Holy shit, Jacques Chirac is a fucking shitface

The BBQ Pit
41

It’s not just Chirac - it’s even more explicitly put by the French Defense Minister. It’s pretty rich, considering that it is basically 3 countries (France, Germany, Belgium) against the rest…

QUOTE:
French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie warned the European Union’s candidate countries that they were putting their membership plans at risk by supporting the United States on Iraq.

“I’m worried, and I say it very clearly, because the entry into the EU has to be ratified,” Alliot-Marie told a news conference Tuesday after meeting her Polish and German counterparts within a so-called “Weimar Triangle” Forum.

“In the interest of these countries themselves I say take care that there will not be a reaction from citizens, saying these countries do not want peace inside the European family.” :rolleyes:

She was speaking only hours after French President Jacques Chirac fired off a stinging rebuke to future members of the European Union for siding with the United States in the dispute over Iraq, saying they should have kept their mouths shut.

Europe’s divisions on Iraq were brought into sharp relief last month in a pro-US letter published by eight European countries including EU candidate countries Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic that left France and fellow war opponent Germany out in the cold.

Days later, the leaders of 10 eastern European countries issued their own letter backing Washington on the threat of military action against Baghdad.

Source

42

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59326-2003Feb11.html

So, how is France’s threats to block Romania and Bulgaria’s entry into the EU if they disagree with France on the Iraq issue any worse than our threats to put new trade restrictions on French goods and pull our troops out of Germany if they didsagree with us on the Iraq issue?

43

Yeah, I didn’t word that very well.

FWIW, I don’t like GWB’s rhetoric, either. If I started a Pit thread every time Bush said something that pissed me off, I’d be…well, I was going to say that I’d be like Chumpsky, but I don’t think I’d be that obnoxious.

44

Well, GWB didn’t tell them to “shut up”, for one. Unlike the out-of-control cowboy Chirac.

45

It isn’t. Nor is it any better. Which means they are on the same moral plane as we are. And thus have nothing to base their criticism of us on. Hence the dilemma.

46

I haven’t had time to read about this too much today, but I assume it’s because we have explicit control over our troops and our money. As far as I know, France does not control the EU. Seems pretty different to me.

47

Let’s analyze, line by line what he said:

**
Translation: “It is, by definition, rude to do anything that France dislikes.”

**
Which is also the British, Italian, Spanish, etc., etc. position. Doing so is “reckless,” however, because none of these countries throw violent international temper tantrums or hold their breaths until they turn blue in order to get what they want.
Translation: “We’ll get you for this!”

**
This is incredibly rich, coming from France, especially after their behavior in NATO, an organization of which it is not actually a full member. Only the French could imagine that it is “irresponsible” to take a position espoused by Great Britain, Spain, Italy, The U.S. etc.
Translation: “You are a running-dog American hyper-power lackey.”

**
Translation: “Children should be seen and not heard.”

**
This? From the French?!? Maybe entry into the EU implies understanding for the others. However, it is obvious that already being in the EU does not.
Translation: “If you guys are going to join the EU, you need to understand that France is in charge. When we want your opinion, we’ll tell you what it is.”

**
This is really the best one of the lot. France is threatening to veto countries that do not toe the French line on foreign policy. Note we are not talking about EU foreign policy here, because there is no such thing.
Translation: “We’ll get you for this!”

So let’s see, France is threatening a veto a new resolution in the Security Council. They did everything they could to veto assistance to Turkey at NATO. Now they are threatening to veto current and future EU expansion plans. It is simply pathetic that France’s entire foreign policy revolves around being a non-voting member of the international community.

48

Well, but France does influence it, and is saying it will use its influence if the other countries don’t go along.

49

Well, the biggest difference is that on the one hand you have the leader of an entire country, who as somebody already pointed out, is the Official Spokesperson for that country. And on the other hand, you have a couple of relatively minor politicians, Dennis Hastert and Duncan Hunter, who by no stretch of the imagination could be considered Official Spokespersons for the U.S.

And second, on the one hand you have someone saying something really mean and nasty about other countries, in words of one syllable (“you screwed up”, “shut up”). And on the other hand, you have a couple of guys doing a bit of rather vague political chest-pounding.

