Our thanks to John, a close observer of the European scene, who has lived, studied, and worked there for years. The subject is the levels of (labor) productivity in the EU, and various countries there, as compared with the US.
Here is John's query:
Friday, February 28, 2003
Query from John: ARE EU WORKERS MORE PRODUCTIVE THAN US WORKERS?
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 01:25 PM PST [ continue ]
Thursday, February 27, 2003
WHAT AILS THE ATLANTIC ALLIANCE AND DIVIDES EUROPE: PART THREE
This is the third of a four-part series on the US global and European roles at present, and how various countries in Europe, in both the western and eastern halves, line up on the desirability of maintaining and supporting those roles or opposing them. It will help, no doubt, to jog the minds of readers here what Parts I and II established. Both unfurled a complex argument. To that extent, a detailed summary seems in order.
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 12:41 AM PST [ continue ]
Monday, February 24, 2003
WHAT AILS THE ATLANTIC ALLIANCE AND DIVIDES EUROPE: PART TWO
Recall that the commentary on this topic, broached on Friday, divides into four parts: 1) the divisions within the EU and NATO, and how the Franco-German duo has led to its isolation; 2) a theoretical analysis of the deeper background causes of the divergent views in the EU and NATO over shared security threats and how to deal with them --- especially the role of the US here; 3) the future of the US-European relationship, given these divisions . . . which require bringing in domestic politics, including shared elite mind-sets, national styles in foreign policy, and the impact of public opinion trends; and 4) secondary or phony explanations of the divisions: Bush's personality and style, oil politics, German and French economic interests in Iraq, the UN's role.
We are now just beginning a plunge into Part 2 --- which requires some knowledge of the underlying dynamics of international relations, especially the enduring nature of power politics with a built-in prospect of war. Be patient here. Even those of you who have studied international relations theory might just profit from some reminders. Visiting scholars, by contrast, could just practice some rapid eye movement down the page, maybe while doing some Zen "uummmmh" meditating sounds . . . nothing else. Thanks to this theoretical background, Part 3 --- a more concretely uncoiled argument again --- will enable us to dig deeper about US-European relations, and the growing divisions in Europe themselves over the US global and European roles, with a few predictions thrown in for the future.
We are now just beginning a plunge into Part 2 --- which requires some knowledge of the underlying dynamics of international relations, especially the enduring nature of power politics with a built-in prospect of war. Be patient here. Even those of you who have studied international relations theory might just profit from some reminders. Visiting scholars, by contrast, could just practice some rapid eye movement down the page, maybe while doing some Zen "uummmmh" meditating sounds . . . nothing else. Thanks to this theoretical background, Part 3 --- a more concretely uncoiled argument again --- will enable us to dig deeper about US-European relations, and the growing divisions in Europe themselves over the US global and European roles, with a few predictions thrown in for the future.
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 04:01 PM PST [ continue ]
Friday, February 21, 2003
WHAT AILS THE ATLANTIC ALLIANCE, AND GENERATES DIVISIONS WITHIN EUROPE ITSELF? A Theoretical Analysis
A good question, no? . . . even if the buggy prof says so himself, for once in his life able to see a major controversy spitting boorishly in his and everyone else's face. When you get down to it --- aside from the Iraqi crisis itself with which the troubles hounding NATO and dividing Europe are bound up, and the terrorist threat to all our countries on both sides of the Atlantic: not to forget North Korean bluster and nuclear swaggering now on hold, it seems, for US diplomacy except for some mid-level talks (it's rumored) --- nothing more central to US national interests these days than our difficulties with some allies, themselves dividing some European countries from others, right?
Right.
Note the subtitle above: a theoretical analysis. So far, there's been little worth while published anywhere that tries to get behind all the Bush-Blair-Chirac-Schroeder-Putin-Blix to-ing and fro-ing, with the Turks now in on the haggling . . . and probe much deeper than the facile observations bantered in the media and even in certain IR circles, whose members should know better.
Right.
Note the subtitle above: a theoretical analysis. So far, there's been little worth while published anywhere that tries to get behind all the Bush-Blair-Chirac-Schroeder-Putin-Blix to-ing and fro-ing, with the Turks now in on the haggling . . . and probe much deeper than the facile observations bantered in the media and even in certain IR circles, whose members should know better.
