doesn't make him a xenophobe. Would a xenophobe favor expanding immigration -- which admittedly got derailed by 9/11 -- or seek to project Western values such as liberalism to other parts of the world? I think not. He simply has values and understands that some values are objectively better than others.
Save for the continuing search for its justification, the war in Iraq is over. For the United States, if not yet for Iraq, the consequences are clear. We have established yet again the utter supremacy of our hard power.The world is adjusting to a new reality and, when they discover we have no intention of trampling on their rights they'll get accustomed to it.Unfriendly governments tremble anew at our armed might and our willingness to use it. Some, to be sure, are hard at work building their atomic arsenals, and the last thing we need is a trembling adversary with a nuclear trigger. Still, if the challenge before us is military, our government is justly confident we can deter or defeat it.
But when it comes to our soft power -- our ability to persuade nations to work with us, to inspire their people to admire us and our social arrangements and ideals -- we have all but unilaterally disarmed. At least so long as George W. Bush is president.
Consider some new polling by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which measured public opinion in 44 nations during the summer and fall of 2002 and took further soundings in 21 nations in late April and May. All told, 54,000 people were surveyed, the clear majority of whom were mightily peeved at the United States in general and Bush in particular.
Not surprisingly, the number of people holding a favorable view of the United States has plunged in the wake of the war. Last summer the percentage of Germans who viewed us positively was 61 percent; today it's 45 percent. In France, our favorability rating has declined from 63 percent then to 43 percent now. In Spain, where Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's government supported the war, U.S. favorability ratings are down to a scant 38 percent.
Look at the numbers a little more and you see unmistakable evidence that support for the Western alliance is coming unglued. The idea that Western Europe should have an approach to security and diplomatic matters that's more independent of the United States won the support of 76 percent of the French, 62 percent of the Spanish, 61 percent of the Italians, 57 percent of the Germans. If the Bush administration's goal was to keep the European Union from becoming a rival superpower, its war seems to have had precisely the opposite effect.
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | US attacks Belgium war crimes law
Is Belgium trying to destroy NATO? I wouldn't mind if they did since it serves little purpose anymore, but this is a pretty poor way to go about it. If it's to be dissolved it ought to be done in a mutually agreed upon manner. Belgian hubris, in the end, would look like a sorry end to NATO, though it would be a valid one.
Their insane claim of "universal jurisdiction" to prosecute what they deem to be crimes against humanity is about more than just building a new NATO headquarters building in Brussels. It's also about future American participation in "peacekeeping" exercises. Am I exaggerating? They currently have charges outstanding against Bush 41, Colin Powell and Dick Cheney over the first Gulf War. As war criminals. Tommy Franks is the latest addition to their list for his command of the second Gulf War.
I'll repeat what I've said in the past: 1) Belgium has no authority to prosecute crimes beyond its own borders and 2) if they ever pursue an American official they should be prepared to go to war over it. We won't tolerate it.
The United States has renewed controversy within Nato over Belgian legislation which makes foreigners vulnerable to prosecution for alleged war crimes.It's getting harder and harder to call these countries allies.American Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned that Washington would block further funding for Nato's new headquarters in Belgium until the legal threat was withdrawn.
US authorities have been outraged by complaints brought against General Tommy Franks - who commanded US forces in the Iraq war - and other officials under laws that allow Belgian courts to try war crimes wherever they are committed around the world.
In another development on Thursday, the United Nations Security Council granted US peacekeepers another year of immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) by 12 votes to none.
Speaking after a meeting of Nato defence ministers in Brussels, Mr Rumsfeld said it did not "make much sense to make a new headquarters if you can't come here for meetings".
According to the BBC's Jonathan Marcus in Brussels, it was an unusual and blistering attack upon one of America's Nato allies - a sign that there are still some serious tensions that from time to time break through to the surface.
For more on this see this NYT article.
(Hat Tip Jeffrey Collins)
As one might expect from a military superpower, the United States hosts the most intense war games on the planet. These war games provide valuable training for the US military as well as elite allied forces. This allied participation has many benefits, including enabling closer cooperation between these allies in times of war. The best air combat war game in the world is Red Flag.
...the goal is still to provide training that is as close to combat as participants can come "without facing bullets," as one Red Flag pilot put it.Cope Thunder is a similar program, but is done on a smaller scale. Keep this in mind as you read the comments of former deputy undersecretary of defense Jed Babbin.About 24 percent of all Red Flag trainees are foreign, Droz said. Exchanging "ideas about how they fly and how we fly" is one of the most important objectives of Red Flag, Droz said. ...which has been called "the crown jewel of air combat command."
