redman Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 'New Europe' reads riot act to Paris and BerlinBy Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels (Filed: 31/01/2003) [uK Independent] By declaring their joint support of George W Bush eight states of the "New Europe" have read the riot act to the Franco-German couple who have long driven policy in the European Union. Drafted by Spain's Jose Maria Aznar, the text of their collective article was a pointed rebuke to Germany's Gerhard Schröder and France's Jacques Chirac - labelled "Old Europe"by US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld - for thinking they alone represent Europe's collective will. It is the latest example of the shifting centre of gravity in Europe, which would be reinforced if France and Germany were not part of a victorious coalition against Iraq. Just a week ago, the audacious Franco-German plan for a twin-headed presidency of the EU was greeted with scorn by speaker after speaker in the Convention on the Future of Europe, all irked by the way Paris and Berlin seemed to imagine they had achieved a fait accompli. It followed a decision by EU finance ministers to castigate Germany for breaching the euro-zone's Stability Pact. They also issued an official "early warning" to France. The failure of the German and French economies to cope with the rigours of the euro and economic downturn was a watershed. Easily ranked the world's number three and four in the late 1980s, they have slipped rapidly down the rankings. The baton has passed to the English-speaking nations, enjoying a free-market revival over the past 15 years, transforming the power structure inside and outside the EU. Britain's economy is now substantially bigger than that of France, and London is by far the richest city in Europe. The Irish are richer per capita than the Germans. The Spanish, enjoying their own spectacular revival in confidence after the self-imposed isolation of the Franco dictatorship, have aligned themselves with the Anglo-Saxons. Holland and the Scandinavian states have embraced the internet age with a fervour matching California, and all have been through the labour market reforms that Paris and Berlin only talk about. Together with the Poles, Czechs and Hungarians, all brimming with optimism, and can-do spirit, these nations form a "New Europe" of sorts, more or less coinciding with the core of pro-American states singled out for praise by Mr Rumsfeld, who dismissed France and Germany as the "Old Europe". Tim Garton Ash, a European expert at St Anthony's College, Oxford, said the terms "new" and "old" confuse the issue. "What we're really seeing is a 'new Germany' that is willing to stand up for its own national interest and viewpoint, which in this case is a combination of anti-war feeling and anti-Americanism. This is something we haven't seen before," he said. Nor is "Old Europe" necessarily a good description for two countries that launched the most ambitious currency union ever seen a year ago and are now pushing for the wildly ambitious goal of a full judicial, military and diplomatic union of 15 states, with different languages and intense tribal loyalties, against all historical precedent. Now, which European countries would you prefer that we're aligned with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 I heard last night that the "coalition" of countries supporting Bush and the US stands at 41 cou8ntries. France and Germany can sit around and watch as far as I am concerned. I just hope the Amercian leadership and people remember their inaction the next time they need help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 From the USA TODAYDeputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, briefing a key congressional panel on the administration's Iraq policies, said 23 countries are fully or partially committed to allow the basing of U.S. troops, 22 countries are committed to overflights and nine have fully or partly committed to providing troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Would that make 54? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 I wouldn't have made the statement as you did. Apparently there are degrees of "support" for Bush and the varying levels of support for the U.S. in a war against Iraq is political maneuvering by countries who wish to appease not only the U.S., but the other countries they have a vested interest in maintaining a friendly relationship with. As I read the statement, there are less than 23 countries who "fully support" President Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Then define "Fully" If their are 54 countries that are supporting him even a little bit that is more than France and Germany. There was a democrat on H&C last night (Former Sen from AZ, Domenci?) arguing that Bush needed to prove Saddam had WMDs. When Hannity pointed out that 1441 states that SADDAM bears the burden of proof, the Dems responses was (para) "Well, Bush hasnt proved that Saddam hasnt proved that yet" Classic Liberal response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Well, if I understand the statement by Armitage correctly, less than 23 countries are fully committed to allowing the U.S. to deploy troops in their country. In other words, it appears that some out of those 23 countries, will only allow partial deployment (perhaps only in certain areas) or will only allow deployment of U.S. troops under certain conditions. Now again using those same 23 countries, 22 of them have stated they will allow the U.S. to fly in their airspace. 1 out of those 23 countries has stated they will not allow U.S. planes to fly over their airspace. Less than 9 out of those 23 countries have fully committed to providing their own troops in a U.S. led war against Iraq. Those that have not fully committed have agreed to provide troops on a conditional basis. This would tend to dispute what you heard to be 41 countries supporting Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dukeskin Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 We really, really must have France on our side in this war. After all, who better than France to show the Iragi's how to SURRENDER! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Okay, lets use 23 as the number. It still means that France and Germany are the odd men out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Kurp, I believe this statement reads that there are 23 countries willing to allow stationing of troops. There are 22 more willing to allow overflights. And, there are nine, at least, willing to send troops. Granted, it might read as you think, that there are 23 countries total. It just may read somewhat differently as well, I suppose. I guess I'd have to see the context of the whole discussion to know for certain. In any case, 23 is more than one. Therefore, each time you hear a liberal say unilateral, kindly remind him of what that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Art, I agree it could be read both ways. Why I interpreted the way I did was based on the front page of the USA TODAY which referred to a total of 23 countries who in some form or another, is supporting the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Fair enough Kurp. I didn't see the whole of the context as you did so that makes perfect sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 So nearly and fully commited is the same as a little pregnant:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 1, 2003 Share Posted February 1, 2003 back to the original thrust of this thread...as usual I'm in the dark!!! Rumfeld makes a reference to "Old Europe" and this proves stimulous for more moral posturing by the OpEd voices who populate our nation's newspapers. A German government offical calls our President a Nazi and there is no sustained outrage or moral umbrage!......what a sham all of this truly is..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 1, 2003 Author Share Posted February 1, 2003 The 54 number or whatever is only arrived at if you assume that each country allows only overflights, or only agrees to provide troops, etc. Since various countries are providing multiple types of assistance, I think they're counted more than once using that methodology however. The bottom line is, as Art said, that we're a hell of a long way from "acting unilaterally". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.