Skip to content

"Proud to be Ineffectual"

Nicolas Sarkozy is so proud of what the EU at the behest and through FRANCE has achieved in Georgia:

At the behest of the French presidency, Europe put itself on the front lines from the outset of hostilities to resolve this conflict -- the third on European soil since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Throughout the first phase of this latest crisis, Europe's commitment was decisive: It was the European Union, through France, that created a space for diplomacy

¡No Pasarán! comments on Super-Sarko: "Proud to be Ineffectual."

Trackbacks

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as Linear | Threaded

John in Michigan, USA on :

Sarkozy's European initiative hasn't been completely ineffectual, since the Russian advance on Tbilisi seems to have stopped (for now). US diplomacy gets some credit as well. I am reminding myself that Sarkozy is using the language of diplomacy, which explains circumlocutions such as "We must also determine whether Russia's intervention was a one-time, brutal -- and excessive -- response, or whether it is ushering in a new hardening of Moscow's line toward its neighbors and toward the international community, which would inevitably have consequences for its relationship with the European Union." It seems pretty clear from Russian rhetoric that this is much bigger than Georgia, and that (unless we persuade them otherwise) Georgia does represent the new face Russia towards its neighbors. Still, I can understand how it might not be the right time for a diplomat to state this openly. But other Sarkozy statements just seem unnecessary and wrong: "When the house is burning, the priority is to put out the fire. Europe can be proud of this success, which proves that it can do a lot when it is motivated by a strong political will." What success? Has Russia withdrawn? At this moment, many houses are still burning, and I suspect that more still will be set alight before this is over, even if Russia ends up withdrawing at some point. I will happily give credit if the European initiative restores the status quo ante...but it is premature and frankly, a bit obscene, for Europe to be congratulating itself at this stage. Then we have more diplomatic talk -- how exactly should we decode it? "A U.N. Security Council resolution will have to consolidate these first achievements by giving them universal legal force." Why is a UNSC resolution necessary for the cease-fire? It seems to me that under international law, an agreement between all the relevant parties has just as much force as a UN resolution, in fact, it has more force since all the parties agree. Is this some new aspect of international law that I don't understand? Is Sarkozy suggesting that the parties cannot possibly agree, and so a UN resolution will be necessary? Clearly, he is reassuring Russia that there will be no European or NATO agreement a la former Yugoslavia. Is he also reassuring Russia that it has a veto over "these first achievements" (by which he means the cease fire)? He of course demands withdrawl "without delay", but doesn't give a time-frame. Isn't this, plus the reference to a UNSC resolution, a tacit invitation for Russia to stay in Georgia?

jpg on :

It is thus on the site "no pasaran" that you judge the foreign policy of France and Europe! I remind you that it is about a site which practises the french bashing and that its analyses have the quality of articles of "Gala". Are you proud to be not intellectual?

Marie-Claude on :

no comment, no pasaran seems a reliable source for "objective truths", we already know that

jpg on :

" Objectivize truths "? If it is about a joke, I indeed want to laugh with you but to speak about the objective truths stemming from a website the prejudice of which is notorious, seems to me completely inappropriate. Besides, "we already know that" has no value as for the "scientific" quality of the website and remains to demonstrate.

Marie Claude on :

you'll learn when I tell "objective truths"or not :lol: BTW, that was a joke

jpg on :

All right, I understood well.

Joe Noory on :

You might feign an agreeable, nodding understanding of one another, but you probaly didn't read my post which went on to discuss what part of their action Sarkozy and Kouchner got right. Their having been treated as they were did shine a light on Russia's motives (vs. their stated rhetoric) - very quickly. They made the best of what their wilfully limited capacity to address the matter could do.

jpg on :

I did not effectively read your post because I still have no time to dedicate me to this blog. But what I wanted to stigmatize, it is the discriminatory insult toward French which often returns associating " French " and " surrender ". All their History shows that this association is an unbearable lie. For the rest, we are in démocraty and I recognize you completely the right to think of what you want of the policy of the President Sarkozy and Mr Kouchner.

joe on :

The french have surrender down to a true art form.

jpg on :

Come to say this kind of stupidity to the families of 10 French soldiers died in the fight in Afghanistan. But you are certainly too cowardly.

joe on :

Provide me the addresses.......I have no trouble at all of telling them. I would also provide them a map on how to get to Normandy. Maybe you should visit there also or has the revision of french history been so complete that Normandy no longer is relevant

jpg on :

What's the use to give you their addresses, you would have no courage to come in France to meet them. But because you are interested in the history of France, I am going to give you some information which you ignore: 1 million 500 000 French soldiers died in the fight from 1914 till 1918, 240 000 French soldiers and Resistance fighters died in the fight from 1939 till 1945. Ah, I forgot. Here are some moments of history which you seem not to know. " France makes a commitment in the American war for independence at first by the supply of equipment and helps in favour of the insurgents, then officially in 1778. The naval and ground French help and the support of his allies contributed to the American victory, notably to the Battle of Yorktown, and ends in the treaty of Versailles of 1783. " Do not forget that without us, the british flag would still float on your towns.

