[Culturechat] Burned bridges

Sun, 20 Apr 2003 16:03:55 +0200

Yes, I will agree that IHT is usually a balanced paper and their analysis
concerning Chirac's position reflects the debates going on in France right
now.  Should Chirac have whispered instead of shouted ? Mr Bush is trying to
change the rules of diplomacy. He is telling everyone to sit down and shut
up - it won't change anything anyway. The polite word for it is
unilateralism. The international community is surprised and taken aback and
not sure as to how to respond. How to defend multilateralism where the UN
plays an important role in world affairs and, for Europeans, (and Chirac in
particular) making sure the EU has a strong voice. An article I read
yesterday (French paper) said that the problem is that Chirac and Bush are
not on the same planet. Chirac thinks we're still in a multilateral world
and the Irak crisis is just that, a crisis. The parenthesis has been opened
and it will close and we'll get back to normal. Whereas W sees this as the
first step of the new American doctrine of unilateralism where the UN is
brushed aside and everything is viewed from the standpoint of America.
Another article stated that Bush's goal was threefold - 1; oust Sadam, 2.
kill the UN, 3. split the EU. The author continued saying that Chiracs
approach played right into his hand instead of against it. This is a typical
French political debate.  Chirac is in an unexpectedly tight corner and
observers project how he can get out of it. There has been a good deal of
analysis concerning the Bush agenda and the neo-con doctrine. What to do
about it is unclear. 
As for the use of the term New Europe, as in the article in IHT let's not
forget that the ten new members will only be effective in over a year from
now when they officially enter after ratification in each of the countries.
So to speak of the expanded EU seems a little precocious. Considering how
quickly things are evolving who knows what the world situation will be in
May 2004. It seems to me that we have many power struggles ahead. Perhaps
the positions taken by Blair and Chirac will serve as bridges ? Certainly
Blair will be the Euro- US bridge, will Chirac someday function as a bridge
perhaps between a difficult and angry Arab world and the US ?  
To the gentleman whose niece was in the Twin Towers, I totally understand
his gut reaction but must ask that he consider the question : was the
invasion of Irak an appropriate response ? There was no question concerning
Afghanistan, the allies went together as they had for the first Gulf war. 
The fact is that this war is more controversial, the terrorists weren't
Iraquis they were "friendly" Saudis. Terrorism doesn't have a country or an
army.  We have stoked the fire of hatred among the fundamentalist Muslims,
they don't need WMDs , a couple of airplanes, and boxcutters will do, or
guns, or bomb ingredients, they can get all that anywhere. 

By the way Vance, the  Irish story did give me chuckle. I guess I may still
surprise you ? 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : culturechat-admin@untours.com [mailto:culturechat-admin@untours.com] De
la part de VCR
Envoyé : vendredi 18 avril 2003 09:22
À : culturechat@untours.com
Objet : [Culturechat] Burned bridges

http://www.iht.com/articles/93466.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/93583.html

The above will take you to a couple of editorials in the International 
Herald Tribune. I think IHT is a pretty balanced paper, since they write 
stuff with which I don't always agree.

-- 
Vance Roy
gigli.saw@dplanet.ch

Autopsy, burn, and bury, you want to be sure.
Winston Churchill on hearing of the death of a political opponent.

_______________________________________________
This message was sent by Culturechat.
To reply or send a new message, email to:
Culturechat@untours.com

Visit the CultureChat archives:
http://mailman.dca.net/pipermail/culturechat/

To unsubscribe, change to digest delivery, or 
temporarily pause delivery, visit:
http://mailman.dca.net/mailman/listinfo/culturechat