And third, on the one hand you have someone making a threat which would have extremely serious repercussions if it were carried out. If France really did succeed in vengefully keeping Romania and Bulgaria out of the EU just because of this, that would look like cruel and unusual punishment to me, as well to a lot of other people. Why penalize an entire nation and its economy just because of something like this?

And on the other hand, if Dennis and Duncan had their way, I don’t see France’s economy being seriously hurt if Evian water had higher health standards, or if the market for high-end French wines took a hit because of new labeling requirements. And I don’t see Germany’s economy being hurt very badly by the withdrawal of 70,000 soldiers.

And fourth, on the one hand you have someone making a threat which sounds like it might really happen. I think that if France really, really didn’t want somebody in the EU, they could probably make it really, really difficult for them to get in, if not actually keep them out.

Whereas, on the other hand, as far as I can tell, nobody at all is paying much attention to Dennis and Duncan, let alone drawing up plans to pull out of Germany and start putting labels on French wines.

50

The differance is that the US can speak for its own policy and does not need to consult every individual state to decide what this is.

France OTOH, is not only rude to Romania and Bulgaria, it is also disgracefully rude to every existing member of the EU by taking upon itself the right to make policy statements without consulting those other EU nations first, you can be sure if the UK made such a statement that it would be condemned.

France is keen to keep control of the EU within its reach, and one of its main objections to the expansion of the EU to nations such as Romania, Bulgaria, former Yugslav states, the Czech republic, Poland and others is that the influence of France will inevitably be diluted.

Other EU nations like UK, and Scandinavians among others see this as a good thing, and have given every encouragement for other nations to join.
The UK group see that of former East European nations do join, the Common Agricultural Policy will have to change dramatically, and instead of subsidising back garden, weekender, hobby, and unviable farms, which currently hugely favours France at the massive expense of UK and Germany, these agricultural subsidues will have to be scaled back.
This is not a trivial issue since Romania and Bulgaria and Poland have very large agricultural sectors.

Chirac is betraying his motives, he does not want those other nations to join unless France can somehow engineer things to remain at the centre of the EU.

Chirac is disgusting, he is supposed to be a world statesman, instead he tries to impose his petulant, impotant will on other nations which have every right to have their own national interests at heart.

I expect statesmen to be intelligent enough to realise that they should think twice before making public pronouncements, it is frankly, embarrasing to be associated with such a gauche, pretend sophisticate, whose stuck up nose attitude shows a national arrogance and transparent self serving connivance.
He is exactly the sort of person whose nationalism is the source of many international conflicts.

Chirac should realise that if he is to make such statements about matters such as common EU poilicy, like membership, he should fucking well ask the rest of us in the EU if this is actual EU policy.

51

I would like to see the text in French… (I couldnt find it) because the part where he says those countries should have “shut up” comes out very strongly and I am guessing it isn’t such a harsh term he used…
Just curious…

52

Hilarious! And like all great humour sooo true!. Jeeze! Somebody stop this, you’re killing me! No! I’ll wet myself! Have pity!

I can’t breath! I can’t breath!

Crap puns. The ultimate answer to any argument.

53

America is not above using threats to get countries to support their position. In the case of NZ they are veiled threats but also clear ones.

Charles Swindells, the US Ambassador to NZ speaking last year.
http://www.tln.co.nz/speeches-detail.asp?speechID=78

"Another tangible sign of the strong bonds between our countries was seen last March, when Prime Minister Helen Clark visited Washington and held meetings with President George Bush and senior members of his administration. I sat-in on all of those meetings, and I can tell you that they were constructive, positive and forward-looking. I think both the President and the Prime Minister recognized they could work together on many world issues and concerns. The trip went well, and I have spoken with the President about the importance of a visit to this region.

Being good friends, of course, means we have the confidence to be honest with each other. That means recognizing, with respect, those areas where we differ.
The ban on nuclear-propelled ship visits is one such area, and I raise this because it has recently appeared in the press in various incarnations.

Some people may have thought the issue had gone away. It has not.

