NationStates Jolt Archive

Whaddya think? Especially you, EU state members.
This is not about wether they are for real (so you may settle down, cowboys), it is about the what if they were.


Poll coming.

You do know you can't just decide to join the EU, these things take years...

They can't join if they have them. If they've already got them and are already members then they have to get rid of them. End of story.

The depressing thing is, existing EU member states have already been shown to be complicit. Not only did the whole EU grant the CIA permission to fly anyone they wanted in and out, but Belgium still refuses to declare its part in the operations to an internal investigation.

You do know you can't just decide to join the EU, these things take years...


Yeah, but the countries in question are candidates, and they all have been given clear terms of accession.

I dont think they should be halted from joining, and if there are jails, then its not like the nations that they are in don't know about it (esp. if its a western nation). I dont really think it is a big deal about EU acceptance. If a nation like Turkey *might* get in, then these jails are not a big deal.



P.S. No- I'm not a Turkey hater

I dont think they should be halted from joining, and if there are jails, then its not like the nations that they are in don't know about it (esp. if its a western nation). I dont really think it is a big deal about EU acceptance. If a nation like Turkey *might* get in, then these jails are not a big deal.

Sorry, no. Countries have to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHR)when they join. This prevents torture (under article 3) and guarantees right to a fair trial (article 6).

So they can't have secret prisions.

Yep, just because a country signs a pieace of paper- doesn't mean they will follow it. Either way, I don't really like the EU so ehhhh

Sorry, no. Countries have to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHR)when they join. This prevents torture (under article 3) and guarantees right to a fair trial (article 6).

So they can't have secret prisions.
Of course, the US has strict anti-torture laws, and if torture is occuring, then the US is breaking it's own law. If that's the case, then what would stop the states that might be complicit in such an action from breaking that?

Of course, the US has strict anti-torture laws, and if torture is occuring, then the US is breaking it's own law. If that's the case, then what would stop the states that might be complicit in such an action from breaking that?

The people allegedly being tortured by America do not enjoy the protection of the American constitution, or are being tortured in a way that is permissible to the authorities (waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation)

The people allegedly being tortured in these prisons do fall under the EDHR and the European court of human rights has decided that use of waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation ect does constitute torture.

The depressing thing is, existing EU member states have already been shown to be complicit.
Exactly. Once the investigations really got underway, all of a sudden governments weren't all that interested anymore in making that such a public issue.

It would be just slightly hypocritical to deny Eastern European nations who otherwise have done nothing wrong entry. However, of course they should get rid of the prisons pronto, because it is against the rules of the EU to have them.

If those are the rules, those are the rules.

It would be just slightly hypocritical to deny Eastern European nations who otherwise have done nothing wrong entry.
Well, "otherwise nothing wrong" is... well... it's... not accurate, shall we say. I am amazed at how Romania could ever quality in the state it's in. Nonetheless, it's coming attractions (coming sometime in the next 2 years - to a theater near you).
I thought that the EU was just looking for an excuse to wash its hands of us. I don't get it: besides the hunting orgies EU officials and our previous PM have held together over here, what the hell is the attraction?

Well, "otherwise nothing wrong" is... well... it's... not accurate, shall we say...
I'm not really familiar with the details of what's going down in Romania, but I was always under the impression that it's a lot better now than it was back in the days of Mr. "Let's put all the kids into nightmarish 'hospitals'". Better than Serbia at least. :p

I'm not really familiar with the details of what's going down in Romania, but I was always under the impression that it's a lot better now than it was back in the days of Mr. "Let's put all the kids into nightmarish 'hospitals'". Better than Serbia at least. :p
Hear that Turkey? No need to worry about not getting into the EU. If you resist the urge to shove your orphan children into morbid foster homes, and use a bit more perfume, heck, you're so there!:D

The people allegedly being tortured by America do not enjoy the protection of the American constitution, or are being tortured in a way that is permissible to the authorities (waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation)

The people allegedly being tortured in these prisons do fall under the EDHR and the European court of human rights has decided that use of waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation ect does constitute torture.

Given the EU's inability to stop the wholesale abandonment of human rights in the former Jugoslavia, I think that this reads like the selective enforcement which is often painted onto the Bush White House. If Europe can't keep it's own continent safe from genocide, how can the world take it seriously that it would help in Darfur or Rwanda... oh, right. It didn't.

