French President Jacques Chirac is once again on the warpath, this time telling Bush he has no business pushing for a Turkish entry into the EU:
Stung by Mr Bush’s call for the EU to give Turkey a firm date for accession, Mr Chirac responded: “He not only went too far but he has gone into a domain which is not his own.
"He has nothing to say on this subject. It is as if I were to tell the United States how it should conduct its relations with Mexico."
Considering how Chirac has arrogantly interjected himself into US policy dozens of times, his criticisms seem nearly ironic. Chirac would deign to lecture the US on how it should handle Iraq, arrogantly sweeping aside the second UN resolution authorizing force against Saddam before the Iraqis even had a chance to respond. French foreign policy has become a combination of arrogance and cynicism. The New Statesman has an absolutely scathing article on France’s unwillingness to support human rights. A selection:
When it comes to foreign policy, opinion polls as well as a sampling of Hollywood blockbusters show that Americans see themselves as the good sheriff, selflessly sorting out a strange and unpredictable world. But as they chew over the congressional report on 9/11, they are clearly struggling to come to terms with the reality of their latest foreign adventure.
In contrast, the French foreign ministry is unambiguous about its role: France is the birthplace of human rights and the cradle of the Enlightenment. Thanks to giants such as Voltaire, France inspired others – for example, in the United States – to liberate themselves from oppressive, corrupt aristocratic elites.
So much for self-image: in practice, the French are running the cash registers in a Wild West whorehouse. Not only do the French, like Edith Piaf, regret nothing: their determination to keep their arms exports booming pushes them to sidestep their own laws, not to mention the international conventions they have signed. While all countries tend to pursue a foreign policy based on self-interest, the French have a network of arms salesmen and military advisers working in concert within their perceived spheres of influence to supply mass murderers.
From the French whitewash of their involvement in Rwandan genocide to their support of dictatorial regimes from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to the brutal military dictatorship in Burma (second only to North Korea in terms of abject disregard for human rights) to their arms sales to Syria and attempts to end the EU sanctions against selling military equipment to China, the French attempt to claim the moral high ground in foreign policy is almost comical. Case in point, despite French cries that Israel is "an apartheid state" and committing acts of "terrorism" against the Palestinians the French government has no compunction against selling them arms. No doubt these sales will be quickly followed with lofty denunciations of the US for doing the exact same thing.
Even within in the EU, Chirac is becoming more isolated:
But the increasingly volatile Chirac is in no mood for pandering to the British.
"He’s tetchy, unhappy, doesn’t quite know which way to go – his officials are all frightened of him and nobody’s giving him any advice," says one Foreign Office source.
Chirac’s leadership of France has been an abject failure. While he went on vacation 15,000 French seniors died in a heat wave — deaths that were easily preventable and a national shame for the French people. France has alienated other members of the EU through an arrogant attempt to cement Franco-German control down the throats of smaller EU members. Chirac has become an antiwar extremist, and his policy is no longer based on any semblance of rationality and instead on reflexive anti-Americanism. Chirac’s unwillingness to support Turkish entry into the EU is based as much on simple racism as it is on realistic policy concerns. Certainly the Turkish government is no less stable than many European states, and no less economically stable than borderline economies like that of Greece.
Chirac has turned France into a country that exports rhetoric and arms and little else. For all the talk about how Bush has alienated the world, Chirac is hardly in a position to criticize. France is not only detested in America for its outright perfidity against the war in Iraq (choosing not to merely stay neutral but to actively work for Saddam in stopping the war), but also facing increasing pressure to end their arrogant and condescending attitude towards other EU members. The French economy continues to be weak (a growth rate of 2.1% – half that of the US – is considered excellent by reduced French standards), the French government has been nearly impotent in taking substantive measures to fight the wave of anti-Semitism sweeping the country, and the rich and powerful unions still comprise an unelected arm of the government. Chirac is a man in decline, and he is sadly taking the Fifth Republic down with him. France is in desperate need of reform before this decline becomes a fall.
UPDATE: George Miller has some more cogent thoughts in French opposition to Turkish entry into the EU. Amir Taheri also provides some background on the issue of Turkish membership in the EU. For the record, I think that Turkey should be admitted into the EU. It’s no less economically and politically unstable than Greece, is already a member of NATO, and would help in spreading democratic values into the Middle East.
