Bush Exercising Subtlety with France

[Guest MikeSC]

June 30, 2004 --

In the face of unceasing French attacks on American foreign policy, President Bush has struck back in a way that is deeply embarrassing to France's President Chirac.

 

Good for Dubya.

 

In Turkey for a NATO summit, Bush yesterday highlighted France's low-rent efforts to keep Turkey out of the European Union by all but demanding the inclusion in the E.U. of the powerful Muslim democracy.

 

"America believes that, as a European power, Turkey belongs in the European Union," Bush told an Istanbul audience, adding that its entry would be "a crucial advance in relations between the Muslim World and the West," because Turkey is "part of both."

 

Furthermore, allowing Turkey to join "would show that the E.U. is not the exclusive club of a single religion"

 

France and the other European powers that oppose Turkey's inclusion believe — though it is rarely said publicly — that the E.U. should remain an organization of exclusively Christian countries.

 

 

 

France is also uncomfortable about greater E.U. expansion because each new country in the union dilutes French power — and thus France's ability to use the confederation to increase its global clout.

 

Chirac had the cheek on Monday to publicly warn Bush not to get involved in E.U. matters. So Bush snapped back — correctly, both on the merits and politically:

 

* On the merits, because Turkey needs to be admitted to the E.U.

 

It is a secular democracy in a part of the world where neither secularism nor democracy is easily found. Despite Ankara's dissembling in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, it's important that the West do what it can to sustain Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's legacy — for the good of the Turks, the Middle East and the West.

 

* And politically, because France is clearly intensifying its attempts to wreck U.S. political and military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

France consistently has derailed NATO involvement in Iraq. And though the NATO allies agreed Monday to help the new Baghdad government train troops and police, Chirac later said he opposed a formal NATO presence in Iraq.

 

NATO may slightly beef up its woefully inadequate contingent in Afghanistan to help safeguard the elections planned for September, but Chirac has now blocked a U.S. bid to send NATO's new "Response Force" there. (Unlike most forces wielded by America's militarily feeble NATO allies, the NRF would actually have some effective teeth.)

 

All of this is meant to serve a larger Chirac purpose: He actively wants things to go wrong for America in both Iraq and Afghanistan — regardless of the cost to the people who live in both countries — because that could tip this fall's presidential election to Democratic hopeful John Kerry.

 

The junior senator from Massachusetts is more attractive to Paris than the incumbent president because Bush is on to Chirac's game.

 

Never mind the War on Terror: The French political establishment is fighting a war against what it sees as Anglo-Saxon political, economic and cultural domination.

 

France believes it can use its influence within international institutions like the United Nations and the European Union to reverse more than a century of French decline.

 

If Kerry understands this, he has given no sign of it.

 

But if he and his supporters are naive enough to believe that the French would suddenly become more accommodating to a Kerry administration, they are courting a rude shock.

 

Nothing will change the French policy of working to undermine American and British efforts in Iraq or elsewhere — because France loathes and fears America and Britain.

 

It's that simple.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/24033.htm

The author makes a point here. France is NOT going to be any nicer to Kerry than they are to Bush if Kerry doesn't do PRECISELY what they want him to do.

 

And kudos to Bush for rubbing Chirac's face in the mud for fighting the inclusion of Turkey into the EU.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

France and the other European powers that oppose Turkey's inclusion believe — though it is rarely said publicly — that the E.U. should remain an organization of exclusively Christian countries.

 

Too bad some of those E.U. countries will have Muslim majorities in the years to come...

[Art Sandusky 0]

Way to stick it to 'em...? All he did was say Turkey should be a part of the EU. It's already part of NATO, why not?

 

TAKE THAT, FRANCE! An opinion article is nothing.

[Styles 0]

Mike, surely you made this up, eveyone knows France is a much more tolerant country than the USA....

[AndrewTS 0]

France and the other European powers that oppose Turkey's inclusion believe — though it is rarely said publicly — that the E.U. should remain an organization of exclusively Christian countries.

 

Too bad some of those E.U. countries will have Muslim majorities in the years to come...

Also, since when is France is a Christian nation?

 

Is France one of those countries, by the way, since I've been hearing about a significant number of them living in France facing some intense discrimination.

[Highland 0]

I thought France was supposed to be secular...

[Guest Hero to all Children]

France has a deep-rooted tradition of Catholicism. The nation itself is secular but a lot of common Joes (or Jaqués in their case) on the street don't agree with that. The Front National (a radically conservative nationalistic French party) insits on France's Catholic heritage.

All member nations of the European Union have a rather impressive history of being very Christian. With a few short interuptions such as the Muslim conquerers and occupators in the south of Spain.

 

A good share of the member nations (Poland, Italy, France{I think} and another nation I forgot. Maybe Spain) actually wanted the Christian heritage to be written down in the European constitution, though they got beaten down and finally gave up. Instead the constitution mentions the humanistic heritage.

