Paris and Berlin prepare alliance to rival Nato

I can't completely fault the French and Germans for not wanting to be led around by the nose by the USA --especially an arrogant George Bush government.

That said, all they seem to be accomplishing is the splintering of the EU. Also, Chirac, in his comments to the Eastern European states that supported Bush on Iraq, was just as overbearing and arrogant as Bush.

It's really a laughing matter; For Europe - or precisely Germany and France - to match the military spending of the US would put their economies into a tailspin. They are now spending 61.5 billion US dollars. The US spends over 350 billion. Are they really ready to spend another 300 billion on their military? The combined GDP of Germany and France is 3.6 trillion. The GDP of the US is 10 trillion. The combined troop strength of Germany and France is 582.1 thousand, while the US has 1,368.7 thousand. As a matter of fact, if Germany and France, but especially Germany, agreed to the removal of all US forces from Germany, that will benefit the US. There's no justification for the US to have such a large military force in Germany today. c.i.

Speaking of being lead around by the nose, I just can't believe Germany is submitting to the French lead in this, or anything.

When people agree they generally don't characterize their relationship as one leading the other by the nose.

roger, We really don't know what will come out of this 'proposal,' but I'm responding to the imponderables if they seriously consider it. It sounds to me like bluster. Maybe they're learning something from North Korea. c.i.

That's just the point Craven. To be led around by the nose (like a horse or a domesticated animal ) implies domination by the one who's doing the leading.

The US has dominated its European allies in recent decades but Bush wanted to go further. He put extreme and relentless pressure on our allies and the UN to endorse an Iraq war plan that they didn't agree with.

In case you think he was just seeking 'agreement', consider recent statements by members of his administration that France was going to'pay'
for its opposition to the US invasion.

You should know that the mini-summit's agenda is minimal. In fact the meeting will last only two hours Tuesday morning, followed by a lunch.
True, among key issues will be the creation of an EU armaments agency. But that idea is not new at all: it is being discussed by the body sketching out the EU's future shape, and most EU states backed it.

Interesting Walter.
That's certainly not the way the London Times article (above) characterized the meeting.

Most interesting in this comment in today's Guardian Inside Europe is this sentence: "And, anyway, Britain and France have perfectly good plans for European defence, dating back to 1998 and refined at Le Touquet in February, though that was barely noticed because of war clouds in the Gulf."

I can see it now; the US and UK vs France and Germany. Talk is cheap, when do they begin? I doubt it'll happen during my life time. c.i.

Might be of some interest to read the conclusions of that meeting:

European Defence Meeting: Conclusions (Egmont Palace, Brussels)

'Old Europe' presses ahead with plans for an EU army
'Old Europe' presses ahead with plans for an EU army
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels
(Filed: 30/04/2003) News Telegraph-UK

"Old Europe" threw down the gauntlet at the feet of Britain, the United States and the Atlantic Alliance at a mini-summit yesterday, unveiling plans for a new Euro-army with its own military headquarters.


Jacques Chirac: rebuked Tony Blair for advocating a 'one polar world'
France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg - described by some in the US as the "Axis of Weasel" - vowed to press ahead with a full-fledged defence union, brushing aside warnings that the move would entrench the European Union's bitter divisions over Iraq and could lead to the break-up of Nato.

A new rapid reaction force would be built around the existing Franco-German brigade, taking in Belgian commandos and units from Luxembourg. It would answer to a headquarters in the Brussels suburb of Tervuren and be ready for joint operations next year.

Jacques Chirac, the French president, insisted that the plans would bolster Nato by making Europe a more credible partner for Washington, and denied there was an attempt to set up a rival to Nato's operational command. "The aim is not to decouple European Union and Atlantic Alliance defence efforts," he said.

But M Chirac gave out mixed signals when he gently rebuked Tony Blair for advocating a "one polar world" and warning of a new Cold War if Europe tried to become a rival power to America.

"Quite naturally a multi-polar world is being created, whether one likes it or not. It's inevitable. For balance to exist, there will have to be a strong Europe. Relations between the European Union and the United States will have to be a partnership between equals," said M Chirac.

