Europe eight back Bush on Iraq

Oerdin · January 30, 2003, 09:47

I know we already have several threads on Iraq but this one is going to deal with an entirely different topic; that being tension in the trans-Atlantic alliance. Will it cause a perminent break between the Franco-German axis and those members which back action against Saddam or is the current impass just a passing event?

To kick off debate I'm going to quote a recent CNN article where the leaders of NATO members Britain, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, appealed for unity in the bloc.

Quote:

"The transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime's persistent attempts to threaten world security," the eight leaders wrote. "Our strength lies in unity.

"The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security," the premiers wrote in a thinly-veiled appeal to doubters French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to join up.

The newspaper article signed by Britain's Tony Blair, Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, Spain's Jose Maria Aznar, Portugal's Jose Barroso, Denmark's Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Czech Republic's Vaclav Havel, Poland's Leszek Miller and Hungary's Peter Medgyessy was hailed by the Bush administration as evidence of wider support in Europe than had been reported.

CNN's Walter Rodgers says that the White House hopes that it has isolated France and Germany and that President Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder now feel that isolation.

But at the United Nations in New York the split between world nations over Iraq was evident as 11 of the 15 members of the U.N. Security Council canvassed by The Associated Press supported giving more time to weapons inspectors to pursue Iraq's peaceful disarmament.

France, Russia and China, who all have veto power, want more time, as well as Germany, Mexico, Chile, Guinea, Cameroon, Syria, Angola and Pakistan, diplomats told AP.

Only Bulgaria and Spain backed the United States and Britain in focusing on Iraq's failures rather than continued inspections, AP said.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush's closest ally in the war on terror he declared after the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, has been battling to persuade his EU counterparts to back Bush's hardline stance toward Iraq.

The idea for the joint article originated not with Blair but with Aznar, Reuters reported.

White House officials said they welcomed the declaration as proof of Europe's support for President Bush's position. It also proves that only a minority of European nations are opposed to Bush's stance regarding Iraq, they said.

Blair met Berlusconi in London on Wednesday evening and is due to drop in on Aznar on Thursday on his way to meet Bush at Camp David on Friday for what many believe will be final talks to fine-tune strategy before war starts with Iraq.

The eight European leaders said it was vital that all EU nations were seen to support U.N. resolution 1441 which paved the way for weapons inspectors to re-enter Iraq and resume their search for chemical, nuclear and biological arms.

"We sent a clear, firm and unequivocal message that we would rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. We must remain united in insisting that his regime is disarmed," they wrote.

"We know that success in the day-to-day battle against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction demands unwavering determination and firm international cohesion on the part of all countries for whom freedom is precious," they said in the statement.

"The attacks of September 11 showed just how far terrorists -- the enemies of our common values -- are prepared to go to destroy them. Those outrages were an attack on all of us. In standing firm in defence of these principles, the governments and people of the U.S. and Europe have amply demonstrated the strength of their convictions. Today more than ever, the transatlantic bond is a guarantee of our freedom."

Hans Blix, the U.N.'s chief weapons inspector, said on Monday quantities of anthrax, nerve gas and chemical weapons warheads remained unaccounted for, and accused the Iraqi government of hampering investigations.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Wednesday he would next week present evidence proving Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction as well as linking Baghdad to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.

But Germany's Schroeder insisted that even if Washington, which is pouring troops and armour into the Gulf, did provide conclusive proof of its claims on February 5, he would still bid to avoid war with Baghdad.

The eight leaders, stating they had no quarrel with the Iraqi people, begged to differ, arguing that a failure by Iraq to comply with the U.N. Security Council resolutions undermined the body and threatened the world.

"Our goal is to safeguard world peace and security by ensuring that this regime gives up its weapons of mass destruction. Our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat," they wrote.

"If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result," they added.

TheStinger · January 30, 2003, 09:53

the rest of europe are just reminding the germans and french that they are not the only countires in europe

Oerdin · January 30, 2003, 10:17

Last night I was listening to National Public Radio (NPR) where the French Foreign Minister got up and said something to the effect of "this just proves the other nations of Europe are to dependent upon the U.S.; France & Germany are the only ones who are capable of standing up to the Bush regime".

So anyone who disagrees with them is nothing more then a brainwashed American lacky?

Paris · January 30, 2003, 10:19

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger the rest of europe are just reminding the germans and french that they are not the only countires in europe

With this decision we discover many "US" States at Europe. This decision by 8 leaders shows how much far they are from the issue which called "Europe". Because they are on the map as 'European countries', this doesn't means that they are Europeans!
I trust the Franco-Germman axis because their decision for a 'peaceful solution' depends on a realistic situation (and not on 'feelings' for 9/11).

Are all black? No, ofcourse! This desicion cuts Europe in two BIG pieces: the 'american pie' and the 'European pie'. Maybe is the best, because the "old Europe" (Germans/Francheses/Sweden etc (as G.W. BUSH said) can build a stable superstate without the stupid dissagreements of.... 'war friends'.
This decision maybe is going to be very important for the European Union

Harovan · January 30, 2003, 10:19

That's what, the 5th thread on this subject? Oh wait, it might be already the 6th, I'm not sure.

