New Eastern Europe applicant EU countries and Bertie Ahern show the way on Iraq,

by Irish American Wed Feb 05, 2003 21:27

Has ever an Irish leader in recent times shown such aplomb, style and ability as Bertie Ahern? Even my 10 year old son noticed the prosperity he has brought Ireland.

by Breffni Wed Feb 05, 2003 23:53

European Split Highlighted As Eight European Leaders Back U.S. On Iraq

By Breffni O’Rourke, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

The leaders of eight European countries have issued a joint declaration of solidarity with the United States in its confrontation with Iraq. France and Germany, which do not approve of the U.S. line, are not among them. The differences of view split the ranks of European Union member states and show that the EU's common foreign and security policy largely exists only on paper.

Prague, 30 January 2003 (RFE/RL) -- Like a jagged bolt of lightning, the declaration today by eight European leaders in support of U.S. policy against Iraq has split the ranks of European Union member states. The statement, published today in European newspapers, says the trans-Atlantic relationship between the United States and Europe "must not become a casualty" of what it calls the Iraqi regime's "persistent attempts" to threaten world security.

This appears to be a clear reference to the growing rift between Washington and the two biggest European Union member states: France and Germany. Both French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder have rejected the thrust of Washington's hard-line policy on Iraqi disarmament, saying that diplomatic action must take precedence over military action. They say any military strike against Iraq must first be approved by the United Nations Security Council.

By contrast, today's statement by eight European leaders emphasizes the "vital" need for Europe to preserve "unity and cohesion" with the United States. It makes no reference to any new Security Council resolution but instead urges compliance with existing resolutions.

Analysts note, however, that there is no direct contradiction in the statement with the French and German position. Both sides emphasize pursuance of the UN path.

The statement says the Iraqi regime's continuing failure to comply with UN's disarmament demands threatens to undermine the authority of the Security Council and represents a threat to world security.

The statement is signed by the prime ministers of five EU countries: Britain's Tony Blair, Spain's Jose Maria Aznar, Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, Portugal's Jose Manuel Barroso, and Denmark's Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Also signing are three leaders of EU candidate states from Central and Eastern Europe: Hungarian Prime Minister Peter Medgyessy, Polish Prime Minister Leszek Miller, and Czech President Vaclav Havel. Havel, it must be said, occupies a ceremonial post, and his views have no direct impact on the Czech government.

The statement undercuts attempts to forge a common EU foreign and security policy and leaves the EU's foreign-policy chief, Javier Solana, stranded on the sidelines. As independent London-based analyst Alexandra Ashbourne put it: "I think, regrettably, it shows that when things are tough that Britain and some of the other EU signatories still look first to America for foreign policy, rather than being totally with their other European partners."

For Ashbourne, the statement by the eight shows that they have thrown in their lot with Washington on its assessment of the dangers posed by Iraq and its alleged attempts to develop weapons of mass destruction. "Politically, they have committed themselves. They have seen enough evidence in the Blix report and accepted what President [George W.] Bush said on Tuesday [28 January] night that Saddam Hussein must be disarmed and has constantly refused to disarm," Ashbourne said.

Another analyst, Heather Grabbe of the Centre for European Reform in London, said the divisions within Europe are on display for all to see. "The key issue is that this really is Europe washing its dirty linen in public, showing how divided it is. The contents of the letter are actually less interesting than who signed it and who did not sign it. It's interesting, for instance, that the Dutch did not sign it. They are normally rather pro-American. So I think what's interesting is that Europe is prepared to show how divided it is, because the countries are so worried about the impact this crisis is having on trans-Atlantic relations," Grabbe said.

The initiative for the statement by the eight countries is said to have come from Blair and Aznar. Germany and France were apparently not asked to sign, and the Greek presidency of the EU is reported to have known nothing of the move in advance.

While this may not follow the spirit of community law, it does not actually break EU law. That's because, according to Gabriel von Toggenburg of the European Academy in Bolzano, Italy, all that is required in this case is efforts to reach a consensus, not the consensus itself. "As this policy area of the EU is more about cooperation and less about integration, it's enough to try to come to a consensus and compromise. But there is no duty at all to really find a compromise," Toggenburg said.

