NationStates Jolt Archive

European and German disputes in the Iraq crisis and the transatlantic relationship

In order to understand the different positions and strategies in Europe one needs to go back to in the European history. We need to go back to the beginning of the 19 th century. At that time Napoleonic France conquored huge parts of Europe and dominated the continent. In 1812 he invaded Russia. However he was not prepared for the winter and lost against it in 1812/13. That encouraged other countries (Prussia, Austria, with the support of Britain) to rebell against his dominance and he was defeated at the battle of Leipzig in 1813 and finally in Waterloo in 1815.
At the Vienna Congress (1815) the situation in Europe was reordered. It mainly reestablished the order before the French revolution and the Napoleonic wars (with some differences however). The hope in the german states that the Holy Roman Empire (800-1806) is going to be reestablished was however not fulfilled. Instead of the German Confederation (1815-66) was founded as a union of independent states. The national and liberal movements were not happy with this development and that led to a lot of tensions afterwards (for example the revolution of 1848/49 which tried to unify the country under a constitutional monarchy with a parlamentarian democracy. That revolution failed at the end) till the unification of Germany in 1871 under prussian leadership.
The Vienna Congress established a system of balance of power. France had been defeated. It would have been possible to divide it between the winners. However Britain was not interested to engage itself on the continent. So a system of balance of power was created. France was even allowed to remain some territories it gained during the revolutionary wars in the 1790s. This balance of power existed between the five main European powers: Britain, France, Russia, Austria and Prussia. The German unification under prussian leadership in 1871 brought this system in some inbalance – althought the prussian prime minister (1862-1890) and german chancellor Bismarck (1871-90) tried to keep a balance of power by making treaties and alliances with all other powers except France (which rejected to do that after the german-french war in 1871 which led to the unification). However his successors didn´t continue that policy. The alliances system, and the balance of power more or less fall apart. Germany wanted more colonies („We want a place on the sun.“). However most of Africa was already divided up between France and Britain. That of course brought Germany into a rivalry with Britain and that led to the British-French alliance (Entente). Also the relationship with Russia was damaged. Germany and the Austrian-Hungarian empire (who were close allies after 1871) improved their relationship with the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) which at that time ruled about huge parts of the middle east (e.g. they ruled over Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Jordan, parts of Saudi-Arabia, Egypt (which however the British took away from them) and the Caucasus). Germany also improved it s relationship with Persia and Afghanistan. One project together with the Ottoman Empire was for example the Baghdad train – which was seen as a direct challenge of British ambitions in the region. The alliance of the Germany and Austria-Hungary with the Ottoman sultan was also against the russian interests interests in the Caucasus. Aside of the fact that Austria-Hungary and Russia rivaled about influence in the Balcans. However Russia and Britain also rivaled, for example about influence in Persia, Afghanistan and East Asia (mainly China). Russia even tried to build up a strong navy to challenge Britain in the Far East. However the Russian-Japanese war in 1905 led to the destruction of this navy. Germany believed that this Russian-British rivalry (bear and whale) would give it a free way for it s own imperial and colonial ambitions. However after the defeat against Japan Russia gave up some of it s ambitions and made a deal with Britain.
That was the final end of the balance of power. Europe was now divided into two camps. West and East (Britain, France and Russia) versus the Central powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary and in the south east the Ottoman Empire). And the tensions between those two camps were rising.
The July-crisis in 1914 lead finally to the outbreak of the first world war. The crisis began on June 28. The Austrian-Hungarian crown prince visited Sarajevo (Bosnia) which belonged to the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. The Serbian nationalists Gavrilo Princip assassinated him. He was arrested. He belonged to a nationalistic serbian group which wanted to establish Serbian dominance on the balcans. Austria argued that this group had some connections with the Serbian government and monarch and accused Serbia of supporting terrorism. It launched an ultimatum to Serbia and stated if Serbia doesn´t comply fully, completly and unconditionally it is going to be invaded.
Serbia went to his close ally Russia (both orthodox countries) to get backing. Russia then was conferring with it s allies France and Britain.
Serbia stated that it is ready to fulfill many of the demands, however rejected some and rejected the ultimatum.
Austria-Hungary was conferring with Germany. The german emperor saw the serbian concessions as promising and suggested negotiatians. However he signaled Austria his loyality and gave a blanco cheque (cart blanche) to Austria, signaling that he is willing to follow whatever Austria decides. He spoke about Nibelunge loyality to Austria. That is in a way an ironic statement. It is referring to an old legend. The Nibelungs were very loyal. But this loyality led to their death. And the loyality of him to his austrian colleague lead to the war, to the defeat in the war and to the end of both dynasties and of monarchy in both countries.
All european powers began to mobilise their militaries. On July 28 Austria finally declared war on Serbia. Within two weeks after that the two camps (Austria-Hungary, Germany, Ottoman Empire versus Serbia, Russia, Britain and France) where officially at war with each other.
This war created many problems which dominated the policy of the 20 th century.
For example in Russia the communist came to power during that war at the end of 1917. The communists government madea a serperate peace with Germany in March 1918. However that didn´t help it. The fresh american troops that arrieved in summer 1918 lead to the defeat of Germany. The treaty of Versailles caused more problems than it solved. It for example created new multi-ethnic states on the area of the former Austrian-Hungarian empire.
It created Czechoslovakia (under Czech leadership) which alionated the Slovak, Hungarian and German minorities within that country, it gave the Kingdom of Serbia the rule over most of the balcans (the so-called Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenians (since 1929 Yugoslavia) under serbian leadership. The Croats didn´t like it. There were many disputes within this country because of it. (During world war II Croats and Slovaks allied themselfs with Germany). Hungary lost territories to Romania, even territories with hungarian population, causing future tensions between the two nations. Also Hungary allied itself with Germany during World War II. As well as Romania and Bulgaria because they had to chose between the Soviets or Nazi Germany.).
The creation of Yugoslavia caused problems till today. The wars in the 1990s on the balcans ended this artifical state which was created by the treaty of Versailles. The serbian attempt to remain dominant in the region (under Milosevic) was ended by Nato in 1999.
Also Germany was very unhappy with the conditions. However it was forced to sign the treaty. That strengthened ultra-nationalists forces within the country who blamed the democratic parties for it (stab-in-the back legend). The political spectrum was very fragmented. On the political left Social democrats and communists fall apart and became arch-enemies. The communists tried in 1918/19 to establish the Soviet system in Germany. The social democrats (who ruled at that time) rejected that and repressed the communists rebellion with the use of force.
On the political right and left there was a rising extremism. Sometimes both extremists even cooperated attacking the democratic parties (of the moderate right and left). For example when the german parliament had to approve of the Versailles treaty (the allied powers threatened to invade it if it rejects to do so) the extreme right and the extreme left (communists) rejected that. The extreme right blamed the democrats and argued that it is better to continue to fight. The extreme left argued that would begin a guerilla war against the „western imperialists“.
This partly cooperation even played a certain role at the end of the republic during the great economic crisis (following 1929) in 1933. To what the dictatorship of the nazis lead we all know. They started the second world war (which was even much more bloody than the first one) and commited genocide (the holocaust). In total 37 million deaths in Europe only.
The war ended with the defeat of Germany and the division of Europe and Germany.
The two dominating powers in the nex 45 years where the US and the USSR.
The world was divided and had only two centres. And there was the thread of war (a third world war) beetween the two which was fortunately avoided. This bipolar world ended in 1989-1991 with the end of communism, the collapse of the eastern block and the end of the Soviet Union. And that reduced the risk of a third world war almost to zero.
Since that there is a debate how the new world order should be. Russia, China and France suggest a multi-polar world, a world with many centres. The US and Britain suggest an unipolar world under American leadership. Britain (Tony Blair) argues that the concept of a multi-polar world with rivaling powers is the same thing than the concept of balance of power in the 19 th century. He points out that this is a dangerous idea. That would only lead to tensions between the powers, to conflicts and it could even result to a new world war, like the conflicts and rivalries between the great European powers led to World War I. And he has a good point in that.
He concludes from that that it is better that one country leds: the US (Blair: „America must lead“) and that european countries should follow it as junior partners and by doing so trying to get some influence in Washington and to give advise to it (Blair: „America must listen as well as lead.“). Europe should never go to confrontation with the US or go into an open dispute. That would only create mischief.
France on contrast wants a mulit-polar world and it is ready to go into open disputes with Washington.
The Federal Republic of Germany (founded 1949 by eleven german states. In 1990 the five east german states joined the Federal Republic) stands traditionally between the two positions. It has had good relationships with France and the US. After 9/11 chancellor Schröder declared „unlimmited solidarity“ to the US. He was heavly criticised for that. The statement was compared to a blanco cheque or „Nibelunge loyality“ which the german emperor declared towards Austria during the July crisis in 1914 which led to World War I.
The chancellor repeated his statement of unlimmited solidarity, however added that this is not the case for „adventures“.
Germany sent several thousand troops for the mission „enduring freedom“. It sent them to Afganistan, Kuwait, Dschibouti. Together with other Nato allies german troops are patrolling in the Indian ocean to detract supply routes for terrorists. By the way: even France participates in that.
At the end of his reelection campaign – the polls looked terrible for him – he stated that under his leadership Germany wouldn´t participate on a war in Iraq – even if it got an UN mandate. Such a mission would be an adventure and he wouldn´t risk the lives of German soldiers for it. The majority of the public opinion agreed. The opposition was divided in this issue, however criticised that he even rejected an action against Iraq with UN mandate. And it criticised the undiplomatic statements by the government and anti-american statements by the justice minister (who had to resign for that). And with that he won the election against a divided opposition on that key issue. The opposition remained divided on the issue whether the war was right or wrong however criticized the formation of an anti-amerian alliance by France, Russia and Germany. The opposition rather advocates a return of Germany to it s traditional role between France and the US-Britain and to try through that position to bridge differences between those two powers.
Traditionally both Italy and Germany are standing between the two extreme positions (Britain and France). But in this crisis each joined another camp instead of at least trying to keep Europe together.


In East Europe the fear of a roll-back in Russia (take over of neo-communists or ultra-nationalists) is still alive. The alliance with the US is seen as a life insurance against such a development, which seems very unlikely but which is still a concern. Furthernmore many East European countries hoped that the US would deploy parts of their forces to them. That of course would link their security with the security of the US. So far that hasn´t happened. Whether such plans exist I don´t know. It would be an opportunity for the US to strenghten its ties with the allies of the coalition of the willing. However the US actually needs the troops more in Iraq and other places in the Middle East and the relationship with Russia would be harmed if the US would deploy massive troops to East Europe. From geostrategic considerations it is more important to have troops in Turkey, Iraq, the Caucasus and Central Asia rather than in Eastern Europe. On the other hand not to deploy forces there would lead to a disappointment of the partners of the coalition of the willing.
Furthernmore the East European countries need the EU and EU funds to develop their economies. The main payer into the EU is Germany (followed by France). Their governments made clear that they are not willing to indirectly support their Iraq policy via EU funds.
The East European countries had to take this seriously. Poland sent their 2300 troops after the war only under the condition that the US is paying for the deployment. Under the same conditions other East European countries have sent small troop contigents to Iraq.
So, the US stands again in a strategic dilemma, which is caused by the rifts in Europe. Without the massive East European backing the transatlantic camp in the rest of Europe would not be in the dominant position it is now (only France, Germany, Belgium and Luxemburg strongly opposed the war, Austria, Sweden, Finlanda and Ireland remained neutral). But deploying many troops to East Europe and by doing so sending a strong signal to the new allies is hardly possible.

Currently Europe is divided into three camps: One lead by France, another by Britain and then the neutral camp. As long as no arrangement is found the US needs to be weary in order to strenghten the Transatlantic camp. Otherwise it might weaken. A „regime change“ in Germany in 2006 after the election however may improve the transatlantic relationship since the opposition is more pro-american and would also push France to play a more cooperative role.
None the less it is going to be hard to close the gap between the public opinion on both sides of the atlantic. A more diplomatic approach of the US administration may make things easier. The return of the US to the UN is a way to – step by step and over the next years - rally more support for the new Iraq – especially financial, humanitarian and economic support which that country needs.

I know I wrote to much:
So lets talk about the future of the transatlantic relationship and NATO. And about the European disputes in the Iraq crisis.
What do you think about them?
And what do you think about the US decision to invade Iraq?

No flaming, please.

So, what foreign policy strategy should European countries go for. The EU-members have agreed to formulate a CFSP (common foreign and security policy). Should it follow the French strategy (Chirac) or the British strategy (Blair) or somewhere in between???
What do you think?

bump!
No one want to flame?

Give me a few hours to read it.

And what do you think about the US decision to invade Iraq?

I am still for it. Success in Iraq will reshape the whole region. As an American, the French and German opposition to the war I find very troubling. Standing up for Saddam is kind of like backing OJ. You knew the people getting behind him were doing it for their own reasons, not because they really thought he was innocent. I think that's the way most people feel about France and Germany over here. Their anti-American campaigns were a huge and unneccesary power play against the US in a post Cold War world.

Currently Europe is divided into three camps: One lead by France, another by Britain and then the neutral camp.
I wouldn't call Britain a camp. As it's firmly attached to the US's lap.


A „regime change“ in Germany in 2006 after the election however may improve the transatlantic relationship since the opposition is more pro-american and would also push France to play a more cooperative role.

Thats the problem with the Christian Democrats. Like a certain poster they are itching to take the pledge of allegience.

To summarize my longer post:
It was a multi-polar which existed before 1914 in Europe. A system of rivaling power. This system led to World War I, so the British argument - and World War II after all followed closely after.
Due to that fact the concept of a muli-polar world (which is pushed by France, Russia and China since the end of the bipolar world order in 1991) is a dangerous idea. That only leads to more rivalries and tensions between the great powers and therefore can even lead to World War III. That is a very dangerous idea. Therefore Europe should never go into an open confrontation to the US. It should follow the US and by showing its loyality trying to influence it.

France on the conterary ready to go into open confrontation. It wants to challenge the US dominance and a multi-polar world.

Germany traditionally stands between the two positions. That is also the case for Italy. But now both countries have sided on one of the sides. That has divided Europe. And therefore especially Germany is to blame. Instead of bridging differences it has by completly siding with France depend the divisions in Europe. I can´t see that to be in the German interests. The Eastern enlargement is a great opportunity for Germany. Economically it trades today more with East Europe than with the US. The enlargement of the EU makes it possible for Germany to be really in the centre of Europe and not at the east of the west (which the Federal Republic was till 1990). In this position Germany plays a key role in Europe - either keeping it together by bridging differences or dividing it by siding itself completly to one camp. Bismarck did the right thing by never doing that. His successors didn´t. They sided themself completly with Austria and Turkey and by doing so alionate all others. So, it would be wrong for Germany to side with France completly as it would allionate all others today.
It would be better if Germany would do more to improve its relationship with Poland (which is economically pretty important but politically damaged). That would also help the new members growing into the EU and strengthening Europe. I welcome that our new president Köhler first visited Poland before he visited France. Certainly a common EU strategy is not possible without France. But it isn´t possible without Poland either.
So a strategic alliance with Poland would be needed. That requires a reconciliation between Germany and Poland and putting historic disputes and the burden of history aside.
That has happened with France in the 1960s but not with Poland (since it was communists till 1990). But it would be needed to get over the differences on our continent.

I'am interested what will happen if kerry becomes president and tries to mend relations with 'old' europe.Will Blair and Britain than be left out in the cold or will it still be too important for the US to keep Britain happy in case its needed at a later date.

Therefore Europe should never go into an open confrontation to the US. It should follow the US and by showing its loyality trying to influence it.
Great. Now you ruined my appetite. Beeing a US sex-toy may be appealing to you. But don't expect others to bend over like you.

I am still for it. Success in Iraq will reshape the whole region. As an American, the French and German opposition to the war I find very troubling. Standing up for Saddam is kind of like backing OJ. You knew the people getting behind him were doing it for their own reasons, not because they really thought he was innocent. I think that's the way most people feel about France and Germany over here. Their anti-American campaigns were a huge and unneccesary power play against the US in a post Cold War world.

With such a statement you make it very easy to yourself. After all: success may be possible but also failure. And here is the big difference between the public opinion on both sides of the atlantic. Just because you see: we can invade Iraq it doesn´t mean that you can pacify the country and the region. Such an attempt has after all failed in another region in the 1960s and 1970s. So why should it work now?
However I think the US policy its their business. So the confrontation was really unnecessary. There was no reason for that except domestic onces. And this campaign has damaged after all the relationship much more than the decision not to participate on the mission. That was in my view really unnecessary.

I'am interested what will happen if kerry becomes president and tries to mend relations with 'old' europe.Will Blair and Britain than be left out in the cold or will it still be too important for the US to keep Britain happy in case its needed at a later date.

As much as I don't like kerry, I would like to think that even if he wins the relationship with America and the EU isn't going to change much. It's just post Cold war politics. France is trying to reassert itself as a global power, and the easiest target will remain the United States. Britain will tend to stay close to the US and vise-versa because let's face, neither have any real interest in France growing into a bigger power.... :D Britain will use it's relationship with the US (which still controls 1/3 of the world's GDP), and vise versa the US will use it's relationship with Britain, to help assert power in the EU. I'm curiosu to see how relationship with the US affect admitance to the EU in the next century. I can see France trying to block too many of the US friendly Eastern European nations from joining and shifting the balance of power in the EU to more pro-US.

Great. Now you ruined my appetite. Beeing a US sex-toy may be appealing to you. But don't expect others to bend over like you.
Well: you should read my post: There are today to strategies: one is for a multi-polar world. But such a system means a risk for confrontations and at the end even a possible World War III.
And the other alternative is an unipolar world, under which one country dominates. They may be a few small wars. But if one country leads the risk of a world war would be zero. That would then lead to a Pax Americana. That is probably a better option, though I don´t see a good US strategy for such a Pax Americana. Otherwise I would support it. No one else can lead the world, however the US doesn´t have a good strategy. That is the problem.

