Rumsfeld is a diplomatic genius - Page 6

Ned · February 13, 2003, 20:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
BTW, there is still no EUropean constitution. EU is held together by a bunch of treaties. A constitution is in the works, and the draft should be completed in June. You can see the current drafted articles here
The EU is by no means a military alliance, and the Common Foreign and Security Policy is the loosest of all EU's agreements.

I heard that Greece wants to convene an emergency meeting on Iraq to see if the EU can reach a consensus view. Do you know anything about that?

Frogger has it right to a degree. Iraq has shown that there are many in Europe willing to support the US, some are neutral, and a few are opposed. How could the EU have a foreign policy under such circmstances if it had to have a consensus?

KrazyHorse · February 13, 2003, 20:41

You ought to try rereading that. Half of Europe is opposed.

KrazyHorse · February 13, 2003, 20:41

And the other half has governments who are willing to go to war and populations which are opposed.

Main_Brain · February 13, 2003, 20:58

Although it should be mentioned that support for a United Foreign/defense EU-Politic is rising.

Spiffor · February 13, 2003, 21:02

Ned :
I heard about this attempt too, but I think it was in this board. Maybe Paiktis or Axi would be more informative : I assume this idea has much more media coverage in Greece than in any other Euro country

EU countries aren't that opposed regarding Iraq crisis, but the opposition was spectacular, as all diplomats seem eager to bark louder than the others. Had we civilized diplomats, the whole thing would have been forgotten right now.
Basically, European countries want Iraq to disarm within the reglementations of the UN.
Disagreements happen after : some think a war is the only solution, while others think peaceful attempts haven't been all tried yet (like France), and Germany refuses any war on principle. I don't know how much disagreement there is about a regime change. I suppose all European countries officially call Iraq to democratize (we're specialists when it comes to saying beautiful things without the will to enforce them), but I don't know which ones consider the nature of Saddam's regime is a reason to go to war.

The big diplomatic issue here is not about Iraq, it is mostly about whether we build the European common foreign policy with or against the US (this is MHO). That's why there is so much noise within Europe currently. Of course the permanent gaffes from Rumsfeld, Chirac and Schröder don't help

Ned · February 13, 2003, 21:32

Spifor, It would be nice if the original foreign policy of EU would be a general alignment with the US with a specific mutual defense treaty. On security issues other than defensive matters, we could call for consultations.

Since the EU and the US share common values and government types, we should be able to reach a consensus on most issues. For example, we will probably agree on Aids in Africa. The US has proposed $15 billion over five years to fight Aids. The EU might add another $15 billion.

If the EU were to develop a strong military as well, I am sure the US would treat it like an equal. The problem I see now is that the US leads because of its power, and the EU resents it. This would change if the EU's power were to increase.

OneFootInTheGrave · February 13, 2003, 21:37

Nooo... if the EU power was to increase there would be the same problems just more exposed, as Eu would wield it's swords a bit more. All this post war stuff is past, there is no common enemy to unite us anymore.

People are greedy and that is what prevails. Not that EU would go to war with US, but would be even more ready to oppose US ideas if they do not coincide with EU interests. Not that this is - always - a bad thing though. But no way that there would be more unity between the two if Europe was more on par militarily with US.

Spiffor · February 13, 2003, 21:41

Ned :
I think you're right on most points. However, I think there is a very valid (if cynical) reason for the EU foreign policy to stand against the US rather than with it :
There is currently no united European folk, and the European society is much, much more divided than the American society, which is already very contradictory. I strongly think the US permanently needs an enemy or a rival for Americans to unite against, because otherwise, Americans wouldn't feel united. This is even more important for Europe.
I've read in Le Monde a short sentence which made me think : Chirac alledgedly does this diplomatic barking because he wants France to have a national, distinct identity. This idea came from the shock of latest presidential elections, where Le Pen went to the second round (our gov. considers this is due to an identity crisis in France).

I agree the EU and the US should work together on humanitarian issues, because their similar economic power could bring immense good to poor populations if coordinated correctly. However, I don't think the foreign / military policy will succeed in uniting if we follow the US. A true military friendship with the US will rise again when a new huge threat will threaten us all. We have to wait for China to become a superpower for this.

Ned · February 13, 2003, 22:35

Spiffor, So you think that our war against radical Islam is over?

Ned · February 13, 2003, 22:40

As I said, if the EU was more powerful, we would treat it as "equals." I am willing to bet that we would not do anything to really piss the EU off. Ditto the EU to the US.

We have this degree of respect for China, for example. We never invaded North Vietnam because we would risk another war with China. Ditto today with the crisis concerning N. Korean nukes.

So, I predict that we would cooperate a lot more to reach a consensis view before either of us acted.

Spiffor · February 13, 2003, 22:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
As I said, if the EU was more powerful, we would treat it as "equals." I am willing to bet that we would not do anything to really piss the EU off. Ditto the EU to the US.

We have this degree of respect for China, for example. We never invaded North Vietnam because we would risk another war with China. Ditto today with the crisis concerning N. Korean nukes.

So, I predict that we would cooperate a lot more to reach a consensis view before either of us acted.

This is quite possible indeed. I hope this will happen in the future (with the EU constitution in the works, the political union, necessary for the EU to become a diplomatic / military power, seems to progress faster than I thought

)
When the world will be multipolar, it might be the time of greater cooperation. Let's hope so.