There are so many things to say regarding this piece of crap you just wrote that I will just let you rot in your stupidity and hate, and comment on that other blog from where it comes.
I wonder how do you dare criticize Michael Moore and at the same time propagate this bullshit.
Your stupidity is only comparable to your ignorance.
Which of course only proves my point – when the only response one has to a charge is with insults, it’s usually a sign that one has already conceded defeat.
Bravo, JR. Enjoyed the info and your observations on Chirac, as well as your appropriate rebuke of vincent, whose annoying comments consist solely of allegations and insults with no facts or logic to back them up.
I wonder if Michael Moore will make a film ridiculing Chirac? I won’t hold my breath…
We should all keep in mind that Kerry is a Chirac type of guy…Kerry would try to lower America to France’s standards…
I’ll give the French one thing: at least they are not plagued by the self-doubt and handwringing and self-criticism that exists in America these days…
Chirac is the leader in decline; he is increasingly marginalized and isolated in the EU, and respect for him is plummeting.
And there is no doubt that his opposition to Turkey’s entrance into the EU is nothing more than sheer racism.
Chirac also just openly whined that the only way to re-engage peace talks in the Israeli-Arab conflict is to stop isolating Arafat.
I think he just wants Arafat’s wife out of Paris.
-French President Jacques Chirac is once again on the warpath,(when was he going for war before?) this time telling Bush he has no business pushing for a Turkish entry into the EU.
Wich is just true. As far as I know, the USA are not a member of the EU, and therefore have no say in picking candidate members. For the “racist” insult by another Thought, you should have give it another thought, and learn that if you want to enter the UE, you have to comply with several rules (inflation, human rights, environment, etc.). Thurkey is currently not fullfiling all the requirements. That is enough of an argument to refuse their entrance. Other considerations are also to take into account. The EU is not a geographic area, but a political one. There are some rules to enter the political union, which are related to the philosophical and economical idea of the EU, but the EU surely also represents a common cultural ground. Since this instituion will make the choices for all our actions as a group, we definitely need to stop a limit to what can Europe be, in order to preserve a strenght in our messages. Otherwise, we should include China or India if they were fullfiling the criteria? Globalisation already has its international institution, such as the OMC, and the EU is not one of them. The time for Turkey will come, as it came to all countries who have started negotiated to join us untill now, but we have our procedures, and they have nothing to see with the american political agenda.
Considering how Chirac has arrogantly interjected himself into US policy dozens of times (when was that again??), his criticisms seem nearly ironic. Chirac would deign to lecture the US on how it should handle Iraq (oh sorry, I didn’t realised how “Irak” was just “US policy”, and not international affairs), arrogantly sweeping aside the second UN resolution authorizing force against Saddam (for this war with a minority of votes from members of the Security Council of the UN, including 3 veto out of 5, for WMDs that barely and oldly exist, for the end to torture which didn’t really happened, or for the fact that all members of the cabinet worked/still work for petroleum companies or that the Bush Family had a business to finish), before the Iraqis even had a chance to respond(the legitimate authority of Irak at the time was Saddam Hussein, so it would have been quit hard to ask him. As far as the UN is concerned, inspectors couldn’t hold any grief against them. Irakis contacts outside Irak have proven irrelevant and/or dangerous since then). French foreign policy has become a combination of arrogance and cynicism (this sentence has just been debunked. What about the foreign policy of a country which, knowing that a second resolution is necessary, but realizng that it couldn’t get the votes, spins around and unilateraly pretends the former one was sufficient? Wouldn’t that be arrogant and cynical?). The New Statesman has an absolutely scathing article on France’s unwillingness to support human rights(today is June 29th, what has the supreme court decided yesterday? Who is infriging what exactly? seriously?)
