Having just watched the press conference in the Azores, it occurs to me that this is a major moment in world history. All three leaders trashed France, and they announced a new Transatlantic alliance.
Are we seeing the beginning of the new post-cold-war order? Is this is the end of NATO? What does this mean for the EU? Tony Blair specifically said that any new alliances should be between European nations and the United States. France wants the EU to be a competing power to the United States.
This seems to me to be a major split. The ramifications for the continued unification of Europe seem to be important.
So, aside from the Iraq issue - are we seeing a major change beginning in world structure? Will history books mark this summit as the first mail in the coffin of the 20th century world order? Or is this just small potatoes?
Small potatoes, unless it turns out that Iraq does have something really nasty. The turning point for world structure all hinges on what happens with North Korea.
Are France, Germany, Russia, and China forming a de facto alliance for the purposes of ‘containing’ the US? They spout so much of this global hyperpower rhetoric, I’m starting to think they believe it.
Come on. The Azores meeting was widely seen as a joke. Setting up a meeting with just two other leaders in the middle of nowhere was a terrible PR move. Both Blair and Aznar face massive opposition in terms of domestic public opinion and are in no position to permanently change their countries’ foreign policy orientation.
If Bush wanted an effective PR moment he should have arranged to have about a dozen or so leaders all together both supporting the US and offering concrete aid for any war and its aftermath. Clearly most of the leaders who offer lip-service support to the US aren’t willing to do this. The Azores meeting only underlined what a mess the Bush administration has made of its pre-war diplomacy.
" The hidden huddle in the Azores is trompe l’oeil diplomacy, giving Mr. Blair a little cover, making Poppy Bush a little happy. Just three pals feigning sitting around the campfire singing “Kumbaya,” as the final U.S. troops and matériel move into place in the Persian Gulf and the president’s “Interim Iraqi Authority” postwar occupation plan is collated."
Even the pro-war Friedman has risen to the occasion:
“George Bush has managed to lose a global popularity contest to Saddam Hussein, and he’s looking to build diplomatic support in Europe by flying to the Azores, a remote archipelago in the Atlantic, to persuade the persuaded leaders of Britain and Spain to stand firm with him. I guess the North Pole wasn’t available. I’ve been to the Azores. It was with Secretary of State James Baker on, as I recall, one of his seven trips around the world to build support for Gulf War I. Mr. Baker used the Azores to refuel.”
If this what is Americans think, I doubt the rest of the world sees a serious precedent in the making. Small potatoes it is. Indeed, might as well call 'em freedom fries ;).
You guys are missing the significance of the Azores. In my opinion the whole point to holding the summit there was to signal the beginning of a new transatlantic relationship that transcends the issue of Iraq. I mentioned the other day that about a week ago the White House’s rhetoric changed from “A coalition of the willing” to “A new international organization”.
The question is, is this the start of that organization? Is this an end-run around France? That has ramifications outside of the Iraq issue.
Good guys: US, UK, Spain, former eastern european client nations that would not trust France, Germany, or Russia with their coats.
Bad guys: France, Germany, Russia, China, the northern European socialist hordes, and Canada…
What are you getting at? New alliances and diplomatic machinations scare me. Rarely have scheming diplomats, one generation removed from a global war, brought the world closer to peace. If the world starts picking teams that is a very bad sign. You (Canada) might be the staging area for the New World Anti-US Hegemony Alliance. NWAUSHA. Gesundheit.
“You guys are missing the significance of the Azores”
No you are the one missing the obvious point that without public opinion, European governments aren’t going to change their fundamental foreign-policy orientation . Blair is having enough trouble for this one-off war in Iraq. He doesn’t have the clout to do much else.
As usual you are trying to put some kind of heroic spin to Bush’s muddle and incompetence.
Well, this is the debate. I should have said, “MAYBE you guys are missing the significance of the Azores”. That’s the question, and I’m not presuming to know the answer.
Beagle:
Examples, please. Why the ‘one generation removed from war’ caveat? So you can exclude NATO and the UN? Can you name some international organization that were formed by politicians ‘one generation removed from war’ that were inimical to the cause of world peace?
As for ‘machinations’, I think you have cause-and-effect reversed. This isn’t Britain and the U.S. conspiring to change the world order - this is Britain and the United States reacting to the machinations of France. The most important line uttered at today’s news conference came from Tony Blair, when he said, “It is important that Europe and the United States maintain a close, allied relationship”. This seems to me to be a statement against France, which sees the role of the EU as being a countervaling power to check the United States.
Aside from the Iraq issue, it seems to me that there is a major re-alignment going on in the world. France sees an American hyperpower as being dangerous to France and Europe’s interests, and wants to build a large coalition of countries which together can act as a balance against the U.S. Britain sees its future in a close alliance with the U.S. And yet, Britain also wants to be a member of the EU. So there’s a dichotomy that hasn’t been resolved yet, and it’s playing out right now.
In other words, this isn’t as much about U.S. unilateralism as it is about France’s attempt to isolate the U.S. And Britain, Spain, Portugal, and the Eastern European countries have not taken France’s side.
