This is fabulous! I'm waiting for them to start making funny faces at each other... my, my has the art of diplomacy declined since the Cold War. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/02/18/sprj.irq.chirac/index.html has been a leading voice against Washington's press for war in Iraq to disarm President Saddam Hussein and is insisting weapons inspectors in the country be given more time. But 13 countries either set to join the EU or in membership talks have signed letters supporting the United States. Chirac said: "These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position." "It is not really responsible behavior. It is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet." "I felt they acted frivolously because entry into the European Union implies a minimum of understanding for the others," Chirac said. Chirac called the letters "infantile" and "dangerous," adding: "They missed a great opportunity to shut up." Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, all of whom have dates for EU membership, joined EU members Britain, Spain, Italy, Denmark and Portugal in signing a letter last month supporting Washington's stance on Iraq. Ten other eastern European nations -- eight with entry dates and Romania and Bulgaria who are still in membership discussions -- signed a similar letter a few days later. "Romania and Bulgaria were particularly irresponsible. If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining Europe they could not have found a better way," Chirac said. When asked why he wasn't similarly critical of the EU nations that signed the letter, Chirac said: "When you are in the family ... you have more rights than when you are asking to join and knocking on the door." CNN European Political Editor Robin Oakley described Chirac's outburst as "pretty grumpy and imperious." "For him to lecture these applicant countries or these accepted members on their way in was really behavior like the worst of what the French complain about in the United States," Oakley said. "It was bullying really. ... It was very, very tough stuff. I think some of the other EU leaders will feel it was out of order. "But perhaps it shows just how much Jacques Chirac was stunned by U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's differentiation between what he calls 'old Europe' and 'new Europe.'" Rumsfeld angered France and Germany when he referred to them as 'old Europe' -- in contrast to the easterners seeking to join the EU and NATO -- in response to Paris and Berlin's stance against any possible war in Iraq. Chirac's words have angered some of those aspirant nations with Czech Deputy Prime Minister Alexandr Vondr saying it appeared Chirac was trying to bully them. And Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Adam Rotfeld told public radio: "France has a right to its opinion and Poland has the right to decide what is good for it. France should respect that." European Commission President Romano Prodi said he was saddened rather than angry with the candidates because their pro-Americanism was a signal they had failed to understand that the EU is more than a mere economic union. "I would be lying it I said I was happy," he told reporters. "I have been very, very sad, but I am also patient by nature, so I hope they will understand that sharing the future means sharing the future." The EU decided last December to admit 10 new members to the 15-nation bloc. The parliaments of the current EU members still have to ratify the decision that will see Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Cyprus and Malta join in May 2004. On Tuesday, leaders of the EU aspirants traveled to Brussels for a briefing on Iraq and endorsed Monday night's joint declaration by EU leaders. (Full story) The candidates were upset over not being invited to Brussels for Monday's emergency summit on Iraq. Britain and Spain had sought to have the candidates invited to Monday's summit, but France and Germany opposed the idea. Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, denied they had been excluded from the summit because of their backing for Washington, insisting rules require the accession treaties be signed first.
here's the problem with the European Union, as I see it, right here. chirac is basically saying you have to check your sovereignty at the door. he's saying that the elected representatives of the United Kingdom should be testing all foreign policy through the lenses of the EU. that's a problem. the english didn't elect Chirac or his administration...in all likelihood, they would not elect anyone like Chirac. But the French, from an entirely different culture with entirely different values, would and did. then Chirac goes on to say that the stance of Bulgaria on this issue alone will diminish its chances of EU membership. economic alliances are one thing...that's great...but collective government of countries with vastly different cultures is a bad idea in my opinion.
MadMax: Chirac is being an ass here, obviously... but we're all going to have to surrender more sovereignty in the future... in an indirect, if not a direct, manner. Dealing with problems like global warming, terrorism, international competition, etc... requires dealing with problems that you can't handle alone. Such problems encourage free riders if attempted w/non-binding compacts. Ultimately, you have to have coercive backing to your solutions to international problems. The same reasons, ultimately, lead to the collapse of state sovereignty in America. And if you speak of disparate cultures... well, I'll day this... people in MA may speak the same language as those in Texas. But the political consciousness, which is the important part in matters of representation, is more similar to Europe than here. If you can bind MA, TX, CA, and ND together... then, well... France and Bulgaria will probably be bound together as well. I'm not arguing for the collapse of local sovereignty. Theoretically, all problems should be addressed at the level closest to the electorate as is possible. IOW, the feds (much less the UN) shouldn't tell Houston how to handle its sewage system. But other issues probably require high levels of cooperation w/more people. It varies... just keep in mind that sovereignty is an issue that, to some extent, is philosophical... but is also a very practical matter.
i hear ya, though i think you're making a pretty big leap on the differences between states. there are some common ties in shared history and the constitution we can all go back to as base...particular ideas about government and the role of government..more importantly, ideas about due process. self rule is a big thing with me...needless to say. joining in any sort of world criminal court or anything like that scares the crappers out of me. yes, the world has some problems they need to solve, but they're "joint venture" problems. they're program problems. dealing with terrorism in the united states will and always should be different than how it's dealt with in china...i pray it will always be different from that communitarian approach, casting individual rights against the rocks. most people don't even know what sovereignty means, haven...or its practical effects. i guarantee you, my lovely wife, who is very intelligent, hasn't given the concept of soverignty more than an hour of thought in her collective 29 years on this planet. but it's something that rings pretty loudly with me.
I don't see how Chirac's bullying here and his using the EU as leverage for his position as much different from Rumsfeld's bullying and using the US economic presence in Germany for leverage.
JuanValdez: No, they're both equally funny. At least we can say that stupidity and pomposity are not exclusively American traits!
Speaking of Rumsfeld, I had a question about the other thread. I couldn't post it there because it was taken over by some conservative lower-case-handled poster. Why were Rumsfeld's quotes in big British papers but never quoted in American news sources (that I could find)?
