February 6, 2003
UNITED STATES, PART DEUX:
Schroeder's back is against the wall: Chancellor's tough stance on Iraq has split Europe, change of course could split his government (Elise Kissling, Feb. 7, 2003, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung)Countries such as Great Britain, which just sent 40,000 soldiers to the Gulf, have long kept the EU at arm's length, while embracing the United States both as an economic, political and military ally. In fact, British and U.S. soldiers have been bombing Iraq regularly for years. The conservative Spanish prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar, has also worked hard at fostering his special relationship with U.S. President George Bush.No wonder, then, that these two countries spearheaded the open revolt against Germany and France, convincing three other EU countries and three eastern European EU candidates to sign a declaration underscoring their full support of the U.S. Iraq course. The implications of this declaration, hammered out behind closed doors without the knowledge of Germany, France or Greece, currently holding the EU's rotating presidency, had even hardened Brussels diplomats gasping for air.
The declaration came three days after all 15 EU member states had agreed to recommend prolonging and intensifying arms inspections in Iraq, a joint stance that was supposed to express a unified EU foreign policy. More ominously, the declaration was made public just two days before the newly ratified Treaty of Nice came into effect. The vision of a common foreign policy was a key provision of the Nice Treaty. It bars any EU country from actions that contradict a common EU position on foreign affairs.
In public, Berlin has played down this act of revolt. In the halls of Brussels, its diplomats have been thinking aloud about the possible consequences. Why, they ask, should Germany remain the main financier of Europe, lend an ear to the monetary demands of EU hopefuls Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, all of whom co-signed the letter initiated by Spain's Aznar. Going further, the SPD EU representative, Ulrich Stockmann said: "These countries have to decide which starred banners they want to stitch their stars onto."
It didn't take eastern Europeans long to decide. Just hours after U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell held his long-awaited speech before the UN Security Council on Wednesday, 10 small eastern European countries slated for EU membership published a fresh declaration supporting the U.S. and its plans to attack Iraq. Addressing criticism from Brussels, one eastern diplomat remarked that "Old Europe," to coin the phrase used by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, needed to learn to accept criticism.
We'd be honored to have those nations become states. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 6, 2003 9:24 PM
There was an interview today on NPR with
someone -- didn't catch his name -- who
opined that Britain is now on the defensive
in Nato and on the Security Council, and
that failure of Europe to unite would "damage"
these important international organizations.
This was presented as sound, sophisticated
analysis. I have been reading original
documents from European surrender-monkeys
of the '30s, and it is absolutely uncanny
how similar it all is. A continent-wide
madness.
A long time ago, I was interviewing Clark
Kerr, who as a Quaker student in England
had gone door-to-door with the Oxford
peace petition in 1933. I asked whether
he still felt the same way in 1938.
He was shocked. Of course not, he said.
Some people, like Kerr, are educable, and
some are not.
It is really rather amazing that we, today, have a chance to see this widespread phenomenon of otherwise decent people slavering anxiety and concern over the foul while abominating the good (though I suppose one could say similar things about some people's view regarding the Soviet Union).
It's no longer just the history one reads about in books.