Oerdin · January 30, 2003, 10:30

Quote:

Hans Blix, the U.N.'s chief weapons inspector, said on Monday quantities of anthrax, nerve gas and chemical weapons warheads remained unaccounted for, and accused the Iraqi government of hampering investigations.

For me this is what everything boils down to; that quote right there. 1441 didn't say we had to play cat and mouse with Saddam it said he had to hand the WoMD over right now or show evidience that they had been destroyed. That even Hans Blix admites quantities of Anthrax, Nerve Gas, and chemical weapons warheads remain unaccounted for proves Iraq has not done this.

TheStinger · January 30, 2003, 10:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Paris

With this decision we discover many "US" States at Europe. This decision by 8 leaders shows how much far they are from the issue which called "Europe". Because they are on the map as 'European countries', this doesn't means that they are Europeans!
I trust the Franco-Germman axis because their decision for a 'peaceful solution' depends on a realistic situation (and not on 'feelings' for 9/11).

Are all black? No, ofcourse! This desicion cuts Europe in two BIG pieces: the 'american pie' and the 'European pie'. Maybe is the best, because the "old Europe" (Germans/Francheses/Sweden etc (as G.W. BUSH said) can build a stable superstate without the stupid dissagreements of.... 'war friends'.
This decision maybe is going to be very important for the European Union

The French resent america, always have always will.

The germans need the french in order to stop the new countries getting subsidies and to allow them to break the euro rules.

Therefore the germans will back the french over there anti-war stance.

Luk · January 30, 2003, 10:44

I support decision of my goverment about supporting America in action against Iraq, but only because Poland will be respected by Germany, and other countries in Europe... Aleksander Kwasniewski is now called by Bush, the best friend in Europe, and other presidents start to treat Poland more seriously. Only because of that. But Im strongly pro-European person, and I know that Germany/French axis against America is a signal that Europe will start to unite... The obstacles like this appeal will be sooner or later overcomed, and Europe will be in futher Universal Imperium Mundi, Imperium Sacrum Sanctum Magnum et Ultimatum!!!!

Oerdin · January 30, 2003, 10:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
That's what, the 5th thread on this subject? Oh wait, it might be already the 6th, I'm not sure.

The only one which came close to this topic is the one which JimmyTrick started and... well... I just didn't want to be a part of JimmyTricks thread. I hope you can understand why that would be.

Harovan · January 30, 2003, 10:46

Nah, TheStinger, Schroeder was the first to announce, that "Germany supports America, but is not willing to take part in adventures". If he hadn't done this in the last August, he wouldn't have been reelected for sure(heck, and I didn't even vote for him, but still...). I personally don't like him, his domestic policy is horrible, his foreign policy poor, but I support his policy against the war in Iraq. So does an overwhelming majority of all Germans in particular and Europeans as a whole. If other governments decide to ignore the will of their citizens, it's their thing. Although somebody tell me, what this has to do with democracy.

lord of the mark · January 30, 2003, 10:47

Here's the link to the statement(in the Times of London) , its very well put and should be read by any European undecided on this issue, and by
any American despairing of the Atlantic Alliance.

Statement of 8 European allies

Harovan · January 30, 2003, 10:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
The only one which came close to this topic is the one which JimmyTrick started and... well... I just didn't want to be a part of JimmyTricks thread.

Add this thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=75581

Quote:

I hope you can understand why that would be.

Yes, I can.

TheStinger · January 30, 2003, 10:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Nah, TheStinger, Schroeder was the first to announce, that "Germany supports America, but is not willing to take part in adventures". If he hadn't done this in the last August, he wouldn't have been reelected for sure(heck, and I didn't even vote for him, but still...). I personally don't like him, his domestic policy is horrible, his foreign policy poor, but I support his policy against the war in Iraq. So does an overwhelming majority of all Germans in particular and Europeans as a whole. If other governments decide to ignore the will of their citizens, it's their thing. Although somebody tell me, what this has to do with democracy.

The majority of europeans would advocate not allowing any more asylum seekers to come in(including the very genuine ones). but i bet you don't agree with that

Harovan · January 30, 2003, 10:52

Well, I know that the German population is decreasing, so I'm not against immigration. This secures my pension.

Oerdin · January 30, 2003, 10:55

It's kind of funny that the EU has been set up over the last half century to bring about "ever closer union" dispite the fact that historically most of it's would be citizens didn't want political union. Isn't that why EU government posts are appointed by member's heads of state instead of being directly elected? Doesn't Brussels want to keep up it ever closer union even if majorities in certain states are against it?

TheStinger · January 30, 2003, 10:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Well, I know that the German population is decreasing, so I'm not against immigration. This secures my pension.