Spiffor · February 13, 2003, 22:57

I think the war against radical Islam isn't uniting the west enough, because of several reasons :

- even if Europe was shocked by Sept. 11th, the trauma was incredibly lower on this side of the pond. I also think the trauma was exceptionally strong in the US because of the relative inexperience of destructions on your territory. The war on terror has an affective role mostly in the US.

- There are very strong muslim minorities in Europe, and the war against radical islamism can be assimilated by them with a war against Islam as a whole. This can lead to unrest (like the antisemitic demos from some months ago), or can make some of these people becoming radical Islamists.

- There is a radical disagreement between the US and the EU re Israel, which is a key element in the clash of civilizations.

- There isn't the same perception of threat in Europe as in the US. Maybe once Tower Bridge collapses under a plane will things change. Until then, the differences between European and American public opinions will remain too drastic to make Europe willing to cooperate fully against this "common foe".

HershOstropoler · February 14, 2003, 04:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
W, How can Austria be part of the EU if EU is not neutral? Is there a clause in the EU constitution that permits member states to be neutral?

We are neutral in principle, unless it's the EU or the UN. Unless Rumsie's war is EU or UN mandated, we are neutral in this case.

"How could the EU have a foreign policy under such circmstances if it had to have a consensus?"

How can the US have a foreign policy if it had to have a consensus between Senate, Whore and President?

"If the EU were to develop a strong military as well, I am sure the US would treat it like an equal."

That might be at the heart of the disconnect. The US neoconservative view is that power is military power and nothing else. The European view is that military power is of quite limited usefulness. Our actual military projection power is even below that, but if military power were so all important, do you really think we wouldn't throw in the 1 or 2 % of GDP extra?

Ned · February 17, 2003, 12:05

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

We are neutral in principle, unless it's the EU or the UN. Unless Rumsie's war is EU or UN mandated, we are neutral in this case.

"How could the EU have a foreign policy under such circmstances if it had to have a consensus?"

How can the US have a foreign policy if it had to have a consensus between Senate, Whore and President?

"If the EU were to develop a strong military as well, I am sure the US would treat it like an equal."

That might be at the heart of the disconnect. The US neoconservative view is that power is military power and nothing else. The European view is that military power is of quite limited usefulness. Our actual military projection power is even below that, but if military power were so all important, do you really think we wouldn't throw in the 1 or 2 % of GDP extra?

HO, Thanks.

On the last point, military power is irrelevant to commerical nations who would view EU sanctions as important. However, dictators are hardly ever influence by sanctions. Cases in point: Saddam and Castro.

So the EU may be able to influence events in the world to the extent it can manipulate trade. But it cannot influence events outside the EU otherwise without a military that can credibly intervene.

Just for an example, the US provided Britain a significant amount of logistics support for its defense of the Falklands. So what does this teach us?

Until the EU does develop a strong military, it will continue to be a second fiddle player.

Oerdin · February 17, 2003, 12:51

Spiffor: You spoke about the upcoming creation of an EU constitution. How much centralized authority will the constitution give to the EU parliament? Will the EU have the power to declare war and force member states to comply with it's declarations or will power continue to rest with the national governments with the EU only acting if there is unanimous agreement?

DU: I think you are misreading the Republican (Right of center) idea of power. In their view the economy is the most important manifestation of power because that is where diplomatic and military power is derived. Republican administrations, like Bush’s Presidency, believe strongly that the U.S. should define its own interests and then prosue those interests irrespective of what other states think. The Democrats (left of center) tend to be more inclined to follow the international consensus since they believe this will engender greater good will with other states and make them more sympathetic towards America’s interests. It’s kind of boils down to different attitudes of how & when to exercise power though they both believe power is derived from the same three pillars.

Oerdin · February 17, 2003, 12:51

Double post.

Spiffor · February 17, 2003, 13:17

Oerdin :
First, thanks for this interesting answer to DU. I'll keep it in mind when discussing about Bush with my friends in the future.

The EU constitution isn't that ambitious. Its purpose for now is mostly to get rid of the "treaty-syndrom" of the EU (i.e all founding texts are intergovernmental treaties, and not a unified supranational text). Basically, a constitution will be much easier to amend and change than treaties, because any State may disagree in signing a treaty.
In the draft, I have barely found anything about the foreign policy, except that :
"Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. They shall refrain from actions contrary to the Unions's interests or likely to undermin its effectiveness" (article 14)

This was drafted before the axis of weasels and the axis of vassals formed

Until now, the Common Foreign and Security Policy (I guess CFSP is the English acronym) has been purely in the hands of national governments, and its boss, Javier Solana, mostly tried to ease communication and coordination between member States. There is nothing supranational in CFSP for now, and the constitution is too much consensual to suggest such a radical change.

Oerdin · February 17, 2003, 18:16

Quote:

"Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. They shall refrain from actions contrary to the Unions's interests or likely to undermin its effectiveness" (article 14)

Since the EU parliment is lacking an effective means to enforce article 14 then I doubt it will mean very much and every time a devisive issue comes up the EU will find itself powerless to speak with a common voice.

Spiffor · February 17, 2003, 18:57

Absolutely. We'll need much time and much change in the mentalities for the European parliament to have any power on these issues. Heck, it has nearly no power on other matters (it is the least powerful of the 3 decision-making institutions of the EU)
Europe will not speak with one voice on security issues before long