Posted on 06/25/2005 11:06:04 AM PDT by quidnunc
The German foreign minister was the first to bear the brunt of rejection for his country. Just over a week ago, with Joschka Fischer standing at her side at the US State Department building in Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explained that the Americans had discussed "at length" Germany's wish for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. However, she added, "the only country that we clearly support is Japan."
A week later it was German Chancellor Schroeder's security and foreign affairs adviser Bernd Muetzelburg's turn. While touring the United States to promote Germany's cause at the UN, he opened up the paper in New York last Thursday morning to read that next to Japan the best the US government could do would be to support "a developing nation's" bid for a permanent seat. It was, as the New York Times wrote, "a harsh setback for Germany."
When German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder sits down with US President George W. Bush for lunch at the White House on Monday, he'll experience first-hand just how little support Germany can expect from its major ally in its efforts to land a permanent seat. US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns has already clarified the Bush administration's position on the matter, noting that more than two new permanent members "could be damaging."
The Americans' clear signaling of their plans to block Germany's nomination is the most serious consequence to date in a typically behind-the-scenes diplomatic battle. The group of G4 nations — a newly formed alliance between India, Germany, Japan and Brazil for the purpose of supporting each other's bids for permanent seats in the UN — intends to force an expansion of the UN Security Council, which currently numbers 15 members, to include 6 new permanent and four non-permanent members. The so-called "Coffee Club," which includes countries like Italy, Pakistan, Argentina and South Korea, is clearly opposed to the G4 move.
The two camps have been forging new, discrete alliances, recruiting partners and threatening opponents for months. The G4 nations need a two-thirds majority in the UN General Assembly, or at least 128 of the 191 member states, to amend the United Nations Charter to allow for the expansion.
-snip-
This, I think, is reasonable.
Germany and France opposed the war for different reasons.
I think that, were there not a national election being faced, that Schroeder may not have come out so forcefully opposed to the Americans as he did. I think that Schroeder used anti-Americanism as a tool to win the election, and was then stuck with the policy. I think that what Villepin did in the UN and in NATO, assembling an alliance purposely to thwart the Americans, gave Schroeder and Fischer enough rope to hang themselves with. Since there was now an alliance that included Russia trying to block the Americans, Schroeder pushed the anti-American campaign long past the point that it was sensible to do, and actually made German policy into what it is. Of course, once national honor is staked on something, and a government has become popular and won an election on that stance, it is impossible to back down or change.
This hurt Germany, because the Americans have always been close to Germany but were deeply offended and wounded, and began to close bases and pull out forces.
So, I think that what happened in your country was that an irresponsible politician siezed upon latent anti-American sentiment and gave it full-throated expression, giving himself a political victory but then committing Germany to a course that caused damage to Germany and did not good. Germany would not have sent troops in any case. This was transformed into Germany voting to bloc NATO from doing anything, essentially dooming the NATO alliance to cease to be the primary means by which Americans deal with Europe.
For France, the issue was different.
There were four strands, one of them venal, one of them foolish, one of them petty, and one of them wise.
The venal strand was that Chirac's party is deeply tied to Iraqi oil concessions and money. Everyone knows Chirac is corrupt. Of course, this arrangement is not different than the Americans' arrangement with the equally detestable Saudi rulers, so the American moral outcry that France was protecting her oil interests are of course ridiculous and petty. The Americans, for the most part, cannot really be accused of hypocrisy, because most of them don't comprehend that the Aramco relationship with the House of Saud is not different than Elf Aquitaine's and Total's relationship with Saddam. This was simply energy politics, and the French are no "dirtier" than the Americans in this regard, of course. That Chirac's party personally skims off so much money is, of course, despicable, but everyone knows that Chirac and his cronies are crooks. He won re-election because the choice was Jean-Marie Le Pen, and France simply was not going to vote a man like that into power. People voted for the corrupt man over the dictator.
Still, this oil interest alone was hardly reason to oppose the Americans. Had Chirac been willing to support the American invasion, after initial reservations, it was very clear that the Americans were willing to set aside certain of the French oil concessions in exchange for French cooperation. As I say, Paris was under no illusions about the oil aspect of this, and the American leaders were not either. But oil was not the primary reasons. The Americans were willing to make a deal. It was not as good a deal as Chirac got from Saddam, but better than nothing.