If you have a third modell to those two feel free to tell it. Foreign policy is not that easy.

If you have a third modell to those two feel free to tell it. Foreign policy is not that easy.
You know very well were I stand on that.

Such an attempt has after all failed in another region in the 1960s and 1970s. So why should it work now?

I think because the US goes about things differently. We are not trying to run the nation....I know there are alot of differences, but the US is in many ways trying to do to Iraq what we did with Japan 60 years ago. It will take time, but I see eventual success in Iraq. If for no better reason than we will keep a presense in the nation for years to come that will discourage civil war. I mean, we still have troops in Germany and Japan since WW2....do those nations feel like American pawns? The troops will eventually be withdrawn to isolated bases, and Iraqis will eventually go about truly governing themselves.

You know very well were I stand on that.
I assume completly siding with France. I´m against that. I see no benefit for that to be junior partner of France.
After all, what benefit has this policy brought? The answer is none. So it would have been better to stay out of it and not to damage our relationship with the US for no reason - well, except to secure re-election.

I think because the US goes about things differently. We are not trying to run the nation....I know there are alot of differences, but the US is in many ways trying to do to Iraq what we did with Japan 60 years ago. It will take time, but I see eventual success in Iraq. If for no better reason than we will keep a presense in the nation for years to come that will discourage civil war. I mean, we still have troops in Germany and Japan since WW2....do those nations feel like American pawns? The troops will eventually be withdrawn to isolated bases, and Iraqis will eventually go about truly governing themselves. .
Which Iraqis: The shiites (which are the majority), the sunni Arabs (which dominated since centuries) or the kurdes?
The shiites dominated by islamic cleriks - most influenced Iran, the sunnis - many politicians have hold positions under the previous regime fell threatened to be marginalized, the Kurdes who more or less open want an independent state?
Iraq is neither Japan or Germany which were after all pretty homogenous nations. Iraq has a structure more like the former Yugoslavia. The question is whether the country remains together.
And the post-war strategy of the US was not so succesfull actually manovering around all those factions.

I assume completly siding with France. I´m against that. I see no benefit for that to be junior partner of France.
After all, what benefit has this policy brought? The answer is none. So it would have been better to stay out of it and not to damage our relationship with the US for no reason - well, except to secure re-election.
Yeah. Cause it's realy a damn shame that there are no German soldiers dying in the US colonial war in Iraq for the benefit of the US. What a wonderfull uncle Tom mentality you have.

Yeah. Cause it's realy a damn shame that there are no German soldiers dying in the US colonial war in Iraq for the benefit of the US. What a wonderfull uncle Tom mentality you have.
Look, the US has not forced any country to participate in this war. Germany didn´t participate in other US wars in the past. But it never publicy protested against them or formed an alliance in the UN to give the US a diplomatic defeat. That is not a thing an ally should do. And that is a thing the Americans are really angry about, not that Germany didn´t sent a few hundred soldiers or not. Compared to the US troops (which are more than 100.000) that question is really insignificant.
But it is that Germany formed an anti-American alliance with Russia and France. What benefit has that brought? The answer is nothing. It has only damaged the US-German relationship.

Look, the US has not forced any country to participate in this war. Germany didn´t participate in other US wars in the past.
No. Cause the law prohibitet Bundeswehr deployment outside of Germany. With the exception of an attack against a NATO member. But that didn't stop them to waste billions of taxpayer Marks for the benefit of the US.

But it never publicy protested against them or formed an alliance in the UN to give the US a diplomatic defeat. That is not a thing an ally should do.
What you are describing is not an alliance. You are describing a master slave state relation. Cause an ally would be entitled to it's own opinion rather then blindly following the largests alliance member.

But it is that Germany formed an anti-American alliance with Russia and France. What benefit has that brought? The answer is nothing. It has only damaged the US-German relationship.
An Anti-American alliance? What alliance? Just because they are against the Iraq war?
I repeat myself, you are an uncle Tom.

No. Cause the law prohibitet Bundeswehr deployment outside of Germany. With the exception of an attack against a NATO member. .
No, it doesn´t. Look at the Supreme Court decision on 1994. With the approval of parliament the government is entitled to sent troops abroad.

What you are describing is not an alliance. You are describing a master slave state relation. Cause an ally would be entitled to it's own opinion rather then blindly following the largests alliance member..
Don´t be naive. There are bigger countries and smaller countries. There are countries with more and with less power. So: is it smart for a small country to go into confrontation with a big one?

An Anti-American alliance? What alliance? Just because they are against the Iraq war?
I repeat myself, you are an uncle Tom.
I can´t understand why you are not able to rational discuss a foreign policy strategy without voicing your anti-americanism?

No, it doesn´t. Look at the Supreme Court decision on 1994. With the approval of parliament the government is entitled to sent troops abroad.
Thats since 1994. Before that German forces were not allowed to be deployed outside of Germany.

Don´t be naive. There are bigger countries and smaller countries. There are countries with more and with less power. So: is it smart for a small country to go into confrontation with a big one?
Who's talking about confrontation? You are. I'm talking about an independant European foreign policy. Liek sovereign nations d tend to do. You are the only one talking about confrontations.

I can´t understand why you are not able to rational discuss a foreign policy strategy without voicing your anti-americanism?
Was erwartest du denn? Wenn du meinst wir sollten uns alle deinen geliebten US meistern unterwerfen, Tom. Ich seh schon. Wenn es jemals krieg zwischen der EU und den USA geben würde, wie unwahrscheinlich auch immer, wärst du der erste der zum feind überlaufen würde.

Who's talking about confrontation? You are. I'm talking about an independant European foreign policy. Liek sovereign nations d tend to do. You are the only one talking about confrontations.
.
First of all Europe is not a state. It is an union of state. I don´t have anything against a CFSP (common foreign and security policy). But that need to be negotiated between all and not dictated by France. And it has to include the UK and their position. Furthernmore - as I´ve said a multi-polar world increases the thread of a world war. Therefore Europe should not define itself as a rival of the US (like the French do) because that could lead to a lot of mischief but rather as a partner of the US.
The British are a bit extreme in their position. But somewhere between the two extremes (France and Britain) should be a good position. But that would require not to always follow France - which our current government always does.

First of all Europe is not a state. It is an union of state.
No. It's not a state. It was just an example.

I don´t have anything against a CFSP (common foreign and security policy). But that need to be negotiated between all and not dictated by France.
You don't have anytjing against a CFSP as long as it means doing whatever the US wants.
And I fail to see how France even has the power to dictate anything to anyone.

And it has to include the UK and their position.
The British pretty much exclude themselves in this.

Therefore Europe should not define itself as a rival of the US (like the French do) because that could lead to a lot of mischief but rather as a partner of the US.
You don't want to be partner of the US. You want to be a servant.
But that would require not to always follow France - which our current government always does.
Pah, you would prefer a policy that means ALWAYS following the US. Tom.
If there ever would be a EU-US war, how unlikely that may be, Kyber would be the first to defect to the US.

.

We they can´t. But they tried by calling Poland to shut up. That is not the way an European nation should act towards another one.
The British are not alone: Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal and the new members are following the British position. A common European position is therefore only possible if it includes Britain.
The US used Poland to keep the EU divided. Then again they are not European. So in your mind that makes it alright then.

No, I don´t. But I don´t want a policy which says: We need to go onto confrontation to the US to show that we are an independent state. That is childish.
Where was the confrontation? They didn't go along with the US and then the US starts throwing around with petty insults. Old Europe and sh*t. And thats a mature response?

Not always. But I would never go into confrontation to the US.
I know. Your the submissive type.
I would rather remain neutral than to take side against the US, which France and Germany did due to their undiplomatic actions against the US in the UN.
And they remained neutral. Or what do you call not participating in a war? But your deffinition of neutrality must be not participating and keeping quit.
Your gonna ask Santa for a longer tongue this christmas? So you can stick it even deeper into the US anus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Von Witzleben
No. It's not a state. It was just an example.
You don't have anytjing against a CFSP as long as it means doing whatever the US wants.
And I fail to see how France even has the power to dictate anything to anyone..

We they can´t. But they tried by calling Poland to shut up. That is not the way an European nation should act towards another one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Von Witzleben
The British pretty much exclude themselves in this...

The British are not alone: Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal and the new members are following the British position. A common European position is therefore only possible if it includes Britain.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Von Witzleben
You don't want to be partner of the US. You want to be a servant. ...

No, I don´t. But I don´t want a policy which says: We need to go onto confrontation to the US to show that we are an independent state. That is childish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Von Witzleben
Pah, you would prefer a policy that means ALWAYS following the US..


Not always. But I would never go into confrontation to the US. I would rather remain neutral than to take side against the US, which France and Germany did due to their undiplomatic actions against the US in the UN.

The US used Poland to keep the EU divided. Then again they are not European. So in your mind that makes it alright then. .
Europe itself is divided: Read my first posts. There are two camps.


Where was the confrontation? They didn't go along with the US and then the US starts throwing around with petty insults. Old Europe and sh*t. And thats a mature response?.
No, that wasn`t. However I see the statement Old Europe not as an insult. We are an old continent. What is bad about that? It is true that there were some undiplomatic statements about Europe as well. But just think about the way the US is insulted here in Europe and how the US president is insulted in Europe. Not just him: but the country and the American people. That hurted them and it is no surprise that the hit back.



And they remained neutral. Or what do you call not participating in a war? But your deffinition of neutrality must be not participating and keeping quit.
.
Yes: that would be neutrality. Like Sweden, Finnland, Ireland or Austria. But to form an alliance in the UN against the US is not neutrality. Neutrality would be to stay out.

No, that wasn`t. However I see the statement Old Europe not as an insult. We are an old continent. What is bad about that? It is true that there were some undiplomatic statements about Europe as well. But just think about the way the US is insulted here in Europe and how the US president is insulted in Europe. Not just him: but the country and the American people. That hurted them and it is no surprise that the hit back.
You should realy move to the US. So you can spend every hour of every day with your beloved masters. Maybe you can even get a job picking cotton.


Yes: that would be neutrality. Like Sweden, Finnland, Ireland or Austria. But to form an alliance in the UN against the US is not neutrality. Neutrality would be to stay out.
Just what I thought. Your deffinition of neutrality is keeping out of it and shutting up. Not allowed to voice their opinion. Like a good uncle Tom.

In East Europe the fear of a roll-back in Russia (take over of neo-communists or ultra-nationalists) is still alive. The alliance with the US is seen as a life insurance against such a development, which seems very unlikely but which is still a concern. Furthernmore many East European countries hoped that the US would deploy parts of their forces to them. That of course would link their security with the security of the US. So far that hasn´t happened. Whether such plans exist I don´t know. It would be an opportunity for the US to strenghten its ties with the allies of the coalition of the willing. However the US actually needs the troops more in Iraq and other places in the Middle East and the relationship with Russia would be harmed if the US would deploy massive troops to East Europe. From geostrategic considerations it is more important to have troops in Turkey, Iraq, the Caucasus and Central Asia rather than in Eastern Europe. On the other hand not to deploy forces there would lead to a disappointment of the partners of the coalition of the willing.
Furthernmore the East European countries need the EU and EU funds to develop their economies. The main payer into the EU is Germany (followed by France). Their governments made clear that they are not willing to indirectly support their Iraq policy via EU funds.
The East European countries had to take this seriously. Poland sent their 2300 troops after the war only under the condition that the US is paying for the deployment. Under the same conditions other East European countries have sent small troop contigents to Iraq.
So, the US stands again in a strategic dilemma, which is caused by the rifts in Europe. Without the massive East European backing the transatlantic camp in the rest of Europe would not be in the dominant position it is now (only France, Germany, Belgium and Luxemburg strongly opposed the war, Austria, Sweden, Finlanda and Ireland remained neutral). But deploying many troops to East Europe and by doing so sending a strong signal to the new allies is hardly possible.

Currently Europe is divided into three camps: One lead by France, another by Britain and then the neutral camp. As long as no arrangement is found the US needs to be weary in order to strenghten the Transatlantic camp. Otherwise it might weaken. A „regime change“ in Germany in 2006 after the election however may improve the transatlantic relationship since the opposition is more pro-american and would also push France to play a more cooperative role.
None the less it is going to be hard to close the gap between the public opinion on both sides of the atlantic. A more diplomatic approach of the US administration may make things easier. The return of the US to the UN is a way to – step by step and over the next years - rally more support for the new Iraq – especially financial, humanitarian and economic support which that country needs.
I know that basing plans exist. In fact, my one friend is a colonel that helped establish a base in Romania.
Nothing massive will be in Eastern Europe, unlike the troops currently in Germany. However, as they are withdrawing, some of those troops will move into Poland, Hungary, and Romania (and maybe a few other countries). They won't be large bases, perhaps about 5,000 troops in each country. However, it should act as a reassurance to the Eastern Europeans. After all, some of these bases will include airfields.
It's strategic for us, too. It helps provide logistic support to our armies in the Middle East. In fact, a small naval base in Bulgeria has been used to support the invasion of Iraq. I bet it'll be expanded in the future, as the US could use a small presence in the Black Sea.
Here's an article from last December.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/12/mil-031212-rferl-170953.htm

Purly Euclid

It it is done it would weaken the Gaullist camp which after all says that Europe has to arrange its defense by itself. However: if it is done and done in substantial numbers. However if the US is going to reduce its presence in Europe that would strengthen the Gaullist camp.
So in order to keep a transatlantic Europe the US needs to remain a strong presence on the continent.

So in order to keep a transatlantic European Empire the US needs to remain a strong presence on the continent.
Which pretty much equals a military occupation.

Which pretty much equals a military occupation.

It's funny most eastern european nations are begging to have the US increase there military presense there. Why? because the US isn't like the USSR. They are terrified of a resurgence from Russia. Why don't you ask people who live in US Military towns in Germany how excited they are to see the US Soldiers go. Boy, for people you say were "occupied", they sure aren't very happy to see them leave.

Just what I thought. Your deffinition of neutrality is keeping out of it and shutting up. Not allowed to voice their opinion. Like a good uncle Tom.
German foreing policy since the 1950s has to pillars: the transatlantic partnership with the US and the partnership with France.
This dual binding gives Germany room to manover in its foreign relations.
But in order to have this opportunity it is necessary to have good relationships with both. And that is not the case any more since Schröder has severely damaged the transatlantic relationship with his policy in the UN security council in forming an anti-american camp with France and Russia. It is going to need many years to repair this damage. He has harmed German interests with that.
And he has decreased German dependency on France. And that is not a good thing, because France only things about itself. Therefore we should NEVER completly be dependant on it. And in order not to be that we also need the alliance with the US.

It's funny most eastern european nations are begging to have the US increase there military presense there. Why? because the US isn't like the USSR. They are terrified of a resurgence from Russia.
So? That doesn't mean I'm not happy to finally see them leave. If the Poles and others want to switch one occupation force for a new one thats their problem.

Why don't you ask people who live in US Military towns in Germany how excited they are to see the US Soldiers go. Boy, for people you say were "occupied", they sure aren't very happy to see them leave.
In some regions. Where the US made the local economy completely dependant on their presence.

Which pretty much equals a military occupation.
That´s nonsens. Why do you think that our country WANTS the US to stay???
Because if the US is having a presence in our country we can be shure that the US would defend our country if we get attacked. And we don´t have to spent so much on defense.
That is the same reason our neighbours in Central Eastern Europe and South-East Europe want the US to station troops in their countries.
They want to be part of the transatlantic community and want to be shure to be under the defense shield of the US.

So? That doesn't mean I'm not happy to finally see them leave. If the Poles and others want to switch one occupation force for a new one thats their problem.

So you feel like you've been living in an occupied nation your whole life?

In some regions. Where the US made the local economy completely dependant on their presence.

Hehe, damn evil US, buying those German goods and services.

And that is not the case any more since Schröder has severely damaged the transatlantic relationship with his policy in the UN security council in forming an anti-american camp with France and Russia. It is going to need many years to repair this damage.
God beware that we ever do something your US God disapproves of. Cause we live to serve them. At least you do.

He has harmed German interests with that.
The majority doesn't share your believes, thats why he got re-elected. It was a close call. But he still was re-elected. Not everyone shares your adoration for your American overlords.

And he has decreased German dependency on France. And that is not a good thing, because France only things about itself. Therefore we should NEVER completly be dependant on it. And in order not to be that we also need the alliance with the US.
France only thinks of itself? And I guess that makes the US completely selfless huh? Do you even read what you are typing? But it's ok. I know you want nothing more then to serve your masters across the pond, Tommy boy.

So you feel like you've been living in an occupied nation your whole life?
Officially untill 1990. Unofficially the occuppation still continues.

damn evil US
You got that right.

France only thinks of itself? And I guess that makes the US completely selfless huh?
No, they aren´t selfless either. But they were the better ally in the past and more loyal to us, in contrast to France.

No, they aren´t selfless either. But they were the better ally in the past and more loyal to us, in contrast to France.
In what way? They were the occupation force. Thats not an ally. Let alone loyal.

Officially untill 1990. Unofficially the occuppation still continues.

Man then don't you just feel like somebody's little bitch...haha, been an occupied citizen your whole life. It must suck with all those US soldiers patrolling the streets at night, taking German citizens away, plundering your national resources. Hehe....get over yourself already....your blantant anti-Americanism doesn't change the fact that Germany has been living in the safety of the US military since the end of WW2 and we've been paying you well for the land to do it. I bet nobody was complaining about the US soldiers while the USSR was fortifying eastern Europe. You just got a wicked case of little man syndrome don't you?

Man then don't you just feel like somebody's little bitch...haha, been an occupied citizen your whole life. It must suck with all those US soldiers patrolling the streets at night, taking German citizens away, plundering your national resources. Hehe....get over yourself already....your blantant anti-Americanism doesn't change the fact that Germany has been living in the safety of the US military since the end of WW2
And what? I have to kiss your feet for it? Like Kyber does?

