[Culturechat] Burned bridges

[VCR]

Vivianne et Jean-Paul Beller wrote:

>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.
>
I consider the French attitude of, "Do what you will, we are still going 
to,veto it", to be not only unilateral but arrogant without basis.


> 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.
>

Chirac isn't concerned a hoot about the EU except as a vehicle for 
France to lead Europe. Something it hasn't done since my seventh great 
grandfather left burgundy for Quebec.

> 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.
>

The Un brushed itself aside. 9/11 changed a lot of things, not the least 
the USA's attitude of being hit first before hitting back.

>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.
>

Well, you got one out of three right.

> 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.
>
I wouldn't want to be Chirac. He has a country full of Islamic people 
now, a conservative opposition that flirts with his defeat each 
election, and he has managed to alienate the USA. In time, Germany and 
the Russians may well turn on him too. He has his own Watergate type 
problems, so I hear.

> 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.
>

A year is a short timeDo you doubt they will be part of the EU? I do 
not. I also know that Eastern Europe is very different from what you and 
I think of as Europe.

> 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 ? 
>

Blair? Maybe, but he is in hot water at home. I, for one, wouldn't set 
foot on a Chirac bridge.

> 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
>Iraqis 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 box cutters will do, or
>guns, or bomb ingredients, they can get all that anywhere. 
>

Do you really believe that given 6 more months, the inspectors would 
have been effective? That Hussain would have ceased weapon production? 
That as soon as he had a deliverable nuke, he would not have lobbed it 
over to Tel Aviv and dared any Arabic nation to say it was wrong? I 
think you have better sense.

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

Maybe, Vivianne, but the jury is still out on that. It is nice to see 
that you are not mad all the time.

>
>-----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.