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

[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.