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 08:42 PM PST [ continue ]
Monday, February 17, 2003
Chirac, Finding France Isolated in a EU Summit Meeting, Blows His Top and Lectures Everybody Else
After flaying Bulgaria, the oldest country in Europe --- founded 18 centuries ago --- for not thinking sufficiently European (read: like the French: read further: toe the line, buster, or you'll see a French veto slapped in face when you try getting into my club), President Jacques Chirac, unaccustomed to being challenged by anybody, journeyed to a EU summit meeting today where Kofi Anan was present. The UN General Secretary urged the EU to come up with a clear unanimous position on Iraq, the only way to avoid war outside the UN with the weasel-like moves of the slippery Saddam. One by one, the EU leaders spoke out; and one by one, it was made clear the French were isolated. Even the German moralists were more flexible. Eventually, at one point, Chirac exploded, started lecturing everybody on the rightness and glories of France, then when others put him down, he retreated and signed the declaration singling out Saddamite Iraq as still in violation of UN resolution 1441.
See "Chirac Fumes at EU Countries Lining Up with the US"
Tony Blair was elated at the end. Jacques Chirac sulked, all the way through the subsequent dinner festivities. And on Tuesday, it got even worse for the stiff-necked sulker. Thirteen East European countries, all candidates for the EU soon, were scolded openly by Chirac --- who seems jumpy as a cat of late, unhinged at finding France isolated with Germany and Belgium in the EU and NATO --- for once more publicly backing the US over Iraq. And once more, ever more testy, Chirac threatened retaliation . . . leading all the 13 either to meet his tirade with scorn or laughter. Chirac Losing It
See "Chirac Fumes at EU Countries Lining Up with the US"
Tony Blair was elated at the end. Jacques Chirac sulked, all the way through the subsequent dinner festivities. And on Tuesday, it got even worse for the stiff-necked sulker. Thirteen East European countries, all candidates for the EU soon, were scolded openly by Chirac --- who seems jumpy as a cat of late, unhinged at finding France isolated with Germany and Belgium in the EU and NATO --- for once more publicly backing the US over Iraq. And once more, ever more testy, Chirac threatened retaliation . . . leading all the 13 either to meet his tirade with scorn or laughter. Chirac Losing It
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 11:52 PM PST [ continue ]
INTERNATIONAL LAW, MORALITY, AND THE ICC: EXCHANGES WITH THREE OTHERS
The three others here are a former student who prefers to remain anonymous. Then Jeff Farrah, a senior political science major at UCSB --- and the head of the campus Republican Party organization, and a doughty critic of politically correct orthodoxy and dogma in all its forms on campus --- and then Michael Jabbra, a recent graduate with a quick, responsive mind, wide reading, and a ranging curiosity. The Buggy Prof thanks all three, whose comments --- just in from the first correspondent, a little dated from Jeff and Michael but fully apropos to the topics raised in John's thoughtful comments about the international law, international morality, and the pros and cons of the new International Criminal Court that the Bush administration has refused to sign, with the backing of Congress.
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 08:35 PM PST [ continue ]
NUTBIN FRENCH ANTI-AMERICANISM RUN WILD --- HYPOCRISY TOO. Or Where Is Inspector CLousseau When We Need Him?
"Good example of lack of French hatred in mainstream media:
Jack Lang, ex-Minister of Culture and ex-Minister of Education, said that 'George Bush and Osama bin Laden were a same enemy' during an interview on French cable news channel LCI.
"Un bon exemple du manque de haine dans les médias de masse en France Jack Lang, ex-Ministre de la Culture et ex-Ministre de l'Education a déclaré sur la chaîne d'information de la télévision cable 'George Bush et Oussama ben Laden, même combat'".
