Skip to content

Favorite Hypocrisies

Moisés Naím starts his FP Magazine article on US foreign policy hypocrisies with this:

The official position of the United States is that Europe should allow Turkey to join the European Union. Turkey's entry would give its citizens the right to travel freely to any other EU member state. This prodding to Europeans to embrace Turkey comes from the same country that is building a 700-mile-long wall along its border with Mexico.

What is your favorite foreign policy hypocrisy? European and North American examples only, please.

Trackbacks

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as Linear | Threaded

quo vadis on :

I suppose it's easy to find hypocrisy when you willfully misinterpret the motives of your subject. The US doesn't support Turkish integration into the EU so that Turks can work in the EU, we support it because we believe that it will empower the western leaning elements of Turkish society at the expense of the Islamists. If Europeans have issues with Turkish immigration, they should look first to their existing immigration laws.

Zyme on :

The Hypocrisy with the American Turkey-policy does not lie in the point that the Americans need to errect border defense while they want the EU to aquire a similar border situation - it rather lies in the point that they do not support Turkey's ambition for their European nature of whatever good-sounding reason but instead want to see Turkey in to further weaken the EU.

Marie Claude on :

more simply, they do believe in "democraty" like the one they tried to insert in Iran...oops in Irak :lol:

Pat Patterson on :

Isn't there a rather large difference in the supposed hypocrisy considering the US does have a trade relation with Mexico already but doesn't have a military one? OAS, notwithstanding. While Turkey was already a member of NATO and its southern flank protector but is now being blocked from the trade agreements that are still the most important part of the EU. As to some nefarious plot to weaken the EU I guess maybe some should consider that the EU will possibly have as a member a country that is not so risk averse that it can't even blink when someone yells, "Boo!" The Tukish military is still capable of shooting its enemies without someone from the government showing up to collect the shell casings. Why wouldn't the EU consider Turkey valuable considering its stragegic position in relation to Central Asia and the Near East as well as controlling access to the Black Sea. The largest legal immigrant group coming into the US is from Mexico which has also fortified and rearmed its southern borders to keep Central American immigrants out. The Mexicans have a saying, "Pobre Mexico! Tan lejos de Dios y tan cerca de los Estados Unidos!" Poor Mexico! So far from God and so close to the United States." Mexicans certainly want to come but Mexico wants nothing to do with closer political ties.

Anonymous on :

"While Turkey was already a member of NATO and its southern flank protector but is now being blocked from the trade agreements that are still the most important part of the EU" not at all, there have many off EU union trades agreements with Turkey, but with individual countries. "As to some nefarious plot to weaken the EU I guess maybe some should consider that the EU will possibly have as a member a country that is not so risk averse that it can't even blink when someone yells, "Boo!" The Tukish military is still capable of shooting its enemies without someone from the government showing up to collect the shell casings." no risk ??? your kidding !!! they want their revenge from 1683 Battle of Vienna http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_wars_in_Europe http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna they are at it here : http ://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_world_0_10/02/2009_104565 " Why wouldn't the EU consider Turkey valuable considering its stragegic position in relation to Central Asia and the Near East as well as controlling access to the Black Sea." this is a vision of the past centuries, when all the traffics were made on ships Russia would be a much better alliee, plus she re-control center Asia, there is a new common army in Kirghirzistan (~10000 men), OK, the Americans had to leave !!! hey you paid the Kirghizes less than the Russians do, and in money crisis time, the choice was easy for them, But, there is still a hope, that your administration decide to raise the sums, until then you're still allowed to fly in their sky Also the Pakis are such good alliees that you still can rely on your bases there

Marie Claude on :

uh, I suppose it's no surprise, that the an... post was mine also I forgot to mention Erdogan's discourses, that aren't very pacific towards the Western Europe, Turcs in Germany were stanced not to become westernies, also the christians in Turkey must watch their backs As far as adopting Turkey, Why doesn't your Country doesn't, after all, it's you that needs Turkey as an alliee how about Turkey as being 51th State of the US ? or the twin state of Texas, not counting Saudi Arabia that already shares Banks accounts and enterprises there, Mr Bush's best friends !!!

Pat Patterson on :

So Turkey has bilateral trade agreements but still does not have the trade agreements that it wanted with the EU. I'm not sure if that was really much of a counterpoint. As to controlling the access routes to the Black Sea it is important to remember that during the Georgian War the Russian fleet, basically one missile cruiser had to retreat as the Americans were allowed by the Turks to send three Burke class missile destroyers into the Black Sea and unlimited air flights. The Turks would not allow any of the Russian fleet from Odessa through the Dardanelles. Most of the world's freight is still delivered by sea and only a few of the Russian controlled pipelines are completely in Russia and many of those deliver oil not from Russia but from other countries. So it might be too soon to dismiss geography as an important part of the elephants' dance floor. But I am curious as to what you meant by, I think, a combined Kyrgyz and Russian military formation of 1,000 men. The lates figure I came up with I can't find any reference to that anywhere unless you are referring to a small unit, around 100 members of the 5th Air Army assigned to Kant to create an electronic listening post. Krygyzstan did indeed vote to cancel the US contract, as it has twice before since 1998, but then found it had cancelled the leases of all the foreign bases in the country and now is trying to figure out what to do. But like the US withdrawal from Subic Bay, France and Kam Rahm Bay they managed to find other strategic locations to park its equipment and the servicemen that control that equipment.