The French air force has traditionally been on the limited invitation lists for Red Flag and its smaller cousin, Cope Thunder (which follows Red Flag by a few months and is held in Alaska). So when Rumsfeld told the Frenchies they were disinvited to both Red Flag and Cope Thunder, their air-force guys were shocked. Being excluded from the best war games sends two unmistakable messages. First, we don't need you. Second, we don't want you. Capiche?Earlier this week, I mentioned Condoleezza Rice's view on those who actively tried to keep Saddam in power " Punish France, ignore Germany and forgive Russia." A small part of this new policy toward France is now evident.
For some reason, the French are very proud of their military. Rumsfield has, again, struck a major blow against Gaulic pride. Surprisingly, this has come as a shock to the French. I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg. I do not think that the US is going to show their displeasure with France by actively going after this small country. But the days of treated France as a respected ally are over.
It has been a while since I last discussed German politics. Since then, Schroeder has had a bit of good news. His party actually won a regional election. However, even that victory was tarnished for Schoeder.
That success is put down to the personal popularity of the SPD's leader in Bremen and the fear of breaking up the left-right coalition running the state, rather than anything Schroeder has done. Indeed, Social Democrats in Bremen deliberately kept the chancellor out of their campaign.
It might be because he has led his Social Democratic Party to its lowest ratings since it was formed; recent polls suggest the Social Democrats would only get 25% of the vote if general elections were held today. While true, this just begs the question. Why is his party in such dire condition? Is it because Schroeder and his Social Democrats played the anti-American card to get elected? After all, President Bush and his administration are still holding Schroeder responsible for his actions.
Schroeder had been pushing hard for a separate meeting with Bush but this was rejected by US Secretary of State Colin Powell whose visit to Berlin last week underlined the chilly relations.
"We're now doing everything we can to improve relations to Germany at all levels," the unnamed German visitor quoted Rice as saying. "But we're going to work around the chancellor. It's better to leave him out."
When word got back to Berlin last Friday that George W. Bush had found about 15 minutes to personally welcome visiting Hesse Premier Roland Koch to the White House, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was reported to be livid.
A new public opinion survey shows that Germans now overwhelmingly see France as their country's most important and reliable ally, with the United States having declined significantly in importance. The survey, prepared by the Allensbach Institute of Public Opinion Research for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, found that 49 percent of Germans said France was their country's most important partner, compared to 17 percent for the United States.
Michael Mertes, a former policy advisor to Helmut Kohl, believes Germany is less relevant in both European and world politics than it was before the Iraq war. Repairing the damage will not be easy. The Social Democrats perceived mismanagement of the Iraqi War is probably partially responsible for their current low appeal. However, this alone would not completely explain Schroeder's falling ratings.
Most of the fall can probably be explained by former President Clinton's campaign motto, It's the economy, stupid. Unemployment for the working-age population is approaching 11%, the highest since 1990.
Economic growth is well below the EU average, Berlin has given up hopes of balancing the budget by 2006 and the public deficit has earned it a reprimand from Brussels.
A strong euro is not all bad, the US has enjoyed many benefits from a strong currency for years. However, it is harmful for European exports. High-tech exports from the US will become more and more price competitive and low-tech exports from Asian competition will become even more attractive. Europe, which competes in both markets, will see a noticeable decline in trade.
What does all of this mean? Schroeder will not win another election. The German people deserve better than Schroeder, and they know it. When Schroeder is no longer in power, the American people will be there extending a welcoming hand to Germany so long as another anti-American leader is not elected. The choice is up to the Germans.
In a comment to an earlier post on post-war recriminations, reader German offered the following:
What I believe to be interesting is the huge animosity towards the French. One gets the impression as if France was the only opponent during the UNSC-drama. As far as I can remember it had been Germany that opposed Bush´s policy at first when M. Chirac was still undecisive until the Elysée-party in January. Don´t get me wrong, I observe the inhibited and hypocritical French-bashing with an amusing smile while the efforts to reconstruct German-American relations are proceeding very well. What could be the meaning of all that?I didn't get a chance to respond to his comment and thought it would make a decent post. Besides, I never get tired of bashing the French.
