Tuesday, February 04, 2003
8:38 pm
Bridging the Channel - 4th February 2003, 20.37
One of the problems with American reactions to the letter signed by the eight countries last Friday was discounting the importance that France places upon its influence in the European Convention. A consensus formed around the costs that France would bear in its relationship with the United States through its current foreign policy. However, France's reaction to the letter was fairly mute, and as certain European leaders pointed out, they were already guilty with Germany of a unilateralist position over Iraq.
France actually benefited from the letter. Whilst conceding policies to federalist Germany in order to revive their alliance, France was not unhappy for other countries to adopt different positions that could sink the common foreign and security policy. Is France so clueless that it thinks it can dominate a union of twenty-five? No. Therefore, any move by other countries that chips away at the federalist goals and promotes intergovernmentalism is cheered from the sidelines by France, since it furthers their own interests and weakens the German half of their axis.
Today, French intergovernmentalism was on display agreeing the formation of a European Union battlecarrier group, in tandem with Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. Not a good idea when you consider the Charles De Gaulle's problems. The meeting between Blair and Chirac was not about Iraq but about advancing European defence.
Britain's aircraft carriers could be used in combined European humanitarian and peacekeeping missions under a plan to be developed at the summit. Under the scheme, Britain's carriers would work in rotation with those of France, Spain and Italy.
A European "capabilities" agency and a mutual assistance arrangement, or "solidarity clause", under which EU neighbours would assist each other if faced by a major terrorist attack, would also be established under the plans. The capabilities agency would seek to make the most of EU defence spending by encouraging states to focus their efforts on areas in which they have particular expertise.
Expanding the pool of carriers would mean that at least one would always be available for such missions. At present, training and maintenance demands mean that is not always the case.
Missions would be authorised ultimately by the EU's general affairs council - the meetings of foreign ministers - although defence officials emphasised that operational control of the carriers would be retained by the providing nations.
Britain has three carriers - HMS Ark Royal, Illustrious and Invincible - but is due to replace them with two larger vessels. France has one carrier but is planning two. Italy and Spain, which each have one carrier, are expected to be invited to join the initiative.
No sign here of any drawing away from European integration and, of course, look who brings the most to the table. Who thinks Blair is a foreign policy genius now?
One of the problems with American reactions to the letter signed by the eight countries last Friday was discounting the importance that France places upon its influence in the European Convention. A consensus formed around the costs that France would bear in its relationship with the United States through its current foreign policy. However, France's reaction to the letter was fairly mute, and as certain European leaders pointed out, they were already guilty with Germany of a unilateralist position over Iraq.
France actually benefited from the letter. Whilst conceding policies to federalist Germany in order to revive their alliance, France was not unhappy for other countries to adopt different positions that could sink the common foreign and security policy. Is France so clueless that it thinks it can dominate a union of twenty-five? No. Therefore, any move by other countries that chips away at the federalist goals and promotes intergovernmentalism is cheered from the sidelines by France, since it furthers their own interests and weakens the German half of their axis.
Today, French intergovernmentalism was on display agreeing the formation of a European Union battlecarrier group, in tandem with Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. Not a good idea when you consider the Charles De Gaulle's problems. The meeting between Blair and Chirac was not about Iraq but about advancing European defence.
Britain's aircraft carriers could be used in combined European humanitarian and peacekeeping missions under a plan to be developed at the summit. Under the scheme, Britain's carriers would work in rotation with those of France, Spain and Italy.
A European "capabilities" agency and a mutual assistance arrangement, or "solidarity clause", under which EU neighbours would assist each other if faced by a major terrorist attack, would also be established under the plans. The capabilities agency would seek to make the most of EU defence spending by encouraging states to focus their efforts on areas in which they have particular expertise.
Expanding the pool of carriers would mean that at least one would always be available for such missions. At present, training and maintenance demands mean that is not always the case.
Missions would be authorised ultimately by the EU's general affairs council - the meetings of foreign ministers - although defence officials emphasised that operational control of the carriers would be retained by the providing nations.
Britain has three carriers - HMS Ark Royal, Illustrious and Invincible - but is due to replace them with two larger vessels. France has one carrier but is planning two. Italy and Spain, which each have one carrier, are expected to be invited to join the initiative.
No sign here of any drawing away from European integration and, of course, look who brings the most to the table. Who thinks Blair is a foreign policy genius now?
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2003
(696)
-
▼
February
(95)
- One sided kind of special So the Americans are po...
- Eurosocialism - 26th February 2003, 20.44 Interes...
- Unlucky Luckhurst - 27th February 2003, 20.23 Tim...
- A Dawning Realisation - 27th February 2003, 20.12 ...
- Another bill arrives for Last Year's War I don't ...
- Pax Americana? 26th February 2003. One thing ta...
- 10% ... or thereabouts of the Parliamentary Conse...
- Labour are revolting - 26th February 2003, 23.20 ...
- Something Understood - 26th February 2003, 22.48 ...
- Trust The People? - 26th February 2003, 22.33 If ...
- Delaying Tactics - 26th February 2003, 22.25 Gisc...
