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

[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...

[cegorach]

“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”…

Rote Armee Fraktion ?

I understand that such radicals have certain appeal to some people, but personally I wouln't ever move beyound blowing up Lenin's monuments if I lived in the 1970s, certainly not people.

International idealist terrorist coalition, thank you very much. No wonder that during the debates between our left wing '68' dissidents (like Adam Michnik) and those from France it came up we indeed are poles apart...

[KrooK]

My point of view is different than your Cegorach.

I don't think Poland and France needs better relationship now. Since Napoleon all alliances cause big damage in Poland and strenghtened France. Situation like today is good - France is on West, we on Easy and everyone is happy where he is. As Finn president told "don't look for enemies close and allies far away". Maybe its strange - according to me our medium sized country don't need good relation with "superpower" but...
I have no doubts - now we are much weaker than France but we have opportunities and if there will be no next world war into next 10 years, we will be stronger and stronger. I don't think France has similar situation.
So that best would be build Kingdom of Heaven on our own.

[cegorach]

I don't get it. It is obvious that France is in the western part of the continent, unless it annexes Germany which is at least unlikely.

Besides I don't see any way around the problem. If we play it well France will give us support in questions we are interested in. Germany and probably the UK are easier to convince, but only really overwhelming support can work well in certain areas such as energy security or security in general.

We are in no situation when we either have to rely solely on France (thanks God !) or it is somehow crucial to our safety (thanks again), but we need to play on all fronts - double, tripple guarantees are the only way to give us at least 50 years of relative safety, although I hope for more.

Sorry mate, but France can play a very important part in the game we need to play - we are not Switzerland, Sweden or Andorra, we are Poland a country which either is successfull or it disappears because there is no way we can relocate to a safe corner of the Earth if there is any such place anymore.

So we either gain French support or we will have to create so complicated schemes to acheve something that everything qill fall apart with any really minute change or incident.
See how it is now - from EU states only three small Baltic states have similar attitude for sure, but they lack long term vision and are too small. Czechs are fine, but you never know anything for sure with them - in critical moment they can as well fortify in Prague and play political Szwejk. Slovakia is a mess again. Our centuries old friends Hungarians are now sadly between a Russian trojan horse and a really hesitant ally and center-righ-populist Fidesz opposition is just like our imbeciles from PiS. Germany have their own plans and their hesitation with Ukraine is well known even with Merkel. They simply have other priorities than we, though it is not too difficult to sway their opinion it will never be the same as ours. Besides it can get worse if their sado-masochistic love affair with Russia starts anew with a second Schroder in power one day.
Others from eastern-central Europe are either not interested (Slovenia), limited to Balcans in their interests (future members such as Croatia), with open pro-Russian leanings (Bulgaria, Greece) or without sufficient strenght, even if quite enthusiastic (Romania). Scandinavians are fine, but hardly useful in certain projects and we can simply ignore most of the western medium and small powers for their lack of interest (Spain) or really sad state of their politics (Italy, possibly Belgium).
So we get the Uk which will always be a bit away from the continent and the self-centred French.

Of course France is anything but a perfect ally, to be honest they are indeed terrible - pompous, arrogant, treating others as half-barbarians who just discovered forks (probably when in France) and in general thinking about themselves as the center of all things, but it is either a shifting, ever changing and fragile construct which makes a house of cards a concrete bunker in comparison or we will need to gain their support from time to time.

So I say we do much to accomodate them, to make them feel happy - tell them how we love their cousine, how wonderful their language is, how much we poor and modest 'barbarians' can learn from them, frak, we can even tell them how we appreciate the great and long lasting Polish Franco-Polish (putting the right words in the order they could enjoy the most) or call Maria Curie-Skłodowska, Marie Curie from time to time.
Indeed even if our diplomacy needs to recall Lassalle's poem about Pol... Franco-Polish friendship every time it is nowhere we lose anything important as long as we stick to the principles, do not sacrifice our plans and gain their support when we need it.





BTW I really like French language and literature - no disrespect here.



P.S. Totally disagree about Napoleon. For centuries it was the only time when our interests were virtually the same as those of France. Remember that in 1797-1807 even the word Poland was officially banned after the partition agreement and the cursed trinity could be only demolished by an outsider with too much energy and ambition who could only be the Corsican. Despite Santo Domingo, Żeromski's "Popioły" and Vistula Legion nothing changes that the only rational outcome of Napoleon's conquest would be fully ressurected Rzeczpospolita with addition of Code Civil which was an excellent work too.
That is why we lost so much in 1812, 1813, 1814 and 1815 , but at least after 1815 nobody could entirely ignore us anymore, even if it meant open attempts to annihilate us in decades after 1864.


P.S 2.
I suggest to change the sign. I don't like simplified and provocative way this man uses in his biased crusade - doing much harm to the question I care so much and inspiring extremists, BUT this way you are making this persona an authority, a recommended source - in most cases the only one. With predictable and utterly distasteful results.

[Tribesman]

P.S 2.
I suggest to change the sign.

I suggest he keeps the sign cegroach , it says a hell of a lot about him and his "mind"set