Ah the French

From the BBC:
French President Jacques Chirac was facing a backlash from eastern and central European countries on Tuesday after attacking them for their pro-US stance.
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair backed the small nations, declaring that all countries should be free to speak their minds.

Mr Chirac, speaking in Brussels as he attended an EU emergency summit on Monday, accused the candidates of acting out of turn by siding with the US.

France has a right to define its own policy, and we have to respect it. Poland... also has a right to decide what is in its own good

++++++++

I'm surprised this isn't getting more air play in the states. This could really help the admins case that the French are just trying to hurt America and don't speak for all of Europe.

Adam Rotfeld
Polish Deputy FM

He said they should have kept quiet.

But on Tuesday Poland - the biggest of the candidate countries - launched its own rebuke.

"France has a right to define its own policy, and we have to respect it," said Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Adam Rotfeld.

"Poland... also has a right to decide what is in its own good, and France should in its turn consider it with respect and with interest for the reasons for this difference (of opinion)."

This approach will not help to create unity in the Security Council

Lubomir Ivanov
Bulgarian Deputy FM

Czech Deputy Foreign Minister Alexandr Vondr, when asked whether Mr Chirac was bullying the candidates, said: "That's the way it seems."

Mr Chirac's attack "displayed some nervousness", said Bulgarian Deputy Foreign Minister Lubomir Ivanov.

"This approach will not help to create unity in the Security Council," Mr Ivanov told Bulgarian national radio.

Our country and other countries have a right to express our opinions.

Tiina Maiberg
Estonian FM spokeswoman

Prime Minister Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha said there was no question of Bulgaria changing its stance, although he said that Mr Chirac's comments should not be exaggerated.

In Estonia, foreign ministry spokeswoman Tiina Maiberg told BBC News Online: "All we would say is that the more plurality of opinion in Europe, the better it is. Our country and other countries have a right to express our opinions.

"The more expressions of view the better."

The candidate countries were being briefed in Brussels on Tuesday on the outcome of the EU emergency summit.

Mr Blair, who initiated one of the letters, also insisted that the candidate countries should not be silenced.

"They have as much right to speak up as Great Britain or France or any other member of the European Union today," Mr Blair said.

The divisions in Europe have split the EU's existing members into two camps.

Public opinion across Europe is against early war
But among candidate countries' governments, there is widerspread support for the US.

France, Germany and Greece, spearheading European resistance to an early war, were angered first by an open letter signed by eight EU and candidate countries in January.

It was followed by another letter, signed by 10 central and eastern European states, also expressing backing for the US handling of the crisis.

Mr Chirac's unprecedented attack came at a news conference after Monday's EU summit.

He said the joint statements were "childish and irresponsible".

LATEST LETTER SUPPORTING US
Albania

Bulgaria*

Croatia

Estonia*

Latvia*

Lithuania*

Macedonia

Romania*

Slovakia*

Slovenia*

*EU candidate country

The countries, he said, had "missed a great opportunity to be quiet", and should have.

They should have consulted the EU before issuing statements in support of the United States.

Mr Chirac was particularly critical of the poorest applicants, Romania and Bulgaria, which will have to wait until 2007.

Their position is already very delicate, he said, and if they wanted to diminish their chances of joining the EU they could not have chosen a better way.

The anger of the candidate countries was echoed by leading members of the European Parliament.

Pitting east against west, and EU against US was a dangerous course, said Hans-Georg Poettering, who leads the largest grouping in the parliament, the centre-right European People's Party.

"Were we to define our relationship in such a way that European integration is seen as something running counter to our relations with the United States, then we would be jeopardising the future of the European Union," he said.

"We would be forcing the candidate countries to side always with the United States. Because of their historical experiences, they always feel that they can get more support and succour from the American side in an emergency," Poettering added.

JANUARY'S OPEN LETTER OF SUPPORT
Czech Republic*

Denmark

Hungary*

Italy
Poland*

Portugal

Spain
United Kingdom

*EU candidate country

Liberal Democrat leader Graham Watson called it "gratuitous and condescending".