He invited all 25 of the EU's current and future states to join the new defence core, but the so-called New Europe camp - led by Britain, Spain, Italy and Poland - has reacted with deep suspicion. Ana Palacio, the Spanish foreign minister, said the proposals were "counter-productive" and would cause needless division at a delicate time.

Nato came close to buckling earlier this year when France, Belgium and Germany refused to sanction delivery of Patriot missiles to Turkey, a fellow member. A Nato spokesman reacted cautiously to the new plans yesterday, saying he was "concerned about the risk of unnecessary duplication".

The four leaders called for the creation of a "European Command for strategic air transport" by 2004. The new force would have to rely on US airlift or leased Ukrainian planes until the Airbus A400M military transport aircraft was ready for service later in the decade.

There will be a "joint European protection capability" against weapons of mass destruction, a tactical training centre for pilots and helicopter crews, and an "EU-FAST" emergency relief unit for humanitarian crises.

Separately, the group have proposed a European weapons procurement agency and a "solidarity clause" binding EU states to face all forms of risk together as elements to be included in the new European constitution.

It was unclear how the new machinery would fit into the EU's existing defence structure. Brussels already has a rapid reaction force, and military staff, which can draw on up to 60,000 personnel from member states. It began its first mission in Macedonia last month. But it is limited to peacekeeping and relies on Nato operational command.

While superficially similar, the new force is a different animal. It will be a fully-integrated Euro-army, and seems intended for combat in the future.

The picture is further confused by the parallel defence plans agreed by Mr Blair and M Chirac at Le Touquet in February calling for a joint Anglo-French aircraft carrier battle group.

29 April 2003: Blair fears new Cold War over EU rift with US
13 April 2003: Don't laugh: the European Army is on the march
1 April 2003: Euro-army on its first mission
16 March 2002: Britain caves in on Euro army
4 February 2003: Blair and Chirac back EU naval fighting force

EUROPEAN UNION: Not as Simple as Big v. Small, New v. Old
4/30/03 - IPS
EUROPEAN UNION:
Not as Simple as Big v. Small, New v. Old

Mario de Queiroz The rift created in the European Union by the largely unilateral U.S. decision to invade Iraq has cut into the debate on the bloc's new Constitution, further complicated as preparations are underway to admit new members, including former socialist countries that are today aligned with Washington.

The 10 countries to join the EU in May 2004, eight of which were members of the former European socialist community, are pushing to delay of the approval of the Constitution until after their admission.

They want to ensure equal rights for the new and old, large and small member states.

But the EU Summit to take place in Greece Jun 20-21, ending the host country's six-month turn as president of the bloc and marking the beginning of Italy's mandate, aims to quickly resolve the constitutional treaty being drawn up by a body headed by former French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing.

In response, the heads of the parliaments of 10 candidate nations for the expanded EU, meeting last weekend in Lisbon, unanimously agreed to demand the postponement of the new constitution until after they are inside the bloc.

The former socialist countries in the group are today allies of the United States and supported the war against Iraq, a position that experts say could prevent the EU from becoming a truly global power, as France and Germany are seeking.

The two European powerhouses aim to counter Washington's plans to establish a new international order of its own designs.

The clash between the United States and France about the Iraq war "abruptly interrupted the dynamic of the European Convention and created a climate of doubt and suspicion that nobody can ignore," Portuguese analyst of EU affairs Teresa de Sousa told IPS.

With that crisis, "the initial European dynamic was lost and now one of the protagonists seems more intent on playing its own cards," she commented.

In the current climate, De Sousa believes "it will be practically impossible to overcome in a positive way the most difficult and complex phase of work, in which the relative weight of each EU member state comes into play."

Next year, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia will join the European bloc. Bulgaria and Romania will be admitted in 2007.

Establishing the constitutional treaty prior to the admission of the new countries "would be absurd," and if it comes to pass "it could represent grave legal problems in the future," Katalin Szili, president of the Hungarian parliament, said in a conversation with IPS.

It would be lamentable if the new EU countries, upon entering the bloc, were faced with a different reality than the one they thought they were joining, "in which words like solidarity and cohesion may have lost their significance," said Szili, stressing that her opinion reflects that of the all ten new members.