Personally, I believe the prisons exist or existed. No, I'm not happy about that. But the EU has no right to call foul... how can they say they didn't know what was going on, truthfully? Did they not think that the CIA flying nightflights into locales with guys shackled wasn't suspicious?? :rolleyes:
Are we to believe that they weren't briefed on SOME level?

As for what's hot in Romania, check this out:
(from http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2006/01/17/feature-01)

Former Prime Minister Adrian Nastase stepped down as executive president of Romania's opposition Social Democratic Party (PSD) on Monday (16 January), pending an investigation into the means by which he acquired his wealth.

Amid calls from senior party members for his resignation, Nastase announced his decision to "suspend" himself from the PSD leadership for three months.

"I don't want this campaign against me to harm the party image in any way," the Romanian daily Ziua quoted him as saying at a press conference.

In an asset statement submitted last week, Nastase revealed that he had inherited more than 300,000 euros and three apartments from an aunt, who died last year at the age of 97. He insists that his Aunt Tamara, who had reportedly lived in poverty, made her fortune by selling family jewellery in recent years and then investing well in the real estate market.

On Friday, Romania's anti-corruption body said it was expanding its investigation into the sources of the Nastase family's inheritance. The former prime minister was already facing a probe concerning a deal in which he bought a real estate from a former lawmaker who was later convicted of fraud.

Nastase, who served as prime minister from 2001 to 2004, has accused President Trajan Basescu as being behind the campaign against him, describing it as politically motivated.

On Monday, he was expected to testify before the prosecutors, but sent his lawyers instead.

Former Romanian Foreign Minister Mircea Geoana, who was elected PSD president last year, said the party faces moral and ethical problems as a result of the corruption allegations against Nastase, so his resignation was "the only (viable) formula at the moment".

"This is a hard moment for the party," the AP quoted him as saying. "We are not deaf nor blind to these moral dimensions."

But Nastase did not resign from his post as head of the Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of parliament, as urged by Prime Minister Calin Popescu Tariceanu, who heads Romania's National Liberal Party (PNL).

"The PNL is publicly asking Adrian Nastase to take responsibility in this political scandal," Ziua quoted Tariceanu as saying Monday. "It would be normal for him to resign as president of the Chamber of Deputies to avoid doing harm to the parliament's image."

Tariceanu says Nastase is not the only corrupt politician in the PSD. "Now what this party's leaders did when they were in the opposition, before 2000, starts coming out," said Tariceanu. "But we expect that what they did when they were in power, in 2000-2004, to become visible too."

Meanwhile, another member of the PSD leadership has announced his resignation, claiming he is being victimised by political opponents.

Dan Ioan Popescu, the chairman of the party's Bucharest branch and a former economy and industry minister in the Nastase cabinet, has also come under an investigation after submitting his assets declarations. Announcing the probe Monday, prosecutors said they had ordered that 23 properties owned by the Popescu family be seized as the former minister had failed to clarify how he obtained them. According to reports, Popescu also could not justify part of the money he earned in 2004

There are no jails. You should all stop wasting time looking for them. There are none. Only a terrorist would look for them, a freedom hating terrorist. Don't bother to find them because they don't exsist at all, don't worry about it...

Given the EU's inability to stop the wholesale abandonment of human rights in the former Jugoslavia...
How can you compare that? The EU has gone a long way since then, especially in security policy issues.
And ultimately, the EU of the late nineties did what it had to: It saw what was happening, it told the Americans (NATO and all that), then together they thought about going to the UN. The UN wouldn't commit, thanks to Russia, and so NATO did the job itself. They started negotiations, which were eventually rejected by the Serbs. So NATO bombed them until they accepted.

How can you compare that? The EU has gone a long way since then, especially in security policy issues.

How? Very easily! The ONE TIME the EU was in a position to unilaterally stop something terrible from happnening -- on their very doorstep -- they failed to act! How *DARE* anyone throw stones at the US as a civil rights abuser when the EU failed to stop MUCH worse behavior -- which went on for YEARS -- on their own soil!

As for security issues, the EU is still a joke.
For external matters, a mere 4% of the EU's military power can be scrambled anywhere in 30 days outside of Europe. If the world has to (say) fight North Korea, or Iran, it would take MONTHS for them to get anywhere.
For internal matters, I think pointing out the recent riots in Paris and the bombings in London and Madrid that the EU is no more or less ready for anything than it was 10 years ago.
For policy matters, the rejection of the EU Constitution shows how weak a non-federal structure it is. The EU policy makers are its own worst enemy! They talk endlessly and solve little. Compare the (rejected) EU Constitution vs. the US one. Heavy, unwieldly and basically a laundry list for settling trade disputes instead of guarenteeing liberty! If the US Constitution is Star Wars, the EU's is The Phanthom Menace. :D

And ultimately, the EU of the late nineties did what it had to: It saw what was happening, it told the Americans (NATO and all that), then together they thought about going to the UN.