Joe Noory on :

As long as we're plumbing the distant past, their role in supporting the Confederacy, and using the chaos as an opportunity to invade Mexico and installing a monarch there should also not go forgotten. Their entire interest was an attempt to triangulate against Britain anyway in each case. During the American revolutionary war, they were rather quite leery otherwise of supporting Americans who sounded much like those threatening the French monarchy.

jpg on :

It seems that you want to explain to me that States act according to their interests. It is an evidence. France intervened in favour of the future United States to weaken England but not only. It is evident that numerous French people saw in the American revolution an inspiration to reform their country. 1789 was close. In the same way, the interest of the United States during the second world war was to destroy Nazi Germany.Their objective thus was to invade Germany and for it, to pass by France because it was on the road which they had chosen. However, I think that certain Americans were not insensible in the fact that in the passage, they contributed to the liberation of an allied country. Finally, you speak to me about the war of Secession and about the mexican adventure of Napoleon III. Of course, in the History, there were unfriendly actions of France towards the United States as there was unfriendly actions of the United States towards France (the ostracism of Roosevelt towards de Gaulle and towards free France for example). But note, all the same, that France and the United States were never at war the one against the other one.

Marie-Claude on :

the mexican adventure of Napoleon III, was a poker coup, it could have worked because of the civil american war... though this was a discussion between ladies, queen imperator of the common world, Victoria, Eugenie, Napoleon's wife, some other important lady of whom I don't remember the name at the moment, in Biarritz cure. They thought that would be a good ideo to restaure a catholic kingdom in Mexico. Napoleon, a gentleman, agreed, then see how it happened : the legion étrangere found its motto : fighting till death. BTW, thanks JPG, it's good not to feel alone :lol:

Pat Patterson on :

Alas, Spain and Britain withdrew immediately after Juarez was forced to back down on his plan to repudiate the debt held by those countries, plus France. France though, surprising its allies marched on Mexico City and the Republic of Mexico collapsed and Juarez and his supporters fled to the north and across the US border. There is a small park in El Paso dedicated to the Republicans with a statue of Benito Juarez. Maximillan of Austria was invited to become Emperor by the French after they rigged a plebiscite of support but the invitation he acknowledged as legitimate was from Mexcian royalists and some anti-Juarez Republicans, who were nostalgic for the relative peace and prosperity of the country under Emperor Agustin, Don Agustin de Iturbide. This meetng, apocryphal, does not do justice either to Mexico or Maximillan.

jpg on :

Together, we shall win! :-)

joe on :

Send the ticket.......

joe on :

jpg Thanks for the french military history lesson. You did not however identify just which nation they died for.

jpg on :

As regards the French soldiers, they die for their Homeland. I hope that it's the same for the American soldiers whatever is the place where they die.

Joe Noory on :

Quite a few of them have already died for [url=http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2008/08/mcculloughs-next-book-is-about-what.html]your homeland[/url], papito. [i]"Il est essentiel de comprendre à quel point nous devons à la France ou aux Français, beaucoup de choses que nous croyons purement américaines", dit-il. "L'histoire américaine s'est plus déroulée en France que dans n'importe quel autre pays, Etats-Unis exceptés. Si je demande aux gens combien de soldats ont été envoyés en France, ils n'en ont aucune idée. La réponse est : deux millions et demi !"[/i]

Shah Alexander on :

It is not French presidency, but EU presidency that authorizes Sarkozy's initiative. Javier Solana will never speak of "Spanish leadership" in European foreign policy.

John in Michigan, USA on :

Yes, it was bad form for Sarko to act so French when representing Europe. Would Chirac have done the same, I wonder?

jpg on :

Some lessons are still necessary for you, little Jojo. The soldiers of all the nations die for their homeland, that is for the country the citizens of which they are. It doesn't much matter the place where they die. As a consequence, the American soldiers died for their country during both world wars because the United States thought that their interest was to destroy nazi Germany. That they cross for it by France, Italy or Great Britain changes nothing this reality.

Add Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

Form options