In contrast, the French foreign ministry is unambiguous about its role: France is the birthplace of human rights and the cradle of the Enlightenment. Thanks to giants such as Voltaire, France inspired others – for example, in the United States – to liberate themselves from oppressive, corrupt aristocratic elites. (I’m not particularly proud about it, since it’s not really me, but all that is correct indeed. See Lafayette)
So much for self-image: in practice, the French are running the cash registers in a Wild West whorehouse(propaganda or facts? What is the WWW above anyway?). Not only do the French, like Edith Piaf, regret nothing (beautiful song): their determination to keep their arms exports booming pushes them to sidestep their own laws, not to mention the international conventions they have signed(companies are not he government. There are trials going on in France for that. Maybe you’re following french news too closely, but I guess that’s fine to talk about a movie you haven’t seen, so you can go on with your gossips and popaganda on us). While all countries tend to pursue a foreign policy based on self-interest, the French have a network of arms salesmen and military advisers working in concert within their perceived spheres of influence to supply mass murderers(they are today in prison for that, or being tried, see Mitterand’s son affair with Angola).
From the French whitewash of their involvement in Rwandan genocide to their support of dictatorial regimes from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (which the US can proudly say they are not related to at all, and I’m not talking about old politicians, but of persons still in charge today as Rumsfeld for exemple…) to the brutal military dictatorship in Burma (second only to North Korea in terms of abject disregard for human rights) to their arms sales to Syria and attempts to end the EU sanctions against selling military equipment to China (but Lybia is fine now), the French attempt to claim the moral high ground in foreign policy is almost comical(lol). Case in point, despite French cries that Israel is “an apartheid state” (Jay Reding already said several times on this very website: “WALL THEM OFF”)and committing acts of “terrorism” against the Palestinians the French government has no compunction against selling them arms (our companies can sell whatever they want to any country that is not banned right? You’re against free trade or what? Plus, the US have sold THE bomb to Isreal, so please don’t come up with chump weapons stories). No doubt these sales will be quickly followed with lofty denunciations of the US for doing the exact same thing.(retaliation?)
Even within in the EU, Chirac is becoming more isolated (that could be true, but don’t worry, we still are one of the third larges state in the EU. Chirac is out for ever in just 3 years):
But the increasingly volatile Chirac is in no mood for pandering to the British.
“He’s tetchy, unhappy, doesn’t quite know which way to go – his officials are all frightened of him and nobody’s giving him any advice,” says one Foreign Office source.
Chirac’s leadership of France has been an abject failure(History will judge, Jay, but at least wait until it’s over to judge at all). While he went on vacation (that remembers me of something, for those who went to the theater recently) 15,000 French seniors died in a heat wave (according to Jay, the climate change doesn’t exist, but go on)— deaths that were easily preventable and a national shame for the French people (a national injury exactly. It’s very nice of you to mock this event when 5 times as much people as in the WTC died. Thank you for them). France has alienated other members of the EU through an arrogant attempt to cement Franco-German control down the throats of smaller EU members. Chirac has become an antiwar extremist (how not wanting to go to war while remaining ferm is an extreme behaviour?), and his policy is no longer based on any semblance of rationality and instead on reflexive anti-Americanism (can someone be anti-french? I guess…). Chirac’s unwillingness to support Turkish entry into the EU is based as much on simple racism as it is on realistic policy concerns. Certainly the Turkish government is no less stable than many European states, and no less economically stable than borderline economies like that of Greece.(already answered for the entrance of Turkey. Greece is sticking to the line a lot better than France, Germany, and many other members nowdays.)
Chirac has turned France into a country that exports rhetoric and arms and little else(you gotta be kidding. We are among the five largest exporters in the world). For all the talk about how Bush has alienated the world, Chirac is hardly in a position to criticize(and vice-versa). France is not only detested in America (have you been out the reps blogoshere recently Jay?) for its outright perfidity against the war in Iraq (choosing not to merely stay neutral but to actively work for Saddam in stopping the war(??????)), but also facing increasing pressure to end their arrogant and condescending attitude towards other EU members (that’s called lobbying. I thought it was an anglo-saxon method in which the US were the masters). The French economy continues to be weak (a growth rate of 2.1% – half that of the US – is considered excellent by reduced French standards), the French government has been nearly impotent in taking substantive measures to fight the wave of anti-Semitism (don’t you think the US have their share of responsibility in this wave? And ALL politicians have accused it severely)sweeping the country, and the rich and powerful unions still comprise an unelected arm of the government( trade unions…yeah I know it’s pain from your standards). Chirac is a man in decline(yes), and he is sadly taking the Fifth Republic down with him(because?). France is in desperate need of reform before this decline becomes a fall.(because?)