In what way? They were the occupation force. Thats not an ally. Let alone loyal.
The were the occupying forces after World War II. But in 1949 the Federal Republic of Germany was founded as a sovereign state. And in 1956 Germany had even again a new army.
So, we are a sovereign state since then. There was one exception. And that was the Berlin question and the question of reunification. In that field the 4 winning powers of world war II needed to agree to.
And at the end they did: The US did immidiately support the plan of reunification of Helmut Kohl. The Soviets agreed after some financial support. But France tried together with Britain to prevent it.
They tried to rally support against it in East Europe and even in Moscow against it. That is the true. And that shows the quality of the partnership to France. They are not as reliable as the US. And therefore I see the relationship with the US as more important as to France. And therefore it was a big mistake to damage the relationship with the US in that way Schröder did with his anti-american statements in his government and his policy in the UN up until the war.

And what? I have to kiss your feet for it? Like Kyber does?

Hehe, nobody ever asked you to, and that is the difference. What was your stake in Iraq that you are so inflamed with the US invasion for? Especially after 50 years of US men and women and money standing between you and the Red Army. I simple thank you will suffice.

And what? I have to kiss your feet for it? Like Kyber does?
I don´t do that. I´m in favour of the transatlantic alliance because I consider it IN OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS. And the US garanteed the security of Western Europe against communism: just look what happened to Afghanistan which wasn´t under the protective shield of the US in 1979: Right, they good invaded.
Without the US in our country we (West Germany) might have gotten invaded as well. So: I respect the US for this support.
But I wouldn´t support the transatlantic alliance íf it wasn´t in our current interests. Given the uncertainty of future development (likely terrorism, (unlikely Russia) the security of us and of Europe could be at stake. And then we need the US for support. And therefore it is good that the US is present. Because that links our security with theirs and they then have to defend us. If the aren´t present here we couldn´t been shure that they would defend us.

I don´t do that. I´m in favour of the transatlantic alliance because I consider it IN OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS. And the US garanteed the security of Western Europe against communism: just look what happened to Afghanistan which wasn´t under the protective shield of the US in 1979: Right, they good invaded. Without the US in our country we (West Germany) might have gotten invaded as well. So: I respect the US for this support.
But I wouldn´t support the transatlantic alliance íf it wasn´t in our current interests. Given the uncertainty of future development (likely terrorism, (unlikely Russia) the security of us and of Europe could be at stake. And then we need the US for support. And therefore it is good that the US is present. Because that links our security with theirs and they then have to defend us. If the aren´t present here we couldn´t been shure that they would defend us.

You're wasting you breath. He is only interested in pushing his anti-American politics, not in the truth.

The were the occupying forces after World War II. But in 1949 the Federal Republic of Germany was founded as a sovereign state. And in 1956 Germany had even again a new army.
So, we are a sovereign state since then.
Germany didn't get full sovereignity untill 1990. And it's still not completely sovereign. Article 3, paragraph 2 of the 2+4 treaty limits the seize of the army to a maximum of 345.000.(kinda like Versaille) And paragraph 1 prohibits the develoment of ABC weapons.

And at the end they did: The US did immidiately support the plan of reunification of Helmut Kohl.
Of course they did. One communist country less to worry about.

[quote] They are not as reliable as the US. And therefore I see the relationship with the US as more important as to France. And therefore it was a big mistake to damage the relationship with the US in that way Schröder did with his anti-american statements in his government and his policy in the UN up until the war.
Yes, yes. I know. If you could you would glue your tongue firmly to the US's butt. So you can follow them where ever they go.

Hehe, nobody ever asked you to, and that is the difference. What was your stake in Iraq that you are so inflamed with the US invasion for? Especially after 50 years of US men and women and money standing between you and the Red Army.
Your last argument would have counted ten years ago but not now. The transatlantic relationship can not be saved with past arguments. It needs to be based on common interest in this time and the future.
After all: every country acts in its own interests.
Quite frankly spoken I can only see the interests of Schröder to get reelected as the reason of his policy. They were no sustantial economic stakes in Iraq for Germany (that would be different in the case of Iran though). And it is also against the transitional foreign policy of the Federal Republic of Germany which states that we have a dual binding: The transatlantic partnership (with the US) and with France (as ally in Europe).
And that means never to allow to play one alliance against the other but always to keep both. That gives our policy traditionally a room to manoveur. But he did that by damaging the relationship with the US. That means a greater dependency on France. And that is even against the national interests of Germany.

I don´t do that.
Oh? And who said we need to follow the US and stay loyal? Oh yeah. That was you.
I´m in favour of the transatlantic alliance because I consider it IN OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS.
Our national interest is beeing able to make our own decisions. And not follow the US around like a dog follwing his master. Which is exactly what you want to do.

Germany didn't get full sovereignity untill 1990. And it's still not completely sovereign. Article 3, paragraph 2 of the 2+4 treaty limits the seize of the army to a maximum of 345.000.(kinda like Versaille) And paragraph 1 prohibits the develoment of ABC weapons. .


How much of our sovereignity have we transferred to the EU? Much more than that. If you argue that signing treaties with others takes away sovereignity you couldn´t make any international contracts. That´s the way it is. By the way it is 370.000 (as I remember) and secondly the German army is today reduced below 300000. So what? The policy goes even lower. And it is not comparable to Versailles (that was 100.000 and the ban of the draft). The WMD issue is actually a double mobble. Germany had already signed the non-proliferation treaty. That says that the signatories shouldn´t develop those weapons and those who are nuclear powers don´t hand them to others. All countries except India, Pakistan, Israel and (since last year) North Korea have signed that. Iran with its nuclear program is breaching international law. So what do you want to do about? Allowing it to happen and setting a precedent to other countries also to develop WMDs?
A world in which WMDs are in the possession of several mad dictators and dictatorial regimes would be a much more dangerous world than today. But that are the developments. Should the US watch those threads rising and watching them growing? And talking the risk that one of those dictators may give WMDs away to a mad terrorists who hates the US?

Of course they did. One communist country less to worry about.


That´s not an argument. The GDR (DDR) wasn´t communists in 1990 after the first free election. It could have remained as a non-communists second german state. That´s what Thatcher suggested. And at first Mitterand second that. It was the US who supported it under the father of todays US president.

I think you might as well forget it Kyber. You are arguing from the viewpoint of realpolitik, where the ends justify the means, but Witleben is arguing from an emotional viewpoint in which any collaboration with someone he views to be the "enemy" is impossible. At least be comforted by the fact that the people who really decide these things have more of your qualities than his.

How much of our sovereignity have we transferred to the EU? Much more than that. If you argue that signing treaties with others takes away sovereignity you couldn´t make any international contracts. That´s the way it is. By the way it is 370.000 (as I remember)
The army size then was 370.000. The treaty said it will be reduced from 370.000 to a maximum of 345.000 within the next 3 to 4 years.
and secondly the German army is today reduced below 300000.So what?
So what because a truly sovereign nation would be able to decide on it's own wether to increase or decrease the size of it's armed forces. This way it is kept artificialy small. Without the possibility of going above it if need arises. Which brings us back to defence beeing dependant on the US.

The WMD issue is actually a double mobble. Germany had already signed the non-proliferation treaty. That says that the signatories shouldn´t develop those weapons and those who are nuclear powers don´t hand them to others.
Yes. So why put it in again?


That´s not an argument. The GDR (DDR) wasn´t communists in 1990 after the first free election.
But still with 300.000 Soviet troops in it. Who would have to leave after re-unification.
It could have remained as a non-communists second german state. That´s what Thatcher suggested. And at first Mitterand second that. It was the US who supported it under the father of todays US president.
And that would have been better for the time beeing. Untill it's economy pulled itself together.

Oh? And who said we need to follow the US and stay loyal? Oh yeah. That was you..
Because I consider it in our national interests. I didn´t say that we always need to follow it. But we shouldn´t turn against the US and launch a campaign against it. What was actually the reason for that except Schröders reelection interests?

Our national interest is beeing able to make our own decisions. And not follow the US around like a dog follwing his master. Which is exactly what you want to do.
You have however make a choice what strategy your foreign policy goes. And your decision has consequences.
If you go for a Gaullists policy that means that you have to go for a new division of Europe - as neither Britain, Italy and the Middle East European countries are going to follow that. Only France, Belgium want that.
And it means to deepen disagreements in Europe. That is going to lead to a new division of Europe after our continent was divided for so long. I don´t see that in our national interests, especially not in our economic interests in central-eastern Europe. Therefore we shouldn´t follow France.
Aside of the fact that it would mean that we would need to increase military spending by around 50% to fill the gap the break with the US would cause. Aside that we would need to look for nukes of course and by doing so breach international law. Congratulation to this policy. Noone wants that. But that is the consequence of a gaullist policy if Germany chose to adopt such a policy and the behaviour of our government regarding the Iraq question doesn´t remain an exception in German-US relations.

I think you might as well forget it Kyber. You are arguing from the viewpoint of realpolitik, where the ends justify the means, but Witleben is arguing from an emotional viewpoint in which any collaboration with someone he views to be the "enemy" is impossible. At least be comforted by the fact that the people who really decide these things have more of your qualities than his.
They have indeed. Although sometimes short-term domestic interests (like elections) can play in that.
And after all: the issue can develop in something more serious than just a short-term dispute. It could develop into a permanent conflict. And therefore it is important to analyse it. Well, even I don´t consider the german government that stupid to really turn to a gaullist policy (completly following France) instead of the traditional Realpolitik of Germany which is the double-binding towards the US and France. However: the did go the gaullist way in Iraq. So one never knows for shure.
By the way: the dispute between the Gaullist and the Transatlantics is actually a continuing discussion since the 1960s. In the middle of 1960s there were heavy disputes about that as well. The arguments was we would need to chose between the US and France. Former chancellor Adenauer (1949-63) who actully lead Germany in the transatlantic alliance (1955) and into the partnership with France (1963) called that nonsense. They are after all two sides of one coin: the binding to the west. And the double binding gives us also room to manoveur between the two.
That was also the way this disputed ended: that both is important and that they should never be played against each other. But with the Iraq dispute this dispute has broken out again. And this time it is not only a discussion. This time a government has taken steps away from the the double binding towards a more gaullists policy. So: this time the dispute is more serious.

I see no future in Germany following Gaullist strategy. It is needlessly confrontational and spurns natural allies. The fact that France has chosen Germany to be its closest ally is only because it has, through a long and painful process, learned that a unified Germany is the most powerful nation in Europe. Proximity and power has made France your ally, Germany, never forget that if the situation changes you may find that France is no great friend of yours. Also consider that confrontation with the US serves France's desire to limit the power of the US in order to reap economic and political advantages in other parts of the world (France's involvement in Iraq is a piece of that), but helps Germany very little. Whether or not shifting back towards the US is a superior option or not is a very difficult call to make, but burning your bridges towards the US is not a useful course of action. Schroeder has thus far been careful to keep his options open, but as he slides farther and farther into French machinations it will be more difficult for him to disentangle himself.

I see no future in Germany following Gaullist strategy. It is needlessly confrontational and spurns natural allies. The fact that France has chosen Germany to be its closest ally is only because it has, through a long and painful process, learned that a unified Germany is the most powerful nation in Europe. Proximity and power has made France your ally, Germany, never forget that if the situation changes you may find that France is no great friend of yours. Also consider that confrontation with the US serves France's desire to limit the power of the US in order to reap economic and political advantages in other parts of the world (France's involvement in Iraq is a piece of that), but helps Germany very little. Whether or not shifting back towards the US is a superior option or not is a very difficult call to make, but burning your bridges towards the US is not a useful course of action. Schroeder has thus far been careful to keep his options open, but as he slides farther and farther into French machinations it will be more difficult for him to disentangle himself.
I absolutely agree with you. Our policy traditionally stands on two feets: The transatlantic binding (US) and France. Now we have shot into one of our feets. That is a bad thing. I don´t see any benefit in that either.
But one correction to your argument. The partnership started in the 1950s and lead to the Elysee pact in 1963. Since then it is formalised. And in European affairs both are very close. One reason was certainly the realisation on both sides that only through cooperation future wars between us can be avoided which after have been costly for both sides.
However in 1990 France almost formed an alliance with Britain to prevent the reunification. It needed strong efforts by Kohl to turn them around - at the end Mitterand indeed abandoned Thatcher after he firstly worked together with her. So, we actually know that we can´t be shure about their reliability. The US has been more reliable to us, thus far.

Schroeder has thus far been careful to keep his options open, but as he slides farther and farther into French machinations it will be more difficult for him to disentangle himself.
I see this risk as well.
Though he has taken some efforts for example through the British-French-German summits or - recently - more engagement in the relationship with Poland, which was damaged as well. And German economic interests mainly lay east of us (German trade with East Europe is even bigger than the trade with the US). Through that way it may be possible to get out of the French strategy of embracement (which is of course aimned to tear us to follow their strategy) and also to step by step improve the relationship with the US.
If there is a change of government in 2006 in Germany that would be easier, since the opposition leader is much more going for a transatlantic strategy.

Because I consider it in our national interests. I didn´t say that we always need to follow it.
Not in so many words. But all your arguments point towards it. Tom.
But we shouldn´t turn against the US and launch a campaign against it.
Like this one. Disagreement with US agression towards a country, even voicing it, in your eyes is turning against the US. By this you make it clear that you want to follow the US where ever it goes or just sit in a corner and be quit. Like a good pet.
What was actually the reason for that except Schröders reelection interests?
Drawing away attention from his "succesfull" attempts to cut unemployement in half.


If you go for a Gaullists policy that means that you have to go for a new division of Europe - as neither Britain, Italy and the Middle East European countries are going to follow that. Only France, Belgium want that.
And it means to deepen disagreements in Europe. That is going to lead to a new division of Europe after our continent was divided for so long. I don´t see that in our national interests, especially not in our economic interests in central-eastern Europe. Therefore we shouldn´t follow France.
Aside of the fact that it would mean that we would need to increase military spending by around 50% to fill the gap the break with the US would cause.
Increase military spending when we "follow" France hmm? I kinda remember that that was also a US suggestion.


Aside that we would need to look for nukes of course and by doing so breach international law. Congratulation to this policy. Noone wants that. But that is the consequence of a gaullist policy if Germany chose to adopt such a policy and the behaviour of our government regarding the Iraq question doesn´t remain an exception in German-US relations.
Why would we have to research nukes? And why are you so extremely against an independant EU policy? Where does your slave state of mind come from?

The US did immidiately support the plan of reunification of Helmut Kohl. The Soviets agreed after some financial support. But France tried together with Britain to prevent it.
They tried to rally support against it in East Europe and even in Moscow against it. That is the true. And that shows the quality of the partnership to France.

keep your friend close and your enemies closer.

just think if US with that tried to keep Germany close, or closer.

Drawing away attention from his "succesfull" attempts to cut unemployement in half.
That´s what I meant when I talk about reelection interests. It was the promise to go down below 3,5 million by the way. But it was not even near that anyway.

Increase military spending when we "follow" France hmm?
Yes. In order to refill the gap the US leaves. France is a very small power than the US. So in the military field it is cleary better to go for the US rather than France.
That is also the German policy: In the defense field we allied ourself with the US, in the economic field with France (and Europe - at the begining it were just six countries: remember. That would not have been possible without France).
The same strategy as the Federal Republic of Germany followed till 2002 (since then it is more or less unclear) is followed today by the central-east European countries (especially Polands). So, if you point a finger against them all other fingers are pointing back to Germany till 2002 (and even afterward).

Why would we have to research nukes? And why are you so extremely against an independant EU policy? Where does your slave state of mind come from?
In order to get some independence from France of course - otherwise we would be completly dependent on it. And regarding the EU: I`m for a CFSP. But that can´t be dictated by France. It needed to be made in a consensus and should not be directed against the US.
I explained way. I agree to the arguments of Blair regarding the thread of a muli-polar world of rivaling powers. That is not a good thing. And the EU shouldn´t go that way. And it won´t by the way. It is a fact that the majority of the EU countries are more in the transatlantic camp.

That´s what I meant when I talk about reelection interests. It was the promise to go down below 3,5 million by the way. But it was not even near that anyway.
Highest unemployment rate since 1945.

Yes. In order to refill the gap the US leaves. France is a very small power than the US. So in the military field it is cleary better to go for the US rather than France.
Increased military spending was also a US demand.

That is also the German policy: in the economic field with France
That must be killing you.
(and Europe - at the begining it were just six countries: remember. That would not have been possible without France).
:confused: eeeh?

In order to get some independence from France of course - otherwise we would be completly dependent on it.
Independance from France? How about independance from the US? Oh right. You don't want that to happen.

And regarding the EU: I`m for a CFSP. But that can´t be dictated by France.
I know. You want it to be dictated by Washington.
Woof.

keep your friend close and your enemies closer.

just think if US with that tried to keep Germany close, or closer.
Nice statement. Well: Machiavellism was an Italian invention after all, hehe.

Anyway: Germany and Italy several things in common. They both went for European integration (which of course includes France) and transatlantic partnership (with the US). And traditionally they kept the two things in balance and not joined any camp. The two "extreme" positions in Europe are after all held by Britain and France. Germany and Italy were in a way always between them. Now Italy has moved into the British boat and Germany into the French one. So they have both deepened the divisions. Bad thing for Europe. Such a power-struggle is going to be very costly. And quite frankly spoken I don´t see that France can win this and force its view as CFSP on Europe. That is rather leading to a division of the EU. That is more in the French than in the German interests since we trade more with Central Eastern Europe. So, it would harm our interests much more than those of France.

keep your friend close and your enemies closer.

just think if US with that tried to keep Germany close, or closer.
A statement which actually more fits for France. France and Germany were (are) arch-enemies. Germany and the US aren´t.

