French foreign policy in the EE - a real change or an illusion ?

[cegorach]

Can you expand that a bit ?

One word statement hardly gives anything to think about.

Why do you think so ?

For one it is a waste of resources to create a network of contacts with several states with at least a number of high rank governmental visits so it has to be justified if it is only an illusion, a smokecourtain for something more important.

[Tristuskhan]

Sorry, it's a common answer among the french about almost everything Sarkö promises.


What our president says is illusion. Not real change. He wants to be considered as the new accelerator in european relations?
Well he promised to be the new accelerator in the building of fair and respectuous and virtuous relationship with african states, treating our former colonies as loyal partners for enhancement of democracy. No more of this feudal links with african satraps! Guess what happened? The first foreign leader to visit him one year ago was... Omar Bongo, Miss Africa since the sixties. And then he sold a nuclear power plant to Mr Khadafi, who has never backed any form of terrorism and is of course, a marvelous democrat. Illusion...

And it's been the same about every topic this last year. Except the tax cuts for the Upper (and I mean Upper, those who don't NEED more money) class, it is the SINGLE part of his program he applied.

Sarkozy's projects? Illusion.

[Brenus]

Sarkozy was and is the master of the Verb. In fact he is the illustration of the Bible first sentence “At the beginning was the Verb”, “Au début fut le Verbe”.
As Minister of Interior, he was always the fastest to go in front of the camera, claiming for result of others, with harsh comments but no action. From the police to Firemen Services he made a lot of promises which he failed to implement. It was not really is problem the media don’t do follow-up.
I wrote on this site he was the “Back to the Past”, and unfortunately, I was right. Sarkozy give back to the Rich what belong to the poor.
For the NATO reintegration, to the systematic destruction and pillaging of 100 years of painful and sometimes bloody social conquests and freedom, he just brings France back to the 19th Century society. His systematic alignment on the worst US policy (and that is why is going with Poland –remember the new Europe- to the recognition of Kosovo, sending troops in Afghanistan (he still hesitates about Iraq I supposed) is part of his ultra-conservative attitude.

[cegorach]

I wrote on this site he was the “Back to the Past”, and unfortunately, I was right. Sarkozy give back to the Rich what belong to the poor.
For the NATO reintegration, to the systematic destruction and pillaging of 100 years of painful and sometimes bloody social conquests and freedom, he just brings France back to the 19th Century society. His systematic alignment on the worst US policy (and that is why is going with Poland –remember the new Europe- to the recognition of Kosovo, sending troops in Afghanistan (he still hesitates about Iraq I supposed) is part of his ultra-conservative attitude.

So do you think it is the only reason - to 'be on the same side' as the USA ?

Perhaps there are other issues, ideas or plans too ?

I agree (even if I am not expert here) that he is able to claim others' achievemtns as his own or declare something which is obviously not true just to gain/regain some popular support - the defeat with Meditterrean Union declared as a success is a good example.


@Tristuskhan

What our president says is illusion. Not real change. He wants to be considered as the new accelerator in european relations?
Well he promised to be the new accelerator in the building of fair and respectuous and virtuous relationship with african states, treating our former colonies as loyal partners for enhancement of democracy. No more of this feudal links with african satraps! Guess what happened? The first foreign leader to visit him one year ago was... Omar Bongo, Miss Africa since the sixties. And then he sold a nuclear power plant to Mr Khadafi, who has never backed any form of terrorism and is of course, a marvelous democrat. Illusion...

And it's been the same about every topic this last year. Except the tax cuts for the Upper (and I mean Upper, those who don't NEED more money) class, it is the SINGLE part of his program he applied.

Sarkozy's projects? Illusion.

Thank you for the explanation.

In a way - as far as my limited knowledge about his policy allows me - he is quite like our previous government ( 'double trouble' - or 'twins') i.e. words to gain support followed by lack of activity or simple 'legal impossibilism' i.e. proposals which breach international treaties and violate the constitution so impossible to implement, but proposed only to gain support and play himself as a die-hard reformer who cannot do anything because 'others' stop him.

Still it looks awfully expensive just for propaganda.
After all such high ranking governmental visits (in Poland it would be the highest ranking meeting with a French envoys ever) according to the protocol, tradition and all known customs are supposed to mean something.
If after such an impressive show of goodwill results will be none existent French reputation will reach new lows.

If the entire thing is just for show the cost for France will be very high - added to rather bad reputation in this part of europe it would mean France falling to the second row in the EU.