Marie Claude on :

http://www.courrierinternational.com/article.asp?obj_id=94312 as far as the 10 000 men, I read that, but can't find the link anymore, it was projected in a new alliance frame, that both Russia and Kirghizistan signed ; Putin is recreating a new mini Varsaw pact

Pat Patterson on :

I think you were referring to a stand alone RRF that some of the 'Stans and Russia agreed to create earlier this month. This appears at first glance something different to the EU's idea but its main OOB is terrorism, counterinsurgency and natural disasters. But since the Kyrgyz military only numbers 12,500 with now reliable air assets its contribution will probably be limited unless the Russians are planning on providing transport and CAPs. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/02/04/russia.collective.military/

Marie Claude on :

a bit more infos here http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/1016/42/374352.htm http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2009/02/05/moscou-entend-relancer-la-cooperation-militaire-regionale_1151043_3214.html http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=International&articleid=a1233763414

Pat Patterson on :

Interesting because once one looks at a map its plain that this "task force" made up either from a new force under the command of the 331st Guards Regiment or from the disgraced 106th Guards Airborne Division has nothing to do with a regional Warsaw Pact treaty organization. But rather internal security in areas the Russians consider theirs but also are deathly afraid the Muslim majorities may constitute a threat to the other peripheral areas still under nominal Russian control simply because as of yet no one else, except the Chinese or Indians, has any interest. And according to current Russian military doctrine these are not really airborne units anymore but rather like the light infantry of the 10th Mountain Division of the US. Capable of going anywhere in the world within 72 hours but will need resupply and reinforcements within a week. A Chinese, Indian or Turkish armored formation would make short work of such a unit within days. Plus nothing has been signed yet as the amount of money the Russians promised initially seems to have vanished into the Russian pension and banking systems to keep them afloat.

Zyme on :

Sorry Pat, I haven't checked this thread again later on. "Isn't there a rather large difference in the supposed hypocrisy considering the US does have a trade relation with Mexico already but doesn't have a military one? OAS, notwithstanding. While Turkey was already a member of NATO and its southern flank protector but is now being blocked from the trade agreements that are still the most important part of the EU." Well I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the military alliance between Western Europe and Turkey - as this isn't an alliance with a European nation at the helm. It is more or less a coincidence today that both are still in the same alliance. Also you know that other political departments are far more important here right now. "As to some nefarious plot to weaken the EU I guess maybe some should consider that the EU will possibly have as a member a country that is not so risk averse that it can't even blink when someone yells, "Boo!" This isn't nefarious I would say. From an American point of view I can fully understand this plan. Why stand by and watch another block rising to power if there is a means available to weaken the process that can even be sold as altruistic behaviour. Hell, even the British are suspicious of conduction the same plot, as they - too - were keen on weakening the EU's speed of integration for the most part of time. Turkey would fit perfectly into that scheme, as they are economically backwards to such an extreme extent that they would block EU's integration for a loong time. Also their readiness to engage in foreign politics isn't necessarily an advantage: Germany and France both want to control the EU - another ambitious country would be bothersome to both. "Why wouldn't the EU consider Turkey valuable considering its stragegic position in relation to Central Asia and the Near East as well as controlling access to the Black Sea." The Turkish borders to the Near East would be a huge disadvantage. The EU constantly seeks to further fortify its borders agains illegal immigration. An incredibly huge amount of effort would have to be put into securing this new border. Combating immigration would nearly become impossible. Access to the Black sea on the other hand can be secured via simple treaties between Turkey and the EU. No EU membership is needed for that.

Pat Patterson on :

Most of what you say is very reasonable until we get to the EU signing bilateral treaties with Turkey for access to the Black Sea. The Dardanelles are already international waters and the Turks have shut it to any freight traffic they desire. The EU recgonized this as de facto and asks pretty please everytime they want access. In fact the only two powers that have never acknowledged this state of affairs is the US which the Turks have never challenged and the Russians which the Turks have basically said never. That alone would make access via a regional agreement more than important to the EU but would be restoring maritime law. US policy at least since WWII has been to strengthen the European alliances, to prevent another war, successful, and to allow the US to shift some of the burden for defending Europe back to the Europeans, unseccessful! AS along as the EU, if such a accession ever took place, didn't make a hash of Turkey integrating like they did for the DDR then I still don't really see the hesitation other than fear of an even larger Turkish diaspora.

quo vadis on :

And for those here who seem to be having a little trouble with the concept of hypocrisy, Marie Claude's comment provides us with a perfect example to contemplate.