The foolish strand was the toile spun by Dominique de Villepin. Truly the man is an ass. He has delusions of being Napoleon, and his performance as foreign minister truly matched his performance as the chief advisor to Chirac who called for Chirac to hold the disastrous general elections, for no reason, in which the RPR lost command of the Parliament to the Gauche Plurielle. Villepin has grand visions of grand strategy, and utterly overestimates his capacities. What HE thought he saw in the preparations for war was an opportunity to actually create a new alliance in Europe of Russia, Germany and France, with the other countries falling into line. This alliance would become the dominant world power. It was utter fantasy, and he played before the United Nations like a school boy in a mock politics game. There was not even real anti-Americanisme behind Villepin's motives. It was truly vain imaginings of a man who believes himself to be a great politician, and who has never been elected to any post and never will be.
The petty strand was the same sort of latent anti-American jealousy that was lying inchoate in Germany until Schroeder picked it up and made himself a German Gaulliste.
French politicians have played the anti-American card for a long time. It is tempting because it is easy. Chirac always let's his little Dominiquette do whatever he wants, and was willing to allow political cover to be found by resorting to anti-Americanism. Of course, French anti-Americanism is very wide and not very deep. It is an itch. The expressed reasons are inarticulate and transitory. The real reason is jealousy. Even the French know this. This petty reason need not have been turned into anything meaningful, but for the antic performance of Villepin, on a mission of his own, with the usual permission of Chirac for his favorite.
And then there was the wise strand.
France has fought an Arab insurgency, in Algeria.
France has deep ties with Lebanon and the Arabs in general, and understands this terrain well. French security and defense officials, who actually do respect their American counterparts quite strongly, and do cooperate with them and share intelligence and the like, were far less sanguine than the Americans about the prospects for the war. The Americans not only publicized the line that the war would be rapid, "shock and awe", but the American military, from Cheney and Rumsfeld down, including Powell, truly believed that it would be a quick war, and that the Iraqis would welcome the Americans' removal of their dictator just as the Kuwaitis had.
French strategists said no, the war will be much more as Saddam Hussein had said it would be. Hussein had said that the Iraqis would retreat into their cities and fight a guerilla. The French strategists believed that this would be the case, that the war would be a very long and difficult insurgency. And they did not perceive and comprehension of this in their American counterparts.
The French strategist's view of the War on Terror was that the best American strategy to avoid future attacks would be to overturn the Taliban in Afghanistan, but then close the open American borders, deport as many Muslims as possible, and then closely spy on the rest. French security and intelligence considered that it would be far easier and more effective to clandestinely monitor a few tens of thousands of Muslim radical males in mosques within the United States than to try and control 10 million radicalized Muslims in an Arab country in which taking cities would only expand the war by exposing forces to attack. French wisdom from Algeria and Lebanon was that Arabs are easily beaten in the field, but are impossible to govern, and that insurgencies will have the backing of populations. This strand of French thought saw the Americans rushing into a trap from which they would not be able to extract themselves, and believed, and believe, that an American invasion followed by a defeat would be worse than no invasion at all, because of the encouragement that it will give to radical Islamistes everywhere.
So, those four strands were at work. And France famously stayed out of the war, and Villepin managed to surpass himself. With Chirac, he merely lost him the Parliament. Villepin's antics essentially ended the alliance with America. And Chirac just let him do it. It was APPALLING.
So, now this is what we are stuck with.
The wise officials of France are seeing their fears confirmed in the American war.
The petty anti-Americanism was never an important force anyway, and has now focused into petulant anti-Brussels sentiment (this is why it should not have been harnessed as a political force by French politicians in the first place).
The oil concessions were completely lost, because Chirac did not make a deal.
And the reason he didn't was because the magnificently imbecilic policy of Dominique de Villepin was allowed to try and create a Grand Alliance against America. Just stunningly stupid.
Chirac, learning nothing, has seen fit to elevate this man to Prime Minister of the Republique, so now all of France gets to enjoy the singular pleasure of Villepin's mismanagement and complexes.
Sigh.
Anyway, that is where it is.
The French opposition to the war was not SERIOUS, in an intellectual sense, the way the Germans' was. French anti-Americanism is a dyspepsia. It comes, it passes, and it is not important. But you Germans, you are much more serious about everything. Once anti-Americanism was given a voice and center stage by Schroeder, it had to be taken SERIOUSLY, just as everything in Germany invariably is. And once it became SERIOUS, then SERIOUS policy implications had to flow from it.
And Germans like yourself are STILL deeply committed to these arguments that did not prevent the Americans from going to war three years ago.
This makes it harder for you than for the French.
Obviously the Americans must win. Villepin was so badly burnt he is not going to be stepping on the anti-American stage any time soon. New oil deals have been cut with Iran, and everyone knows that the Americans will not be invading there, so the fundamental interests have been protected. The anti-American itch has turned into anti-European moodiness. And the wise French strategists, who knew what the Americans are heading for, are deeply concerned that the American leadership, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Generals, are not changing strategy and are not doing any of those things that obviously need to be done to win the war. Like have the Iraqi government declare martial law in rebellious Sunni areas and start thinning out the young male populations there.