Ok, now you know why I said “There are so many things to say”. I wasn’t pretending your post was a long lie. It is!
And for the “annoying comments” from Trice, that’s called Democracy and liberty of speech. Sorry you don’t enjoy that.
Again, a “refutation” without substance. Instead of answering the charges, it’s a game of tu quoque – don’t answer the question, blame the US.
Of course, considering that the actions of the French government, from supplying Rwandan genocide to cozying up to Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, to trying to overturn the ban on EU weapons sales to China, and the way in which the French government has been shamelessly lobbying to overturn the sanction on Burma so that TotalFinaElf can extract concessions from the Burmese government are morally indefensible.
So instead of dealing with the question, it’s the classic game of blame America for everything. Jews in France living in fear because of a wave of anti-Semitic violence? Why, bien sûr, c’est la tort d’États-Unis. The French government involved in a series of corruption scandals involving French oil companies? Well, Cheney is worse merely for being involved with an oil company while Alain Juppé has already been convicted of corruption charges. Un peu d’hypocrisie, non?
One can always tell when one is desperately trying to hold the losing side of an argument – when they have nothing to stand on but attacks, nothing but tu quoque arguments, nothing but attempts to deny the obvious.
Of course, nothing is more odious than:
The fact that you would seriously make the argument that the mass graves in Iraq, the thousands of political opponents brutally murdered, the rapes, the torture, and the oppression of the Hussein regime “didn’t really happen” is beyond disgusting. It’s no different than Holocaust denial.
Hussein videotaped his tortures. You can watch as the Iraqis cut off hands, arms, and tongues while chanting pro-Saddam slogans.
But of course, it never happened. One would think that the European tradition of ignoring genocide would have ended after the Second World War – sadly that terrible tradition lives on today.
Had you made the same argument about the Holocaust you could be arrested under the Fabius-Gayssot Law in France…
I precisely didn’t sa that torture didn’t exist under Saddam. I said that torture did not end with the end of Saddam. There is indeed a big difference.
Vincent: Even taking your clarification of your phrase “for the end to torture which didn’t really happened” you still are way off base.
First off, the torture has ended…what happened at Abu Ghraib was abuse, not torture. Again, compare what happened at Abu Ghraib with what Saddam did. Which would you rather go through? You cannot assign them any equivalence. To do so shatters credibility.
Even you admit that, again reversing yourself, that the Bush administration is not nearly as bad as Saddam. How can that be if their is equivalent treatment post-Saddam as under Saddam?
Even you must know that there is a quantum difference.
What we did in Iraq was morally and legally justified. Morally, because we liberated 25 million people and have given them a better life. Legally, because of Saddam’s breaking of 18 UN resolutions.
Case closed…give it a break…Saddam was an awful, brutal ruler and if you can’t be glad he’s gone then there is something wrong with your judgement.
Until today, there has been 37 deaths, and reported rapes and TORTURES in Abou Graïb under US commandment.(electric wires plugged to your balls, that’s entertainment to you?? Forcing detainees to fuck each other is definitely not torture according to you?? If you have some free time this week-end, maybe one of my friend could come and rape your daughters in front of you since it’s only an abuse, but that it doesn’t really matters! And don’t come and say that you are innocent, because many prisonners also were innocents. The strategy of giving 60$ for information on activists has resulted in many false denonciations). Considering the level of education westerners have acquired, I consider it worst than anything. Plus this wasn’t an isolated case, this has been happening in all american jails involved in the war on terror. The feeling of revenge against arabs and muslims is very strong due to 9/11 and Gulf War I among american soldiers, and the leaders should consider it, and take appropriate measures, unless they don’t care. I Think this is the case.
You really should stop arguing that everyone should clap at Saddam’s departure. The situation isn’t better in Irak today (I’m not talking about torture anymore, but only of the basic experience of life). The whole country is on fire, ready to divide in hundreds of pieces, but you won’t see that until it burns your eyes, moron!
You can let my judgement where it is, and read those of the supreme court. You’ll see who is right and who is wrong on the way one should handle prisonners. Bush is wrong, and so are you.