The first thing to remember with regard to the French, and I've said this several times, is that we haven't been real allies with them for forty years. de Gaulle saw to that. He pulled France out of the military wing of NATO, the primary device for controlling the Soviets at the time, and demanded that all American soldiers leave France. Lyndon Johnson shot back by asking if he meant the dead ones too. In addition, de Gaulle is the author of French suspicion of "the Anglosphere". He claimed, correctly it seems, that England would never be a real European country because of its relationship with America.
This last bit is interesting for a couple of reasons: it's true and why would the British want to screw up a good thing? Britain has few of the problems of old Europe: stagnant economies with wretchedly-high unemployment, low growth, heavy regulation and obscene taxes. Also, the continent has very little in terms of military capability.
France has been punching above its weight for decades now because of an accident of history: it ended up as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Without that France would have little or no say in world affairs, which is as it should be. There's simply no justification for their influence based on any objective measure, either economic or military.
Why is Germany being treated differently? Well, they mostly deserve to be treated differently. The Schroeder government is certainly a screwy bunch, but prior to that the U.S. has had genuinely good relationship with Germany. In the early 1980's, in an attempt to actually win the Cold War, the U.S. wanted to place intermediate-range missiles in West Germany. Against the popular will the West German government went along. That's the act of a friend and these things are not forgotten.
France would have never gone along. Indeed, they refused flyover rights when we bombed Libya in response to a terrorist attack. These things are not forgotten either.
The French landscape is littered with the bodies of American soldiers who gave their lives to liberate their ingrate asses and what do we get from them: nothing, if we're lucky, and active opposition otherwise.
Germany is treated differently because they have been allies in the recent past and probably will be again in the future. They'll suffer some losses in the form of American soldiers and bases leaving their country, but that's long overdue: who are we protecting them from now that the Soviet Union is gone? I don't even favor moving the bases to Poland and would prefer that the soldiers either be sent to the Middle East or brought home. Their time in Germany is wasted due to a lack of enemies.
In closing, there's always -- at least as long as I can remember -- been animosity in the United States towards the French because they aren't real allies and haven't been for decades. Treating Germany differently isn't hypocrisy on our part, it's just a reflection of the true nature of our relationship with each country.
Look at the seven points that came out of the Axis of Weasals' meeting in Brussels at The Times Online. Then think about it for a moment.
Any rapid reaction force would consist of primarily French and German troops. Why? They have the largest armies, other than Britain, which they are bent on excluding.
They will build a separate command and control structure from NATO. They will establish a separate transportaion command.
I suggest that this is a direct threat to the other nations of Europe. A rapid reaction force under the command of the French, a rogue nuclear power, and the Germans, can have no other purpose than to subjugate European nations that oppose the Franco-German hegemony of the European Union. A strike force of French and German troops could be landed in any capital challenging Framany and Gerance, with little chance of successful opposition.
Remember, France remains a nuclear power solely to threaten its European neighbors. France and Germany have declared, over and over, that they intend to control the European Union and that it is not intended to be a federation of equals.
The kicker to all this is the willingness for Germany and France to spend the money that will be required. I suspect that they intend to levy the EU for the funds, calling it an EU program, and do it on the cheap for themselves. I'm not sure the other EU nations will fall for this. Germany and France do not have the spending levels that will fund this by themselves nor can they afford to increase their defense spending.
Fox News reports that France was giving intelligence information to Iraq.
France gave Saddam Hussein's regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials, documents unearthed in the wreckage of the Iraqi foreign ministry have revealed.I wonder if this had anything to do with their strong opposition to the liberation of Iraq? I would also guess that their post-liberation ass kissing wasn't just about getting post-war reconstruction contracts. Perhaps they were sucking up for the day when we discovered just how far in bed they were with the Iraqi regime.The first Iraqi files to emerge documenting French help for the regime show that Paris shared with Baghdad the contents of private transatlantic meetings and diplomatic traffic from Washington...
The information, said in the files to have come partly from "friends of Iraq" at the French foreign ministry, kept Saddam abreast of every development in American planning and may have helped him to prepare for war.
When I think about it though, France helping Iraq prepare for war would explain why the Coalition rode to such a quick victory. Should we be smiting France or thanking them?
Iraqi civilians are preparing a complaint to present in court in Belgium accusing allied commander Gen. Tommy Franks and other U.S. military officials of war crimes in Iraq, according to the attorney representing the plaintiffs.
Belgium, the only country that will be going straight to Hell, is considering whether or not to charge General Tommy Franks and other officers for war crimes in Iraq.