I can hardly believe anyone could risk such a defeat.

[Tristuskhan]

So do you think it is the only reason - to 'be on the same side' as the USA ?

He has a very strong ideological atlantism, and has a tendancy to stick to the US positions whatever they are, so if not the only, it's one one the major reasons of his current attitudes.

If the entire thing is just for show the cost for France will be very high

And the man does not give a damn... he's the first french president with such disregard for France. It's becoming so obvious that it beginning to create much (inconclusive) popular boredom.

I can hardly believe anyone could risk such a defeat.

You bet?

[cegorach]

He has a very strong ideological atlantism, and has a tendancy to stick to the US positions whatever they are, so if not the only, it's one one the major reasons of his current attitudes.

And the man does not give a damn... he's the first french president with such disregard for France. It's becoming so obvious that it beginning to create much (inconclusive) popular boredom.

Even so experienced polit... I have just realised we had equally experienced politician in power only 8 months ago his 'experince' translated into obsessions, rudeness and nedless quarells...

So it is only boredom the result of this time ? Is there apathy or anger too ? Anger can be quite positive in the long run - I am thinking about my country where voters' anger removed populists from the parliament and changed the government (populists, conservative-right and left are almost destroyed now with centrist conservative-liberals in power).

I wonder, though who could possibly gain from such feeling in France ? Any candidates ?

You bet?

I would better not.

'Never underestimate stupidity' even if it is suicidal one.

Still I must say I had some expectations about the new French government... at least in theory I shuld give them some time...

[Tristuskhan]

Even so experienced polit... I have just realised we had equally experienced politician in power only 8 months ago his 'experince' translated into obsessions, rudeness and nedless quarells...


Divide and rule is something Sarko understands well. And France is an easy -to -divide place. Atavism.

So it is only boredom the result of this time ? Is there apathy or anger too ?

Maybe others could answer your question better than I do since I live in a quite remote place and do not know what it is to feels in my flesh Sarkozy's daily effects, especially the omnipresent police in those the urban areas I avoid so much.


I wonder, though who could possibly gain from such feeling in France ? Any candidates ?


Bayrou? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayrou The only name that comes to my mind, even if he is not from my political chapel. Once he gets rid of his "there is too much State" stance (that dogma is a bore for us french) he could be the one. But he has almost no corporate backing (Sarkozy spends his spare time buying Bayrou's former followers). Buying, as I tell you.
Apart of him i see few proper candidates: Besançenot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besancenot is a fair man leading an unfair party, unable to rule an united "true" left by itself despite the strong potential of this left wing (25%?).

Corinne Lepage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinne_Lepage she's the best and as a consequence does not play an active rule.

And don't forget this old one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marie_Le_Pen because Sarkozy (despite his claims) has not killed this filthy character


I would better not.

'Never underestimate stupidity' even if it is suicidal one.


Sit down, have a beer and watch the show!

Still I must say I had some expectations about the new French government... at least in theory I shuld give them some time...

Time HE spends visiting dictators or resting on his friend's yachts.


Now everything I say can be described as "severely biased" as I'm some kind of left-leaner.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Nice thread, Cegorach. But yesterday was a French public holiday. Bad timing for a Frenchie thread. Brenus and Tristus were no doubt busy waving their red flags and shouting anti-bling-bling slogans in the streets.
Meneldil and Caernafan don't post very regularly. Honourary Frenchman Adrian has shared his 2 cents already.

Is that a part of a new French strategy in the EU with features such as the '6 state EU conclave' (France, the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland) ?

Not really, no. Poland is a big member state, indeed, in the same league as Spain. As such, relations with Poland deserve close attention.
But these six share little in common. Inner circles within the EU, closer ties between members, are not based on size in the EU, but on mutual interest and shared values between groups of members. So no, there is no common policy of these six. Relations between them vary. Two things to bear in mind: Merkel and Sarkozy absolutely hate each other. Not since Mitterand and Kohl have relations been this bad on a personal level between a German chancellor and a French président. On a personal level, Sarko is of course completely intolerable. Merkel is more sensitive to this than other world leaders and one can't blame her.
The near symbiotic French-German axis is still solid, if not as strong as it has been for decades. Mutual necessity for it is waning, especially for Germany.

The other thing is, that relations between Poland and the EU have been normalised since Tusk took over last October. He started relations with the other member states afresh, quickly travelled to France a few months ago as well. So a high-profile French-Polish summit was simply in the making. When one medium-sized European state and one Global Superpower are in single union, the need for a well-defined policy vis-à-vis each other is simply there. And when circumstance prevented it in recent years, both countries changed governments in the last twelve months. The time is simply right.

