Posted on 02/25/2002 5:44:13 PM PST by Pokey78
A RIFT between Germany and Britain over how to conduct stage two of the war on terrorism opened up last night after Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's Social Democrats criticised Tony Blair for backing military strikes against Iraq.
In a sign of tension between London and Berlin over the Prime Minister's hawkish line, Prof Gert Weisskirchen, the Social Democrat foreign policy spokesman in the German parliament, said Mr Blair's current position was "very regrettable".
Expressing the dominant view in Germany's governing party, he said he believed that it would be wrong for Mr Blair to depart, without consultation, from a policy agreed with the leaders of Germany, France, Italy and Spain at a meeting in London last November.
At that mini-summit in Downing Street, the Europeans decided to apply maximum pressure on Baghdad to comply with international weapons inspectors but to hold back on threats of military action.
Of particular concern in Berlin have been reports that Mr Blair and President Bush will finalise details of an attack on Iraq at a meeting in Washington in April.
"If these reports are right, I see a danger that these discussions will change the current European line, which is that Europe builds up threats but takes no military action, at least not before all other means have been tried," said Prof Weisskirchen.
"I see dangers on two levels.
"First, the international coalition against terrorism could be destroyed - it is possible that the Arabic members would not feel loyal to the coalition any more - and secondly, depending on the level of escalation, Israel could be threatened by Iraq. We have to discuss this carefully before any change is made."
Giving warning of a rift in Europe over the war on terrorism, Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, also appeared to have Mr Blair in mind when he spoke of the need for European Union partners to stick to the same policy.
"Only when Europe has a common foreign and security policy, as we have a single market and single currency, will we be taken seriously," he said. EU nations would be as powerful as America only if they were united.
Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, said yesterday he would meet Naji Sabri, Iraq's foreign minister, for talks in New York next month. Topics will include the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, a likely cause of war.
The arms inspectors, whose task is to check on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, left the country in December 1998, shortly before a US-British air assault, and have not been allowed to return since then.
If the United States and Great Britain had paid attention to the changing opinions of the "coalition against Hitler" during World War II, Europe would now be under Nazi rule or under Communist rule or maybe even both.
So in Eurospeak maximum pressure does not include threats of military action. Good grief!
The only way they could achieve the sort of unity that would pose any serious challenge to US power would be to abolish all governments and create a new European parliament, with one Prime Minister. One currency, one policy, one government. No more French, no more Germans, no more British, no more Spanish--just Europeans. Of course, Hell will freeze over long before that ever happens, no matter how much they might talk about it, so I'm not worried, and Tony Blair is no fool. Blair might be a liberal, but he knows that talk is cheap and action is what counts.
Man, the German bankers still p.o.'d that Britain didn't convert to the Euro.
I recall the EU, at least the French and Germans, called for an "EU fighting force." Yeah, right. Some soldier is going to fight for Brussels. The Brits responded with the NATO fighting force for world deployment - Nato plans army of 250,000 to fight 'anywhere'
"Nato is organising three rapid-reaction corps in its effort to reinvent a role for itself after being sidelined by America in the Afghan war.
The alliance would like to be able to put more than 100,000 men into a campaign, and envisages a total force in excess of 250,000, capable of combat in three conflicts in any part of the world for up to two years.
The British-led Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) will form the spearhead of the "new type of conflict" after the end of the Cold War. Five other corps – led by the Italians, the Spanish, the Germans, the Dutch, Turkey and a Franco-German Eurocorps – are also being formed. They are expected to be amalgamated into two, to supplement the ARRC.
The various corps will be multinational, with ARRC, for which the UK will supply 60 per cent of the personnel, as their model. Nato's plans to present a united force for use in global conflict is the result of soul-searching in response to the US making clear it is capable of mounting military operations without help from its allies."
Note how it will be (thankfully) British led. And what is the "Franco-German Eurocorps?" Creepy, some plan probably already on the books, now being coopted.
In other words, "Keep goose-stepping in line Herr Blair -- ve have von mind and vill. You must NOT disagree vis ze Fazerland or France."
Even Blair knows a winning team when he sees it...AND a losing team.
No joke. Look at my "Franco-German Eurocorps" note above.
EUROPE'S RAPID REACTION FORCE: WHAT, WHY, AND HOW? (Feb. 2001)
"At the dawn of the new century, the European Union (EU) apparently has resolved on the radical new step of creating its own military force. For Americans accustomed to seeing Europe through a NATO lens, three questions come immediately to mind. Who needs the new force? What does it mean for NATO and U.S.-European relations? And, in the end, will the Europeans spend the money?....
While the idea of a European force has been a staple of discussion since the Pleven plan of the early 1950s, its latest incarnation took shape when the European Union resolved in to create a Common Foreign and Security Policy as part of the Maastricht Treaty in 1991. This step reflected the EU's desire to assert an international political role commensurate with its economic strength while preserving Franco-German unity after the end of the Cold War and German unification. A Franco-German corps was formed in 1991 with headquarters in Strasbourg, and later expanded into the Eurocorps, with 50,000 troops from five countries. The corps was largely symbolic for it drew on the same national contingents also formally committed to NATO. ..."
Yeah, how about the appropo monicker indeed -- "creepy" Franco-German Euro-Corps.?? Isn't that like mating a beagle with a pit bull? The first area of contention between the two "allies" will be the French Army's insistance on chartreuse and muave chamoflage "gear."
I can imagine that old Saddam is losing a lot of sleep these days. How would you like to go to bed every night knowing that "maximum pressure" was coming your way?
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.