Increased military spending was also a US demand..
True: we really spent too little for it: 1,5% of the GDP compared to 2,5% of the GDP of France. But if you would break ties with the US we would really need to go up 50%. That wouldn´t be needed if we keep the alliance. Well: everything has its price



:confused: eeeh?.
The EEC (European Economic Community) was founded in 1957 by France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxemburg.
Nothing against the other countries. But without the built up of the partnership between France and Germany that would not have been possible. But Germany did economically go for European integration (and that was at that time lead by France) and in the defense field for the transatlantic relationship (with the US). And that is exactly the same our eastern neighbours do: Economically for the EU and in the defense field for the transatlantic alliance (with the US). So: If you want to point a finger at them for that all the others are pointing back to the German policy.

Independance from France? How about independance from the US? Oh right. You don't want that to happen.
.
Independence come from the fact that we have the binding to both. If we cut away one of the alliances we lose that independence and become completly dependent on one of those countries.

Independence come from the fact that we have the binding to both. If we cut away one of the alliances we lose that independence and become completly dependent on one of those countries.
And thats what you want. Get rid of France and put Germany under US hegemony. Rönfield.

It is sad to see that there are fellow Germans, who would betray their country like this and literally suck on the asslips of the US and Britain. Kybernetia is a disgrace to Germany, a fugitive. His opinion is contrary to world opinion and the opinion of the vast German majority. The conservative party may seize power in 2006, but they will quickly lose the favour of the people, should they suck up to the US to receive "favours" from the US. Nothing is more despicable than betraying your country like this. Kybernetia, I suggest you leave Germany and immigrate to the US - they like having subservient sheep like you. Good bye.

And thats what you want. Get rid of France and put Germany under US hegemony.
No, I don´t. It is our government who has almost halfly amputated one leg: the transatlantic one. The bridge is damaged. But it isn´t destroyed yet.

But you obviously want to destroy the bridge, amputate one of the leg of our foreign policy and making us dependent on France. But that is going to happen if you get rid of the US binding.

Ireland remained neutral
I don't think so. Yes, we didn't send troops, but we allowed over 200,000 US soldiers (so far) to be transported through our airports on the way to and from Iraq. Planes carrying prisoners for Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay have also used our airports. Our government denies supporting the war, but in reality, we did. For economic reasons, of course. There is so much US investment here that our gov't thinks we must never be seen to question the US gov't.

No, I don´t. It is our government who has almost halfly amputated one leg: the transatlantic one. The bridge is damaged. But it isn´t destroyed yet.

But you obviously want to destroy the bridge, amputate one of the leg of our foreign policy and making us dependent on France. But that is going to happen if you get rid of the US binding.
I want to get rid of the US binding and would love to see a strong Europe that opposes the US hegemony aims.

@Giga,

so because I don´t agree with the current german government I´m a traitor? You have a strange definition of democracy. But I don´t wonder given where you come from.
But be careful. After 2006 someone may use your interpretation against you.
I respect other opinions and would never say because you don´t agree with me you have to migrate to France or something.
I´m rejecting the policy because I think it is wrong. It is not in our national interests and I think it is our government which is actually betraying our national interests.

No, I don´t.
Yes you do. Follow and be loyal. Keep your opinion to yourself.


But you obviously want to destroy the bridge, amputate one of the leg of our foreign policy and making us dependent on France. But that is going to happen if you get rid of the US binding.
I'm in favor of an alliance based on an independant EU policy. Which includes beeing able to not follow your masters blindly into everything they do. Which is what you want. Beeing an obidient tool of US foreign policy. Sticking with them no matter what.

I don't think so. Yes, we didn't send troops, but we allowed over 200,000 US soldiers (so far) to be transported through our airports on the way to and from Iraq. Planes carrying prisoners for Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay have also used our airports. Our government denies supporting the war, but in reality, we did. For economic reasons, of course. There is so much US investment here that our gov't thinks we must never be seen to question the US gov't.
So did Germany. Despite Schröder saying they would not support the war.

I don't think so. Yes, we didn't send troops, but we allowed over 200,000 US soldiers (so far) to be transported through our airports on the way to and from Iraq. Planes carrying prisoners for Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay have also used our airports. Our government denies supporting the war, but in reality, we did. For economic reasons, of course. There is so much US investment here that our gov't thinks we must never be seen to question the US gov't.
If you follow that definition even Germany is in support of the US. We not only have 72.000 soldiers of the US in our country and many US bases. The US also was allowed to use it for deployment. Many wounded US soldiers from Iraq are treated in the US air base in Ramstein for example.

Given that fact it really made no sense to publicly start such an anti-american campaign by in fact supporting the US indirectly even more than Ireland presumably did. Except on the diplomatic field where this terrible theatre was played. Germany is not France. France has no US bases, they are even not integrated into the military integration of Nato (although they are a member). So, whe really shouldn´t base our foreign policy following them.

@Giga,

so because I don´t agree with the current german government I´m a traitor? You have a strange definition of democracy. But I don´t wonder given where you come from.
But be careful. After 2006 someone may use your interpretation against you.
I respect other opinions and would never say because you don´t agree with me you have to migrate to France or something.
I´m rejecting the policy because I think it is wrong. It is not in our national interests and I think it is our government which is actually betraying our national interests.
I strongly oppose anyone who has an "opinion" like you - being the subservient slave of the US and glorifying the crimes the US commit all over the world. You are nothing but a despicable individual, trying to spread propaganda, to make the Americans think they have any support from us, which is totally wrong. The American policy since 2001 has lead to more and more anti-Americanism in Europe. This was not the case - to this degree - before September 2001 and later, when Bush abused the world's goodwill to wage illegal war and overthrow sovereign nations. He will never have the German people in support for his crusade. Maybe a few mislead lunatics like you, who think being a US slave is heaven on earth, but never of free-thinking German people like me and the majority of Germany.

I want to get rid of the US binding and would love to see a strong Europe that opposes the US hegemony aims.
I believe you that you want that. But more than half of Europe doesn´t. So your policy inevitably leads to the division of Europe. And since we just came over one a few years ago I don´t support a policy which is going to lead to a new division of Europe.
European integration and transatlantic alliance are two sides of one coin. One doesn´t work without the other. And that what we saw in the disputes in the Iraq crisis. Europe is either to be a transatlantic Europe or it is not going to be an undivided Europe.

I believe you that you want that. But more than half of Europe doesn´t. So your policy inevitably leads to the division of Europe. And since we just came over one a few years ago I don´t support a policy which is going to lead to a new division of Europe.
European integration and transatlantic alliance are two sides of one coin. One doesn´t work without the other. And that what we saw in the disputes in the Iraq crisis. Europe is either to be a transatlantic Europe or it is not going to be an undivided Europe.
Thinking that being a US slave is a good thing, is much more cause for division. The people at large do not support their governments decisions to support the US in their wars. You simply ignore this fact.

You say that Europe can only be trans-atlantic, which is entirely wrong. We do not need the US. They are going down and China is rising - we should rather make them our close friends, seeing that they will be our largest economic partner soon. Despite them being communists, their economy is booming and theymay not be communists in the near future - who knows.

At least China does not show world-domination ambitions as the US-emperors do.

I don´t support a policy which is going to lead to a new division of Europe.
And yet you want to get rid of France as long as they refuse to become US drones like yourself.

Europe is either to be a transatlantic Europe or it is not going to be an undivided Europe.
It's a darn shame that there are no German soldiers dying in Iraq for your American masters interests.

Thinking that being a US slave is a good thing, is much more cause for division. The people at large do not support their governments decisions to support the US in their wars. You simply ignore this fact.
In Britain there was a majority support during the war.
And by the way: if you follow public opinion the results are as following: No to sexual cuts, No to tax increases, No to more dept. That is impossible in the current situation. So, its impossible to always follow public opinion.
A government needs to do what is in the best interests of the country even if at the begining it might not have majority support. In that sense I applaude the social reforms which are currently done in our country in the joint cooperation of government and opposition.

You also forget the fact that the same people in all other countries would object French dominance of a French-German directory dominating Europe. That´s the way it is. So: It is in fact only possible to have European integration if it goes hand in hand with the transatlantic partnership.

In Britain there was a majority support during the war.
And by the way: if you follow public opinion the results are as following: No to sexual cuts, No to tax increases, No to more dept. That is impossible in the current situation. So, its impossible to always follow public opinion.
A government needs to do what is in the best interests of the country even if at the begining it might not have majority support. In that sense I applaude the social reforms which are currently done in our country in the joint cooperation of government and opposition.

You also forget the fact that the same people in all other countries would object French dominance of a French-German directory dominating Europe. That´s the way it is. So: It is in fact only possible to have European integration if it goes hand in hand with the transatlantic partnership.
You are wrong. In a democracy the government has to do what the people support. Nothing else. If the governments think they can act in monarchical fashion like you and your conservative friends think a democracy works, then they lose power quickly, as you can currently see in Germany. The people protest the current reform plans and do not support them - the government is forced to change them or get rid of them altogether, or face being removed. Democracy is the will of the people, not the will of the government.

In Britain there was a majority support during the war.
And by the way: if you follow public opinion the results are as following: No to sexual cuts, No to tax increases, No to more dept. That is impossible in the current situation. So, its impossible to always follow public opinion.
A government needs to do what is in the best interests of the country even if at the begining it might not have majority support. In that sense I applaude the social reforms which are currently done in our country in the joint cooperation of government and opposition.

You also forget the fact that the same people in all other countries would object French dominance of a French-German directory dominating Europe. That´s the way it is. So: It is in fact only possible to have European integration if it goes hand in hand with the transatlantic partnership.
The US decided to end this "partnership" by ignoring the UN and insulting "Old " Europe. I want to see the US apologize and try to fix the partnership, not the other way around. Being against criminal war is not a crime - it is a honourable and admirable policy, which has the backing of the people. Warmongering is not well received in Germany, especially if it is against the law.

You say that Europe can only be trans-atlantic, which is entirely wrong. We do not need the US. They are going down and China is rising - we should rather make them our close friends, seeing that they will be our largest economic partner soon. Despite them being communists, their economy is booming and theymay not be communists in the near future - who knows..
China has today a market economy. The are ruled by one party. What that means and how "good" that is you may be able to ask some older people. At least those who don´t forget the negative aspects of a dictatorship. And that is what China still is.
And by the way. If you speak of downfall. US GDP growth average 1990-2001: 3,4%, Germanys GDP growth average 1990-2001: 1,4
It is a shame to say: But it is us who are going down. The Federal Repulic of Germany once the engine of growth of Europe is now the sick man of the continent, even worse than France. And the time 2001-2004 is even worse just to tell you before you jump to wrong conclusions.
At least China does not show world-domination ambitions as the US-emperors do.
That may come. China traditionally was the hegemonial power in East Asia. And they occasionally threaten to invade Taiwan.
They attacked India in 1959, the Soviets in 1969, Vietnam in 1979. And they are a communists dictatorship. I much rather like the US seeing running the world than China.
And as partners of the US we are able to influence it.

If you have a third modell to those two feel free to tell it. Foreign policy is not that easy.

I hate coming in to discussions so late, but what about the possibility of a world court whereby all countries have the right to prosecute another country that has broken international treaties?

There has been discussion around the area before, but the UK and USA will never go for it as they break so many treaties every day... ho hum.

There has been discussion around the area before, but the UK and USA will never go for it as they break so many treaties every day... ho hum.
There ya go.

You are wrong. In a democracy the government has to do what the people support. Nothing else. If the governments think they can act in monarchical fashion like you and your conservative friends think a democracy works, then they lose power quickly, as you can currently see in Germany. The people protest the current reform plans and do not support them - the government is forced to change them or get rid of them altogether, or face being removed. Democracy is the will of the people, not the will of the government.
We are a representative democracy. That means that parliament rules. And there are good reasons for that. I pointed them out. People say they want lower taxes, more welfare, less state deficit, e.g. That is simply impossible. That is like the demand: wash me but don´t make me wet. It´s impossible.
And there is no alternative to the reforms. A conservative led government would push the same agenda even with more speed. And I support that because it is needed: 1,4% growth average since 1990. That is the last place in Europe. And the last three years with virtually no growth. Our country needs reforms, cuts social security tax (by cutting in the spending in that area), lowering taxes (and cutting in the budget - and the biggest budget area is social spending). And that is going to help our economy. Such a reform process needs time. It began 1996-1998, was then unfortunately interrupted and began again in 2003. Given the experience of other countries it needs 5-10 years. We need to get through that in order to become a stronger country. It is necessary to go through this difficult time and challenge it and do the necessary reforms. Not action is only going to make things even more worse. We already waited too long. And the longer we wait the more painful it is going to be.
I welcome really that finally Schröder turned the corner after five years of more or less failure of his policy.

I much rather like the US seeing running the world than China.
Theres our uncle Tom again. Or is it Kunta?
I'd rather see neither run the world.
And as partners of the US we are able to influence it.
Like they will listen to what their Kybernetians (that means servants) have to say.

Now Italy has moved into the British boat and Germany into the French one. So they have both deepened the divisions.

could say that italy has moved on US and UK boat only cause the italian Prime mininster likes to be considered important.

important friends make people important.

so i wouldn't say we are UK and US trustest allies.

to be honest, if Berlusconi loses the Elections (as it's probable) there will be some change in italian foreign politics, like leaving Iraqi war.

Cheers.

I hate coming in to discussions so late, but what about the possibility of a world court whereby all countries have the right to prosecute another country that has broken international treaties?
And who should chose the judges: Libya, Iran, Russia, China. Certainly countries that are known for their "compliance" to human rights and international law (after all human rights belong to it as well).
There is actually a thing like the Security Council. But all of its permanent members are immune to any resolution (due to their veto power). And none of them, neither France, Britain, Russia, China or the US is going to give that up.

could say that italy has moved on US and UK boat only cause the italian Prime mininster likes to be considered important.
important friends make people important.
so i wouldn't say we are UK and US trustest allies.
to be honest, if Berlusconi loses the Elections (as it's probable) there will be some change in italian foreign politics, like leaving Iraqi war.
Cheers.
And Schröder moved that way to win the election and to feel important as well. Germany isn´t even a permanent member ot the Security Council. It wasn´t in 2002 when 1441 was passed. It is only a non-permanent member between 2003-05 (two years). And he used that to play to be a world power and to feel more important than he really is and Germany really is. Therefore this policy at the UN, which is not common for a non-permanent member after all.
And if Schröder loses the next election in 2006 - which is very likely - there is going to be some changes in German foreign policy, like a stronger engagement in Afghanistan and the balcans and more support for Iraq especially on the financial field (depth) and humanitarian field.

[talking about having a strong European Politics]

I believe you that you want that. But more than half of Europe doesn´t. So your policy inevitably leads to the division of Europe.

to be honest, i consider your opinion quite wrong.
Anti-americanism (intended as anti-American Imperialism) has reached it's all time highest peak in Europe with the current american administation.
even in States like UK and Italy whose governments follow the US politics (with some resentsment from the citizens)

Cheers

We are a representative democracy. That means that parliament rules. And there are good reasons for that. I pointed them out. People say they want lower taxes, more welfare, less state deficit, e.g. That is simply impossible. That is like the demand: wash me but don´t make me wet. It´s impossible.
And there is no alternative to the reforms. A conservative led government would push the same agenda even with more speed. And I support that because it is needed: 1,4% growth average since 1990. That is the last place in Europe. And the last three years with virtually no growth. Our country needs reforms, cuts social security tax (by cutting in the spending in that area), lowering taxes (and cutting in the budget - and the biggest budget area is social spending).
It would also help if Germany stopped financing Hollywood made movies.

[talking about having a strong European Politics]
to be honest, i consider your opinion quite wrong.
Anti-americanism (intended as anti-American Imperialism) has reached it's all time highest peak in Europe with the current american administation.
even in States like UK and Italy whose governments follow the US politics (with some resentsment from the citizens)
Cheers
It´s your right to have your opinion. I would never deny that to anybody like some of the anti-americans here do. Freedom of speech is one of the first of all liberties.
It should not be forgotten that before "American Imperialism" came to Iraq it didn´t exist over there. There was a totalitarian dictatorship.
That fact seems to be forgotten by most people after all.
There were also a lot of protest against the US in the 1980s or in the late 1960s here in Europe. It didn´t destroy the transatlantic partnership. People have the right to demonstrate. But that doesn´t make them right.
Policy and foreign policy is always about interests. You can say that is bad: well but that is the reality. It was not because of high principles Chirac did his policy. It is the gaullist tradition which tradtionally says to kick the Americans once from time to time. Designed to become popular in the developing world. And this time he was also able to use this issue to seperate Germany from the US. That didn´t happen ever in the post-war history. Germany had its relationship with the US and France. Germany always kept the binding to the US - especially in the defense policy.
No, he had the historic opportunity to embrace Germany breaking its ties with the US and having left only the Franco-German alliance which makes us more dependent on them. That must have been the greatest moment for Mr. Chirac that he almost achieved what De Gaulle wanted. Though only almost:because the other half of Europe sided with the US.

This is a strange philosophy that Giga and Witleben have. Apparently it is an either-or situation for them, with no middle ground. They believe that either Germany must always side with France or that it must always side with the US. How very odd, that they fail to see that Kybernetia is not advocating either one of those. He argues against your pro-France stance because he does not feel that it is advantageous to cut off the US in favor of a weaker ally, not because he feels that Germany ought to abandon France entirely. I am certain that if someone here had actually been advocating the abandonment of France entirely Kyber would argue against that to. I am an American, and I work in the best interests of my country, Kyber does the same. It is in the US's best interests for Germany to disregard France and follow the US, but I have not made this argument because it is not in Germany's interest to do so.

I am concerned that perhaps you have forgotten how to critically read a statement and assess its true intent: everytime Kyber says that it is a mistake to cut ties with the US you claim that he wishes to become subserviant to the US, when he has never said any such thing. He is advocating the middle ground for Germany, not one side or the other. Non-alignment has been shown to be a very useful strategy for a country in the Cold War, and it is probably even more viable now that the Cold War has ended. An allilance with France to the exclusion of the US is not non-alignment, it is a strategy that brings Germany under exclusive French influence. Although this brings certain benefits within the EU, internationally it is a mistake because France and Germany share no common interests except seeking to dominate the nascent EU, and therefore must become competitors in the international arena eventually.