Some may now think Washington has resurrected it in a bid to alter New Zealand policy.
It has not.

We respect New Zealand’s right to determine its own security policies. We have never made the nuclear issue a test of our friendship or our cooperation. But at the same time, New Zealand’s anti nuclear policy does place limits on the depth and breadth of our relationship.

Friends and allies are not the same. Being an ally places responsibilities and burdens on both partners, but it also carries with it access and benefits not available to non-allies.

I would think most people would see this as simple common sense, but perhaps
it bears repeating… given the way this issue is so often mis-characterized. Lately, though, it does seem there is more discussion about the issue appearing in the press, and I think this is a healthy
development. "

and again

"I raised the nuclear issue earlier. I should probably mention it once again because of the way it has been associated by some people with the prospect of bilateral trade talks.

The nuclear issue is one element in the strategic
and security relationship between the United States and New Zealand.

This relationship is one of the factors considered when deciding whether or not to commit limited negotiating resources and political capital on a new bilateral trade agreement. But I should stress that there are many other factors, such as economic impact, domestic views and political reactions,
which are thrown into the mix.

Again, this should not be a startling revelation to anyone. Nations will always calculate their interests, looking at all factors, before proceeding with a major decision such as entering into negotiations on a binding, bilateral agreement. "

NZ has always been a friend to the US (and an ally till our nuclear stance was taken) and we have paticipated in all the US’s military involvements, so the language used was not as strong as Chicacs but in IMHO the meaning is the same, shape up or we won’t let you play with us.

54

Here’s an article in french about this issue, including most of what Chirac said.

Concerning the “shut up” part, he refered to countries “qui ont perdu une bonne occasion de se taire”

55

Sorry…I linked to another article about the same issue, but not including Chirac’s comments. This is the correct link

56

calm kiwi: I don’t really see that as similar to Chirac’s statements. First, of course, is the fact that that was the US ambassador, not the US Head of State. He’s not in any position to follow through on any “threats” he might make. At worst, what he said could be construed as a warning of how his boss might react to New Zealand’s policy. More likely, it’s a gentle reminder of how much good NZ gets out of relations with the US, in the hopes they’ll make a few exceptions to their policy, and maybe in return we’ll cut import taxes on flightless yellow birds, or Stormtrooper clones, or whatever it is we buy from New Zealand.

And a blanket ban on nuclear powered ships is a significant drawback to dealing with NZ as a military ally, because most of our warships are nuclear powered, and y’all are an island, after all. If the treaty he’s talking about was something like favorable trade in exchange for ports for our nuclear subs, and your government decides it doesn’t want nuclear subs in its waters, I think that should impact wether or not we should continue the economic portions of our treaty. Mind you, I’m basing this pretty much entirely off of the quotes you gave in your post, so I might be missing some important pieces of context that would alter my perception of things.

57

So how does that translate for us non-francophones?

58

I assume that the guys who translated Chirac’s rant are professionnals and have done a better job than I could ever do. I gather from this thread that some have translated “se taire” by “keep quiet” and others by “shut up”. I would lean toward the first one since “se taire” isn’t particularily offensive, but there’s no way to translate exactly the nuances of a language into another

59

Clairobscur
Since you’re here, what is your take on all this? Does the average French citizen agree or disagree with Chirac’s sentiments? If you prefer not to get involved in this thread, I quite understand.

60

Miller I agree it is not quite the same thing but I think it is similar enough to show that many countries use these tactics not just France. I hasten to add that I am neither pro-France nor anti-US.

btw NZ declared itself nuclear free in 1984 and has had a blanket ban on nuclear powered or armed vessels visiting our waters since that time. At that time we were obviously kicked out of the military treaty with the US, ANZUS ( US, NZ and Australia) despite that we have been involved in military operations with the US many times since then, including the first Iraq conflict and most recently Afganistan. But we still experience criticism from both the US and Australia over the nuclear free policy and trade issues have been used as “bait”.

The US must buy a fair few “flightless yellow birds” because we do about $470 (US) worth of trade a year, but we are greedy and want you to buy some of our sheep too. :smiley: