Sunday, September 28, 2003
12:26 am
Pocket Battleships
An extremely good article from Mr Lindley-French of the Geneva Center for Security Policy, who encapsulates Anglo-French rivalry in a nutshell. It was originally printed in the Wall Street Journal and reproduced on Strategy Page.
The best quotes follow:
The post-Cold War world has been kind to Europe's two old imperial powers. While the Cold War consigned them to the margins of history, Britain today has the world's fourth-largest economy and the second-most capable military, whereas France has the fifth-largest economy and for all intents and purposes the third-most capable military. Given their respective world views and an ability to influence events that they have not enjoyed since the end of World War II, they have emerged as pocket superpowers, competitors as much as partners.
Lindley-French argues that the France's long-term plan to lead Europe as a rival to the superpower is balanced by Britain's post-war Atlanticism.
France wants to push Europe in a different direction, and is now determined to undermine the political utility of British military power within Europe by trying to marginalize it.
The French realise that they have to use British insecurities to secure their purpose since their political landscape will eventually be undermined by the military capabilities of Britain and its technological links with the United States.
Britain is profoundly unsure of the long-term commitment of an ever more mighty America to a special relationship that seems far more special in London than in Washington.
The game is afoot.
Those in London and Washington who have dismissed France's chocolate summitry should think again. European defense is not about headquarters and capabilities but politics -- France's clever strategy is founded upon that basic truism. In fact, France stands the best chance of winning this battle before real military capabilities, a game in Europe that only the British can win, start to shape policy.
Sooner or later the sun will finally set on Britain and France, but until then they will continue in their own very distinct ways to remain above the European fray and yet be architects of it. Europeans and yet not Europeans. EU member-states and yet more than members. Partners and yet competitors. Like pocket battleships they will continue to pick only the battles they can win until one day the forces ranged against them will eventually force them together. That day is still a long time coming.
I say again. This is a must-read.
(28th September 2003, 00.26)
An extremely good article from Mr Lindley-French of the Geneva Center for Security Policy, who encapsulates Anglo-French rivalry in a nutshell. It was originally printed in the Wall Street Journal and reproduced on Strategy Page.
The best quotes follow:
The post-Cold War world has been kind to Europe's two old imperial powers. While the Cold War consigned them to the margins of history, Britain today has the world's fourth-largest economy and the second-most capable military, whereas France has the fifth-largest economy and for all intents and purposes the third-most capable military. Given their respective world views and an ability to influence events that they have not enjoyed since the end of World War II, they have emerged as pocket superpowers, competitors as much as partners.
Lindley-French argues that the France's long-term plan to lead Europe as a rival to the superpower is balanced by Britain's post-war Atlanticism.
France wants to push Europe in a different direction, and is now determined to undermine the political utility of British military power within Europe by trying to marginalize it.
The French realise that they have to use British insecurities to secure their purpose since their political landscape will eventually be undermined by the military capabilities of Britain and its technological links with the United States.
Britain is profoundly unsure of the long-term commitment of an ever more mighty America to a special relationship that seems far more special in London than in Washington.
The game is afoot.
Those in London and Washington who have dismissed France's chocolate summitry should think again. European defense is not about headquarters and capabilities but politics -- France's clever strategy is founded upon that basic truism. In fact, France stands the best chance of winning this battle before real military capabilities, a game in Europe that only the British can win, start to shape policy.
Sooner or later the sun will finally set on Britain and France, but until then they will continue in their own very distinct ways to remain above the European fray and yet be architects of it. Europeans and yet not Europeans. EU member-states and yet more than members. Partners and yet competitors. Like pocket battleships they will continue to pick only the battles they can win until one day the forces ranged against them will eventually force them together. That day is still a long time coming.
I say again. This is a must-read.
(28th September 2003, 00.26)
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)
-
▼
September
(45)
- Soldiers have a right to life One of the more di...
- Job Done: A Tory Endgame for Iraq In the Guardian...
- East Of Suez One of our remaining commitments is ...
- Britain accepts PKK as a terrorist organisation, a...
- IGC: Stormclouds Looming The forthcoming intergov...
- Private Widdle Speaks It appears that the Chief o...
- Pocket Battleships An extremely good article fro...
- Galileo: A Commercial Rival to GPS The satellite ...
- The Politics of Incoherence
- The Beeb's pro-war bias I always thought that it ...
- The Telegraph had an interesting article on Hitler...
- The great question From the left wing blog Nobo...
- Further detail on the defence concessions that Bla...
- Blair has shown that he is still trying to walk th...
- Placemen, Puppets and Toadies The reform of the ...
- The Latvians have voted "Yes" in the final enlarge...
- Visit The Foreign Office - 20th September 2003, U...
- Biased Brent Coverage Cut into jerry built studio...
- Wat Tyler's Organisation - 18th September 2003, 21...
- Prodi's Pronouncement - 18th September 2003, 21.00...
- We Want Space and We Won't Wait China to launch i...
- Overreaching - 16th September 2003, 23.03 With th...
- Zimwatch: Closing the presses One question that ...
- Assassination: Politics by other means? The assas...
- 112 Gripes about the French - 14th September 2003,...
- Waving the Veto - 14th September 2003, 11.23 Brit...
- Forum Europe - 12th September 2003, 15.55 What ar...
- Remember, Remember the 11th September - 11th Septe...
- A Trend? - 11th September 2003, 22.29 In the Prim...
- Martyr for the Yes Vote It won't win me a prize f...
- REQUIRED URJENT ASSISTANCE DEAR SIR / MADAM, I A...
- Adam died on a Zebra Crossing - 9th September 2003...
- Euroluvvies - 7th September 2003, 20.38 We are al...
- Sweden's Euro 2003 Qualifier - 7th September 2003,...
- Oi, Nutter Michael Meacher hasn't seen a cause th...
- On:Message, Repeat, Ad Infinitum - 5th September 2...
- PRESS RELEASE FROM THE CENTRE FOR THE NEW EUROPE h...
- One Opens, Another Closes - 3rd September 2003, 22...
- Hutton: The Pit and the Pendulum - 3rd September 2...
- The 'Internationalisation' of the Iraqi Conflict -...
- Second XV limber up for Convention rematch - 2nd S...
- Now Brussels wants homeowners to pay tribute Mort...
- Autumnal reading There are three columns worth re...
- Navigating Division - 1st September 2003, 22.20 D...
- Free Life Commentary Issue Number 111 Monday, 1st ...
-
▼
September
(45)
0 comments:
Post a Comment