Lang Interview
Ovewrought remarks, of course, this babble of Lang's, which most of us might regard as extravagantly silly and maybe just plain nuts, but that are fully in line with what Jean-Francois Revel observed about the obsessively manical anti-Americanism dominant in French intellectual and political life. (See yesterday's commentary about Revel and l'Obsession antiamericaine). All of which leads us to the topic of the day, involving no one less than Jack Lang, then the Minister of Culture in the Socialist era of President Francois Mitterand in the 1980s. Nothing short, when seen in retrospect, of a determinedly Looney Tune exemplar of wildly uncoiled French anti-Americanism at the highest levels --- and French hypocrisy run rampant, too, in the same circles and elsewhere . . . an episode, as you'll see, of such consummate idiocy and politically correct apeshit that if you didn't trust what you read in the newspapers about it, you'd swear it was really the script for a new Inspector Clousseau film, played hilariously by the ultra-prim, ultra-bumbling Peter Sellers in all previous Clousseau films, but this time starring third-rate ham-actors temporarily out of work in the soft-porn industry.
"Un bon exemple du manque de haine dans les médias de masse en France Jack Lang, ex-Ministre de la Culture et ex-Ministre de l'Education a déclaré sur la chaîne d'information de la télévision cable 'George Bush et Oussama ben Laden, même combat'".
Lang Interview
Ovewrought remarks, of course, this babble of Lang's, which most of us might regard as extravagantly silly and maybe just plain nuts, but that are fully in line with what Jean-Francois Revel observed about the obsessively manical anti-Americanism dominant in French intellectual and political life. (See yesterday's commentary about Revel and l'Obsession antiamericaine). All of which leads us to the topic of the day, involving no one less than Jack Lang, then the Minister of Culture in the Socialist era of President Francois Mitterand in the 1980s. Nothing short, when seen in retrospect, of a determinedly Looney Tune exemplar of wildly uncoiled French anti-Americanism at the highest levels --- and French hypocrisy run rampant, too, in the same circles and elsewhere . . . an episode, as you'll see, of such consummate idiocy and politically correct apeshit that if you didn't trust what you read in the newspapers about it, you'd swear it was really the script for a new Inspector Clousseau film, played hilariously by the ultra-prim, ultra-bumbling Peter Sellers in all previous Clousseau films, but this time starring third-rate ham-actors temporarily out of work in the soft-porn industry.
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 12:55 AM PST [ continue ]
Saturday, February 15, 2003
EUROPEAN OBSEVERS ON FRENCH DUPLICITY AND CHICANERIES AND GERMAN HOTBLOODED MORALIZING AMATEURISM
1. THE ECONOMIST
In "the fragile [diplomatic] landscape over which assorted statesmen have chosen in recent days to clomp with their hobnailed boots. France's president is clomper-in-chief". The Economist
For decades now, The Economist --- a weekly of poliltical, economic, and business commentary of uncommonly high quality and vigorous writing that has a 150 year pedigree behind it --- has championed a close relationship between West Europe and the US and, to that end, taken on almost all the uninformed, ideological or nationalist critics of the United States role in global affairs. That doesn't mean it always backs the US in foreign policy quarrels, not by a long chalk. It does mean that the weekly's writers -- a British editorial board, with local reporters around the world from every country including lots from the US (about 8 pages a week are devoted to our country) --- give short shrift to the shrill left-wing and ultra-nationalist right-wing critics in Europe who, essentially, either are misinformed, or full of pc pieties, or full of nationalist resentments and envy of the US and its success, or like the French a strung-out combo of all this . . . not to forget their cynical Machiavellian efforts, decades old, and maybe stretching all the way back to Napoleon's defeat in 1815 and the loss earlier of Canada and India to Britain, to maneuver their way back to the center of international life.
In "the fragile [diplomatic] landscape over which assorted statesmen have chosen in recent days to clomp with their hobnailed boots. France's president is clomper-in-chief". The Economist
For decades now, The Economist --- a weekly of poliltical, economic, and business commentary of uncommonly high quality and vigorous writing that has a 150 year pedigree behind it --- has championed a close relationship between West Europe and the US and, to that end, taken on almost all the uninformed, ideological or nationalist critics of the United States role in global affairs. That doesn't mean it always backs the US in foreign policy quarrels, not by a long chalk. It does mean that the weekly's writers -- a British editorial board, with local reporters around the world from every country including lots from the US (about 8 pages a week are devoted to our country) --- give short shrift to the shrill left-wing and ultra-nationalist right-wing critics in Europe who, essentially, either are misinformed, or full of pc pieties, or full of nationalist resentments and envy of the US and its success, or like the French a strung-out combo of all this . . . not to forget their cynical Machiavellian efforts, decades old, and maybe stretching all the way back to Napoleon's defeat in 1815 and the loss earlier of Canada and India to Britain, to maneuver their way back to the center of international life.