Toggenburg noted that the EU as a whole did debate the Iraq matter in council and failed to bridge the gap. Nevertheless, the episode must be seen as damaging to European unity.

Copyright © 2003 RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036. www.rferl.org

Headlines
Powell to Present Classified Intelligence on Iraq
Pentagon Sends Stealth Fighters to Gulf
Turkey’s Top Leaders Shift Policy, Support Possible War Against Iraq
Blair, Chirac Play Down Differences Over Iraq

by andy Thu Feb 06, 2003 00:16

France and UK propose bold EU defence initiative

Undertaking successful missions in Africa would be a major stepping stone in achieving the Franco-British goal of increasing the EU's standing in the international context. (Photo: EUobserver.com)
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - France and the UK have revealed bold defence plans to step-up defence co-ordination and increase military capabilities in order to undertake several simultaneous peace-keeping operations, and to better the Union's "power projection" on the world stage.

In a move designed to close the so-called ambition gap between the Union's desire and ability to act on the world stage, France and the UK have issued a joint declaration calling on the EU to "take new responsibilities" including the possibility of carrying out missions on other continents.

The declaration, issued at the conclusion of a bilateral meeting in Le Touquet, Northern France, welcomes previous EU plans to undertake missions the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The two will issue a joint proposal to the EU General Affairs Council later this month to work towards the EU taking over the NATO mission in Bosnia. Also proposed are plans to look at the possibilities of undertaking missions in Africa.

Missions in the forgotten continent
Undertaking successful missions in Africa would be a major stepping stone in achieving the Franco-British goal of increasing the EU's standing in the international context. Some members of NATO and the UN have been reluctant to engage in most of the continent - most notably the US - and supporters of the Franco-British position argue that the EU would be filling a void.

Some are not convinced. British Conservative MEP, Geoffrey van Orden told the EUobserver that the move "smacks of hypocrisy" and pointed to the motives for the two countries seeking to promote peace and stability in Africa. "The test case is Zimbabwe", he said.

France had infuriated the UK government by inviting Robert Mugabe - the Zimbabwean head of state, to a summit in Paris despite the fact that he had been banned from travelling in the EU as punishment for his government's flagrant human rights abuses. Representatives of the EU member states are expected to reach a decision on this issue on Wednesday.

Common defence clause
France and the UK also agreed in their summit on Tuesday upon the so-called 'solidarity clause' which would mean that if one EU country was attacked it would be considered an attack upon all EU members. The clause is currently being discussed in the Convention on the Future of Europe.

UK officials had last week insisted that this would not be agreed upon, arguing that it would undermine NATO. This still rings true for some, "The objective is to remove the US from engaging in European security policy," Mr van Orden alleged.

Interoperability and capabilities, new goals
"The European Union should set new capability objectives," the declaration read. France and the UK are now encouraging other member states to increase capability in order to be able to conduct several operations simultaneously and to improve reaction times.

In order to achieve this, the two are proposing an "inter-governmental defence capabilities development and acquisition agency." Additionally France ant the UK are to buy new aircraft- carriers and to have one European aircraft-carrier permanently available.

Press Articles Handelsblatt Süddeutsche

by Ann Thu Feb 06, 2003 00:45

Here Comes the New Europe

By Anne Applebaum
Wednesday, January 29, 2003

The French finance minister was "profoundly vexed." The German foreign minister called on everyone to "cool down." When asked, the French environment minister said, "If you knew what I felt like telling Mr. Rumsfeld . . ." but refused to go on, saying that the words she wished to use were too offensive. "Old Europe Kicks Back" is how the headline in the French newspaper Liberation summed up the reaction to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's comments about European support for U.S. policy in Iraq. "You're thinking of Europe as Germany and France," he told reporters last week. "I don't. I think that's old Europe."