Do you think it is a French answer to latest German move which 'employed' EE members, especially Poland and Bulgaria to counter Sarkozy's idea of this 'Mediterrean Union' ?

No, it has little to do with the Med Union or with any East European resistance against it. It was Germany and the UK who shot the Med Union to pieces. They told Sarkozy to go fait l'amour with himself. As to any reservations of the Eastern Europe members, I am afraid to inform you, nobody gave a to eh, they were carefully taken into account.

As to French East European policy in general: France is always busy with grand new plans and grand new plans are always French. Call diplomacy a national sport. France is a country with a vocation, with a mission to fullfill: to spread democracy, human rights and the values of the Republic. They will be spread, either with boots on the march, or with the sharpness of our minds as a bajonet. Paris was granted the right by God to assume a special place in Europe and lead you all. These plans are both real and very transient at the same time. Circumstance, opportunism and a certain inclination for the grand gesture at the expense of solid realism mean these plans can be more temporary than they were originally intended.

This is the deepest current in French European policy. At the next level, circumstance simply prevented an all-ecompassing French EE policy in recent years.
The big policy was to incorporate central Europe into the EU. This came to fruition in 2004. (As an aside: Louis was celebrating in Budapest when it joined. Great day, great festivities, and me drunk, singing 'Alle Menschen werden Brüder' on the shore of the Donau. Ah, bliss.)
Then, France was dormant in the East. Chirac was too old in general, the EU referendum was lost, Poland was ruled by the evil twins, New Europe was too busy liberating Iraq, there was a revolution in the Ukraine, the Russian menace wasn't properly understood by Europe, etc. So it took a few years to return and formulate a EE policy. In a way, the question is not why does France suddenly have an EE policy, the question is, why did she lack one for a few years.

To the nature of the new EE policy, I don't know exactly what you want to discuss, you touch on so many subjects: Ukraine in the EU, EU expansion in the former Soviet Union in general, French-Polish relations, French-German relations, the Mediterranean Union, the balance / conflict between NATO and EU expansion in the East, Russia and the EU, temprorary vesus deep currents in French foreign policy, the status of Sarkozy's presidency. I'd love to discuss any of these, or any connection between them, but not all at the same time. I wouldn't know where to begin and especially where to end. That I am not well versed in each and every one of these subjects - slanderous tongues would say: utterly clueless - has, of course, nothing to do with me not expanding on them here. But if you could please narrow it down a bit...?

If the entire thing is just for show the cost for France will be very high - added to rather bad reputation in this part of europe it would mean France falling to the second row in the EU.

Et mon cul, c'est du poulet?

Sink yer teeth into this:
QUOTE=Cego: Personally I have nothing against any of those possibilities as long as it will serve in bringing Ukraine, Belorus and some others to the NATO and the EU in the future so helping our own plans in this area of Europe.

That Poland's new grand plan? Belarus in the EU? That others need to support at the risk of obsolencence? Four years ago, your current foreign minister ran crying to the Americans, begging and pleading them to add Belarus as a fourth member to the axis of evil. Now, apparantly his great plan is to have Belarus join both the EU and NATO...

Was it not this same Sikorski too who wrote that 'France and Germany risk being completely disqualified as serious members of the international community when Iraq's WMDs turned up?'
Somebody ask him yet what the non-presence of WMD's means then, to 'the status as serious members of the international community' for those who insisted blind European faith in the neocons was the way to go?

So I guess the pattern is:
- Poland warning France that she risks second-rate status if France doesn't believe in Santa Claus WMD's in Iraq,
- Poland warning France that she risks second-rate status if France doesn't add Belarus to the Axis of Evil,
- And now, p'tite Pologne warning la France éternelle that she risks second-rate status if, instead, she doesn't make Belarus a member of the EU?

Maybe Poland really shouldn't waste all those excellent opportunities to remain silent...

Moscou a déjà fait connaître son hostilité à la démarche française visant à arrimer l'Ukraine à l'Europe. C'est sans doute l'une des raisons pour lesquelles la tentative de l'Elysée n'a fait l'objet d'aucune annonce publique.