Vincent: First, how many deaths at Abu Ghraib were caused by the abuse? Prisoners will die without abuse or not…plus, I dispute your numbers…no one has been charged with murder…
Second, the electric wires were attached, but there were no shocks..it was a scare tactic…
And I still maintain that as disturbing as the abuses were, they were nothing compared to Saddam’s torture…
Again, which would you rather have…what happened at Abu Ghraib, or what Saddam did? I’d rather suffer humiliation rather than have limbs cut off or be fed into a shredder…
Vincent then writes “The situation isn’t better in Irak today (I’m not talking about torture anymore, but only of the basic experience of life). The whole country is on fire, ready to divide in hundreds of pieces, but you won’t see that until it burns your eyes, moron!”
What a piece of crock. Every area of life is better than under Saddam…more schools and hospitals are open, there is more electricity and other utilities, there is a growing economy…your other assertion about the country being “on fire” and “ready to divide in hundreds of pieces” is just absurd…what planet are you on?
In a few months or years when Iraq is one country and not “hundreds of pieces” I wonder if you will admit you were wrong?
I wouldn’t count on it. Remember that the left still argues that Bush “lied” about the British report on Iraq seeking African uranium, that Iraq had no WMD (other than at least a dozen shells filled with deadly sarin), that Bush was never elected, that he allowed the bin Ladens to leave the country without the FBI clearing it, etc…
Jay, you have never posted and erratum and/or a follow-up on a situation that wasn’t evolving in the right direction according to you. I find it surprising you judge me on that, even though I already have admitted some mistakes when I misused an information.
When will you admit that you were wrong on the issues you are mentioning by the way, and on others…
-Bush “lied” about the British report on Iraq seeking African uranium =yes. The documents in reference to it were forged, and those “discovered” two weeks ago were unknown to Bush at the time of his speech
-that Iraq had no WMD (other than at least a dozen shells filled with deadly sarin)=yes, the trucks showed by Colin Powell at the UN weren’t anthrax producers, the bunkers on the pictures were empty, or filled with 20 years old gas shells inapproprately stored. The soldier that received the blast wasn’t even injuried!! All discoveries are small and old, and I hope you are not maintaining that a dozen shells justify this war! No producing unit has been discovered, which means that any NBC material is in fact US made…how ironic!!
-that Bush was never elected: oh yes he was, by his borther in law, and some old friends of his dad. Democracy for all, and especially for CIA’s son (Putin thinks it the same way)
-that he allowed the bin Ladens to leave the country without the FBI clearing it: with or without the FBI clearing is irrelevant. the main point is: all planes were forbidden to fly on 12th Sept 2001 but one: Bin Laden’s family plane!
There are so many other points you have never apologised/admited your mistakes…your accusations are once again concerning yourself. But you know, this is a very well known behavior in psychology: you accuse others of YOUR main errors. It doesn’t mean that it’s false concerning others, but it surely applies to you!
Another, since you’re not reading my posts, could you please stop asking the same questions? (I would rather be under US than Saddam ruling, but this comparison is worth nothing, unless you think that democracy and dixtatorship is the same. I don’t, and therefore expect more from democratic and educated people.)
You dispute my number (37 deaths in US iraki jails)…here is the link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/30/iraq/main614905.shtml
please check your facts before disputing anything (and you can also apologise for the groundless doubts you raised against my sayings.)
Scare tactic…rape someone from your familly in front of you in scare tactic?? Psychological torture is the worst thing on earth. Maybe death is the worst thing for you, but living with horrendous memories is probably as terrible.
please read what the higher authorities of the anglican church have said to Mr Blair in a letter today. That may help you understand that it’s not only me who says that americans have not proven any better than Saddam in Irak, but anyone with a little sense of democracy and compassion.
“Rowan Williams, archevêque de Canterbury, et David Hope, archevêque d’York, les deux hiérarques suprêmes de la foi anglicane, stigmatisent le comportement des forces de la coalition et les tortures infligées aux détenus comme autant de manquements aux lois internationales et à la morale dont se prévalent pourtant leurs chefs. L’épisode des sévices à la prison d’Abou Ghraïb met en évidence, soulignent-ils, «un double langage» entre l’intention d’éradiquer les pratiques barbares de Saddam Hussein en établissant la démocratie et le recours aux méthodes coercitives employées – pas moins indignes – des alliés”