 

 

One of the main arguements against the inclusion of Turkey into the EU (which is a hotly debated issue, trust me it's not as easy of a deal as "eh, they're part of the NATO already anyways so why not?") is the fact that they're a secularist Muslim country. The emphasis rests on Muslim. The right is rallying against the loss of our culture, the pollution of our proud religious practices by the dirty towelheads and what the hell not. The left usually argue about the opressive nature of Islam and try to cite human rights violations (which still exist but damn they're getting a lot better, not at violating but at not-violating.)

 

However, save a few hardliners that's merely a front. It's actually about this:

There's 80 million Turks and they're willing to work for a lot less than your average European. Frankly speaking everyone is afraid of the actual free market, of a large influx of foreigners, etc. Y'see there's already a lot of criticism regarding immigrants here. How they're not integrated properly, how some places only speak Turkish and how the law is basically powerless in a few blocks in Berlin where the people just have the mentality of "It's in my house, it's my family. The government has no business investigating me beating my wife."

 

Which are more or less legitimate claims. There used to be a Germany Town in New York where everyone only spoke German, etc. It died down (mainly due to a cruiser catastrophe) after a while, simply integrating itself into society after a few generations. BUT THAT'S NOT EVEN THE POINT. I didn't come here to discuss German-European immigration issues.

 

 

Turkey joining the European Union is a political, economical and sociologically tricky business. I'm all for it, the French aren't and so Bush did actually bitchslap them with that.

 

What you have to understand is that being part of our exclusive EU tree-house-club means a lot more than having a shiny title. It brings a lot of obligations politically (pan-EU consensus, human rights standards, secularism, etc) with itself.

Yet, in the end the EU is mostly a trade union. Trade within the EU is easier, EU citizens can settle within other EU member nations with a lot more ease than other foreigners, open borders, no customs at said borders, etc.

 

And a lot of people just don't want to see Turkey in such a priviledged position of economical and political power.

 

That's more or less it, folks.

[Jingus 0]

There's 80 million Turks and they're willing to work for a lot less than your average European. Frankly speaking everyone is afraid of the actual free market, of a large influx of foreigners, etc.

So it's essentially "We don't want Mexico as part of NAFTA", part 2?

[Guest MikeSC]

Way to stick it to 'em...? All he did was say Turkey should be a part of the EU. It's already part of NATO, why not?

 

TAKE THAT, FRANCE! An opinion article is nothing.

France has openly and vocally expressed its desire for Turkey to NOT be a part of the EU. Turkey has been trying to get into the group for YEARS now --- and few are willing to actually ADMIT what the hold-up is.

 

The hold-up, namely, is that it'll further dilute French power in the EU (which France does not like --- hence their whole "Shut up" comment to the "smaller" EU countries in the east who supported US policy in Iraq) and because they are a Muslim country.

-=Mike

[Guest Hero to all Children]

Yeah .. basically Turkey IS our Mexico. Just a lot less poor, you can make good living in Turkey.

However I'd say that this is the original dispute as .. well .. the EU was there before the NAFTA and so was the whole Turkey (or)deal.

 

 

Also, Mike I'll have to disagree with you.

France isn't THAT powerful in the EU. Sure, it has the "Our trade coalition regarding coal with Germany started this joint, show some respect!" thing going but aside of that they hold no special powers within the EU beyond being a large nation. Germany, Spain and Poland enjoy the same priviledge.

 

Economics are the actual reason people don't want Turkey in the EU too soon.

That and the fact that it's an Islamic nation. Even though it's secularist you can win elections with the emotions of the people eligable to vote. (Which is why Shroeder won the German election in 2002, he just said "Iraq war? No way, no day." Punkass Germans.)

 

France holds a certain degree of power outside of the EU, though. They're a member of the G-7 and have Veto power in the UN (which is a sad thing indeed.) They also more or less rule New Guinea and maybe a few other colonies that I cannot recall right now.

 

The actual reason France was so pissed at Poland and Spain and Italy supporting the US on this was the fact that France knows that they'll never be a leading superpower any time soon on their own. They need the EU for that, which means that the EU requires a certain hegemony within so it can act as .. Voltron. Many small nations unite to one big one. Yeah, it's true that France wants to be the head but they're not getting it any time soon.

[Jingus 0]

The actual reason France was so pissed at Poland and Spain and Italy supporting the US on this was the fact that France knows that they'll never be a leading superpower any time soon on their own. They need the EU for that, which means that the EU requires a certain hegemony within so it can act as .. Voltron. Many small nations unite to one big one. Yeah, it's true that France wants to be the head but they're not getting it any time soon.

::spit take::

 

"And I'll form... THE HEAD!"

 

 

 

 

All right, you officially ARE my favorite new poster.

