Tony Blair Attacks Chirac's 'Pathetic' Power Vision

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

PM Attacks Chirac's 'Pathetic' Power Vision

Nicholas Watt, European editor
Saturday January 29, 2005
The Guardian

Tony Blair yesterday risked a fresh row when he branded the policies of Jacques Chirac, the French president, as "dangerous" and "pathetic". In a sign of cross-Channel tensions after the Iraq war, the prime minister showed contempt for two key elements of Mr Chirac's presidency: his attempts to turn Europe into a centre of power rivalling Washington and his personal relations with George Bush.

Weeks before the prime minister joins Mr Chirac in welcoming President Bush to Europe, Mr Blair told the Wall Street Journal: "I have spoken on many occasions [about] my disagreement with those who want to set up different poles of power in the world. I think this is very dangerous.

"I think we are best to congregate around one pole of common values. Europe and America should be an integral part of that together. They should not have separate and competing poles of power."

Mr Blair was careful not to name Mr Chirac, whose once warm relations with Downing Street plummeted after the French leader pledged to veto the so-called second UN security council resolution that would have authorised the Iraq war in 2003.

But the prime minister's choice of words will leave nobody in any doubt that he was taking aim at Mr Chirac who is deeply attached to a Gaullist vision of a "multipolar world".

The French president never tires of talking of his determination to challenge today's "unipolar world", dominated by the US, by creating a "multipolar world" with equal centres of powers encompassing the US, Europe, the Indian subcontinent and China.

Mr Blair has never shied away from criticising this vision because of his passionate belief that Europe and the US - with Britain acting as a bridge between the two - should work together. But the strength of his language in the Wall Street Journal may cause surprise.

"Ever since the Soviet Union thankfully collapsed, and eastern Europe changed, there has been a question whether the world reunifies around a strong, common, global agenda, or whether it drifts off into these different poles of power," Mr Blair said.

"I think the next few years is a very, very crucial moment of opportunity and of danger. It is an opportunity because I think it is possible to find a unifying agenda and it is a moment of danger because if you don't, and people split into their rival powers, then I think whatever people say, that competition will be unhelpful."

Warming to his theme, the prime minister was withering about Mr Chirac's regular public denunciations of Washington.

Asked to defend his relations with President Bush, the prime minister said he would neither apologise nor engage in "grandstanding". He then added: "I think that is a pathetic form of leadership and I don't intend to indulge it."

Mr Blair once again did not name Mr Chirac. But it was clear that he had in mind the French president who became the champion of the anti-war movement with his contemptuous criticisms of America in the run-up to the war.Mr Blair's intervention may be seen as an attempt to stamp his vision of the world on Europe and America ahead of Mr Bush's bridge-building trip to Europe next month when he will become the first US president to visit the institutions of the EU.

Mr Bush is due to have dinner with Mr Chirac in Brussels on the eve of his visit.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,487 • Replies: 26

No top replies

Blair is right.

All that it gains the world to have more than one power is frightening competition. That's just human nature. Nobody's fault, really. It's what happens.

Things have been smooth--and if we're right about democracy in the ME--we are nearing a pretty peaceful period. The power in the world is not expansionist. It is humanitarian.

I swear--it will be a very bad thing for all of us if Chirac is able to push his agenda. It will be a Cold War all over again.

Blair is brave to call it out--and quite visionary.

No one would like to be heard saying it. It's practically scandalous to admit that industrialized, progressive people--like the Europeans and Americans could end up in a struggle as enemies--but they can, and they will if Chirac prevails.

I bet there is already a strategy afoot in DC.

0 Replies

Quote:

much more HERE, but you guys probably will be better off not reading it.

0 Replies

Seems Oz PM John Howard has similar feelings.

PM Blasts 'Irrational, Unfair' Europeans

Robert Gottliebsen and John Kerin
31jan05

JOHN Howard has lashed out at "old Europe", describing criticism of the US as "unfair and irrational", as global tensions grow over the Iraq war and free trade.

During a vigorous panel debate on US global relations at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, several European officials attacked President George W. Bush's Iraq policy, but Mr Howard stood up to defend his ally.

Earlier in the summit, Mr Howard attacked the European Union over the reintroduction of wheat export subsidies, which he said harmed underdeveloped nations and were contrary to free trade.

"Some of the criticism (of the US) by some of the Europeans is unfair and irrational," the Prime Minister said in the panel debate, organised by Britain's BBC TV.

"I mean, the negative mindset of the last five minutes (of this debate) is ridiculous - of course America has made mistakes," he said.

Later Mr Howard told The Australian he found the European "irrational level of anti-Americanism" perplexing.

"It is a sign of parochialism and it is disturbingly intense."

He said the BBC debate "was based on an anti-American mindset which was established right at the beginning by the moderators from the BBC".

Mr Howard said anti-Americanism had already affected world co-operation.

"But it is very important to remember it is confined to sectors of Europe - not all Europeans . . . There remains in Britain some of the old jealousies that have always been there. I found the French and German attitude has lingered longer than I thought it might, and longer than is in anyone's interests."

Attacking Europe over its reintroduction of wheat export subsidies, Mr Howard urged the US not to follow suit. "Nothing would help underdeveloped countries more than the removal of trade subsidies and trade barriers.

"If the nations of Europe and North America ... really wanted to help many of the developing countries, then they could do more to help in changing their trade polices than they could through official development assistance."

He extended his theme in the closing session, telling developing countries to eliminate corruption and ensure fair governance if they want continued assistance from the developed world.

"In democracies, governments are influenced by public opinion and there's no point kidding ourselves otherwise," Mr Howard said.

"Public opinion wants to help the less fortunate. Public opinion in my country and the world was extraordinary in helping after the tsunami crisis.

"There is no absence of genuine compassion but there is a hard-headed view that the resources allocated should be properly used."

0 Replies

Yup...truth is to be found exiting the mouth of a conservative politician...but this...hum

Quote:

As a consequence, Americans live shorter lives than West Europeans. Their children are more likely to die in infancy: the US ranks twenty-sixth among industrial nations in infant mortality, with a rate double that of Sweden, higher than Slovenia's, and only just ahead of Lithuania's

0 Replies

'Tis a terrible place, indeed Smile

I wonder how many are scrambling to immigrate to Slovenia and Lithuania LOL. We, the decadent U.S. are turning 'em away by the boatload Smile

0 Replies

And Canada is turning away Americans, and refugees trying to get out of the U.S.

it's a circle
ongoing and forever

0 Replies

Canada's better Smile

0 Replies

Now why did you have to go & post that JW? It's so embarrassing having a PM whose confused about which country he's representing ... He also thought many Australian's concerns about a free trade agreement with the US was unwarranted. They don't call him the Deputy sherif for nothing.

JustWonders wrote:

Seems Oz PM John Howard has similar feelings.

PM Blasts 'Irrational, Unfair' Europeans

Robert Gottliebsen and John Kerin
31jan05

JOHN Howard has lashed out at "old Europe", describing criticism of the US as "unfair and irrational", as global tensions grow over the Iraq war and free trade...... etc ..etc

0 Replies

MsOlga

I sent that to a friend in email (the article).

This is the reply I received Smile

Australia: 19 million people.
France: 59 million people.
Difference as "Allies": Priceless.

I agree Smile

But, then, that's merely my opinion.

<Sorry if you were offended>

0 Replies

It's terribly embarrassing JW. It's like having a (US) ventriloquist's puppet as your leader. Definitely worth his weight in gold as a Bush supporter! Sad

(incidentally just checked the population of Oz:
On 1 February 2005 at 02:08:41 (Canberra time), the resident population of Australia is projected to be 20,255,759)

0 Replies

Quote:

Weeks before the prime minister joins Mr Chirac in welcoming President Bush to Europe, Mr Blair told the Wall Street Journal: "I have spoken on many occasions [about] my disagreement with those who want to set up different poles of power in the world. I think this is very dangerous.

"I think we are best to congregate around one pole of common values. Europe and America should be an integral part of that together. They should not have separate and competing poles of power."

Mr Blair was careful not to name Mr Chirac, whose once warm relations with Downing Street plummeted after the French leader pledged to veto the so-called second UN security council resolution that would have authorised the Iraq war in 2003.

But the prime minister's choice of words will leave nobody in any doubt that he was taking aim at Mr Chirac who is deeply attached to a Gaullist vision of a "multipolar world".

The French president never tires of talking of his determination to challenge today's "unipolar world", dominated by the US, by creating a "multipolar world" with equal centres of powers encompassing the US, Europe, the Indian subcontinent and China.

Mr Blair has never shied away from criticising this vision because of his passionate belief that Europe and the US - with Britain acting as a bridge between the two - should work together. But the strength of his language in the Wall Street Journal may cause surprise.

"Ever since the Soviet Union thankfully collapsed, and eastern Europe changed, there has been a question whether the world reunifies around a strong, common, global agenda, or whether it drifts off into these different poles of power," Mr Blair said.