So those national armies of Europe are helpless? Europe is just a lapdog to the US militarily? I hope not... else the US has wasted billions defending a bunch of worthless allies for decades. Needless to say, I don't think that's the case.
After seeing post WW2 Europe, I would think that the EU's members would have not allowed Sarajevo to happen. Think about it... a city considered modern and good enough to host the WINTER OLYMPICS in 1984... not even ten years later a bloody wasteland. :(

The UN wouldn't commit, thanks to Russia, and so NATO did the job itself. They started negotiations, which were eventually rejected by the Serbs. So NATO bombed them until they accepted.

Further proof that the UN needs drastic restructuring. After the Korean War (where the Russians walked out before the vote), the only thing it's done is take up valuable real estate in Midtown and now owes New York City $250 MILLION in parking tickets due to it's members snubbing our traffic laws.
However, the UN is NOT the boss of the EU. That's no defense for doing nothing.

Right. NATO only did so when Clinton decided to bomb, and that was after about FOUR YEARS of war, waste and genocide. And was it NATO, or the US that bombed them (and the Chinese to boot?).

My question to you: how can you NOT compare the two?
The US has blood on our hands for Iraq. My POV? Better that than more of our people ending up dead as on the Cole, as the WTC (twice), the Pentagon, the Embassies in Africa, et al.
The EU has blood on it's hands, too. The blood of not helping those in need.
(And where was the US, you ask? Still defending South Korea, running the no fly zones and staffing the Saudi bases with the British, and working in Haiti, Panama, and Somalia... a pretty full dance card, no?)

So those national armies of Europe are helpless? Europe is just a lapdog to the US militarily?
So what is it about the concept of NATO that you don't understand?

The EU will not go to war quickly. You know that, I know that, we all do. There are good reasons for that. They used the proper process to take action, and as you pointed out, it didn't have the means to just go and attack anyway.

So what is it about the concept of NATO that you don't understand?

Dunno... maybe that NATO is a defensive organization?

The EU will not go to war quickly. You know that, I know that, we all do. There are good reasons for that. They used the proper process to take action, and as you pointed out, it didn't have the means to just go and attack anyway.

Chuckle. Maybe that's what seperates Americans from Europeans... if my neighbor's house is on fire I'll call the fire department, but I'll also go outside and start spraying it with my hose.
I'm sure that the people massacred by Mladic are very happy that the EU followed proper process. :rolleyes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4749420.stm

No WONDER Iran is laughing at the west! :(

Dunno... maybe that NATO is a defensive organization?
For a number of European nations it is also the only framework in which they would ever take military action. France and Britain are the only real exceptions which might consider going into a major war without the NATO.

Chuckle. Maybe that's what seperates Americans from Europeans... if my neighbor's house is on fire I'll call the fire department, but I'll also go outside and start spraying it with my hose.
Going to war is not a decision to be taken lightly. I personally hold no blame for them to do what they did. There simply was no realistic way way to make it happen any quicker.
There are a few things I do have trouble understanding, like how they could let Srebrenica happen - but the fact is that for the most time, this was simply a war. Just because it happened on the European continent doesn't mean that the EU (which at the time had even less military infrastructure in place for such operations than now) should get involved and bomb the shit out of random parties.

No WONDER Iran is laughing at the west! :(
And that bothers you?

For a number of European nations it is also the only framework in which they would ever take military action. France and Britain are the only real exceptions which might consider going into a major war without the NATO.

And so that's a reason to kick any nations that might have aided the US with these secret prisons to the curb?!? "I'm not involved, so damn you for being"? Oh, that's lovely.
I won't even continue to go on about the absurdity of the EU complaining about US unilateralism and not acting at the same time... :(

Going to war is not a decision to be taken lightly. I personally hold no blame for them to do what they did. There simply was no realistic way way to make it happen any quicker.
There are a few things I do have trouble understanding, like how they could let Srebrenica happen - but the fact is that for the most time, this was simply a war. Just because it happened on the European continent doesn't mean that the EU (which at the time had even less military infrastructure in place for such operations than now) should get involved and bomb the shit out of random parties.