Spain, meanwhile, was wrestling with its own Iraq problems.

Prime Minister Jose Maria, a strong US supporter, was expected to face strong pressure from opposition parties during a parliamentary debate on Tuesday.

More than two million Spaniards joined an anti-war march at the weekend - proportionately one of the highest turnouts in the world.

WATCH/LISTEN

ON THIS STORY

Chris Patten, EU commissioner for external relations
"It is going to be difficult to get people together on every issue"

The BBC's Stephen Sackur
"This row is about power and influence"

Full coverage

Key stories
US clerics oppose war
Saudi war warning
Iraq polio campaign
'New Europe' hits back

Analysis
Blair's political troubles
US and UK regroup
Blix tiptoes tightrope

CLICKABLE GUIDE

Global voices on Iraq

BBC WORLD SERVICE

News in Arabic

AUDIO VIDEO

Inspectors' report: Point by point

TALKING POINT

Your views on inspectors' report

TALKING POINT

EU meeting
Can rift over Iraq be healed?

See also:

18 Feb 03 | Europe
Split EU leaders find Iraq compromise

18 Feb 03 | Europe
Chirac blasts EU candidates

18 Feb 03 | Europe
Full text: EU Iraq declaration

12 Feb 03 | Europe
Europe's new gang resists US 'bullying'

11 Feb 03 | Europe
Polls find Europeans oppose Iraq war

17 Feb 03 | Europe
Millions join global anti-war protests

16 Feb 03 | Americas
Analysis: Vive la UN difference

Internet links:

Nato homepage
EU

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

Top Europe stories now:

Turkey ups stakes on US troops

'New Europe' hits back at Chirac

Ferguson plays down Beckham row

Blair keeps euro options open

Waiter jailed for underage sex

Democratic test for Armenia

Alinghi take Cup stranglehold

New Cypriot leader 'eager' for talks

Links to more Europe stories are at the foot of the page.

The Bush Administration doesn''t want to take a stand against the French for fear of dividing Europe and America even further, or risk having that division spill over to the war on terror.

What, you mean France is actually allowed to critisize here because they, together with the other axis of weasels member Germany, have had the biggest influence in getting those countries ready for joining the EU and improving the life-standard there ten-fold? This is a completely inner-EU matter it won''t backlash on US citizens.

Chirac is certainly not helping his own cause recently, but on the other hand I don''t see the US administration rushing to check the worldwide temperature before it blasts the administration of other nations. It''s awfully convenient to criticize France for it''s position on Central European Pro-war support without turning the same critical eye on the US''s handling of Western European anti-war sentiment.

Ultimately, this sort of crap (crap referring to posturing, not the post) is just politics to me, and doesn''t sway my position either way.

On a point, I can''t help but notice how many of the countries supporting the US rely extensively on US support. Further, I fail to see how Lithuania''s support, for example, validates US involvement. On a purely fiscal perspective, how much support can these countries muster to help fund an invasion and a post-war reconstruction. Further, how much weight do these countries hold in swaying world political opinion?

Finally, I found it interesting today to uncover some information regarding Turkey''s human rights abuses against the people of northern Iraq and specifically the Kurds. I find it ironic, and blatantly hypocritical, for the Bush administration on one hand to proclaim justification of the Iraqi war as a humanitarian effort against a butchering tyrant whose abuse of the Kurdish people is atrocious, and then call Turkey a critical and noble ally (paraphrasing Bush''s statements of the past few days) whose reeled from allegations of torture, and murder of exactly the same people. How incredibly convenient that Turkey, who is willing to let us use their land to stage an assault, is not facing criticism for exactly the humanitarian atrocities which we are going after Saddam for. I''d love to have it explained to me why a humanitarian mission to protect the Kurds is being staged and supports a country and government that is openly persecuting them?

