| Username |
Post |
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 18-Oct-03 12:18 AM
OK: will France be able to do something concrete this time or its just one more in the series of their unsuccssful attempt to go with Gen. deGaulle's anti-America/Independent Foreign Policy?
Anyway, I apologize for bombarding the Sajha board with all the Guardian articles, but this one was too hard to resist:
France warns against Iran action
Military intervention would be ridiculous, says foreign minister, denouncing policy of forcible regime change
Simon Tisdall and Ewen MacAskill
Saturday October 18, 2003
The Guardian
The US pursuit of forcible regime change is not a viable or safe policy in the dangerous world that exists after September 11, the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said in an interview with the Guardian.
In a wide-ranging critique of US policy in the Middle East and beyond, Mr De Villepin said that any military action against Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons would be "absolutely ridiculous".
He also said that, in spite of Thursday's UN security council resolution giving the US-British force in Iraq a mandate, "the conditions for real progress on the reconstruction of Iraq are not complied with today".
"Reconstruction has to have a partner, you have to have real sovereignty in Iraq if you want to have the Iraqi people working with you."
Mr De Villepin declined to commit France to providing reconstruction assistance at next week's donors' conference in Madrid, in spite of urgings to do so from Washington.
While emphasising France's desire to patch up relations with the US and to work with it on a range of international issues, the foreign minister also questioned Israel's US-backed security policies. He said Europe should play a vital role in advancing the peace process, not least because of Europe's close trade and aid links with both sides.
"I think that Israeli policy during the past months and years shows clearly that if you are going to imagine that only through security you are going to find solutions, you are mistaken...
"We think that using force, on the contrary, is going to... give new reasons to some people [like al-Qaida] to oppose us."
Mr De Villepin sketched out a French vision of a radically different approach to foreign policy in which differences of culture, society and religion should be weighed alongside questions of security.
"Regime change can not be a policy on its own in today's world," he said. "You have to be respectful of sovereignty.
"Of course, there are very difficult situations when human rights are concerned... we have known that in Kosovo. So in rare situations, we have to address these kinds of problems by military means. But you have to have the support of the international community... If there is one country that imagines it can solve this matter alone, we are going to see more vengeance, more difficulties, more problems, and the world is going to be more unstable."
Mr De Villepin's remarks underline the continuing differences between France, which led European opposition to the Iraq war, and Washington and London.
During a brief visit to London this week, Mr De Villepin had lunch with the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, and recorded the prestigious Dimbleby Lecture, which will be screened tomorrow on BBC1.
After his visit, it was announced that Mr De Villepin and Mr Straw and the German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, are to visit Tehran on Monday to try to defuse the nuclear arms row. To the annoyance of the Bush administration, Britain, France and Germany have offered to supply civilian nuclear technology to Iran in return for its abandoning any ambition to seek nuclear weapons capability.
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 18-Oct-03 06:37 AM
VIVA LA FRANCE!!!
The former Soviet president Gorbachev had said something along the following lines when answering one of the questions on current American foreign policy just a few weeks ago at American University:
The US has two choices when dealing with global issues. The first is to be a bully, dictate (or try to) every other country in the world on how to behave, and threaten the use of, or even utilize, force at times in order to achieve its goals. Afterall, they have the might to do so. This will not only gain them more and more enemies along the way, but it also directly contradicts their own stance as a strong advocate of democracy -- you cannot claim that you believe in democracy on one level, and act totally undemocratic on another (global) level. Creating an empire is one way to exert your influence, and few countries have done that in the past; however, the history has also shown that all empires do fall.
One the other hand, he said, IF you desire a sustained, long-lasting leadership, then there is a second way: You can choose to treat other countries with respect, and embrace them as partners, rather than view them from a distance as mere subjects, in global advancement.
I too think that the latter is more pertinent in the 21st century -- we do not live in the 18th, 19th, or even in the early 20th century anymore. The globe has become a small village in the 21st century; and the villagers who live in here are not any more uneducated, naive and willing to be subjected to supreme commands of a single country. We know what we want, and we want democracy, not only on a national level, but also on a global level. If not, we will make sure that the empire falls sooner or later!