Joao Bosco da Mota Amaral, president of the Portuguese Congress, openly supports that stance by speaking out against the Franco-Germany hegemony in the EU. In fact most of the current smaller members of the bloc reject the big countries' dominance -- and in that sense they are joined by the former socialist nations awaiting admission.

The formal motive behind the Lisbon meeting was to "share the experiences of the European integration process," and to mark the 29th anniversary of what is known as the "Carnation Revolution" of Apr 25, 1974, when a group of leftist army captains overthrew the Portuguese dictatorship that had reigned since 1926.

The parallels between the Portuguese experience and that of the countries that were under the aegis of the now-defunct Soviet Union were also discussed.

After 12 years of building its democracy, Portugal achieved solid reforms and was able to join the EU in 1986, almost the same amount of time past since the socialist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe began to fold.

But the confrontation between Washington and the Paris-Berlin axis, aggravated by the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq on Mar 20, is not the only factor interfering these days in the progress of the European bloc.

The smaller countries' distrust of the five big EU member states began long before the war against Iraq and the subsequent U.S. appeals for trans-Atlantic loyalty.

The EU members friendly to Washington, such as the powerful Britain, Spain and Italy, do not form part of the group that is assailing the French and German proposals, that are demanding respect for the concept of "one country, one vote," defended by the smaller partners, whether allies of the United States or not.

As such, 20 of the 25 countries that will comprise the EU in 2004 are opposed to the Franco-German project.

In that group are current members Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden, all seen by the future members' parliamentary presidents gathered in Lisbon as important allies for postponing debate on the draft constitution.

The most controversial proposal put forth by Giscard d'Estaing refers to electing a permanent president of the European Council (the quarterly meetings of the EU heads of state), instead of the six-month rotating presidency.

According to the president of the Convention, and backed by Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Spain, the system of rotating EU presidencies is inefficient and disrupts the continuity and visibility of the European bloc's political actions in the global context.

Austria, Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Portugal are against the permanent president initiative, as are the candidates poised to join the EU next year.

Greece is keeping to the sidelines in the debate because it currently holds the EU presidency, while the remaining members -- Denmark and Sweden -- have aligned themselves with the powerful partners in favour of a European president.

Another source of discord is the suggestion of reducing the number of sitting members on the European Commission, the EU's executive body, to a maximum of 15, instead of the model of one commissioner per state. The smaller countries fear being left out of the bloc's important decisions.

José Manuel Durao Barroso, Portugal's prime minister, sent a message to the five big EU nations -- and he did not mince words, stating that the smallest would not accept "that the stance of some of the member states is seen as the stance of the entire bloc."

Who knows what this will lead to, but I can't fault Germany and France for wanting some room to maneuver. The current U.S. policy is to disdain those countries as less than autonomous nations. But they are, and they have every right to operate independently of Bush and Rumsfeld.

Right now Bush's pique against the French is so childish that Mrs. B is boycotting the 200th anniversary celebration of the Louisiana Purchase in New Orleans April 9, even though she is honorary chairmwoman for the event. This from today's NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/30/arts/design/30PURC.html

D'artagnan
D'artagnan, George Bush's reputation of imature pique and vindictiveness is well known, so I'm not surprised at anything he does. I wonder when he will grow up.

BumbleBeeBoogie

If the military alliance alternative to NATO is formed, and its partcipants will have to spend much more for defense needs, this will surely have detrimental effect on their economies. Then they will regret about their decisions, but it will be too late: the U.S. soldiers will leave Europe by that time...

I keep hearing about how if this alliance were formed the involved countries would have to spend more on defense.

Anyone care to substantiate this claim?

Anyone care to substantiate the claim that said create will result in an American evacuation? There are contracts and such ya know?

steissd

Probably you read the sources before answering: it has never been determined to become an alternative to NATO, the US is stationed in such high numbers (at least in Germany) only due to the cold war (the Britsih troops have left Germany by 50%, US troops by about 25%, Canadian, Belgian, Dutch and French troops completely).

Walter - that was a very informative link, thanks. I applaud the EU's aims and goals.