I''ll tell you my guess why. Because humanitarian goals have nothing to do with the administration''s plan. Maybe there''s another answer I''m missing.

- Elysium

"Elysium" wrote:

Because humanitarian goals have nothing to do with the administration''s plan.

If it were, the US would be going toe-to-toe with China right after Iraq and North Korea. ""China has been generous,"" my hairy white butt.

I find it ironic, and blatantly hypocritical, for the Bush administration on one hand to proclaim justification of the Iraqi war as a humanitarian effort against a butchering tyrant whose abuse of the Kurdish people is atrocious, and then call Turkey a critical and noble ally

What I find ironic is that the Bush administration acts as if it was the one moral instance on this planet, which is somewhat amusing if take a closer look at the background of some of the politicians involved there.

You know, we''re all going to end up on an FBI watch list ...

then they''ll throw Ulairi a ticker-tape parade, and make us watch.

Elysium: lol.

Well this is for sure inner EU quarrels and should not bother you much. While I do not agree with his harsh words, I do agree with his tenor: These countries want to become part of the EU - this also means to share a basic pov and not being quick at hand with chosing sides. Both UK and Germany were too quick at hand as well, but at least they tried to communicate and coordinate their positions with the other EU countries.

For the list of supporters: I think it is safe to say that you count in all EU countries when it comes to strip Iraq of its weapons. Where the disagreement lies is the way you are trying to do this. While the EU sees invasion as a last resort only, the US government proposes invasion as the solution before all others like supporting the inspectors ie with intelligence agency information.

"Elysium" wrote:

You know, we''re all going to end up on an FBI watch list ...

then they''ll throw Ulairi a ticker-tape parade, and make us watch. :wink:

ssshhhh...

This reminds me of the Simpsons when Homer works for the IRS and trys to get people at Moes in trouble.

"Ulairi" wrote:

This reminds me of the Simpsons when Homer works for the IRS and trys to get people at Moes in trouble. ;)

That explains the sombrero.

You know, we''re all going to end up on an FBI watch list ...

If you go to prison, can I have your video games?

It''s so funny, these countries have absolutely everything to gain by supporting the US. In fact, they HAVE TO support the US because their economics is in such a miserable state they''d figure they would get some sort of aid in the future.

Bulgaria*

Croatia

Estonia*

Latvia*

Lithuania*

Macedonia

Romania*

Slovakia*

Slovenia*

Also, another thing to note is the French military isn''t needed at all as well as Germanies. While their Anti-Terror squads are noted to be good, their overall militaries aren''t strong. For instance, the French has a decommissioned AirCraft carrier that doesn''t run anymore. Germany doesn''t even have a naval fleet.

It''s so funny, these countries have absolutely everything to gain by supporting the US. In fact, they HAVE TO support the US because their economics is in such a miserable state they''d figure they would get some sort of aid in the future.

Some sort of aid? Are you even F''N serious? You DO know that the European Union, and I am talking of one of the most succesfull intergovernmental economic projects EVAR, is risking their whole existence over integrating Eastern Europe in their economy right? I mean, c''mon, 5 percent of _my_ taxes will go to Eastern Europe in the future, you think the US is helping them more then France ALONE? Give me a break and cut the high brow humanitarian bullshiat you are spouting about helping Eastern Europe while we have been doing that for MORE THEN A DECADE now. Sorry for the caps but I think a point had to be made here

For instance, the French has a decommissioned AirCraft carrier that doesn''t run anymore. Germany doesn''t even have a naval fleet.