"I think the next few years is a very, very crucial moment of opportunity and of danger. It is an opportunity because I think it is possible to find a unifying agenda and it is a moment of danger because if you don't, and people split into their rival powers, then I think whatever people say, that competition will be unhelpful."

I've been thinking about this a lot, and I've come close to putting my finger on what bothers me about it. It seems counter-intuitive to me that a unipolar world would be better or safer than a multi-polar world. An argument for a unipolar world, with the US as the pole, is similar to an argument for monopolies in business, for a strong centralized federal government, for a government without separation of powers (ie. kingdom or dictatorship). Traditionally it seems Americans have come down on the side of unconsolidated power, for reasons that were well detailed by our founding fathers. Why would this concept not scale to the world as a whole? How do multiple poles of power preclude finding a uni-fying agenda and common values?

0 Replies

Oh, it's okay when the only power is us. After all, we are immune to corruption, abuses, and even plain-old mistakes. Also there is no better form of government or lifestyle possible than ours. And what we say should go because of all these facts. Plus, we crap out solid gold bars and our farts smell like the finest grain leather.

Go America!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

A bi-polar or multi-polar sets you up for competition. Competition is trouble. Not economic or cultural--but militarily.

It's not popular--but you know it's true. Human nature will do it every time.

Unipolar is better--When the power isn't trying to overtake everyone else.

And--we have been the best with it--besides or equal to Rome. We're not ethnically cleansing--we're not colonizing--the worst thing we are doing is forceably policing nukes and sort of delivering pre-packaged democracy. ****! We should be PAID to do it. But, we do it free, and we hand out money to everyone. WHAT A TYRANT WE ARE! Sheesh. America has spoiled you. Look at what other nations WITH JUST A PREPONDERANCE OF POWER have done.

We are fortunate it's us. Look how Chirac is ALREADY insulted the little Eastern European countries when he doesn't like what they say. They (the French) are power mad. And, they don't know how to act when they have the slightest bit.

I'd rather the Germans have the leadership role--and I trust them more than the French.

0 Replies

I guess I'm not sure at all that competition is trouble, even militarily. Where is the check, the guarantee, that prevents that one power from overtaking everyone else if there is no resistance to it, no counter balance?

I'm not offering my opinion on whether America is a nice giant or a mean giant, only that it's counterintuitive that something that's not true in almost every other scenario could be true on a global scale.

0 Replies

I agree that there is a risk.

I think you would agree that there is a risk no matter how power is divided among nations.

I'm interested to hear others' opinions about this. Currently a topic in Global Issues class. Uni- bi- multi-...which has been the best thru history--the worse-- What can you generally count on to happen during each...

Am I the only one here who thinks military competition between two superpowers is a bad thing?

0 Replies

Interesting. It sort of relates to what a lot of people see as a problem with U.S. politics. Basically 2 parties. Often with one party in control of everything. No one to balance decision-making.

In many other Western countries, there have been multi-party systems for decades. Many people think that the best decisions have been made when there have been minority governments - so that balance has to be found to proceed. It certainly feels that way in Ontario, and in Canada more generally.

Based on my studies of the past hmmmm 3+ decades, my preference would be for multi-power v unipower or bipower.

I like balance. With one there is no chance for balance. With two there is always jockeying. With 3 or more, there has to be balance for things to work . Of course I wouldn't recommend going to the Italian extreme in terms of numbers of parties.

0 Replies

Someone correct me if I'm wrong-- but the US almost always has a balance of power among Democrats and the GOP.

We usually have a majority in Congress of one and the other party in the Executive.

What you have witnesed recently signals a departure from business as usual. This is why we constantly talk about the seeming demise of the Democrat party.

0 Replies

I think I'm leaning multi as well. With two, there is a pissing match and the rest of the world suffers while the two jockey. With more than two, there is room for cooperation and balance. I suppose what strikes me as most impossible about a unipolar world is the lack of balance, but that's purely my gut feeling.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong-- but the US almost always has a balance of power among Democrats and the GOP.

We usually have a majority in Congress of one and the other party in the Executive.

What you have witnesed recently signals a departure from business as usual. This is why we constantly talk about the seeming demise of the Democrat party.

It's true that the recent imbalance of power in the legislature is a departure from the norm. It's also true that many people on both sides of the aisle can agree that it's not necessarily a good thing.

0 Replies

Tony Blair Attacks Chirac's 'Pathetic' Power Vision

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know