Now, the so-called prophets of real politik may argue that reality is that the US is a powerful country, and by the mere virtue of its undisputed supreme might, it can, and it should, exercise its authority whatever way it sees fit. Well, the REALITY, my friends, is that we do not live in the 1960's, 70's, and the 80's either! 1990's has heralded a new era in international politics -- the era of greater awareness among the nations of the world , big and small, of the importance of their dignity, their sovereignty, and the impact of these on global issues.
As in individuals, when the nations become more aware of their significance in the international stage, the more they yearn for a voice, for a greater participation in the process. The times of nations acting strictly according to their self interests is history -- the French foreign minister accurately portrays the new reality when he says that a time has come to seriously contemplate "foreign policy in which differences of culture, society and religion should be weighed alongside questions of security." [Above] Sooner the US realizes this, the better it will be able to preserve its leadership in the world. Otherwise, they might as well prepare for the downfall of the empire!
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 19-Oct-03 07:15 AM
Poonte,
I beg to differ on certain points.
1. I too think that the latter is more pertinent in the 21st century -- we do not live in the 18th, 19th, or even in the early 20th century anymore. The globe has become a small village in the 21st century; and the villagers who live in here are not any more uneducated, naive and willing to be subjected to supreme commands of a single country. We know what we want, and we want democracy, not only on a national level, but also on a global level. If not, we will make sure that the empire falls sooner or later!
Yes, we live in the 21st century, but still, we have the medieval International System. And I don't have to tell you that all nations are guided by Realism and the ultimate aim of each and every nation in the system we live in right now is to become a global hegemon. Imagine, yourself a staff member of the Bush administration: No matter how democratic and liberal and what not you might be, there are always certain national interests to promote, and to promote your national interests, you have to be harsh at times. So, analyzing the whole thing from the Realist perspective, I don't blame the Bush administration for what it is doing in Iraq and the world, because it has to do it. For the administration, it's national interests come before anyone else's.
But, as a citizen of the world, and someone who is not in any decision making authority and whose knowledge of the world affairs comes from reading The Guardian, yes, I totally agree with you: We don't want anyone to bully us or any country that is "weak". But, living all this humanitarian concerns and oppsitions aside, when I think in terms of national interests, I say, yes, those people at the White House are doing what they are supposed to be doing and for what they are getting paid for.
"Now, the so-called prophets of real politik may argue that reality is that the US is a powerful country, and by the mere virtue of its undisputed supreme might, it can, and it should, exercise its authority whatever way it sees fit. Well, the REALITY, my friends, is that we do not live in the 1960's, 70's, and the 80's either! 1990's has heralded a new era in international politics -- the era of greater awareness among the nations of the world , big and small, of the importance of their dignity, their sovereignty, and the impact of these on global issues. "
I don't think that the end of Cold War started a new era in international politics. No matter how much one denies, the US was and is still a global player. Yes,w e live in the new millennium but MY FRIENDS, the reality hasn't changed at all. Even at the height of Cold War, the US was a Super Power, even after the end of Cold War, the US is a Global Power. And that gives it the POWER to exercise its hegemony whereever it deems fit. Big Fish always eats small fish, or " bada le garcha joon kaam, huncha tyo sarvasammat , the UN and other inetrnational watchdogs work on this principle. America invaded Iraq, so what? Was the UN able to do anything concrete against the US? Could the World Leaders propose a Global Trade ban against the US? No. Instead, it was the US that proposed trade bans against the nations who directly or indirectly opposed the US lead invasion of Iraq.
TBC
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 19-Oct-03 07:30 AM
Continued:
Well, the REALITY, my friends, is that we do not live in the 1960's, 70's, and the 80's either! 1990's has heralded a new era in international politics -- the era of greater awareness among the nations of the world , big and small, of the importance of their dignity, their sovereignty, and the impact of these on global issues. "
Also, contracy to your belief, my belief (call it ill informed) is that the world has now become much dependant on the US. On the one hand, yes, there have been more democratic regimes and there's much more awareness among the people, but on the other hand, many neo-democracies were established by the US to serve its national interests! And my friend, when you were elected or put in power by the US to serve its national interests, no matter how you promote yourself as a democratic and liberal on the surface, at the core, you are always supporting the US because you know, just as the US put you in power, it can throw you out of power anytime.