France:

Aircraft Carriers
Charles de Gaulle light aircraft carrier (nuclear powered)
Displacement: 41,000 tons full load
Dimensions: 261.5 x 64.4 x 8.5 meters (858 x 211 x 28 feet)
Propulsion: Steam turbines, 2 reactors, 2 shafts, 83,000 shp, ~24 knots
Crew: 1,950
Aviation: angled flight deck, 2 C13 catapults; 35-40 aircraft
Hangar: 453 x 95 x 20 feet
Troops: 800
Radar: DRBV 26D early warning, DRBV 15 3-D air search, DRBJ 11B air
search
Fire Control: Arabel missile control
EW: ARBR 17 intercept, ARBB 33 jammer, 4 Sagaie chaff
Armament: 32 vertical-launch Aster SAM, 2 6-cell Sandral point
defense SAM, 8 20 mm
A new-design carrier; much-delayed in construction and trials, but now formally in commission. Although her full air group is not yet ready, she has deployed operationally.

Number Name Year FLT Group Homeport Notes
R91 Charles de Gaulle 2001

One of the most modern carrier on the world sea''s...

Germany:

Too hot to handle: http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/europe/germany.htm
About 15 modern surface combatants and 10 modern diesel submarines.

Seriously, I could see Europe taking it on Iraq itself, we have nukes too y''know

Great link Koesj.

Yeah hazegray is pretty good, if you like military sites check http://www.fas.org, http://www.globalsecurity.org and http://www.aeronautics.ru...

"Koesj" wrote:

Yeah hazegray is pretty good, if you like military sites check http://www.fas.org, http://www.globalsecurity.org and http://www.aeronautics.ru...

Let''s not forget www.janes.com although it''s more of an intelligence site then military really. Still tons of good info though.

Some sort of aid? Are you even F''N serious? You DO know that the European Union, and I am talking of one of the most succesfull intergovernmental economic projects EVAR, is risking their whole existence over integrating Eastern Europe in their economy right? I mean, c''mon, 5 percent of _my_ taxes will go to Eastern Europe in the future, you think the US is helping them more then France ALONE? Give me a break and cut the high brow humanitarian bullshiat you are spouting about helping Eastern Europe while we have been doing that for MORE THEN A DECADE now. Sorry for the caps but I think a point had to be made here

And those countries still think more highly of the United States than France.

It''s on again off again for that French Aircraft carrier. It''s not to be taken seriously at all. Last year it was grounded for a while with propellar problems as well as problems with the initial nuclear reactor.

It''s not to be taken seriously AT ALL.

Forty planes with the capability to carry nuclear weapons will be taken seriously, believe me. Anyway, it isn''t a ''decommissioned AirCraft carrier'' so you were wrong there

The EU wrassling sure seems like your average case of ''local politics'' to me. Given the US''s own political ludicrousness (our last presidential election, anyone?) who are we to comment too harshly?

If it were, the US would be going toe-to-toe with China right after Iraq and North Korea. ""China has been generous,"" my hairy white butt.
I''ll tell you my guess why. Because humanitarian goals have nothing to do with the administration''s plan. Maybe there''s another answer I''m missing.

The minute I read this, I remembered the tanks facing off with the students at Tianemen Square. It''s very hypocritical to say this after my initial statement, but damnit- some things are just wrong far as I''m concerned. Shoot me for havng some ethics, I guess. Now dangit, I realize that other forms of pressure on China are working in other ways and whatnot...but to see them get the trade status they did....after rolling over their own citizens with @#$!! tanks. For me, this brings into focus the complete bullsh*t the whole ""Iraq = humanitarian effort!"" spiel is.

Guess I''m not rutheless enough for world politics. Glad I just run a shopping mall.

/sigh.

* deleted *

Yes my dark master, I will bask in my idiocy from now on
Anyway, I recall a pretty large number of other military programs having troubles at first, actually, during the entire military history projects have been pegged with problems though in our times they tend to succeed later on. You can call anything a failure, the F-22 for example a financial failure or the Bradley a logistic failure, doesn''t mean they won''t do their job properly.

You know what was nice? We were debating things and no one resorted to insults. I''m so glad Valcron felt the need to change it.

indeed. No need for name calling.

Removed.

Valcron, I don''t give a damn if you think you''re being funny or not. That happens again, and you''re out.

- Elysium