Sod Moscow. The days of the Soviet Union must be over. Free peoples can decide their own destinies, and it is about time the EU stopped being so timid towards Russia. We ought to build a democratic Europe with Moscow, or despite Moscow.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Bayrou? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayrou The only name that comes to my mind, even if he is not from my political chapel. Once he gets rid of his "there is too much State" stance (that dogma is a bore for us french) he could be the one. But he has almost no corporate backing (Sarkozy spends his spare time buying Bayrou's former followers). Buying, as I tell you.

I supported Bayrou. I still like him, a lot. But it is the Sarko show now. I thoroughly despise the man Sarko, but I support his ideas, and I love his provocations. The place of Bayrou is to be a voice of moderation, for which he has my support and respect.

But for now, I want upheaval, shock and provocation. Donc, vive le bling-bling! Et vive la Sarkaille!

And Brenus:
1968 was forty years ago. To be a radical in France nowadays means to be a conservative. Sarkozy is the true heir of '68.

[cegorach]

Nice thread, Cegorach. But yesterday was a French public holiday. Bad timing for a Frenchie thread. Brenus and Tristus were no doubt busy waving their red flags and shouting anti-bling-bling slogans in the streets.

It was a public holiday in Poland too and today is the National Holiday - though I don't mind a good quarell discussion

Not really, no. Poland is a big member state, indeed, in the same league as Spain. As such, relations with Poland deserve close attention.
But these six share little in common. Inner circles within the EU, closer ties between members, are not based on size in the EU, but on mutual interest and shared values between groups of members. So no, there is no common policy of these six.

Well it was Sarkozy who proposed to create such leadership group - I am just repeating what he said.

No, it has little to do with the Med Union or with any East European resistance against it. It was Germany and the UK who shot the Med Union to pieces. They told Sarkozy to go fait l'amour with himself. As to any reservations of the Eastern Europe members, I am afraid to inform you, nobody gave a to eh, they were carefully taken into account.

I know that. But Merkel asked for example Tusk to nail the coffin of the idea which he did gladly (Bulgaria did the same for the Balcans).
I thought he could try to create a new bridge of contacts running directly above Mrs.Merkel.
I have no illusion about the strenght of my country, the question is if we can exploit what we can and here is the time when the question appears if Sarkozy is going to try to 'play us' too.
After all it is all very dynamic, there are no solid camps and there are no vassal states supposed to do something for someone.

As to French East European policy in general: France is always busy with grand new plans and grand new plans are always French. Call diplomacy a national sport. France is a country with a vocation, with a mission to fullfill: to spread democracy, human rights and the values of the Republic. They will be spread, either with boots on the march, or with the sharpness of our minds as a bajonet. Paris was granted the right by God to assume a special place in Europe and lead you all. These plans are both real and very transient at the same time. Circumstance, opportunism and a certain inclination for the grand gesture at the expense of solid realism mean these plans can be more temporary than they were originally intended.

Hmmm so we have a problem since Poland sees itself in very much the same way, though it is in general less diplomacy and more direct actions, sometimes too rush, though.

The big policy was to incorporate central Europe into the EU. This came to fruition in 2004. (As an aside: Louis was celebrating in Budapest when it joined. Great day, great festivities, and me drunk, singing 'Alle Menschen werden Brüder' on the shore of the Donau. Ah, bliss.)
Then, France was dormant in the East. Chirac was too old in general, the EU referendum was lost, Poland was ruled by the evil twins, New Europe was too busy liberating Iraq, there was a revolution in the Ukraine, the Russian menace wasn't properly understood by Europe, etc. So it took a few years to return and formulate a EE policy. In a way, the question is not why does France suddenly have an EE policy, the question is, why did she lack one for a few years.

Disagree with the first (2003-2004 was before the elections of 2005), agree with the last.

To the nature of the new EE policy, I don't know exactly what you want to discuss, you touch on so many subjects: Ukraine in the EU, EU expansion in the former Soviet Union in general, French-Polish relations, French-German relations, the Mediterranean Union, the balance / conflict between NATO and EU expansion in the East, Russia and the EU, temprorary vesus deep currents in French foreign policy, the status of Sarkozy's presidency. I'd love to discuss any of these, or any connection between them, but not all at the same time. I wouldn't know where to begin and especially where to end. That I am not well versed in each and every one of these subjects - slanderous tongues would say: utterly clueless - has, of course, nothing to do with me not expanding on them here. But if you could please narrow it down a bit...?

Just the two. I am more interested why this particular attempt is being made - is there a deeper plan or is that temporary and perhaps serving such plans as the Med Union - which adds the question if it really is dead and buried or just closed in a coffin ?
To make it simple - it is about technology, means rather than ideas.