Belgium, a country full of Phlegms and Loons, raped and sodomized (and not in a good way) the Congo for centuries and never once managed to feel any guilt. In fact, the country is crawling with people who participated in that particular crime against humanity and have never been charged. Nor have the tens of thousands of Belgians who fought with Hitler's SS in World War II. I blogged this here.
And now they may feel superior enough to the United States to try to charge our officers with war crimes.
Time to leave Belgium, move NATO HQ out. Budapest is a lovely city, much older and more cultured than any in Belgium, and much more deserving. Time to turn Antwerp into a backwater by using Dutch, Spanish, and Danish ports. Recall the ambassador for consultations. PNG their military attaches for conduct unbecoming. Let's let them know that they don't mean an ant's fart to us.
"For governments who wanted to lift sanctions on Saddam Hussein to be suddenly saying, 'You can't lift sanctions because Saddam is gone' — it strikes us as pretty weird," the Washington Times quotes a senior State Department official as saying.
Russia and France have in the past consistently lobbied for sanctions to be lifted, citing the suffering of the Iraqi people. Critics said they also hoped to benefit from oil contracts for their firms.It would appear that Russia and France are trying to use their veto power in the U.N. as leverage, to get profitable contracts out of Iraq. I guess you cannot really blame them too much. The lure of cash is just too great.Yesterday, Moscow said it was in the interests of the international community for the sanctions to be removed as soon as possible but insisted that cannot happen until conditions laid out in past Security Council resolutions are met.
So, what of the U.N.? Is this not the most worthless diplomatic body on the face of the earth? What good do we get out of the U.N.? Can anyone tell me?
I think it illustrates just how useless the U.N. has become, and how pointless our role in the U.N. is. I'm all for pulling out, and acting unilaterally on everything we do. When we need cooperation from another country, we'll just have to pay for it on the free market, which is what we end up doing any way.
I wish we could have such a great president, who truly believes in democracy and freedom. We only have an old corrupted politician who doesn't care about his own country anymore. Help us getting out of this hell!
Heck, I thought they meant Chrétien, but no....it's from a new forum where Americans and French can civilly discuss issues together.
Check it out...but check your freedom fries comments at the door.
Via Michel Dumais; cross-posted at The Daily Rant.
French Jean-Pierre Raffarin says US was wrong on the war. He claims we have made a moral, political and strategic mistake in undertaking the downfall of the brutal dictator.
France is attempting to salvage bad PR in the US and UK, while still criticising the war. This is not the best way of doing it, although the President did send an apology to the Queen about the war memorial desecration. I wonder if he remembered to send an apology to all the Commonwealth countries whose dead lie in the graveyard as well.
This PR "offensive" which has involved telling the world we mis-translated the poll that said 33% of the French want Saddam to win (it's only 28%) and another 33% aren't anti-us but not pro-either, is most interesting. It is obvious that the speed and organisation of the French boycott (as well as the anti-French sites) has taken them by surprise.
They don't seem to understand why the US and UK have taken offence to the French being hostile to our actions in Iraq, meddling in the UN and insulting Bush's intelligence. They fail to see why we are offended that they would only offer their help after our troops got attacked with WMDs. And this is of course, if you don't read the French press. Anyone following the French boycott debate on my blog has a slight taste of the vitriol that is being seen in France against the US.
The French do not even come close to understanding the anger they have caused in the US and the UK. They will expect it to be forgotten once the war is over and there is peace in Iraq. Alas, I rather doubt it will dissipate so fast. The British and the Americans will remember the sense of betrayal and anger they felt in the last few months for a very long time.
Maybe the French should take Chirac's advice to the new Eastern European counties. The advice that they should be quiet and think about their actions?
1/6/06 Update: We have removed comments from this post because of an email we received from General Counsel for a company mentioned by a commentor. Our terms of use clearly state we're not responsible for comment content, but as the site is now archived, it eliminates a headache for us. I suppose some folks are truly concerned about random web comments from 2003. ~ Alan
A few weeks ago, I briefly discussed an article about European fears that they would be mostly left out of the business of reconstructing Iraq. The article quoted a Mr. Claude-Henri Valluy, a senior manager at a French firm who expressed the belief French firms would be shut out of the lucrative oil business in Iraq. I opined a desire that Mr. Valluy’s concerns would come true.
As an example of how far the Command Post reaches, Mr. Valluy read my words and contacted me.
Dear Admiral Quixote,I appreciate the time you took to write me. From my reading of the article and your note, I perceive that you are a rational, concerned man and I suspect we would get along quite well if we were neighbors. I also agree that the one of the casualties of the present conflict has been the relations between many western nations. It is hard to remember that these relations were much friendlier just 18 months ago. However, this distancing is why I made my earlier remarks.I noticed your answer about some part of my declaration regarding French fears about future market in Iraq.