You also fail to distinguish between waging war and rebuilding from it. It is Kyber's own business whether or not he supported the Iraq war, but frankly it ought not longer be an issue even if he was against it. Right now the only pertanent issue is whether or not Germany will aid in the rebuilding of Iraq, which it ought to do if Germany truly cares what happens in Iraq and to the Iraqi people. You claim that helping to rebuild Iraq would somehow be providing justification for what you view to be an unjust war, but this is NOT the issue here. Kyber's comments (and I hope that I am correct, I hate to put words or ideas into your mouth like this) lead me to believe that he was for a unified German-French front against the Iraq war, but against this continued and damaging stubborness to refrain from aiding in the rebuilding process. If Germany would help in the rebuilding process, it could mantain its links with the US, while still keeping its links with France due to its anti-war stance.

to believe that he [kyber] was for a unified German-French front against the Iraq war, but against this continued and damaging stubborness to refrain from aiding in the rebuilding process. If Germany would help in the rebuilding process, it could mantain its links with the US, while still keeping its links with France due to its anti-war stance.

and not being trusted anymore by any of the two :)

sorry, i like to be cynical :)

Lenbonia,

no I was not for an alliance against the war. I was for giving diplomatic (but only diplomatic) support for it. But given the situation I thought it to be probably the best to abstain actually in order not to allionate anybody.
Anyway: Germany was not even an UN Security Council member at 2003 when 1441 was passed and there was no other vote afterwards. So this is more or less a hypothetical question. What I really strongly rejected was Schröders positioning against any action against Iraq regardless of what it does. And a policy which prejudiced Germanys possible position taking away our room to manoveur in the UN. Even France didn´t go that that far.
In fact - if you only look to the diplomacy: German government was the most extreme against the US position, Britain the most in favour for it and France almost in the middle. That is completly wrong given our foreign policy strategy. In this situation France of course at the end sided with Germany because of its own interests but also in order to divide Germany from the US.

I´m indeed for a middle position. And I´m completly against abandoning the defense alliance with the US (via weakening Nato and damaging the relationship to it) in order to become more dependent on France, which is much weaker than the US. And it would mean that our policy would only have one leg instead of the two leg philosophy. Well: and we would need to spent much more on defense. And - putting it further. In order to become not dependent on France and its nuclear shield we would either need to convince them for a joint command over it or getting nukes ourself - against international law and the non-proliferation treaty. Or become junior partner of France. And that is not our position. France is not a stronger nation than we are. So being junior partner to a nation which is even economically weaker than us is unacceptable and unreasonable.
Yes, we are junior partner for the US. But we wouldn´t completly depend on it: Economy via EU, defense via the US. That´s historically the German strategy and I see no reason to abadon it. Aside of the fact that in a middle position we can always wink to the US by saying: We are not as bad as the French. And we can try to use them as well to get some concessions. After all: it is this double binding which gives our foreign policy room to manoveur.
I don´t want to abadon it.

It is sad to see that there are fellow Germans, who would betray their country like this and literally suck on the asslips of the US and Britain. Kybernetia is a disgrace to Germany, a fugitive. His opinion is contrary to world opinion and the opinion of the vast German majority. The conservative party may seize power in 2006, but they will quickly lose the favour of the people, should they suck up to the US to receive "favours" from the US. Nothing is more despicable than betraying your country like this. Kybernetia, I suggest you leave Germany and immigrate to the US - they like having subservient sheep like you. Good bye.
Deutschland über alles!

If Kybernetia is a traitor to Germany, then that is like me saying that you are an ultra-nationalist Nazi. It's just the opposite extreme. Your emotional argument seems to stem from a hatred of the current American government. You seem to think this is a valid reason to terminate the transatlantic relationship, eject American soldiers from Europe, and prepare for war with the USA. In calling other posters unpatriotic, how are you any better than the Rush Limbaugh Republicans of America?

Kybernetia never said that he wanted to destroy France, or to terminate Germany's relationship with that country. Why does it have to be an absolute decision between France and America? It's not as if they're enemies.

The truth is that Kybernetia is a patriotic German like you. The truth is that it is in Germany's interest to uphold relationships with its allies. Isolationism and Gaullism are not the way to go for Germany.

We are a representative democracy. That means that parliament rules. And there are good reasons for that. I pointed them out. People say they want lower taxes, more welfare, less state deficit, e.g. That is simply impossible. That is like the demand: wash me but don´t make me wet. It´s impossible.
And there is no alternative to the reforms. A conservative led government would push the same agenda even with more speed. And I support that because it is needed: 1,4% growth average since 1990. That is the last place in Europe. And the last three years with virtually no growth. Our country needs reforms, cuts social security tax (by cutting in the spending in that area), lowering taxes (and cutting in the budget - and the biggest budget area is social spending). And that is going to help our economy. Such a reform process needs time. It began 1996-1998, was then unfortunately interrupted and began again in 2003. Given the experience of other countries it needs 5-10 years. We need to get through that in order to become a stronger country. It is necessary to go through this difficult time and challenge it and do the necessary reforms. Not action is only going to make things even more worse. We already waited too long. And the longer we wait the more painful it is going to be.
I welcome really that finally Schröder turned the corner after five years of more or less failure of his policy.
You really think making people who already have no jobs, even poorer than they already are, is the solution? God I pity you and your lack of economic understanding. If you make jobs cheaper, the mentality in Germany is not, to hire more people, but to fire more people and make more profit that way. It has been like this for the last 10-20 years and will continue to be that way, the more globalization cracks the market open for foreign firms and corporations. Instead of making German workers vulnerable to a doomed battle of the economies, with salaries dropping into the cellar and living standard equally dropping, our government should better regulate the market in favour of German firms. We'll end up in a "slave society", much like Venezuela or other south-american countries have now, if the open market stays like it is, with more and more American and other corporations, eating up entire market segments and dominating the economy with demands and price dumping. I do not want that. What our government should do is, strengthening of the locla market. German firms need German market growth because the insecurities and lack of money to spend is, what hinders the economy. Reducing the available money of many people even more, will put even more pressure on the economy, as less people cna afford buying extravagant things. End of story being, by dumping the prize of our work, we open up the way for corporations to dictate how much you have to work for minimal salary and drops our living standard into the depths of "3rd world" nations. If that is what you want, good luck. I want nothing of it.

and not being trusted anymore by any of the two :)

sorry, i like to be cynical :)

Trust through mutual interests is the only kind of trust worth relying on among nations. A history of actions which go against a country's own interests is indicative of either internal weakness, poor leadership, or some sort of long-term strategy.

This is a strange philosophy that Giga and Von Witzleben have. Apparently it is an either-or situation for them, with no middle ground.
My middleground is Europe as an equall partner. Which can only be in conjuntction with France and a strong EU with an army of their own. But uncle Tom in his own words wants us to follow and be loyal. And if we don't agree with an US decision keep our mouths shut about it.

They believe that either Germany must always side with France or that it must always side with the US. How very odd, that they fail to see that Kybernetia is not advocating either one of those.
Actually he's arguing for the latter.

I am certain that if someone here had actually been advocating the abandonment of France entirely Kyber would argue against that to.
No he wouldn't. He thinks by becoming a US sattelite state we would become independant from France. He said so on the previouse page.


everytime Kyber says that it is a mistake to cut ties with the US you claim that he wishes to become subserviant to the US, when he has never said any such thing.
Not in so many words. But by propagating what he and Purly Euclid call an Pax Americana and staying loyal followers who keep their opinion to themselves thats exactly what he rooting for.
If it was a war Kyber would be the first to defect to the US.



Kyber's comments (and I hope that I am correct, I hate to put words or ideas into your mouth like this) lead me to believe that he was for a unified German-French front against the Iraq war, but against this continued and damaging stubborness to refrain from aiding in the rebuilding process. If Germany would help in the rebuilding process, it could mantain its links with the US, while still keeping its links with France due to its anti-war stance.
If Bush hadn't barred non participants from them contracts. Now his idea of rebuilding is erasing debts. Which is quit funny if you keep in mind that Iraq has the 2nd largests oil resources in the world.
And if Kyber had his way German troops would get shot up down in Iraq right now. Leaving France by itself.

You really think making people who already have no jobs, even poorer than they already are, is the solution? God I pity you and your lack of economic understanding. If you make jobs cheaper, the mentality in Germany is not, to hire more people, but to fire more people and make more profit that way. It has been like this for the last 10-20 years and will continue to be that way, the more lgobalization cracks the market open for foreign firms and corporations. Instead of making German workers vulnerable to a doomed battle of the economies, with salaries dropping into the cellarand living standard equally dropping, we'll end up in a "slave society", much like Venezuela or other south-american countries have now. I do not want that. What our government should do is, strengthening of the locla market. German firms need German market growth because the insecurities and lack of money to spend is, what hinders the economy. Reducing the available money of many people even more, will put even more pressure on the economy, as less people cna afford buying extravagant things. End of story being, by dumping the prize of our work, we open up the way for corporations to dictate how much you have to work for minimal salary and drops our living standard into the depths of "3rd world" nations. If that is what you want, good luck. I want nothing of it.

Are you arguing for protectionism? That kind of idea has a very poor rate of success. If Germany cannot compete in the world market, there is no true alternative other than making large sacrifices. The global market is where the real money is, the kind of money that builds or busts an economy. Ride the wave or stay in the kiddie pool.

and not being trusted anymore by any of the two :)
sorry, i like to be cynical :)
Just be Machiavellists. Lebonia misunderstood something. In my first posts I have explained why Germany also for some historic reasons has come to this position and Britain also for philosophical reasons to another.
A multi-polar world can be a very dangerous order. We had that in Europe before 1914. A world of rivaling powers. That led to World War I - as I explain in the first post - and finally because it was not destroyed through Versailles to a situation where another World War II was possible.
And after world war II to a bipolar world.
And that meant always the tread of a war.

So a return to the old balance of power (or mulit-polar world) is a very dangerous idea (proposed by France, Russia and China). That leads to rivaling powers. And this rivalry can lead to conflicts between the powers and even to wars between the power blocks. So probably it is better that one country is playing a leading role - but also listens to others.
And given the situation only the US can play this role.
Though I don´t see it having a sustainable concept. But it is the only one who can play this role.
In that sense I agree with Blair. However I don´t think we always need to sent troops to aid the US. The US doesn´t demand that either. President Bush was going for a coaltion of the willing. Kerry - if he became president which I don´t think- would in contrast try to push us much more to sent troops to Iraq, because he wants an "internationalisation". So many of the anti-Bush people would soon be turning Anti-Kerry. But I don´t think it comes to that.

Are you arguing for protectionism? That kind of idea has a very poor rate of success. If Germany cannot compete in the world market, there is no true alternative other than making large sacrifices. The global market is where the real money is, the kind of money that builds or busts an economy. Ride the wave or stay in the kiddie pool.
"The wave" is dominated by American corporations. German corporations or firms cannot compete with that. Instead of opening our market up for exploitation like is currently done, we need to strengthen our market, reduce foreign influence on it and keep our power concentrated on serving our own people, not the interest of other countries and foreign corporations who make the big money.

It´s your right to have your opinion. I would never deny that to anybody like some of the anti-americans here do. Freedom of speech is one of the first of all liberties.
It should not be forgotten that before "American Imperialism" came to Iraq it didn´t exist over there. There was a totalitarian dictatorship.
That fact seems to be forgotten by most people after all.

if saddam has been taken out in 91 i don't think anyone would have said anything. they saved that population from a dictatorship.

they also started a new palestine there, so i dunno if i have to say thanks or Omg :)


There were also a lot of protest against the US in the 1980s or in the late 1960s here in Europe. It didn´t destroy the transatlantic partnership.


Iron curtain helped that.



People have the right to demonstrate. But that doesn´t make them right.


in Democracy THIS makes them right. then we should consider if Democracy is or isn't the best way to govern a nation, and who should decide the supreme good of a nation.


It was not because of high principles Chirac did his policy. It is the gaullist tradition which tradtionally says to kick the Americans once from time to time.


to be honest were the economic interests in the area. never said France is Pure and good. that doesn't make the US right on this war.

Germany was in a bad situation, choosing one of the two "evils"


Germany had its relationship with the US and France. Germany always kept the binding to the US - especially in the defense policy.


well, don't think they [germany] would have much of a choice in that matter.

[/quote]
No, he had the historic opportunity to embrace Germany breaking its ties with the US and having left only the Franco-German alliance which makes us more dependent on them. [/QUOTE]

looks like a sad thing.

being dependant on france, or being dependant on US?
(or trying to develop the EU to be more important as a single entity in foreign policy?)

My middleground is Europe as an equall partner. Which can only be in conjuntction with France and a strong EU with an army of their own. But uncle Tom in his own words wants us to follow and be loyal. And if we don't agree with an US decision keep our mouths shut about it.

Actually he's arguing for the latter.


No he wouldn't. He thinks by becoming a US sattelite state we would become independant from France. He said so on the previouse page.



Not in so many words. But by propagating what he and Purly Euclid call an Pax Americana and staying loyal followers who keep their opinion to themselves thats exactly what he rooting for.
If it was a war Kyber would be the first to defect to the US.



If Bush hadn't barred non participants from them contracts. Now his idea of rebuilding is erasing debts. Which is quit funny if you keep in mind that Iraq has the 2nd largests oil resources in the world.
And if Kyber had his way German troops would get shot up down in Iraq right now. Leaving France by itself.

Your statements are without proof and border on libel. You tell us what Kyber's opinions are, but you never give any basis for your comments other than claiming it to be true. How can anyone rely on your statements that Kyber wants to be a puppet of the US when he has NEVER said anything that would give such an impression.

There are ways to help a country without bidding on contracts, it is called *foreign aid*. Contracts make the companies involved money, so not being able to bid on contracts is only important if your primary concern is helping German companies make money in Iraq.

You also seem to misunderstand what the term "Pax Americana" refers to. Although it alludes to the "Pax Romana" of the Roman Empire, Pax Americana has come to mean the ability of the US to diffuse most conflicts before they happen or to help stop them after they have occured. The term has nothing to do with the US controlling other countries, but refers to its role as a moderator and a peacekeeper (and before you bring up Iraq, I never said that the US was *exclusively* a peacemaker, just that it was one of its many roles).

Just be Machiavellists. Lebonia misunderstood something. In my first posts I have explained why Germany also for some historic reasons has come to this position and Britain also for philosophical reasons to another.
A multi-polar world can be a very dangerous order. We had that in Europe before 1914. A world of rivaling powers. That led to World War I - as I explain in the first post - and finally because it was not destroyed through Versailles to a situation where another World War II was possible.
And after world war II to a bipolar world.
And that meant always the tread of a war.

So a return to the old balance of power (or mulit-polar world) is a very dangerous idea (proposed by France, Russia and China). That leads to rivaling powers. And this rivalry can lead to conflicts between the powers and even to wars between the power blocks. So probably it is better that one country is playing a leading role - but also listens to others.
And given the situation only the US can play this role.
Though I don´t see it having a sustainable concept. But it is the only one who can play this role.
In that sense I agree with Blair. However I don´t think we always need to sent troops to aid the US. The US doesn´t demand that either. President Bush was going for a coaltion of the willing. Kerry - if he became president which I don´t think- would in contrast try to push us much more to sent troops to Iraq, because he wants an "internationalisation". So many of the anti-Bush people would soon be turning Anti-Kerry. But I don´t think it comes to that.
The US can not "play" a world leadership "role". As you see, they gladly ignore international law, treaties and alliances, if it suits their interest. This is not how the world needs to be lead. The world needs to be lead by good example,not by an imperalistic dictator who lowers himself to the same level as the leaders he accuses of foul play. The US has lost all my confidence in being a good super-power. Instead, its image has been replaced with what it truly is: a corporate giant, yearning to dominate the world and spread its "culture" everywhere, assimilating and destroying all other nations. The borg, may be comparable to that. I will oppose that as long as I live.

So probably it is better that one country is playing a leading role - but also listens to others.
Yeah, and your masters are so good at that. And it doesn't matter wether Bush or Kerry are in power. They both want what you want. US hegemony on a global scale. So rest easy. Even with Kerry in power your services to your country, the US, will not be in vain.

The US can not "play" a world leadership "role". As you see, they gladly ignore international law, treaties and alliances, if it suits their interest. This is not how the world needs to be lead. The world needs to be lead by good example,not by an imperalistic dictator who lowers himself to the same level as the leaders he accuses of foul play. The US has lost all my confidence in being a good super-power. Instead, its image has been replaced with what it truly is: a corporate giant, yearning to dominate the world and spread its "culture" everywhere, assimilating and destroying all other nations. The borg, may be comparable to that. I will oppose that as long as I live.

No nation is all good or all bad, and it would be a mistake to hold the US to a much higher standard than any other country.

No nation is all good or all bad, and it would be a mistake to hold the US to a much higher standard than any other country.
Thus why the US are unfit to world hegemony and should instead stick to their own problems and help the UN if requested to do so. Their self-imposed world police attitudeand blatant arrogance, is poison for the world and will eventually fire back.