Old Europe. If Rumsfeld had been deliberately searching for a way to simultaneously irritate the leadership of Europe's two largest countries, expose their deepest national insecurities and undermine the entire European Union political project, which has long revolved around a "Franco-German axis," he couldn't have found a better way to put it. He was also, as it happens, correct, possibly more correct than he knows. Although all concerned vociferously deny it, Europe is indeed beginning to divide -- slowly, unevenly but perceptibly -- into two very distinct camps.

Certainly this is true where European attitudes on Iraq are concerned. On the one hand, France and Germany, both now on the Security Council, want to let the U.N. weapons inspections continue, seemingly indefinitely, seemingly regardless of how much Iraq does or does not cooperate. On the other hand, Britain and Spain -- also on the Security Council this year -- are just about as fed up with the whole thing as Rumsfeld. The Spanish government has already offered to let the United States use its bases in case of war. The British have offered to send more than 30,000 troops, an enormous proportion of the British army.

Add the Italians (who are offering airspace), the Danes (who are offering military support) and Eastern Europe (the Poles and Czechs have agreed to provide material support; the Hungarians have let Iraqi opposition groups train on their territory) and a clearer definition of "New Europe" begins to emerge. Britain, Italy, Spain, Poland, Hungary, Denmark, the Czech Republic: Perhaps not coincidentally, these are all countries that have recently undergone (or are undergoing) economic liberalization, privatization and labor-market reforms that have brought their economies at least marginally closer to ours. These are also countries that have, over the years, felt resentful of French and especially German domination of the European continent.

It's hardly surprising that this group of countries should feel broadly more sympathetic to the United States -- the only power large enough to balance Germany -- or that they should reveal their sympathy in ways other than support for U.S. policy in Iraq. Just last week, Spain arrested 16 suspected members of al Qaeda. Italian police rounded up five others, while a further seven were arrested in London. French and German police have helped too, but the attitude of their politicians isn't always so helpful. At one point, Germany's justice minister actually refused to hand over evidence incriminating Zacarias Moussaoui, the al Qaeda operative, on the grounds that it might be used to invoke the death penalty in his case.

But perhaps it isn't surprising that Germany and France have chosen this particular historical moment to demonstrate their unity either. In 1952, when the precursor to the European Union contained six countries, Germany and France did indeed dominate European politics. By 2004, when the latest round of enlargement is complete, the EU will contain 25 countries. Eastern European members will jointly have more delegates to the European Parliament than Germany. Britain, Spain, Italy and Poland will easily outvote Germany and France in the weighted voting system of the European Council. Sometimes, strident language is a sign of waning influence, not growing strength.

I don't want to exaggerate the depth of the differences or overplay the unity of the "New Europe." British opinion polls are indeed running soundly against the war in Iraq. Much of the Italian and Spanish media are profoundly anti-American. For that matter, support for American policy in Iraq might be found in France and Germany if the Bush administration, Rumsfeld included, cared enough to promote it. Nevertheless, differences remain -- so when foreign reactions to the president's State of the Union speech are quoted today, do find out which countries are speaking in the name of "Europe" before drawing conclusions.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

by pete ranks Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:31

well irish american, I certainly reckon auld charlie had plenty of 'style'(and we all know what he was like) but being 'cool' doesn't make for a great leader, in fact I'd say by your definition GWB is quite 'cool' also, especially the way he ripped the people of the US of A off. And if you're relying on your ten year old son for economic analysis, then good luck to you, and the rest of our ex-pats. But seriously can't you see anything wrong with a pre-emptive strike that will kill thousands of Iraqis, and destroy their country?

by pete ranks, again Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:39

do you acknowledge any of the 'supposed' facets of American Imperialism? To me, it looks just like that, and as for the Eastern European countries supporting the US, doesn't it seem like they are doing it to ensiure future American investment, to keep relations cosy so to speak? And doesn't it all seem just a little bit callous? I'm not religious or anything, but where's the humanity? Love your neighbour and all that jazz, sounds good to me, and as for your beloved non-elected leader, ain't he a christian too? Well I do believe he'll go to his hell with all his cronies for all the pain he isinflicting, and about to inflict. Fell free to rant about the free world and how the US has all our best interests at heart, but it doesn't take a genius to see that it is all WRONG. Dia Dhuit