I regret the fact that this article did not mention also the comments I made regarding the long common history shared by France and USA and the fact that although France does not share the US administration position on the Iraqi issue, France and the USA are tight by a common share of vital values and common culture and have a common history of over 200 years.
I would like also to raise the fact that I have also declared that I was really disappointed by the fact that a lot of people these days are trying to focus on what divides us for the moment rather than focusing on what gathers us together.
I think the only winners of all this stupid turmoil are the enemies of our shared values.
With Kind Regards
Claude-Henri Valluy
Obviously, the early Iraqi reconstruction projects should all go to US firms since the US will be paying for them with US taxpayer money. However, your concern was aimed at larger projects that will presumably be paid for from Iraqi oil revenue. I do not expect that these contracts will be limited to the US and would not mind if US firms did not receive any of these contracts so long as they all go to members of the coalition to the extent possible. Special treatment should be given to those willing to sacrifice lives to liberate Iraq. I am sure the Iraqis will also remember who was content to leave them at the mercies of Saddam as well and expect this will have an impact on future interactions.
However, I go beyond this. I think my government should cancel all existing contracts with French firms. The US should refuse to give any new contracts to French firms for at least five years and then they should reevaluate the situation. I do not advocate imposing trade barriers or even closing the US market to the French as some other Americans desire. But I do believe that governmental contracts are a big carrot and that a wise government should only allow bids from friendly countries. Friendly countries can disagree. Friendly countries do not actively scheme to thwart the plans of each other. Recent actions have shown that the French – as a whole – no longer value friendship with the US. Let me explain.
I have an appreciation of the historic ties between France and America. These ties started when we were fighting for our own freedom. I know very well that the support of France in our Revolutionary War aided our efforts. While the cynical among my countrymen point out that France was “merely” helping those fighting France’s traditional enemy – the British, I disagree with their conclusion that France’s efforts should then be ignored. So do most Americans – one only needs to drive through the original thirteen states and note the number of towns named Lafayette. This historical relationship was best shown in the first World War, when Colonel Charles Stanton exclaimed “Lafayette, we are here!”
America’s relationship with France was rather asymmetric from that point forward, with America coming to the aid of France in World War II, Indochina, and the Cold War. I certainly do not expect a country to be grateful forever – in fact, I fear it is human nature to eventually resent benefactors – but Americans are constantly perplexed why France seems to delight in attempts to thwart America, instead of just agreeing to disagree. For example, many in my government disagree with the actions of the French government in Africa. Yet we have not attempted to thwart France in doing what the French believe is the right thing to do.
Let us compare that to the recent events in Iraq. When Resolution 1441 was unanimously passed by the United Nations Security Council, there was a clear understanding by all the parties involved that Saddam had 60 days to comply or military force would be used. Blair and Bush trusted the UNSC to stand by their agreement. Instead, Chirac and a few others spent that time laying the groundwork to thwart military involvement. The French government may have even blackmailed other countries on the matter. There is no doubt France threatened eastern European nations by telling them to shut up if they wanted to get into the EU.
Americans have no problems with countries disagreeing with us. You won’t find Americans upset with the Netherlands for their views on the war. However, we will not tolerate powers scheming to prevent us from doing what we believe is right. That crosses the line from disagreement to opposition. I have hopes that relations between Germany and the US will improve again after Iraq is a free country. I especially look forward to a Germany free of Schroeder. I take comfort in the fact that most Germans disapprove of how Schroeder has handled things. Compare that to the French. Because of his attempts to thwart America, Chirac is enjoying record levels of popularity at home. One in three Frenchmen hopes the Iraqis defeat the coalition. These are not the actions of a people who appreciate a close and special relationship with the United States.
For the first time in decades, France has the attention of the United States. This is not a good thing for the French. Actions have consequences and there will be negative consequences deriving from the actions of the French government. This is especially true since these actions are clearly supported by the majority of the French people.
So if you are ever in the US, I will personally be glad to take you out to dinner and have a delightful discussion with you. I believe you are part of a sensible minority in France. Unfortunately, you are in the minority. Until your government quits attempting to thwart the efforts of my country, I sincerely believe our countries will continue to grow apart. Until your government changes, I advocate the US having less and less to do with France.
With regrets and respect,
Admiral Quixote
also posted at Solport