If Germany cannot compete in the world market, there is no true alternative other than making large sacrifices. The global market is where the real money is, the kind of money that builds or busts an economy.
And Germany actually has a share of 10% of world trade. Quite much for 1,3% of the world population and about 7% of world economic output. So there is hardly a country benefiting more from this market. But of course: people with low qualifications don´t. That jobs move out. And that is a problem. Aside of structural problems, inflexible markets but also our high support (especially in the 1990s) for Russia, today for Eastern Europe and the EU and - the most - for East Germany. That alone costs 4% of our GDP every year.
The reforms are designed to make Germany much more fit. There were even some reports about it at CNN in the business section - positive by the way.
I think it is going to help but it needs help. The reforming process began under Kohl from 1996-98. One of the reasons he lost was those reforms. Schröder even rolled back some of them. But since 2003 he is moving forward (Agenda 2010)- by the way in the shadow of the war using it in a way to get in one point public support on his side. The conservative opposition (which controlls the second chamber - not all laws but 50% needs there approval) is playing a constructive role and pushing him for more market economic reforms. It is actually a good thing that no the polictical left is pushing that (they don´t have really another choice but still: I give him some credit for that). It makes the process more sustainable. If there is a government change in 2006 there would be a conservative-liberal government pushing even faster and for deeper reforms. And if - seems almost impossible, but who knows - the government should win that would be a victory of Schröder and his reform policy. So they would continue it as well, though not as deep and in some points different to the conservatives and the liberals (who are a pretty neo-libaral party by the way).

Your statements are without proof and border on libel. You tell us what Kyber's opinions are, but you never give any basis for your comments other than claiming it to be true. How can anyone rely on your statements that Kyber wants to be a puppet of the US when he has NEVER said anything that would give such an impression.
I've been arguing with him a bit longer then you have. And some of his statements are in this thread. If you can be bothered to read it.

There are ways to help a country without bidding on contracts, it is called *foreign aid*.
Yup. But I fail to see why the country with the 2nd largests oil reserves in the world needs this kind of help. A loan? Sure. But foreign aid is aid thats given without ever getting the money back.
Contracts make the companies involved money, so not being able to bid on contracts is only important if your primary concern is helping German companies make money in Iraq.
And why shouldn't they?

You also seem to misunderstand what the term "Pax Americana" refers to. Although it alludes to the "Pax Romana" of the Roman Empire, Pax Americana has come to mean the ability of the US to diffuse most conflicts before they happen or to help stop them after they have occured. The term has nothing to do with the US controlling other countries, but refers to its role as a moderator and a peacekeeper.
And how does the one exclude the other?

And Germany actually has a share of 10% of world trade. Quite much for 1,3% of the world population and about 7% of world economic output. So there is hardly a country benefiting more from this market. But of course: people with low qualifications don´t. That jobs move out. And that is a problem. Aside of structural problems, inflexible markets but also our high support (especially in the 1990s) for Russia, today for Eastern Europe and the EU and - the most - for East Germany. That alone costs 4% of our GDP every year.
The reforms are designed to make Germany much more fit. There were even some reports about it at CNN in the business section - positive by the way.
I think it is going to help but it needs help. The reforming process began under Kohl from 1996-98. One of the reasons he lost was those reforms. Schröder even rolled back some of them. But since 2003 he is moving forward (Agenda 2010)- by the way in the shadow of the war using it in a way to get in one point public support on his side. The conservative opposition (which controlls the second chamber - not all laws but 50% needs there approval) is playing a constructive role and pushing him for more market economic reforms. It is actually a good thing that no the polictical left is pushing that (they don´t have really another choice but still: I give him some credit for that). It makes the process more sustainable. If there is a government change in 2006 there would be a conservative-liberal government pushing even faster and for deeper reforms. And if - seems almost impossible, but who knows - the government should win that would be a victory of Schröder and his reform policy. So they would continue it as well, though not as deep and in some points different to the conservatives and the liberals (who are a pretty neo-libaral party by the way).
Dont be so sure. There is a leftist party forming out of the current government party (bad sign, the party is breaking up into 2) with a lot of support, the communist party is gaining support nation wide and especially in East Germany, they have a majority in many states. The conservaties, which you so proudly represent, are one of 2 evils and no alternative. I do not think that the conservatives will win. Instead, you will get slapped by the electorate, like the redheaded stepchild, that you are and we'll see a surprise. Either the leftists will win, or the communists (low chance) or the right-wingers (better chance). Conservatives or current government is like the situation in the US with Kerry vs Bush. Both suck.

in Democracy THIS makes them right. then we should consider if Democracy is or isn't the best way to govern a nation, and who should decide the supreme good of a nation.
We are republic though. We frankly spoken we are represenative democracies ruled by the rule of law. If the majority says that I should jump out of the window I wouldn´t do it. And in the case of the death penalty many countries ignore majority views, especially does pointed out after a rape and a murder which is spectacular. Emotions guide many people. The mass can be manipulated very easily. Goebbels said in 1943: Do you want total war and the people cried yes, yes, yes. The mass can´t be trusted. So it is right to have a representative democracy. The representatives are elected for a term and then stand reelection. And they are free in their decision however have to justify them at the election and stand the vote. That is a good system since it keeps out the emotion of the moment and allows a bit more of medium-term interests to be determined on the results.
One reason why Germany doesn´t have a strong head of state which was elected directly (like during 1919-33). He brought such a figure like Hitler to power after all.
So: Representative democracy: yes: But direct democracy can be very dangerous since the mass can easily manipulated.



being dependant on france, or being dependant on US?
(or trying to develop the EU to be more important as a single entity in foreign policy?)
Or being dependent on both and use it to have room to manoveur. Thats more or less the strategy since the 1950s.
The EU can´t formulate a CFSP (common defense and security policy) by following France. And I admitt - although I´m much closer to that - by following Britain. It would need to be somewhere in between. A position Germany was standing traditionally. And Italy as well. So Italy and Germany could play an important role by making up a common concept and then advertising it towards France and Britain. But that is unrealistic - especially given our two current governments.

Goebbels said in 1943: Do you want total war and the people cried yes, yes, yes.
You mean that piece of propaganda filmed infront of fanatical partymembers?

The mass can´t be trusted.
Stalin said the same thing.

The EU can´t formulate a CFSP (common defense and security policy) by following France.
No. they should follow the US for a CFSP of their own huh?

PS: Es heisst aus dem fenster springen. Und springen ist Jump, to jump in Englisch.

Dont be so sure. There is a leftist party forming out of the current government party (bad sign, the party is breaking up into 2) with a lot of support, the communist party is gaining support nation wide and especially in East Germany, they have a majority in many states.
I disagree with you. But we are both going to see.
The new left party - which wasn´t founded yet actually has no prominent members. And they have stated that they don´t want to cooperate with the PDS. And the 5% barrier is a big problem. If the party doesn´t join the PDS they both individually need to spring over the 5% barrier. So the left party could actually weaken the left by talking away votes from the SPD, talking away a few votes from the PDS in West Germany (and none in the east), failing on the 5%-barrier and still weakening the PDS as much that it is failing on the 5%-barrier as well. And even if the PDS makes it. The new leftists party has no chance in my view. It is only taking away votes from the left parties represented in parliament and therefore weakening the left.
And that makes it even easier for conservatives and liberals to win a majority.
We´ll see.

well, another important thing:

we as EU should learn not to listen who US wants in the EU.

like turkey, nothing against em, but why in the hell the US should bother us on that topic?

want to listen ur ideas

well, another important thing:

we as EU should learn not to listen who US wants in the EU.

like turkey, nothing against em, but why in the hell the US should bother us on that topic?

want to listen ur ideas
Taking in a country like Turkey, will cost the EU as much money as the 10 new members combined. Probably even more.Thus weakening the EU in an economic way. Which in turn is good for the US.

Taking in a country like Turkey, will cost the EU as much money as the 10 new members combined. Probably even more.Thus weakening the EU in an economic way. Which in turn is good for the US.

more than an economic issue i consider this as a political issue.

better have another strong ally into the EU.
this is what i consider a dirty and meanie tactic (thus perfect for foreign politics :) )

cheers

well, another important thing:
we as EU should learn not to listen who US wants in the EU.
like turkey, nothing against em, but why in the hell the US should bother us on that topic?
want to listen ur ideas
I agree with you on that point. By the way: Clinton did that as well. They of course want it because they are concerned about the islamic movement in Turkey and they think that it would be helpful to have them in the EU to bind them more closely to the west. The islamic movement is exactly the reason why I don´t want to have them in the EU in the foreseable future. I rather think we should offer them a privileged partnership. That suggestion is a suggestion of german conservatives but also supported by some french conservatives (Alain Juppe).
And of course: that is our business. That is the same as we would tell the US how they should conduct their relations to Mexico.

more than an economic issue i consider this as a political issue.
Economics and politics are never to far apart.

better have another strong ally into the EU.
Sorry. But I don't quite get what you are saying here.
this is what i consider a dirty and meanie tactic (thus perfect for foreign politics :) )

cheers

Originally Posted by Havensport
more than an economic issue i consider this as a political issue.

Economics and politics are never to far apart.

that's always true :)


better have another strong ally into the EU.

Sorry. But I don't quite get what you are saying here.

i mean they [the US] think that it's "better to have another strong ally into the EU"

Cheers

I also have to second the statement of Von Witzleben regarding the economic ramifications which exclude their membership at least for the next 20 years (if not 30 years). Aside of the political development which is unshure. Turkey is far away from being a western-style democracy.
But if we speak about a strong ally: Britain is a strong country. Binding them closer to Europe would strenghten it. But that doesn´t work by blindly following the French line. That is pushing Britain out of the EU and even more into its special relationship with the US.
The British-French-German summits (Berlusconi is quite angry that Italy is not included - after all it is one of the big four: but well I assume a revenge of Schröder and Chirac. And Blair didn´t push for it as well) is a step in that direction.

The British-French-German summits (Berlusconi is quite angry that Italy is not included - after all it is one of the big four: but well I assume a revenge of Schröder and Chirac. And Blair didn´t push for it as well) is a step in that direction.

let's say the truth, italian political power in foreign politics is quite equal to zero, so why bother calling a Berlusconi?

I also have to second the statement of Von Witzleben regarding the economic ramifications which exclude their membership at least for the next 20 years (if not 30 years). Aside of the political development which is unshure. Turkey is far away from being a western-style democracy.
It's not just economics. But I believe we should not make Turkey a member. Ever. Privelidged raede status? Sure. Membership. NO!!!

But if we speak about a strong ally: Britain is a strong country. Binding them closer to Europe would strenghten it. But that doesn´t work by blindly following the French line. That is pushing Britain out of the EU and even more into its special relationship with the US.
The British-French-German summits (Berlusconi is quite angry that Italy is not included - after all it is one of the big four: but well I assume a revenge of Schröder and Chirac. And Blair didn´t push for it as well) is a step in that direction.
Oh brother. Here we go again. The best way would be a EU army. Not that pityfull 60.000 troops. But a real army. The military traditionally binds people closer together.
Friedrich Wilhellm I, the second king of Prussia and father of Frederick II the Great, used the army to integrate the nobility into the state.
And you can't do that by following the US around like a poodle.

let's say the truth, italian political power in foreign politics is quite equal to zero, so why bother calling a Berlusconi?
Yeah. I wonder why. Italy is one of the largests economies in the world.

let's say the truth, italian political power in foreign politics is quite equal to zero, so why bother calling a Berlusconi?
Down lower down the importance of your country. Admittedly: you are even a bit less relevant than Germany. But look at the stats. The current EU consists of 4 big, 2 medium and 19 more or less small countries.
Italy belongs to the bigs - although it is economically on the fourth place. You do even belong to the G8 (before Canada and Russia). And you belong to the founding members of the EEC (Roman treaties in 1957).
So Italy plays and has to play an important role.
If we speak about military and defense policy: in that field France and Britain are leading. Germany although economically relatively the stongest (well we have the highest population that the reason for that) spents not only relatively to its population and economic strength very little for defense. Even in absolute numbers it is below France and Britain.
So, in that respect Germany is closer to Italy than to France or Britain.

And quite frankly spoken: in order to develop a CFSP - regardless whether it is closer to the transatlantic conception or going for another one - it would be necessary to have a reasonable defense capacity. 1,5% (Germany) of the GDP is too little compared to 2,5% (France, Britain).
So: if someone wants to play in that league one has to fulfill the conditions. Or stay out of it and either follow France or Britain-US or manovering between both.

I’ve read this thread and I find it interesting but there is one thing that I can’t understand : Why does Germany have to choose between France and USA or between France and the UK. Last time I checked Germany was the largest and most powerful( from an economic point of view) nation in the UE ,why can’t Germany lead Europe after all it pays the biggest share in the EU’s budget( at least that what I know) . Don’t get me wrong ,what I’m trying to say why do France and Britain decide ( or have the last word ) when it comes to European affairs. France should be thinking do we side with UK or do we side with Germany, not the other way around.

I’ve read this thread and I find it interesting but there is one thing that I can’t understand : Why does Germany have to choose between France and USA or between France and the UK. Last time I checked Germany was the largest and most powerful( from an economic point of view) nation in the UE ,why can’t Germany lead Europe after all it pays the biggest share in the EU’s budget( at least that what I know) . Don’t get me wrong ,what I’m trying to say why do France and Britain decide ( or have the last word ) when it comes to European affairs. France should be thinking do we side with UK or do we side with Germany, not the other way around.
Due to WW2, Germany has not yet regained its full status as strongest nation in Europe. We arent there yet, but eventually, I think we'll get there and resume our position as leading and cooperating nation of Europe, as should be the case. Not the subserving role we still play right now.

I’ve read this thread and I find it interesting but there is one thing that I can’t understand : Why does Germany have to choose between France and USA or between France and the UK. Last time I checked Germany was the largest and most powerful( from an economic point of view) nation in the UE ,why can’t Germany lead Europe after all it pays the biggest share in the EU’s budget( at least that what I know) . Don’t get me wrong ,what I’m trying to say why do France and Britain decide ( or have the last word ) when it comes to European affairs. France should be thinking do we side with UK or do we side with Germany, not the other way around.
Welcome to NS.
No one would let Germany lead the EU.

I’ve read this thread and I find it interesting but there is one thing that I can’t understand : Why does Germany have to choose between France and USA or between France and the UK. Last time I checked Germany was the largest and most powerful( from an economic point of view) nation in the UE ,why can’t Germany lead Europe after all it pays the biggest share in the EU’s budget( at least that what I know) . Don’t get me wrong ,what I’m trying to say why do France and Britain decide ( or have the last word ) when it comes to European affairs. France should be thinking do we side with UK or do we side with Germany, not the other way around.
Well, I´ve written about this issue a bit in the first posts. Germany tried to become the leading power before world war one - allied with Austria-Hungary. That lead to the other powers (Britain, France and after 1905 even Russia) allying against us. A tactical knock-out for German foreign policy of that time which led to a situation where one regional crisis in the balcans could lead to world war I.
For historical reasons all other nations would ally against us if we are going to play the leading Europe. We have to play a leading among others. Beside of the fact that it is just a relatively leading role.
Germany pays for 23% of the EU budget, France 17,4%, Italy 14,3% and Britain 13,8%. and has also about a quarter of the GDP of the EU. So it is in a position to play a leading role. But no country can lead Europe alone. Even a German-French alliance can´t. The three or four big countries need to come together. If they do they can actually formulate a CFSP (common foreign and security policy). Otherwise it is impossible.

No one will let Germany rule( and by rule I mean lead)? If Germany pays the largest share of the EU’s budget it should lead that sound the reasonable thing. Unless Germany doesn’t want to and it would really be a shame. After all the German people have the reputation of been hardworking and determined people and all the European nations would benefit from its leadership. I know all a about the world wars and I have read your posts Kybernetia. Again I believe that the so called ‘small’ nations will fallow you.What happened was regrettable but how many times does your chancellor have to apologize. Germany learned from it’s mistakes and can/should assume the role of leader or mediator between countries after all your said it yourself Germany counts for ¼ of Eu’s GDP and the EU is first about economics not military or politics

PS: thank your welcome Von Witzleben it’s good to be here.

L E F,

25% is a relative majority not an absoute. We have to form coalitions with others. No country can "rule" alone. Thats the situation in Europe. In European history there was a time France tried it (Napoleon). It failed. And the german attempt failed as well.
So: there needs to be a coalition.
Europe is not North America or probably East Asia where one country is clearly dominating (in North America the US or in East Asia in future probably China). In Europe we have Germany, France, Britain and Italy as bigger powers. None of them can do it alone, even not Germany.
There was actually the idea of a German-French directory. That doesn´t work either as you saw regarding the Iraq issue - though many other policies in the EU are pushed through that way: first agreement bilaterally between the two and then a joint position.
But in the larger EU this duo isn´t enough either. So, it seems to be the case that we need all four major players to keep the EU going.

I know that Germany can’t rule alone and I never said it should but I think it ought to try to play a bigger role. I may be wrong but it seems to be that when it comes to taking the decisions France and even the UK come first and only when it comes to paying the bill Germany is invited to lead. Look at Turkey it seems more interested in pleasing the French president than the German chancellor.

As far as the past is concerned all attempts to rule Europe were really attempts to rule the world because Europe as a continent played the dominant role in the world, this is no longer the case. With the USA having the dominant position, the European nations need to work together if they are to play a major role. What am I trying to say? It’s only natural for Germany to side with France since it is fully committed to the EU and it’s policy. The UK especially under Margaret Thatcher didn’t really embarrassed the idea of a united Europe.

Kybernetia, I know that you don’t support the idea of a world with multiple poles of power but the fact is that even if the EU fallows the USA there will probably appear another pole of power. This pole may be China , Japan, India or some country that we don’t take into account. This is why I think the EU should try to define its ideals ,its identity and try to make it make it manageable. The double majority idea it’s a major step forward especially in an ever expanding union. There is also the Euro, there are still 13 countries that have to adopt the currency and some don’t favor the idea. And let’s not forget the constitution, no country has ratified it, you can’t really begin to talk of a common foreign policy until all member states have ratified it.

As far as the Iraq war is concerned what has it brought to EU? High oil prices and the threat of terrorism(march 11 terrorist attack and bin Laden’s threats ) .And for what? For WMD that did not exists? Don’t get me wrong I don’t support France’s policy but they were right : nothing good came for Europe out of this war ,for the Iraqi people maybe, only time will tell, for the USA: the death of many good men and women for large oil reserves.