[Guest MikeSC]

Also, Mike I'll have to disagree with you.

France isn't THAT powerful in the EU. Sure, it has the "Our trade coalition regarding coal with Germany started this joint, show some respect!" thing going but aside of that they hold no special powers within the EU beyond being a large nation. Germany, Spain and Poland enjoy the same priviledge.

 

Economics are the actual reason people don't want Turkey in the EU too soon.

That and the fact that it's an Islamic nation. Even though it's secularist you can win elections with the emotions of the people eligable to vote. (Which is why Shroeder won the German election in 2002, he just said "Iraq war? No way, no day." Punkass Germans.)

 

France holds a certain degree of power outside of the EU, though. They're a member of the G-7 and have Veto power in the UN (which is a sad thing indeed.) They also more or less rule New Guinea and maybe a few other colonies that I cannot recall right now.

 

The actual reason France was so pissed at Poland and Spain and Italy supporting the US on this was the fact that France knows that they'll never be a leading superpower any time soon on their own. They need the EU for that, which means that the EU requires a certain hegemony within so it can act as .. Voltron. Many small nations unite to one big one. Yeah, it's true that France wants to be the head but they're not getting it any time soon.

When I was discussing France's "power", I was more referring to the FURTHER dilution of their voice in the EU. From over here, it seems that there is a bloc that will usually side with France (Germany, Belgium, etc.). More countries only serve to further weaken the bloc.

 

Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing them lose their permanent slot on the UN Security Council.

-=Mike

[Guest Hero to all Children]

Everyone loves Voltron! Also: You're not too bad either.

 

France and Germany usually have a rather good relationship. It's always been like that. Denmark sided with the US, I think. This is mainly because Denmark has a conservative government.

 

Basically think of it this way: Depending on whetever the US government is democrat or Republican and what type of government the EU nations currently have you'll have different countries agreeing and disagreeing. Italy would have never agreed to this with its former Socialist - Democratic Socialist government.

 

If the Germans had elected Stoiber and the CSU instead of Shroeder you would most likely have Germans troops in Iraq now.

 

Just that France generally hates the US or at least dislikes them. So they'll always be small saboteurs.

[Guest MikeSC]

So, do Europeans think "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys" is an apt description of the French?

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

You forgot sub-human...

[Guest MikeSC]

You forgot sub-human...

That's for terrorists, not smelly bitches.

-=Mike

[Jingus 0]

What's wrong with cheese, or monkeys? I'd call them "horse-eating surrender poodles" instead.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Belgium

*takes the award from whoever won it last, gives it to Mike*

[Guest MikeSC]

Belgium

*takes the award from whoever won it last, gives it to Mike*

I suppose this has a point.

 

I doubt it, but I can always suppose so.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Most Gratuitous Use of the World "Beligum" in a Serious Screenplay. It's very presigious.

[Guest MikeSC]

Most Gratuitous Use of the World "Beligum" in a Serious Screenplay. It's very presigious.

Any award where they spell the country incorrectly MUST be prestigious.

-=Mike

[Guest Hero to all Children]

Quite a few people dislike the French. Others completely adore them for their rich culture, their phallic symbols and their smelly streets.

Dunno, France isn't that frequent of a subject.

[Guest MikeSC]

Quite a few people dislike the French. Others completely adore them for their rich culture, their phallic symbols and their smelly streets.

Dunno, France isn't that frequent of a subject.

They love their phallic symbols?

 

Well, I think Europe might be a nice locale to avoid.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

The EU have to be tentative regarding Turkey's addition for the reasons Hero stated earlier in the thread.

 

Bush really had no business in this matter.

 

As for "cheese eating surrendering monkeys" - all I can say is that the French don't have 900 soldiers deaths on their hands and over 10,000 Iraqi civilians deaths on their hands.

[Jingus 0]

How many Jews were taken out of Vichy France and murdered during WWII?

[Art Sandusky 0]

How many of the people who made those decisions are still alive today?

[Jingus 0]

Probably none, it's just that France is about the LAST Western nation I'd ever use as any kind of role model for political issues.

[Dr. Tom 0]

all I can say is that the French don't have 900 soldiers deaths on their hands and over 10,000 Iraqi civilians deaths on their hands.

Source please.

 

And one that isn't americaisanationofshittyinfidels.com.

[Guest INXS]

That's the widely reported figure, current estimates are between 10,000 and 15,000 actually. The figure is in the Daily Mirror and Daily Mail newspapers...i'll endeavor to find a source...

[Guest INXS]

From May..there's been more deaths since then

 

Again. from May

 

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial_feb0704.htm

 

figures which range between a minimum of 8,235 and a maximum of 10,079 as of Saturday 7th February 2004.

 

So, the figure is at LEAST 10,000 if you take into account that it's now July not May.