Sam, I’m just wondering aloud how all this is going to play out. It concerns me that many nations seem to be realigning purely to oppose the United States. I was just thinking about the period between the world wars and all the diplomatic wrangling that went on.
I predict we go in Tuesday. Yes, Tuesday. We then proceed to kick ass (no real doubt there, agreed?), the protesters stop caring, and the Franco-German opposition will be marginalized, perhaps to the point where they want a piece of the action instead. I expect no reaction from China. Not sure about Russia.
Wouldn’t it have made more sense for Bush to invite the leaders of France, Russia, China and Germany to a summit, where they could diplomatically talk out their differences and perhaps come to a compromise that each party can live with? What is the point of only inviting the three nations that are already in agreement with us? To make sure they don’t get weak-kneed on us?
Sam Stone,
Perhaps you might care to explain how and why European leaders are going to change their long-term foreign-policy orientation against the wishes of their people. Let me note that public opinion in every European country is opposed to war. Governments may go against public opinion on one particular issue at a particular time but they aren’t going to change their fundamental policy.
As for the statements you quote none of them indicates any support for a new international institution. To say that Europe and the US should have close ties is merely a restatement of long-standing policies. In fact even the French will say the same thing in public.
Well, that’s my point. I think a number of countries ARE aligning against the United States. But an equal number are aligning WITH the United States. And since many of the countries we are talking about are members of the same orgnizations, (The EU, NATO, the UN), I’m wondering if all these conflicting interests will lead to a collapse of old organizations and the rise of new ones.
That’s the context in which I’m thinking about this Azores summit. Not so much the Iraq issue, but the signal it sends to the world. After all, it would have been pretty much as easy for Bush to meet Blair and Aznar in Britain or Spain, or for them to come to the U.S. But the Azores signify a transatlantic alliance outside of any individual country. They went way out of their way to pick this spot - it had meaning.
Sam: “this is Britain and the United States reacting to the machinations of France”
What about the machinations of the US? In recent weeks the US has been asked to consider compromise by proposals by Canada, by Chile and the other 5 “swing” nations (described by Ari as a “non-starter”), and most recently by France itself (which received a similar rebuff). The Chilean proposal offered featured 5 criteria for disarmement to met in three weeks. The French proposal similarly set criteria to be meet in 30 or 60 days–and threatened force failing that. When proposals such as these can’t even be put on the table, you can’t simply blame everything on France.
The public in Britain is not againt the United States. Both populations have been growing more and more pro-war over the last several weeks, and there are only maybe 10 percentage points separating them now. I’m not sure about the public in Spain and Portugal.
The outcome of this war will mean everything. If it is a quick war, and evidence emerges afterwards that Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction in large quantity, or an advanced nuclear program, then Tony Blair and George Bush are going to ride a wave of immense popularity. And Spain and Portugal are going to ride it as well. In addition, the clear benefits of being on the winning team is going to give those smaller governments enhanced prestige, and that’s going to reflect in the popularity polls at home.
On the other hand, if the war goes badly, there are heavy casualties, and no weapons of mass destruction are found, all three leaders will be in peril in the next elections - Tony Blair maybe sooner.
But if it goes well, this summit may be seen as the first formal formulation of a new alliance.
Mandelstam: The first ‘machination’ here comes from France. If you’ll remember, the U.S. got unanimous approval for resolution 1441. To do so, it agreed to attempt to seek a second resolution authorizing war. HOWEVER, for the U.S. to agree to that, France agreed that it would not oppose a second resolution if Iraq had not totally disarmed by the March 17 deadline.
When it became clear that Iraq would not disarm, the U.S started the groundwork for a second resolution. France IMMEDIATELY opposed it, and started actively lobbying other countries to oppose the United States. That’s the first time since WWII that France has done that. In addition, evidence has come out since that while France was claiming to want Iraqi disarmament, it has been SELLING arms to Iraq. As recently as a few weeks ago Mirage fighters and parts were transshiped to Iraq from France.
Given that overt display of French hostility and determination to thwart the U.S., WHY would the U.S. agree to let its soldiers cook in the desert for MONTHS in the summer heat, to draw out a diplomatic process that appears doomed to fail? That would just give Saddam more time to dig in, weaken the morale and fighting capability of American soldiers, and expose them to potential terrorist threats for a longer period of time.
Speaking of soldiers - I have seen no consideration for them from the anti-war crowd. Have you seen the conditions they are living in right now? THey aren’t sitting in some foreign airbase - they are camped in the desert, suffering sandstorms and having their equipment degrade. The commander in chief has a responsibility to those men and women as well. They shouldn’t be left twisting in the wind just so France can play games.
“HOWEVER, for the U.S. to agree to that, France agreed that it would not oppose a second resolution if Iraq had not totally disarmed by the March 17 deadline.”
Source?
In any event this doesn’t explain the US failure to win the support of countries like Chile and Mexico. It’s not as if the French veto is the only thing stopping a resolution.
As for your other point even in the best-case scenario for an Iraq war there is little reason to believe that either Tony Blair or the British public will want go for a totally new alliance with the US which excludes France and Germany. Remember that Blair is a strong supporter of the EU. You are reading too much into general expressions of support for the US.