To conclude I think the EU should focus more on its internal affairs and economic growth only then a common foreign policy might be reached if the European interests require it.

As far as the Iraq war is concerned what has it brought to EU? High oil prices and the threat of terrorism(march 11 terrorist attack and bin Laden’s threats ) .And for what? For WMD that did not exists? Don’t get me wrong I don’t support France’s policy but they were right : nothing good came for Europe out of this war ,for the Iraqi people maybe, only time will tell, for the USA: the death of many good men and women for large oil reserves.

If you believe that you have no idea what the war in Iraq is about. The fact is we haven't siezed Iraq's oil....kind of a fact most people who claim that is what we went there for keep seeming to overlook. Iraq is all about reshape the political climate of the whole region in this new century. If Iraq can be successfully transformed into a functional democracy, all the neighboring states that have been a constant threat to the wstern world since the Ottoman empire are going to be under considerable pressure to reform as well.

If you believe that you have no idea what the war in Iraq is about. The fact is we haven't siezed Iraq's oil....kind of a fact most people who claim that is what we went there for keep seeming to overlook. Iraq is all about reshape the political climate of the whole region in this new century. If Iraq can be successfully transformed into a functional democracy, all the neighboring states that have been a constant threat to the wstern world since the Ottoman empire are going to be under considerable pressure to reform as well.

You may be right! I don’t really know why the Americans went there but you have to admit that this war brought nothing good to the EU. If Iraq does succeed and becomes a stable democracy why will the neighboring countries be under considerable pressure to reform? Saudi Arabia has been under pressure from the USA for decades and some reforms have been push forward but this a very slow process. I never said the USA seized Iraqi oil reserves but consider this: recent reports regarding the American administration in Iraq (before the handover) say that 9 billon dollars are missing. Where did all the money go? Maybe to the USA or maybe the money was lost do to corruption I guess will never know...

Success in Iraq will bring benefit to everybody in the world. Especially to Europeans. Every year the percentage of Europeans that are muslims increases, while the birth rates of traditional europeans declines. Over the next century, the influence the Islamic faith and people have in Europe is going to continue to grow. If the middle east continues to be a region contolled by despots and religious fanatics, that mindset is going to trickle right into europe, and the conflict is going to be bloody. It already is. Look where all these terror attacks have been happening.....not in the US. It's because we don't have this large transegent Islamic population here. We're not at war with our neighbors, only enemies that sneak in. In the end I'd say reshaping the middle east will be ten times as beneficial for the EU than the US.

bump

L E F,

"To conclude I think the EU should focus more on its internal affairs and economic growth only then a common foreign policy might be reached if the European interests require it."
Those two things can not be completely seperated. Or do you things military employment and reconstruction and developing aid costs nothing???

I have in my first posts pointed out the different philosophies of foreign policy by Britain (unipolar world led by the US with Britain as junior partner) and France (multi-polar-world) since the end of the cold war and the bipolar world order. Actually those different philosophies existed since Churchill in Britain and de Gaulle in France. Both wanted to get rid of the bipolar world, but Britain in favour of an unipolar one and France of an multi-polar one. One reason France under de Gaulle tried in the 1960s to prevent Britain to enter the EEC (today EU) since he saw it as an american troyan horse. Anyway: Britain entered in 1973. So any common CFSP (common foreign and security policy) of the EU needs to be approved by both. Everything else doesn´t work and leads to the division of Europe. No side can force its will on the other.

With the end of the bipolar world order in 1991 the risk of a third world war has been decreased: However the risks of small conflicts has increased.
One example for that: Yugoslavia: Already in the 1970s there was rioting in Kosovo. There was the fear in Europe that after the death of Tito the country would fall apart and the Soviet Union would invade this country (which was block-free neither Nato or Warsaw-pact). And indeed: the 6 yugoslav republics (Serbia (the dominating one), Montenegro (serbias ally)Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia couldn´t agree to elect a new head of state. But they formed a collective state presidency with a rotating head. That was a very volotil construction indeed but it maintained till 1991 (the end of the cold war). Then Slovenia and Croatia (later Bosnia 1992) went for independence and Serbia went to an agressive expansionist policy (Serbia is there were Serbs live).
A conflict which was still there before but who was contained due to the bipolar world and the fear in Yugoslavia for a soviet invasion which was still stronger than the hatred against each other.

Another thing were the bipolar world was more stable was the WMD issue. Both super powers try to contain the spread of WMDs, since it was in their interests. So they were only five official nuclear powers (US, Soviet Russia, Britain, France, China) and inofficially Israel.
Since 1991 the number has increased. India and Pakistan have become nuclear powers. Both countries arguing it is their right and they need those weapons to defend themself (India to deter Pakistan from supporting terrorism and possibly against China (China has attacked India in 1959 after the rebellion in Tibet - the Dalai Lama is in exile in India) and Pakistan against India). North Korea has nuclear ambitions and Iran as well. Those countries might even have nukes already.
That is threatening an international arms race.
Because if Iran is allowed to keep nukes (Iran would claim as a deterrent against the US and Israel) other countries of the region would be more or less forced to go for nukes as well. Iraq and Iran are traditionally rivals. The Islamic Revolution in 1979 led Iraq to attack Iran in order to get territorial gains but also in the fear that the revolution would spring over to the shiite majority in Iraq which have been under sunni rule for centuries. Saudi-Arabia supported it. It has a shiite minority itself and a shiite majority in its north-east border province to Iraq. So: there are also tensions between Iran and Saudi-Arabia. So: Saudi-Arabia would probably go for nukes as well. They don´t have nuclear facilities. But they could by nukes from North Korea or - even more likely - by their close ally Pakistan. Saudi-Arabia is a rich country, it is the biggest oil producer after all. And of course Tukey would also need to go for nukes. And if Turkey does that Greece is going to follow immidiately and probably other countries in the meditareanean (like Egypt, e.g.).
The thread is real that we go into such a development and into a new global arms race. I only say: Welcom to the 21 rst century or rather: back to the future (19 th century: balance of power with rivaling powers which led to World War I).
I don´t know whether it is possible to prevent such a development. But if it is only America can do it: No one else!!!
The problem however is that America has no realistic concept to lead the world. They only have a new ping-pong theory. Like: we go for regime change in Iraq and then from the middle of nowhere it would turn to the "beacon of democracy". How realistic is that? Not only that this region has no tradition in that respect. Iraq, a country splintered in factions and groups in the past kept together by repressive regimes is much more likely to fall apart than to become "democratic". There would be other countries that are more promising like Marocco and Jordan. They could be presented and encouraged to reforms and presented as an example.
And then the theory goes further and says that after the regime change in Iraq and the democratisation of it that would suddenly spring over to other countries. I don´t see it, though. Why should it. The turkish modell hasn´t sprung over into the Arab world as well.

That positive ping-pong theory rather reminds of the negative ping-pong theory in the 1960s regarding South East Asia (which says that communism would spring from country to country). That wasn´t a realistic conception either.
But on the other hand: Only America can lead the world and may be able to prevent the dangerous developments. On the other hand it has no realistic concept for it. So it is a dilemma.
However I don`t see opposing the US as an option since it is the only power who might be able to change the developments for the better.

bump

So, what foreign policy strategy should European countries go for. The EU-members have agreed to formulate a CFSP (common foreign and security policy). Should it follow the French strategy (Chirac) or the British strategy (Blair) or somewhere in between???

France wants a multi-polar world with different centres and powers (like Russia, China and others) and wants that Europe should become such a centre, also if it means to go sometimes into disputes and rivalry with the US.

Britain rejects that. Britain sees a multi-polar world as a dangerous idea. According to Britain that would only lead to rivaling powers like in the 19 th century in Europe (which finally led to World War I in 1914). Therefore it is a danergous idea and development.
Britain advocates an uni-polar world led by the United States of America (Blair: "America must lead) and suggests that Europe should be its junior partner and should try from this position to influence it (Blair: "America must listen as well as lead.").

What do you think? Especially for Europeans!!!

France wants a multi-polar world with different centres and powers (like Russia, China and others) and wants that Europe should become such a centre, also if it means to go sometimes into disputes and rivalry with the US.

There are dangers of both systems. Uni-polar so far has been alot less bloody. Multi-polar systems have led to WW1 and WW2. Even the bi-polar world of the cold war just led to bloody conflicts on outlying areas like Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Ping pong theory? I don't think we call it that in the US... in fact the closest thing that comes to mind is ping pong diplomacy, where the US and China learned how to communicate through sports.

Ping pong theory? I don't think we call it that in the US... in fact the closest thing that comes to mind is ping pong diplomacy, where the US and China learned how to communicate through sports.
It mean the theory of the US that if the communists took over Vietnam communism would spring over from country to country till all of South-East Aasia and at the end also South Asia (India) would be communists.

Here we call that domino-theory. :)

Bunnyducks,

thanks: you are right: Domino-theory.

So, what foreign policy strategy should European countries go for. The EU-members have agreed to formulate a CFSP (common foreign and security policy). Should it follow the French strategy (Chirac) or the British strategy (Blair) or somewhere in between???

France wants a multi-polar world with different centres and powers (like Russia, China and others) and wants that Europe should become such a centre, also if it means to go sometimes into disputes and rivalry with the US.

Britain rejects that. Britain sees a multi-polar world as a dangerous idea. According to Britain that would only lead to rivaling powers like in the 19 th century in Europe (which finally led to World War I in 1914). Therefore it is a danergous idea and development.
Britain advocates an uni-polar world led by the United States of America (Blair: "America must lead) and suggests that Europe should be its junior partner and should try from this position to influence it (Blair: "America must listen as well as lead.").

What do you think? Especially for Europeans!!!
Vive la France.
Unlike Kyber I don't wish to give America erotic massages.

Vive la France.
Unlike Kyber I don't wish to give America erotic massages.

Awww and I was looking forward to it! :(

Awww and I was looking forward to it! :(
Pull a number. Kyber will get to you once he's through with the first 100 million body to bodies.

So, what foreign policy strategy should European countries go for. The EU-members have agreed to formulate a CFSP (common foreign and security policy). Should it follow the French strategy (Chirac) or the British strategy (Blair) or somewhere in between???

France wants a multi-polar world with different centres and powers (like Russia, China and others) and wants that Europe should become such a centre, also if it means to go sometimes into disputes and rivalry with the US.

Britain rejects that. Britain sees a multi-polar world as a dangerous idea. According to Britain that would only lead to rivaling powers like in the 19 th century in Europe (which finally led to World War I in 1914). Therefore it is a danergous idea and development.
Britain advocates an uni-polar world led by the United States of America (Blair: "America must lead) and suggests that Europe should be its junior partner and should try from this position to influence it (Blair: "America must listen as well as lead.").

What do you think? Especially for Europeans!!!

Looking to the future, I would like to see a multi-polar world. When I first read this thread I thought that I would choose uni-polar option(better a benign autocratic than chaos). But I realise that is wrong. The world needs to follow the path that the EU has set. There are already organisations set-up similar to the EC and EEC. Hopefully they will follow Europe's lead.

In fact, it was the bi-polar world of the last 50 years that helped create the EU. Europe is sick of war, we want peace and trade. Hopefully sister organisations would have the same hopes

Vive la France.
You are unpatriotic. You wish Germany to follow France. If it was for France or Britain Germany would be still divided today into two different states.
The strategy of the transatlantic relationship (combined with the dialogue with Moscow) made the reunification possible.
You are a traitor.

That´s the way I would argue if I followed your low level of argumentation.

Looking to the future, I would like to see a multi-polar world. When I first read this thread I thought that I would choose uni-polar option(better a benign autocratic than chaos). But I realise that is wrong. The world needs to follow the path that the EU has set. There are already organisations set-up similar to the EC and EEC. Hopefully they will follow Europe's lead.
Europe doesn´t have a common foreign and security policy (CFSP). France and Britain are heading in different directions.
The world is developing into a chaotic order: terrorism, WMDs, e.g. If anybody is able to stop it - if it is at all possible - it is the US. The problem is that I don´t see them having a realistic concept for it. Probably it is not possible to prevent this development.

Europe multi-polar order based on cooperation (neither unipolar nor of rivaling powers) was only possible after two world wars and after all countries became democracies. The world is far away from that.
Probably the US under its leadership can push for a development in that direction so that in the long-run an global order based on cooperation can be established.
But that requires the spread of democracy and freedom around the world.
Thus far the US is the only country which can bring order to the world. And that is going to remain that way for several decades at least. America must lead. But it must also develop realistic concepts for its leadership.

You are unpatriotic.
Coming from someone who's tongue is firmly attached in America's behind. Who's preaching that we all should throw ourselfs at Americas feet. Pah!!!

You wish Germany to follow France.
You wish to follow the US around like a pet poodle. France can't dictate anything to Germany.

You are a traitor.
Spoken like a true American. Uncle Tom.

That´s the way I would argue if I followed your low level of argumentation.
We need to follow the US and proof our loyalty to them.
Even if we have a different opinion we should keep it to ourself
Sound familiar? Those aren't my words.

We need to follow the US and proof our loyalty to them.
Even if we have a different opinion we should keep it to ourself
Sound familiar? Those aren't my words.
In foreign policy you can´t act like an elephant in an Chinese store. That is Realpolitik.
With that Germany was very succesfull between 1949-2002. The policy of double binding - having good relations with the US and France - is a good strategy. Why smaching it?
It would be very unwise if Germany returns to its catastrophic foreign policy between 1890-1945.
The foreign policy strategy of the double binding which includes the alliance to the US is a good strategy. It would be the most stupid thing to smash it.

In foreign policy you can´t act like an elephant in an Chinese store. That is Realpolitik.
Thats exactly what your masters are doing. Trampling around without any consideration for anything. And thats what you admire and worship them for.

With that Germany was very succesfull between 1949-2002.
Beeing a country under occupation they didn't have much of a choice.

The policy of double binding - having good relations with the US and France - is a good strategy.
Hahaha..coming from somebody who wants "independance" from France by beeing good pets to the US.


It would be very unwise if Germany returns to its catastrophic foreign policy between 1890-1945.
Yeah. Like that would happen.

The foreign policy strategy of the double binding which includes the alliance to the US is a good strategy.
Pfft. You want "independance" from France, like you called it, through full US hegemony.

Pfft. You want "independance" from France, like you called it, through full US hegemony.
US hegemony is a fact regardless what Germany does. It is unwise to go into confrontation with the US - even diplomaticly. Because you are going to lose that.
So: Why doing that?
I welcome that our government is slowly returning to the traditional strategy: mediate between the US and France at the UN.
I also welcome that it doesn´t support the French veto strategy at Nato. That are steps in going in the right direction.

America is not the problem in the world. America is the only country which may be able to stop the negative and dangerous developments that began after the end of the Cold War. Just remember the wars in the Balcans which were ended by an Nato intervention led by the US.
The thread is real. WMDs are spreading around the world and the thread is real that more countries aquire them. That increases the risks of regional wars turning more bloody and my cause a global arms race. India and Pakistan have become nuclear powers. Now North Korea and Iran are at the brink to it. If they become nuclear powers their neighbours are going to be forced to get nukes as well.
Iran getting nukes could lead to an arms race in the Middle East: Saudi-Arabia would follow (buying nukes from North Korea or Pakistan), then Turkey (Turkey can´t accept that Iran has nukes and they haven´t) and of course Greece would follow that and probably other countries at the mediteranean. That development increases the risks of Israeli-Arab wars as it is not acceptable for Israel that the Arabs are arming themself potentially to eliminate one day the state of Israel.
It is a dangerous development. And only the US may be able to stop that. The war in Iraq was also a warning shot against Iran and North Korea to stop that.
If there is a country which can stop this dangerous development it is the US. We don´t have to participate in it (since we are not a world power) but we shouldn´t stand in their way and we shouldn´t annoy them as Schröder unwisely did.

US hegemony is a fact regardless what Germany does. It is unwise to go into confrontation with the US - even diplomaticly.
I think the Iraq war kinda disproved that. There is no US hegemony. No matter how much Kybernetians ( other word for US slaves) everywhere wished that it would.

I welcome that our government is slowly returning to the traditional strategy: mediate between the US and France at the UN.
I also welcome that it doesn´t support the French veto strategy at Nato. That are steps in going in the right direction.
Of course you do. You welcome everything thats pro American and anti Europe.

America is not the problem in the world.
It's not the only one. But deffinatly one of the bigger ones.

Iran getting nukes could lead to an arms race in the Middle East: Saudi-Arabia would follow (buying nukes from North Korea or Pakistan), then Turkey (Turkey can´t accept that Iran has nukes and they haven´t) and of course Greece would follow that and probably other countries at the mediteranean.
Thats where we need to increase spending and numbers of a EU army.

The war in Iraq was also a warning shot against Iran and North Korea to stop that.
Yeah.........of course it was.
We don´t have to participate in it (since we are not a world power) but we shouldn´t stand in their way and we shouldn´t annoy them as Schröder unwisely did.
You probably curse the fact you weren't born as an American. Bet you even got a "cool" American sounding nick name for yourself.

I think the Iraq war kinda disproved that. There is no US hegemony.
Before the war Saddam was in power no he is in jail. Before the war there was the Baathist regime, now the regime is no more and Iraq has a new interim government. So, what?

Of course you do. You welcome everything thats pro American and anti Europe.
No, its you who has a logical problem. You seem to think that everything pro-american is anti-european. I´m pro-european and pro-american because I see the US and Europe having many common interests. We are democracies and therefore natural allies. And we are not allies of the tyrannical regimes in the middle east.



It's not the only one. But deffinatly one of the bigger ones.

Thats where we need to increase spending and numbers of a EU army.
Europe can´t solve the problems of the world. We have to work together with the US to prevent the spread of WMD. If we work against each other we are each weakening each others effort and we are playing in the hands of common enemies like Middle Eastern tyrants and islamic terrorists.