France is cooperating with the US on Lebanon in order to recapture the goodwill of the American leadership (the American people, of course, have the same sort of moody anti-French sentiments as the French do in reverse, but these things are not important so long as the leaders cooperate). Chirac has lost the trust and respect of the American leaders, and the French, and everyone with a mind, but he must be endured until 2007. It would truly be best if he simply retired into Elysee and shut up and didn't say anything for two years. Abdication of a public role would be preferable than any action on his part. In his role as doctor of the Republic, he is an epileptic surgeon.
Villepin, well, all wait with white knuckles to see what enormity he will inflict next.
But nobody cares about Hans Blix and WMD in France anymore. They never did in the first place.
Actually, I was half-joking. The UN should be in a low cost third world country. Someplace like Haiti. Tell them to fix that mess first, then they can try to lord it over the next rathole. The workers at the UN don't need to spend all of their time dining in Manhattan's finest restaurants. They should be daily confronted with the pressing issues of the third world. Port Au Prince would be a good place to relocate them all to.
"Deutschland kommt wieder!"
Aie! Ca fait un peu la trouille, tu sais?
I regularly consume up to a double digit number of
american sources of opinion, including FreeRepublic, Fox
News, The New York Post, foreignaffairs.
I find it quite authoritarian that you assume otherwise.
The poll i referred to was used by several of these, i
actually read it first on Fox News.
Please refrain from making false assumptions without
any knowledge whatsoever.
Mais à présent, nous sommes bénins... la plupart du temps.
We come in peace!
As Gerhard Schröder will be visiting anyway, time to discuss closing or restructuring of our German bases and revising the cost sharing agreements.
"We come in peace!"
Surtout en haut de la rue St. Denis.
I don't know why we worry about expansion of the Security Council. If you don't like the UN, you should support expansion. The more members the SC has, the less effective it will be.
Google Search for "afghanistan,KSK"
Not a single article in English. As I said, it must be a well kept secret...........Or window dressing for German consumption.
In regards to "lack of missions".....Well, that all depends on how you define the "mission" you are willing to participate in.
The problem seems to be that Germany wants credit for war fighting when, in reality, to ensure that German forces are kept out of harm's way.
The "lack of missions" seems to be the lack of missions where zero German casualties can be promised to Germany.
Germany has had enough historical experience to know what real war is and making a token appearance by sending commandos to low intensity areas and avoiding the hot spots does not qualify as "going to war".
LOL...Major ally! Der Spiegel has us confused with Germany's real major allies: France and Saddam Hussein!
I don't know how they could make such a mistake as to say that the US is a major ally of Germany's.
That is truly a great idea.
Better yet, try somalia Africa! That way the UN would be far enough away from the US, we won't have to be hearing them complain to their liberal socialist supporters here in America called the dummycrats!
OK
If the 2000 on ground in Afganistan want to sign up in the US Army, I'll support them ... knew a first class ex-Ger/ex-Legion (ex-Rus) guy back in 70's SF days.
Otherwise, stay home and build up some cottage industries after the US forces pull all that nasty US$ out.
a) I think they plan it that way.
b) Never trust a politician
c) I won't stereotype germans but I'm hearing nothing here that I might consider OK.
Well, French person, if it will be so bad if the terrorists win -- let it be known: it will also be very bad for France if the terrorists win. It is not America's problem, in case you haven't looked around YOUR country. And you cannot not now join in because, what? You have to 'save face?' Save face but lose your country!! What is it that the Frenchies do not understand????
Well, French person, if it will be so bad if the terrorists win -- let it be known: it will also be very bad for France if the terrorists win. It is not America's problem, in case you haven't looked around YOUR country. And you cannot not now join in because, what? You have to 'save face?' Save face but lose your country!! What is it that the Frenchies do not understand????
It says what Winston Churchill said: "The Hun is either grovelling at your feet, or tearing at your throat."
Expliquez, s'il vous plait. Is this a reference to Rue St. Denis being the street where the whores hang out? -- or a reference to the Centre Pompidou (humor)?
The rue St. Denis is the Paris red light district.
German tourists there, for a fee, do indeed come in peace.
"En haut de la rue St. Denis
il existe un endroit beni
dont on voit briller les bougies
des que vient la tombee du jour...
Les andalous, les juifs, les maurs
viennent de partout, de tout les ports,
les voyageurs et les marchands
viennent s'y reposer en passant,
les catalans et les flamands
vont y flamber tout leur argent..."
- from Notre Dame de Paris
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.