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 02:57 PM PST [ continue ]
Friday, February 14, 2003
Mark Steyn: "It's Not Really About Saddam"
The inimitable Mark Steyn, a Canadian journalist with long years of service in the EU who now resides in a New Hampshire village from which he reports daily, with a sharp sarcastic edge, on the follies of the world --- especially those lavishly generated daily by EU politically correct types: journalists, intellectuals, politicians, and maneuvering governments like France and the current German one (as well as their equivalents in Canada and the US) --- has a go at the hamfisted self-righteousness of Schroeder's foreign policy, "hotblooded amateurism" carried to extremes according to the Berliner Zeitung . . . and, no less pointedly, how he and the starry-eyed anti-American panderers in his government are being used by the far more experienced, cynically opportunistic French for their own nationalist purposes. As usual, at one and the same time, Steyn's on target and briskly funny.
Keep in mind when you read this that the ONLY EU country --- or for that matter in NATO---to support the new Berlin-Paris axis is tiny Belgium, a country of 10 million racked by almost as many political
Keep in mind when you read this that the ONLY EU country --- or for that matter in NATO---to support the new Berlin-Paris axis is tiny Belgium, a country of 10 million racked by almost as many political
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 09:13 PM PST [ continue ]
From Michael Jabbra: SOME CHALLENGING QUESTIONS FOR LEFTIES
Michael Jabbra, who graduated from UCSB in 2001, is looking into a variety of possible careers in public service. When he was in political science 121 (IR theory) and 129 (The US, Europe, and Asia), he proved to be an ideal student: constantly peppering me during lectures with hard, right-to-the-point queries and comments, while doing the same, it seems, in the discussion sections led by his teaching assistants. Whatever the career Michael eventually chooses, our public service will be the better.
Needless to say, Michael would welcome any replies to these comments of his --- as many of us would.
Dr. Gordon,
Here are some considered thoughts of mine about all ther recent North Korean bluster and nuclear brinksmanship, and the Japanese threat discussed in a BBC article yesterday that Tokyo would pre-emptively attack that country if it believed that the Pyongyang Communists were moving to attack it. The Japanese are right to take seriously that threat and treat it that way. North Korea's several hundred mid-range missiles, after all --- as you have discussed in earlier commentaries sent to your list-server subscribers --- have the range to target all of the Japanese islands. And in 1998 the North Koreans did test fly a missile over one of those islands, much to Japan's dismay.
Needless to say, Michael would welcome any replies to these comments of his --- as many of us would.
Dr. Gordon,
Here are some considered thoughts of mine about all ther recent North Korean bluster and nuclear brinksmanship, and the Japanese threat discussed in a BBC article yesterday that Tokyo would pre-emptively attack that country if it believed that the Pyongyang Communists were moving to attack it. The Japanese are right to take seriously that threat and treat it that way. North Korea's several hundred mid-range missiles, after all --- as you have discussed in earlier commentaries sent to your list-server subscribers --- have the range to target all of the Japanese islands. And in 1998 the North Koreans did test fly a missile over one of those islands, much to Japan's dismay.