You probably curse the fact you weren't born as an American. Bet you even got a "cool" American sounding nick name for yourself.
You seem to have some problem with the US as you always focus on them. The name of my nation has nothing to do with the US. It has another origin.

Phew...! Good grieff, that has been a heck of a lot of posts to go through! Now seeing things from the UK is kind of looking at the EU from outer space, considering, a). Most people haven't got a clue what the whole thing is about. b). A large vocal majority seems to be dead against any further UK integration with the rest of Europe. (And no, it has bugger all to do with Irak, the US or France).

I see you all seem to be quite passionate about the whole business:
The US or France, or a stronger EU... I don't think it matters.

Take the War. The US could, and practically did, go it alone; they needed us and the Aussies, yes, but to a point. We are not indispensable. France will still shore up its position, and it has to play to the gallery. There is, let's not forget a substantial North African emigre electorate in the country. We supported the USA, (we would like to think we were duped under the whole WMD lye, but that is disingenous, we new deep down it was poppycock all along). Why?, I really don't know, supporting fellow anglo-saxons across the pond is sort off a tradition since WWI here.

My main problem with all this rambling is that even though I feel most of it is based on fact, (if you accept everyone is right based on how they view things through their own logic), I still feel we are being delusional. We cannot just suck up to the US, nor do I think they would be ameanable to this. I think for all that I might agree the 'consequences' of Kyber's argument would lead to a dependancy, I feel he is justified in much he says. We have benefited from the US, but then IMHO some of us have, and some would have benefited from the Soviets winning the cold war and others from the Axis powers winning the second world war, so on and so forth.

Let me explain: In the UK, (I'm sure its different in Germany), we elect MP's on a quasi democratic balot, (no one is perfect). Their capacity for actually changing the UK economically and socialy is quite large... or at least it seems that way. However, its not that simple. Vested interests, some national some foreign act as barriers to most changes, and, whilst a goverment could erase these, it is hard and the consequences quite far reaching. The civil service, for instance, at its higher levels has always been a bete noire for mr Blair. He managed to deal with them the first two years of his term, however he really needed their help in the prosecution of the Balkan war (1999). So now they are pretty much as strong as they were before.

He has done terminal damage to his leadership by standing alongside the US. However, for the most part he will be judged on the social security, national health service and economic issues of the UK come election day.

Von Weizleben, (I'll learn to spell one day, honest). Is voicing what I think is the fear of a slight majority of western europeans. And I for one was against the war, (and marched during 2002-2003). However, I cannot be sure of how correct my argument is, within the constraints of Kybers main question, (relating to Europe's position during this diplomatic fiasco). Should Germany and the rest of europe follow France's lead to the detriment of their position with the US. Well, I think sometimes it is necessary to get above the spin and look at the issue. I think that NATO no longer stands for anything, BUT, it is an alliance between several european nhjations and the US, and I think good allies, like good friends, argue. And, no, I don't think for a moment even France has suffered that much from the diplomatic fallout.

Should we build a stronger Europe, maybe under a Gaullist auspice... look, I sincerely think we are arguing ourselves into academic minutiae here. What kind of strong europe? a united one? (I think a good deal of dissent, its a healthy antidote to totalitarianism). Even if we were to become a single state, and maybe even Gaullist, could we really afford to be antagonistic to such a large market force as the US? And what if we argued with them... to the thrid world it would still look like the bickering between two vultures as to who gets to peck what part of the carcass.

Seriously. I think the war in Irak was foolish, somewhat missguided, and the result of some cynical posturing and possibly some well intentioned but far too passionate liberalism. Ultmately its something I can't really blame Bush for, (not because he is a cretin, but because the 1991 settlement of the first Gulf War left too much of a loose end). The US is going to attack other countries, (Its being doing it off and on since the 19th century, why stop now?), but unfortunately, I feel we in Europe, (and I don't mean my fellow bloggers), are pissed off becuase it is exactly what WE used to do.

Will the intervention help Irak? I suppose ultimately when the fighting does die down... then everyone will benefit, (from peace). Will everyone be happy? God knows. Some will benefit, others will probably be in dire straits, such is life. Will democracy work? I don't think it has a chance. It is maybe racist,(I hope it isn't), but I've lived in Karachi, Cairo, and Alexandria, people there, at least the majority if not educated are startingly intelligent, and yet they prefer the government of strong men, maybe not quite Saddam, but not far off, to what they perceive as the chaos of democracy. And Germany and Japan in 1945 did have democratic traditions to fall back on.

In conclusion, you will pardon me if all I state is confused. But really, I don't care if I ruled by a cretin in Whashington, Brussels or Whitehall... I kind of expect it. Europe still holds some promise for the future, and I feel building social ties with the rest of eurpe is a good idea. There are many benefits from the EU, and workersin the UK are getting a good deal out of more mordern, liberal jurisprudence from the EU. But, I feel that the US, is still 200 million people we cannot exclude. If you want to do business in the world you do bad business by excluding them.

**********
When Gandhi was asked what he thought of western civilisation he replied, "It would be a good idea".

Sodding fool I am... ts ts... in my first paragraph, when reffering to the Eurosceptics, (for it is them), i mean a large vocal MINORITY... Damn!

The Human being is the only animal that trips twice on the same stone, (Spanish Proverb).

Phew...! Good grieff, that has been a heck of a lot of posts to go through! Now seeing things from the UK is kind of looking at the EU from outer space, considering, a). Most people haven't got a clue what the whole thing is about. b). A large vocal majority seems to be dead against any further UK integration with the rest of Europe. (And no, it has bugger all to do with Irak, the US or France).
You are opening another topic here. Quite frankly spoken I assume that in a few years all East European countries are part of the Euro. They are looking forward to that and would like to join rather today then tomorrow.
So, very soon only Britain, Denmark and Sweden are going to be outside it. And the swedish and denish government are looking for public opinion to change to go for a referendum. In the end the UK may end up all alone outside the Euro.
The UK can´t prevent European integration. It either can play a role in the centre of Europe and playing a role in it or playing the role of the intrasigent child that says: No, No, No but follows at the end the development. Blair seems to want to led Britain in the centre of Europe. But the traditional anti-european sentiment in Britain seems to be too strong, yet.
But that may change. Economically Britain has hardly a choice. Even Thatcher didn´t want to leave the EU at the end.




We supported the USA, (we would like to think we were duped under the whole WMD lye, but that is disingenous, we new deep down it was poppycock all along). Why?, I really don't know, supporting fellow anglo-saxons across the pond is sort off a tradition since WWI here.
Because you support an uni-polar world order led by the US with Britain as its junior partner.


Let me explain: In the UK, (I'm sure its different in Germany), we elect MP's on a quasi democratic balot, (no one is perfect).
We elect parties. However there is a big personlisation. So we in fact elect via the parties the chancellor. Though formally it is done by parliament after the election.
Through the second chamber the governments of the 16 states have a lot of influence. Though not on all areas: only does affecting the states. Foreign and security policy is not their business. But for economic and social reforms mostly the government needs their support. Very often the opposition on the national level has the majority in the second chamber. During the end of the Kohl-era (1996-98) the left-wing oppositions blocked many reforms via the Bundesrat (the second chamber). Today we have a left-wing government and a left-wing majority in the Bundestag (first chamber) and a conservative one in the Bundesrat. Since 2003 the government is pushing for simular reforms than during the Kohl ear (cuts in the welfare state). This time the majority in the Bundesrat is rather encouraging those reforms and pushing for more market-economic reforms. So, ironically it is the political left who needs to go for market-economic reforms, now.


He has done terminal damage to his leadership by standing alongside the US. However, for the most part he will be judged on the social security, national health service and economic issues of the UK come election day.
He didn´t have a choice. What would be the alternative? Abandoning the foreign policy strategy since Churchill? Following France?


Should we build a stronger Europe, maybe under a Gaullist auspice... look, I sincerely think we are arguing ourselves into academic minutiae here. What kind of strong europe? a united one? (I think a good deal of dissent, its a healthy antidote to totalitarianism). Even if we were to become a single state, and maybe even Gaullist, could we really afford to be antagonistic to such a large market force as the US?
Shurely not. We need to remain close ties with the US. Nato therefore remains very important.
The development of Europe is another question. There are three models for European integration. A british modell (Blair): inter-governmental cooperation. A french modell: centralised structure. And a german modell: a federalists system (where inter-governmental cooperation still plays a role).
The german proposal is actually pretty much between the French and the British one. The problem with Britain is that many reject European integration altoghether.


In conclusion, you will pardon me if all I state is confused. But really, I don't care if I ruled by a cretin in Whashington, Brussels or Whitehall... I kind of expect it. Europe still holds some promise for the future, and I feel building social ties with the rest of eurpe is a good idea. There are many benefits from the EU, and workersin the UK are getting a good deal out of more mordern, liberal jurisprudence from the EU. But, I feel that the US, is still 200 million people we cannot exclude. If you want to do business in the world you do bad business by excluding them..
In the last point I agree with you.
But if we speak about power: The UK alone does not have as much alone as it has together with the US.

bump

Nonetheless; I still mean to emphazise that whilst it may appear important, ultimately the consequences of German, European and French foreign policy are irrelevant... They can cause short term problems, certainly. But, in the long run France, the US, Germany, the UK and Europe, are pretty much the same thing, trade regularly with each other and hold to the same ideas on a variety of world matters. When they reffer to the west I always find it peculiar to hear peple the length and breadth of Europe thinking it means the USA. It doesn't. It means Europe, the US, Canada, Australia and Japan.

I've lived in France, I find it unique as it seems to have a love hate relationship with the US. On the one hand they do like criticising the US, on the other they are quite fascinated by it. Both countries are very simmilar and they both hark back to the late 18th century as the time they came into being (at least modern France).

Like I said in my earlier post, I´ve also lived in Egypt, (nothing you can do when your father is a diplomat), and they tend to see the French in much the same light as the US, ultimately they see the yanks as far more powerful and richer, (obviously).

Kyber, I see a perfect university question in your original post. One which I am incapable of answering in an academic format. My feeling is that no matter how Gaullist we all become, the relationship will survive quite well, if anything because there is more in common between a Gaullist and a US Republican/Democrat than there is between the aforementioned frenchman and a say a Chavista, a Chinese Technocrat or a Shia Theocrat.
Regardless of how much people centre on personalities governments are indeed run on 'realpolitik' and they will not care one whit if the Elysee spends all monday night spouting Anti-American rhetoric for it will know bloody well that by tuesday morning, albeit in private, it will be business as usual.

"Maybe in an era 2,000 years from now, the Dark Ages will be seen to encompass our own times"
Arsenio Hall.

Nonetheless; I still mean to emphazise that whilst it may appear important, ultimately the consequences of German, European and French foreign policy are irrelevant... They can cause short term problems, certainly. But, in the long run France, the US, Germany, the UK and Europe, are pretty much the same thing, trade regularly with each other and hold to the same ideas on a variety of world matters. When they reffer to the west I always find it peculiar to hear peple the length and breadth of Europe thinking it means the USA. It doesn't. It means Europe, the US, Canada, Australia and Japan. .
Is Japan really a western country? From the alliances that is true but culturally it is quite different. I doubt that people would count it as part of the west. They would say of the the developed world. Singapore also belongs to that. Also Kuwait or other Qatar. But they would not be counted as part of the west.
Aside of the fact that the west is not an homogonenous block. It is quite different.
The same is the case for Africa or the east Asia. Korea, China and Japan are quite different. Japan and China used to be arch-enemies. Japan is in many ways culturally seperate to the rest of East Asia.
Confuzianism for example has influenced East Asia but not Japan which has its own traditions (dating back to the Samurai).


I've lived in France, I find it unique as it seems to have a love hate relationship with the US. On the one hand they do like criticising the US, on the other they are quite fascinated by it. Both countries are very simmilar and they both hark back to the late 18th century as the time they came into being (at least modern France). .
And both use to be very arrogant: well: the same is the case with many other countries but France is especially famous for it.


Like I said in my earlier post, I´ve also lived in Egypt, (nothing you can do when your father is a diplomat), and they tend to see the French in much the same light as the US, ultimately they see the yanks as far more powerful and richer, (obviously)..
If you look at it historically: it were the French under Napoleon who first invaded Egypt. Then the British came and now the US has taken over the role of the dominating power: not in Egypt but in Iraq.
So: shure the west is seen as an unity. But more united as it really is.
The same is the case for the Arab world or the Far East. Those regions have culturally an unity (or the countries of those regions have a lot in common). But they are also different and there are often pretty deep splits.



Kyber, I see a perfect university question in your original post. One which I am incapable of answering in an academic format. My feeling is that no matter how Gaullist we all become, the relationship will survive quite well, if anything because there is more in common between a Gaullist and a US Republican/Democrat than there is between the aforementioned frenchman and a say a Chavista, a Chinese Technocrat or a Shia Theocrat.
Regardless of how much people centre on personalities governments are indeed run on 'realpolitik' and they will not care one whit if the Elysee spends all monday night spouting Anti-American rhetoric for it will know bloody well that by tuesday morning, albeit in private, it will be business as usual..
You may read "Clash of civilisations?" by Huntington if you don´t know it yet.
He more or less goes out from the assumption of 6-7 big cultural areas of the world: euro-american, islamic world, India, East Asia (with China at the centre), Russia, Latin America, and possibly in futura sub-saharan Africa.
Japan, Israel, Ethopia, Turkey and a few others do not quite belong in one of those categories. Quite frankly spoken I don´t envy that countries. They have many problems because of their position.
In the long-run there may be regional cooperations which could take over the role of enshuring stability in those regions. But we are far distant away from that development yet.
Today only the US can fulfill this role.

When they reffer to the west I always find it peculiar to hear peple the length and breadth of Europe thinking it means the USA. It doesn't. .

Speaking as a Swede and European, I have never experienced people accross this continent thinking that the west exclusively referred to the USA. Generally, the term "USA" refers to the "USA". The West is generally considered to be Europe and North (sometimes also Latin) America. It's more a cultural, rather than political, term of description though.

You are opening another topic here. Quite frankly spoken I assume that in a few years all East European countries are part of the Euro. They are looking forward to that and would like to join rather today then tomorrow.
So, very soon only Britain, Denmark and Sweden are going to be outside it. And the swedish and denish government are looking for public opinion to change to go for a referendum. In the end the UK may end up all alone outside the Euro. .

I wish that this was true as I am Swedish, and voted yes for the euro in our EMU-referendum. But, as you will know the no votes won. Also, Danmark has voted no to the euro.
Also, I know that many Eastern European countries will welcome EMU as soon as is possible, but I wouldn't guarentee that all will. The EU has become very unpopular in places like Estonia and Poland, so it's by no means guarenteed, despite their lack of opt-out.
Actually, Sweden does not have an opt-out like the Danes and British, but still we won't enter EMU for now due to the no vote.

I wish that this was true as I am Swedish, and voted yes for the euro in our EMU-referendum. But, as you will know the no votes won. Also, Danmark has voted no to the euro.
Also, I know that many Eastern European countries will welcome EMU as soon as is possible, but I wouldn't guarentee that all will. The EU has become very unpopular in places like Estonia and Poland, so it's by no means guarenteed, despite their lack of opt-out.
Actually, Sweden does not have an opt-out like the Danes and British, but still we won't enter EMU for now due to the no vote.
But in those countries there won´t be another refrendum about it. I spoke with several Poles about this issue and they said that the question of membership in the EU and the Euro are not seen as two seperate things. And in all 10 countries a majority approved of it. The political class and economic leadership there is actually pretty much pushing for an immidiate membership in the Euro. It are the old members who say: Wait, you have to fulfill the criteria.
Giving up once own currency is not a problem for all countries: it was and is a problem for countries with a strong currency, like Germany, Austria, Britain, Denmark or Sweden. But it wasn´t a problem for Italy for example. And quite frankly spoken the east european currencies were a long time linked to the DM and are linked to the Euro already.
And the stability of the currencies in eastern Europe is actually not so high. Hungary had actually some problems last year and the Czech republic had an exploding deficit in 2003. Given that fact the demand of a soon membership in the Euro is growing.
The new members are already preparing for joining it as soon as possible. The earliest possible date would be May 2006 actually. But it may be a little later, since they have to fulfill the criteria.

Sweden by the way didn´t have an opting out clause but it wasn´t a member of the European currency system. That belongs to the criterias. So legally that was the way to stay out.
But in the governments in Central Eastern Europe the interests are clearly for immidiate membership, mainly for economic reasons. They have after all most of their trade with the Euro zone. That is especially the case for Poland and the Czech Republic.
And those economic arguments are also the reason the people in Eastern Europe - although of scepticism towards the idea of European integration (which after all means to give up sovereignity those countries only gained a few years ago) voted with substantial majorities for the membership.

About the topic. This is a good topic, but the poster ignores the fact that the middle east is full of oil, which is one of the most important resources in the end of the 20th century and now.
The US uses 25% of the oil of the earth.
It is natural that France, Germany and Russia defend their oil interests.

About the topic. This is a good topic, but the poster ignores the fact that the middle east is full of oil, which is one of the most important resources in the end of the 20th century and now.
The US uses 25% of the oil of the earth.
It is natural that France, Germany and Russia defend their oil interests.
Russia has more than enough oil of itself. It is one of the biggests exporters. Germany for example imports a third of its oil and gas from Russia. It has increased its imports from that region and reduced it from the Middle East since several years. Especially since 1990. In respect to Iraq I can´t see any special german interests. The case is different with Iran though.
Quite frankly spoken I don´t see that it is playing a major role in this conflicts. It is not that Iraq didn´t want to export oil under Saddam. On the conterary. And US oil companies have such a market power that they would even benefit if Iraq would have refused to directly cooperate with them. Which they haven´t actually.
And by the way: the year where Iran exported the most oil was the year 1979. Not a coincide: especially a country which goes through a change of its political system needs even more money through oil exports.
Actually Iraq is today exporting less oil then during the time of the sanctions. Well: that is showing the diffucilities within the country and the dangerous insurgency.