- Everyone argues Chirac is an Arab. He isn't, he's ...
- The Foreign Affairs Committee and Iran - 25th Febr...
- Bolstering Sierra Leone - 25th February 2003, 20.0...
- Another Ruritania gives up its sovereignty - 25th ...
- Meanwhile, in last year's war I don't think this ...
- Expect to see this in the Guardian - 24th February...
- Franco-British Defence - 24th February 2003, 19.57...
- Dealing with the EU - 24th February 2003, 19.42 D...
- Frittering away our interests As well as worrying...
- Sleepwalking into Empire Yet another reason not t...
- Germany: Stagnant and Unsettled - 23rd February 20...
- Now they'll use Iraq to get the Euro Just to show...
- Zimwatch: American diplomat was detained - 23rd Fe...
- Where Blair and Bush differ - 23rd February 2003, ...
- Who holds the Champagne? - 23rd February 2003, 12....
- Prices for Crises We're often accused of being Gu...
- Raimondo but Rong Justin Raimondo gives a hearty ...
- The Federal Union - 22nd February 2003, 16.10 Man...
- Enarquey - 21st February 2003, 20.57 Another arti...
- Entrails Watch - 21st February 2003, 20.42 Croati...
- The Grand Old Man of Terror - 21st February 2003, ...
- Does It Matter? 21st February 2003. Never seem t...
- Listed One of the amusing things about writing on...
- Why did they march? - 20th February 2003, 21.45 T...
- Entrails Watch - 20th February 2003, 21.25 Attemp...
- Amendments to the Second Draft - 20th February 200...
- But do they want to win? Robert Fisk is probably ...
- Operation: Overstretch - 19th February 2003, 23.13...
- Zimwatch: Developments - 19th February 2003, 19.34...
- Backfiring - 18th February 2003, 20.22 If anybody...
- Biscuit thief Blair Tony Blair seems to have real...
- United in words, not deeds - 17th February 2003, 2...
- Appeasement, first time round There was a time wh...
- A Definition of Solidarity - 16th February 2003, 2...
- An Omanist - 16th February 2003, 20.35 Here is an...
- The Sovereignty Con - 16th February 2003, 19.46 R...
- Not quite the History we had in mind Andrew Dodge...
- Where did they all come from? 750 000, almost twi...
- The United Nations is the new Princess Diana - 15t...
- One Percent - 15th February 2003, 18.17 The Daily...
- How will the March go? With this massive anti-war...
- Minority Reports An interesting post in the afore...
- Countering Pan-Arabism - 12th January 2003, 19.45 ...
- Anti-Europeanism - 12th January 2003, 19.27 Readi...
- NATO no go A curiously prescient article on the w...
- Now that Blair has put tanks on our streets, a few...
- Not just in and out U.S. Plans for Two-Year Occup...
- Still not proven Another day, another loon. This...
- Pinning down the Federasts Too daunted to trudge ...
- A Confident Response - 11th January 2003, 20.23 J...
- No obligations The Turkish Prime Minister says th...
- NATO is no longer a military alliance - 10th Janua...
- 12 Years too late With this vote against helping ...
- Beelzebub has a devil for a son - 10th January 200...
- Would we do this to an American? When wittering o...
- The UN Trap Chatshow Charlie Kennedy has promised...
- Official - They have no shame I really do not wan...
- On hating America, and Belgium I hate to break th...
- The Second Draft (Part 6) Article 13: The coordin...
- The Second Draft (Part 5) Article 11: Exclusive C...
- The Second Draft (Part 4) Article 9: Application ...
- The Second Draft (part 3) Title III: The Union's...
- The Second Draft (Part 2) - 7th February 2003 Art...
- The Second Draft - 7th February 2003 Giscard D'Es...
- Spectator - 6th February 2003, 22.20 Boris Johnso...
- Read the Small Print It seems that Blair's intern...
- Blowback The problem about all these foreign adve...
- Collective Security - 5th February 2003, 21.45 Mo...
- Nice Europe - 5th February 2003, 21.14 This may b...
- A Statement of Values - 5th February 2003, 21.07 ...
- Bridging the Channel - 4th February 2003, 20.37 O...
- Iraqi Overstretch - 4th January 2003, 20.17 Docum...
- Meanwhile in the Hindu Kush It's probably an idea...
- Oh Dear It appears that the links between Al Qaed...
- A Possible Opportunity - 3rd February 2003, 23.42 ...
- Op-Ed Diplomacy - 3rd February 2003, 23.25 With t...
- Zimwatch: Good and Bad Omens - 3rd February 2003, ...
- Red Card - 2nd February 2003, 22.23 The latest at...
- Malta Referendum - 2nd February 2003, 18.28 Malta...
- That Learning Curve - 2nd February 2003, 15.53 La...
- Al-Qaida targets British Admiral - 2nd February 20...
- In Churchill's Shadow - 1st February 2003, 22.37 ...
- Reliable - 1st February 2003, 10.14 A Gallup poll...
- Nasa Shuttle lost on re-entry - 1st February 2003,...
-
▼
February
(95)
0 comments:
Post a Comment