Lightly? THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE.

Bomb? How about stop negotiations, MARCH SOME TROOPS IN and set up real safe havens? What, was Holland worried that Belgium was going to invade while they were out? Sheesh!
And what do you mean, random? The War in Bosnia was certainly not random (as you cite, Srebrenica).


And that bothers you?

Hell, yes. I'd much rather the West (which is tolerant) WINS. I hold no grudge for the Iranian people. But the Mullahs and the radicals Imams would destroy everything or anyone to put the calendar back to 1300.

And so that's a reason to kick any nations that might have aided the US with these secret prisons to the curb?!? "I'm not involved, so damn you for being"? Oh, that's lovely.
Did I say that? When did I say that?

And the fact is that it is ridiculous to say that aiding/committing human rights abuses, probably bordering torture, is the same thing as not having gotten involved in a civil war years ago.

I won't even continue to go on about the absurdity of the EU complaining about US unilateralism and not acting at the same time... :(
What? Multilateralism doesn't mean everyone follows one. It means you make a decision jointly. The major European countries did that in Kosovo, while the US did not do that in Iraq.

Lightly? THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE.
If only the real world were as simple as your analogy, hey?

Bomb? How about stop negotiations, MARCH SOME TROOPS IN and set up real safe havens? What, was Holland worried that Belgium was going to invade while they were out? Sheesh!
You know enough about military matters to know that "march some troops in" is not that easy.

And what do you mean, random? The War in Bosnia was certainly not random (as you cite, Srebrenica).
And you think the Serbs were the sole bad guys and everyone else was okay?
http://www.balkanpeace.org/wcs/wct/wctu/wctc001.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_version_of_OMBbattle
http://kosovo99.tripod.com/whatdowe.htm
All sides were bastards. They all killed each other ruthlessly, and for none of them was this anything but a war against entire ethnic groups.

Hell, yes. I'd much rather the West (which is tolerant) WINS.
That's not what I asked. I asked whether we need to be so insecure about our strength that it bothers us when Iran talks it up.

bump

Did I say that? When did I say that?

And the fact is that it is ridiculous to say that aiding/committing human rights abuses, probably bordering torture, is the same thing as not having gotten involved in a civil war years ago.

That's the whole point of the thread! And, IMHO, yes, it IS as bad if not the same thing.
Years ago? It's not that long ago. Yes, really.

What? Multilateralism doesn't mean everyone follows one. It means you make a decision jointly. The major European countries did that in Kosovo, while the US did not do that in Iraq.

No question re: Iraq. All the countries that didn't go along (hello, Germany, Russia and France) were on the take.

If only the real world were as simple as your analogy, hey?
It mostly is. Someday, perhaps when Christians are being beaten in the street of Antwerp, the EU will realize it.

You know enough about military matters to know that "march some troops in" is not that easy.

No, of course it's not easy. The same way this damned occupation of Iraq isnt' easy. But it'd be a LOT easier for the EU to set up safe havens IN the former Jugoslavia than it is for the US to patrol Iraq!
You may find, BTW, that being a world power is sometimes... hard. You have to do things that you don't want to do. That's why I have umbrage against the EU. The US doesn't WANT troops in Korea or Iraq or Panama. But due to situations, they must be.
If the EU wants to be a world player, it needs to get used to the idea.
(The French in Ivory Coast or the Poles in Iraq are a good example of this.)

And you think the Serbs were the sole bad guys and everyone else was okay?
http://www.balkanpeace.org/wcs/wct/wctu/wctc001.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_version_of_OMBbattle
http://kosovo99.tripod.com/whatdowe.htm
All sides were bastards. They all killed each other ruthlessly, and for none of them was this anything but a war against entire ethnic groups.

Never said one side or the others were angles, just that the EU didn't do enough to contain the situation.

That's not what I asked. I asked whether we need to be so insecure about our strength that it bothers us when Iran talks it up.

If you call working on nuclear weapons against the UN to be talking it up, then what the point of all the debate? :(

If the EU wants to be a world player, it needs to get used to the idea.
(The French in Ivory Coast or the Poles in Iraq are a good example of this.)
Fair enough. Although I have heard some questionable things being said about the conduct of the French in Cote d'Ivoire regarding largely unarmed protestors.

And just for the record, there are thousands and thousands of EU troops in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Somalia, various African conflict situations and so on. The difference is just that they aren't necessarily there to protect national interests, but because they were asked to be there by the UN.