Marie Claude on :

No, I am amused by the American candor, lots of you believe what their politians and or leaders say ; any time you can reverse from a pro-XXX opinion to his yesterday anti-XXX'. Seen that with McCain, Clinton, ... and, unbelievable, Bush !!! they would even praise Putin for his last discourse in Davos also by personal experience when I was part of the crew on cruise ships, the Americans had a cruise manager that told them each day how they had to behave in a given situation with french staff, with the french people while in excursions, how much tips they ought to give us.... http ://online.wsj.com/article/SB123317069332125243.html http ://www.therightperspective.org/?p=1472 ____________________________________________ BTW, while I am at it, back on the Balkans dilemn, see if Islamisation of the youngests is not in march : http ://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_world_0_10/02/2009_104565

quo vadis on :

[i]any time you can reverse from a pro-XXX opinion to his yesterday anti-XXX'. Seen that with McCain, Clinton, ... and, unbelievable, Bush !!! they would even praise Putin for his last discourse in Davos[/i] I believe Europeans call it "nuance".

Marie Claude on :

nah, we call it "reverse one's jacket", then not trustful !!! while you take the "reversing" part for graunted if one of your favorite opinion leaders recommands it

Joe Noory on :

Currently this is my [url=http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=cda06920-2d41-4413-8d31-24af92a0ffb9]favorite hypocrisy[/url]. [i]Last Tuesday, a Parisian appeals court overturned the convictions of five former Guantanamo inmates who had been found guilty on terrorist conspiracy charges in 2007. The development should give pause to wonder not only about the wisdom of plans to transfer Guantanamo inmates to European countries (see my earlier NM piece here), but more fundamentally about the very idea of treating the “disposition” of Guantanamo inmates as an issue for civilian courts, whether in the US or abroad. The five French Gitmo detainees were repatriated to France in 2004 and 2005. They were tried and convicted on charges of belonging to a “criminal association formed for the purpose of undertaking a terrorist act.” The definition of this crime in French law is exceptionally broad. Not only does it permit what are, in effect, preventive detentions, but a suspect may be convicted by virtue of merely having had “regular contact” [relations habituelles] with one or more other persons who form part of such a terrorist enterprise.[/i] These are the sort that the protesters claim are neither prisoners of war, not guilty of anything who must be freed from Gitmo. Gitmo is not a stain on out character, it's a sign that we are brave enough to face the enemy honestly in battle, not just by trying to cut deals with them to "leave us in peace".

joe on :

my favorite bit of FP hypocrisy is the claim by france and germany that they are America's allies.

Marie Claude on :

America doesn't (?), or rather didn't need alliees but vassals

Joe Noory on :

If the United States doesn't need allies, why are you emoting that they need vassals?

joe on :

It is an open question if the french would be an ally to anyone but themselves. But the good thing about the french is they provide a perfect example of what a nation can become.

Marie Claude on :

yeah, the N° 5 in the rank of GDP's with the aera of one state of the US, isn't it amazing !!!!

Pat Patterson on :

You might want to check that claim as both the IMF, the World Bank and the CIA Factbook have France in the #8 spot behind the UK and Germany which are even smaller than France. BTW, France is as big as Texas while Germany has 1/2 the land mass and twice the GDP and the GDP per capita as France.

Marie Claude on :

It was said in a conservative british paper last year, in january, that we passed UK, from 6th to 5th rank, due to the bonus that the euro gave http ://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7887659.stm http ://www.newsweek.com/id/178822 uh oh !!!!

Pat Patterson on :

The first link compares the rate the countries economies are shrinking not to their relative size. France still is at #8 by all recent calculations in both GDP and GDP per capita. The second link is to an opinion piece that claims that Britain's deficit will be 10% of its GDP this year. I can only assume that is a typo as the UK has announced that they will have to borrow 60 billion Pounds which represents only 2.5% of the '09 HM Budget. The UK has a much lower public debt than either France or the US, respectively 47.2%, 64.4% and 60.8%. But none of those figures will be the same by the end of the fiscal or calendar year and are not to be trusted.

Marie Claude on :

I tell ya, we are in a deep sh*t LMAO um, I am tired, keine Lust für suchen !!!beside the link that said it was already posted heree and on superfrenchie a year ago posted on PJM for about the seme contest: Yet, while we have about the same external debt percentage, our private debt is in much better situation, and it allows that our external debt is mostly franco-french financed, while CHINA OWNS the US, and that there is no private sparings to escape from this fate ; think about too, if the Saudi decided to get paid with euros, the US will go full bankrupted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=94 interesting article in french that explains my dires : http://www.autisme-economie.org/article48.html?lang=fr

Pat Patterson on :

The first link merely repeats what I noted earlier that France has a higher percentage of debt to GDP then the United States. As to China owning the US and other fairy tales they only own 21% slightly above Japan at 18%. The American public owns almost 60% of the debt so they are the true owners of the US as it should be. Though the previous French adminstration tried to sell 30 billion Euros to bring down the national debt that didn't work as the debt actually went higher before it went down to 64.4%. Far short of the 60% that Chriac had promised. But the main difference would be that if China decided to sell Treasuries then citizens in the US and the government would get a discount to purchase this debt on the face value of the Treasury bills. China will take the loss and the US will retire obligations at a price lower than orignally sold. While France would be selling assets at a loss to pay off debt and deficits. Not really an enviable situation to be in as it is comparable to needing 10 trillion Euros and only getting 5 trillion.

Marie Claude on :

not I was reading everywhere

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