Also, the theory of Immanuel Wallerstien is at work here. Because of the briliant US policy of ineternationalizing the internal economy and internalizing the world economy, the US is pretty much in control of the world economy. IT will take at least 25 years for Euro to challenge the dollar hegemony and that means, the US will be at the heart of world affairs for another quarter-century.
aaiya.. k k lekhya lekhya.,.. thaha chaina.. la edit garera padhnu hola.. also, feel free to correct me..
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 19-Oct-03 07:31 AM
become much dependant =much more dependant
|
| bewakoof |
Posted
on 19-Oct-03 08:19 AM
I would say the French have been more successful in their Gaullist anti-Americanism lately. During the cold war they couldn't really in the end align with the Soviets so they came under the western fold eventually. To the Americans, French were more of an irritant than any significant road block back then. But I think in the case of Iraq, French have caused significant material problems to the US. Of course they were not able stop the US going to Iraq but they made it significantly more burdensome for the US and have successfully marshaled the French-German-Russian opposition.
My casual reading of the French analysts and commentators suggest that much like the US, they are also torn into two camps internally. The first camp seems to be even more anti-American than the old Gaullists. They think the US power is the greatest danger to the world and to combat that France has to lead an opposing coalition. This will create a bipolar or a multi-polar world where the US hyper-power can be checked in much like the cold-war equilibrium. The second camp appears to be the traditional multilateralists and internationalists who hold that only way to deal with the US power is to keep US within the UN fold and restrain them via UN. Right now the French appear to be going along with the first camp, just as the US is going unilaterally. It will be interesting to see how things play out in the long-run.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 19-Oct-03 08:43 AM
"I would say the French have been more successful in their Gaullist anti-Americanism lately. During the cold war they couldn't really in the end align with the Soviets so they came under the western fold eventually. To the Americans, French were more of an irritant than any significant road block back then. But I think in the case of Iraq, French have caused significant material problems to the US. Of course they were not able stop the US going to Iraq but they made it significantly more burdensome for the US and have successfully marshaled the French-German-Russian opposition.
I would say, the French have been less sucessful in their Gaullist policy lately. During the cold war, they could withdraw from the Atlantic Alliance and come up with their own independent foreign policy of detante, etante and status quo ante, and that was something then. The French protest of the US now hasn't resulted in anything concrete. They haven't been able to propose an alliance of the anti-US countries, nor they have been able to do anything to stop the US from invading Iraq.
This will create a bipolar or a multi-polar world where the US hyper-power can be checked in much like the cold-war equilibrium. The second camp appears to be the traditional multilateralists and internationalists who hold that only way to deal with the US power is to keep US within the UN fold and restrain them via UN. Right now the French appear to be going along with the first camp, just as the US is going unilaterally. It will be interesting to see how things play out in the long-run.
As far as I understand, you are saying that alliances will help curb the US adventurism worldwide. This is what Prof. Charles Kupchan says in his book, The End of The American Era (Thanks to a Sajha friend for sending me that book). It is a persuassive argument: yes, there might be some alliances, but I highly doubt that France will have anything to do with it because of its trade interests in the US and Iraq. If France starts supporting such alliances/coalitions directed against the US, it will have to support the Arab nationalism movements, the likely alliance between China-India-Russia and other alliances.
Nobody knows how the things play out in the long run, but as you said, it will be interesting to watch.. hoina?
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 19-Oct-03 08:46 AM
directed against the US, it will have to support the Arab nationalism movements, the likely alliance between China-India-Russia and other alliances. = directed against the US, it will have to support the Arab nationalism movements, the likely alliance between China-India-Russia and other alliances, and that will prove counter-productive to Fracne's national interests. Apart from France and Germany's isolation from the European Union and influx of political refugees/other refugees, they (the French) would end up with nothing significant.
|