Fair enough. Although I have heard some questionable things being said about the conduct of the French in Cote d'Ivoire regarding largely unarmed protestors.

And just for the record, there are thousands and thousands of EU troops in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Somalia, various African conflict situations and so on. The difference is just that they aren't necessarily there to protect national interests, but because they were asked to be there by the UN.

Ah, but # protestors vs. # of troops being protested against? :(

Right. I just wish that the UN was an organization that was actually worthy of respect. Unfortunately, this has simply not been the case, especially under Kofi Annan.

And just for the record, there are thousands and thousands of EU troops in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Somalia, various African conflict situations and so on.

Are there any in Haiti, out of curiosity?

I remember France, at least, being involved in the coup, but I don't recall if they sent any troops to join the US proxy army ("UN peacekeeping forces") there.

Edit: To answer the original question, a less subservient EU position towards the US would probably be beneficial. Make of that statement what you will.

Europe is like the old people on the road: They are cautious. You can't really hate them for it, how can you hate someone for being cautious? Yet it really, really gets you mad, when they are going 20 on a 40 road!

America, as well as some others, are the younger kids on the road. Well, low twenties. They will go racing in their cars, go party then drive home tipsy if they think its really important, etc. They get into more crashes; but they feel invincible, so even when its a bad crash, they aren't too worried, unless it really hurts them.

Both have their faults. Neither likes each other. It would be great if the old men took some viagra, and the young'uns took some more caution, but meh. Everything has consequences, and both will get their cumuppance if they continue down their paths.

Are there any in Haiti, out of curiosity?
Yes. Mainly French, although I'm not sure how many. Probably a few hundred.

All contributors:
Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Jordan, Malaysia, Morocco, Nepal, Paraguay, Peru, Phillipines, Spain, Sri Lanka, United States, Uruguay and Yemen

Are there any in Haiti, out of curiosity?

I remember France, at least, being involved in the coup, but I don't recall if they sent any troops to join the US proxy army ("UN peacekeeping forces") there.

Google much?

Without doing so, however, the US and French mostly sent troops to haiti, until it died down there. Now some other nation is taking over a good portion of the peacekeeping...

Canada has like 100 guys there, France and the US are pretty much out too, with France only having like 81 guys, and I think the US is completely out by now.

Apparently, Brazil has about 7,000 troops there.

Annan wants more french or canadian troops to come in.

Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Jordan, Malaysia, Morocco, Nepal, Paraguay, Peru, Phillipines, Spain, Sri Lanka, United States, Uruguay and Yemen

What's Zapatero doing keeping troops there? Here I was thinking I liked his foreign policy (unique in that respect among First World nations), and now...?

It's a shame the EU followed the US line on this matter. One hopes that the Haitian people spitting the US in the face, as they did so eloquently recently, will change things.

Without doing so, however, the US and French mostly sent troops to haiti, until it died down there. Now some other nation is taking over a good portion of the peacekeeping...

Yes, Brazil, I know. The US likes Lula's foreign policy, they want him to have a Security Council seat now.

My recollection was that it was a mostly American (continent) operation, which is why I wondered about the EU.

What's Zapatero doing keeping troops there? Here I was thinking I liked his foreign policy (unique in that respect among First World nations), and now...?

It's a shame the EU followed the US line on this matter. One hopes that the Haitian people spitting the US in the face, as they did so eloquently recently, will change things.

I havn't heard much about the americans in haiti, but at least for the french, it seems like they were greeted fairly well. People there still don't like that France used to own them, but apparently the French even went around in berets, instead of helmets like the americans, in a show of peace.

I havn't heard much about the americans in haiti, but at least for the french, it seems like they were greeted fairly well. People there still don't like that France used to own them, but apparently the French even went around in berets, instead of helmets like the americans, in a show of peace.

Yeah, I know I'm being unfair to the peacekeepers.

They did some pretty disgusting things, though, and were complicit in the suppression of Haitian democracy that led to a pathetic IMF stooge like Preval being the best alternative.

Yes, Brazil, I know. The US likes Lula's foreign policy, they want him to have a Security Council seat now.

My recollection was that it was a mostly American (continent) operation, which is why I wondered about the EU.

Yeah, well, the marines and French pretty much were the fast response part, where as the UN had others come in to maintain it.

It happens. Kind of like the AU in, obviously, africa. 1st world nations will often provide the large initial jobs, then 12,000 egyptians or whoever will come in. Not to knock the egyptian military, they are pretty good by african standards.