That Poland's new grand plan? Belarus in the EU? That others need to support at the risk of obsolencence? Four years ago, your current foreign minister ran crying to the Americans, begging and pleading them to add Belarus as a fourth member to the axis of evil. Now, apparantly his great plan is to have Belarus join both the EU and NATO...

He, he. It is nothing new, in fact it is older than Poland itself, I mean the modern state of Poland.
The plan is continued with much effort since mid XIXth century.
Obviously taking someone to the EU and the NATO is just the most modern version of the grand design, but honestly who cares if it is the EU or some grand central-eastern european union ( e.g. resurected Commonwealth from XIXth cent. or Międzymorze federation from the interbellum) - the results are supposed to be the same : a zone of security and democratic order with as much of the former Russian Empire or Soviet Union as possible.

Actually it sems the only idea which is followed by our legal authorities without a break, except the communists (obviously, but it was by the emigree - see Free Europe, Paris 'Kultura' society) and the bloody endeks and neoendeks (fortunatelly in power for a few years of interbellum only - before 1926).

Was it not this same Sikorski too who wrote that 'France and Germany risk being completely disqualified as serious members of the international community when Iraq's WMDs turned up?'
Somebody ask him yet what the non-presence of WMD's means then, to 'the status as serious members of the international community' for those who insisted blind European faith in the neocons was the way to go?

Tauche (sp ?). It has nothing to do with any particular person or especially with the existence of WMD anywhere (probably except Belorus or Ukraine). The designers are already dead and include Adam Czartoryski ( Hotel Lambert XIXth century), Józef Piłsudski, Jerzy Giedroyć ( Paris 'Kultura') and John Paul II (in much expanded version, but still from the same tradition and the same set of core values) among others of course.
Take an hour to research it and you will see it is something which lasts for almost two centuries.

If your France has the revolution inspired drive to do something, believe me others have too and perhaps more solid because it survived the utter destruction of the state - hardly such a laughing matter.


Besides try to see the difference between the current government of the state called now Belorus and its people - Belorus or anyone else who would possibly count from the area (so Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, Belorus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) - temporal situation is nothing to the changes which can and will happen eventually.


Everyone has its own interests and players are played all the time - it is a question what interest and from what point we are watching it developing.


So for example if the Med Union is supposed to rise again as a healthy creature or as a rotting zombie it really doesn't matter as long as our interests will be served. Obviously right now it is a danger, even if only rather a noisy distraction - it could very much stop Ukraine from accessing the NATO and especially the EU for decades or forever so for now no support from us.

From someone elses point of view it can be entirely different, but for us safe, independent (even from us, but at least more friendly and non-Russian) and democratic (as much as possible) east is the priority.
In the long term it might bring stable democracy to Russia itself, even if it will take decades.

I will be damned if the words 'For our and your freedom' doesn't mean anything - it is not a pose, but the core of my national identity and I will rather shoot myself than see it buried or corrupted, thank you.


After it is finished we can think about other things, but after some break I hope - it would be nice to finally have nothing to do in the east - blissfull silence after over 500 years of hostility - time for good coffee, skiing in Alps or even swimming with bloody dolphins in Fiji, but until that the usual scheming and intrigues.



A final word - Piłsudski once said 'If you have nothing else to break the wall even your own head should be used' - thankfully we have more to our disposal , the difference between current and previous government is that they usually while we usually or even should - if we can't do so alone.
In general whatever it takes.

[Brenus]

“Brenus and Tristus were no doubt busy waving their red flags and shouting anti-bling-bling slogans in the streets” In England?
I actually just enjoy the absolute pleasure of “je l’avais bien dit”. The total failure in promises, excepted the one to the give the money to the rich, from Sarkozy is a music for my ears (remember Baldur’s gate, the main shop…)…

“1968 was forty years ago. To be a radical in France nowadays means to be a conservative.” I was 9 years old in 1968. My years of politic are more the 75s’ (Action Direct and Fraction Armée Rouge) than the “Flower Power”…

“Sarkozy is the true heir of '68”: In which direction? It is the post 68 spirit. 68 was against Female Discrimination, the right of the ownership of their bodies, the equality of rights, the concept that Humanity is one etc.
Then from this came from Freedom of Myself to what Sarkozy incarnates today: Selfishness, "m’as-tu vu", and all “promises involve only the ones who believe them”. Nothing more than emptness...