I was talking about the views of the population as a whole, it was you who brought up democracy

lord of the mark · January 30, 2003, 10:57

Key points

"All of us are bound by Security Council Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously."

Unanimously - IE by France and Russia too. Any obejection by them now must be in terms of 1441, not on the basis of using inspections for containment, or a requirment for the US to show a smoking gun which were not in 1441. Its too late for France or the UNSC to go back on 1441.

" Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein?s last chance to disarm using peaceful means."

LAST CHANCE - no more new chances

"The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. Sadly this week the UN weapons inspectors have confirmed that his long-established pattern of deception, denial and non-compliance with UN Security Council resolutions is continuing."

they didnt come right out and say "material breach" as UK has, but came pretty close.

"Europe has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Indeed, they are the first victims of Iraq?s current brutal regime. "

This will be a war for liberation, not colonialism or hegemony.

"The United Nations Charter charges the Security Council with the task of preserving international peace and security. To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those Resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result. "

Uh M. Chirac - are you really sure you want to take down the UNSC just to inconvenience the "hyperpower"?

"We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities."

Damn straight!!!!

"José María Aznar, Spain
José Manuel Durão Barroso, Portugal
Silvio Berlusconi, Italy
Tony Blair, United Kingdom
Václav Havel, Czech Republic
Peter Medgyessy, Hungary
Leszek Miller, Poland
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark"

Note especially the voice of Mr. Havel.
It would be interesting to have him in a room with Mr. Mandela and discuss international morality of this, no??

CerberusIV · January 30, 2003, 10:57

The Franco-German position probably doesn't have that much to do with Iraq. It sounds more like the latest round of "Should Europe have a common defence/foreign policy led by France/Germany or should the EU countries each go their own way".

There has been a bit of political infighting recently about enlarging the EU which has contributed to this.

The crunch will come when the UN has to vote on explicitly authorising war on Iraq.

DanS · January 30, 2003, 11:06

The Franco-German position probably doesn't have that much to do with Iraq.

Yep. That's why us USians are shaking our heads. We're getting slagged for internal EU divisions.

SlowwHand · January 30, 2003, 11:09

Bush said in his State of The Union that it was going forward, no matter if the U.N. continues dragging feet.

TheStinger · January 30, 2003, 11:09

The french want a common foreign and defense policy only if they get to dominate it.

You can bet any euro foreign ministry would ne in paris

lord of the mark · January 30, 2003, 11:10

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Bush said in his State of The Union that it was going forward, no matter if the U.N. continues dragging feet.

but it hink its unlikely we would with UK backing - and this statement makes it far easier for Blair to stay the course.

lord of the mark · January 30, 2003, 11:11

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark

but it hink its unlikely we would with UK backing - and this statement makes it far easier for Blair to stay the course.

should read - " i think it is unlikely we would without UK backing"

Oerdin · January 30, 2003, 11:15

There won't be enough forces in place for at least another month or so thus the inspection game will continue for at least that long and probably a few weeks longer.

After that it is the momment of truth for the U.N..

Ozz · January 30, 2003, 11:20

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"José María Aznar, Spain
José Manuel Durão Barroso, Portugal
Silvio Berlusconi, Italy
Tony Blair, United Kingdom
Václav Havel, Czech Republic
Peter Medgyessy, Hungary
Leszek Miller, Poland
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark"

They're all basketcases on the US payroll, except Blair
who wants to preserve the UK-USA "special relationship".

TheStinger · January 30, 2003, 11:25

oh and chiraq and schroder are wonderful

Combat Ingrid · January 30, 2003, 11:31

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"José María Aznar, Spain
José Manuel Durão Barroso, Portugal
Silvio Berlusconi, Italy
Tony Blair, United Kingdom
Václav Havel, Czech Republic
Peter Medgyessy, Hungary
Leszek Miller, Poland
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark"

EU countries that did not sign this:

*Sweden
*Finland
*Ireland
*Germany
*France
*Netherlands
*Belgium
*Luxemburg
*Austria
*Greece

Other European countries that did not sign:

*Iceland
*Norway
*Russia
*Estonia
*Latvia
*Lithuania
*Slovakia
*Slovenia
*Switzerland
*Liechtenstein
*Romania
*Bulgaria
*Belarus
*Ukraine
*FYROM
*Bosnia
*Croatia
*Yugoslavia
*Albania
*Turkey
*Any other I forgot

Yes, Germany and France are quite alone not to sign the statement

LaRusso · January 30, 2003, 11:36

one of the points in election campaign in hungary was that peter medgyessy, former secret service agent during communism (and current head of the socialist government) will be american lackey. those predictions were right. it does not say anything bad about americans (they should have lackeys too), it only shows how old habits die slowly and how servile attitude cannot be changed overnight

DinoDoc · January 30, 2003, 11:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid
Other European countries that did not sign:
*Turkey

Turkey is already onboard. They didn't have to sign.

LaRusso · January 30, 2003, 11:42

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Turkey is already onboard. They didn't have to sign.

they are out of europe anyway