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 04:44 PM PST [ continue ]
Thursday, February 13, 2003
GERMANY'S SELF-RIGHTEOUS "NEW WAY IN FOREIGN POLICY" PROVOKES CRITICISMS FROM EVEN SOCIAL DEMOCRATS AND GREENS
While Chancellor Schroeder's Green-Social Democratic government stiffens its rigidly moralizing, self-righteous policy over Iraq --- dammit, chaps! we won't support a war no matter what; to hell with even a UN Security Council vote requiring it! to hell especially with the Americans, the bullying buggers . . . those habitual warmongers --- it has come under an increasing drumfire of criticism from those well placed to gauge the magnitude of the harm the novel German sanctimony and utopianism is causing elsehwere. Harm to its ties to the US. Harm to Germany's reputation in the EU, where six other EU countries -- Italy, Spain, Britain, Portugal, Denmark, and Holland --- have openly backed the Bush administration's Iraqi policy. And major damage to its role in NATO, now faced --- thanks to Gerrman, Belgian, and French connivance not to honor the request of a fellow NATO member for support in a war (unique in NATO's 54 year history) --- with a crisis of far-reaching scope, with 3 East European members of NATO openly siding with the US too . . . not to mention the Turks. And not to forget 10 other East European countries, who have openly backed the Bush policy toward Iraq, 7 of which East Europeans are joining NATO this year/
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 09:25 PM PST [ continue ]
FRENCH ANTI-AMERICANISM: ALSO FRENCH OIL AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL TIES TO SADDAM HUSSEIN
The French -- any more than the Russians -- have never made public what the Iraqi Saddamite police state owes them for their petroleum technologies and investments, their pharmaceutical sales and investments, and their weapons sales, which totaled more than $25 billion before the sanctions began in 1991, and several billion ever since then. The BBC report below uses these figures, without however saying how much is still owed. Nobody knows. And since French TV and radio are state controlled and heavily censured in matters of foreign and security policies --- since, too, the entire French newspaper world from the Communists and Greens on the left to the Gaullist and conservatives on the right is full of jingoist nationalism that reflects the anti-Americanism widespread in public opinion --- nobody seems to know in France or care.
And as we'll see, all this hooks up with obsessive French anti-Americanism --- rife, all-pervasive, as French books recently published on this obsession have noted, something we clarify later here.
And as we'll see, all this hooks up with obsessive French anti-Americanism --- rife, all-pervasive, as French books recently published on this obsession have noted, something we clarify later here.
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 04:59 PM PST [ continue ]
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
EU AND NATO DIVISIONS: A THEORETICAL ACCOUNT
These theoretical observations have been prompted by a brief reply from an Oxford faculty member, who will be replying at greater length in the future.
INTRODUCTION
I understand, S. Take your time in replying. I've also a fair number of competing claimants on my time.
Remember, the purpose of the web site isn't just for me to comment ex cathedral about the world, rather to get some provocative analysis out and engage in exchanges with savvy people. Right now, I know of no online site that does this for IR; and of course, the more informed people know about it, the better.
Right now, I'm leaving open free access to comments. If I start getting silly stuff or insults, then I'll have to ask that the comments be sent to me for a preview. The last thing I'll do is eliminate intelligent criticisms.
THE POWER OF REALISM'S EXPLANATIONS
Agreed: Exciting things going on in NATO, the EU, and the UN, no? . . . all pointing to major disputes of systemic consequences. It's here where realism --- Kenneth Waltz's structural kind -- is by far the
INTRODUCTION
I understand, S. Take your time in replying. I've also a fair number of competing claimants on my time.
Remember, the purpose of the web site isn't just for me to comment ex cathedral about the world, rather to get some provocative analysis out and engage in exchanges with savvy people. Right now, I know of no online site that does this for IR; and of course, the more informed people know about it, the better.
Right now, I'm leaving open free access to comments. If I start getting silly stuff or insults, then I'll have to ask that the comments be sent to me for a preview. The last thing I'll do is eliminate intelligent criticisms.
THE POWER OF REALISM'S EXPLANATIONS
Agreed: Exciting things going on in NATO, the EU, and the UN, no? . . . all pointing to major disputes of systemic consequences. It's here where realism --- Kenneth Waltz's structural kind -- is by far the
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 11:10 AM PST [ continue ]
Tuesday, February 11, 2003
EXCHANGE WITH BRITISH AND ISRAELI SCHOLARS ON BUSH'S FOREIGN POLICY
Several British, Israeli, and European scholars and graduate students are involved in a network of exchanges about the war on terrorism, the Bush policy toward Iraq, and US politics and foreign policy in general. One of them sent me the following link to an article by Paul Krugman, the economist, who writes a regular ed-op commentary for the New York Times. Entitled "The Wimps of War," Krugman the article strikes me as superficial, and little more than a bad-tempered screed . . . exactly the sort of American writing that lots of EU academics, intellectuals, journalists, and left-wing politicians (and in France, Gaullists too) lap up with manic boldeyed glee. "See! See! Even the Yanks in the know can't stomach the Texan-toxin cowboy! Oh, woe is me!, woe is the poor world afflicted with Texan idiocies connected to vast raw power!"
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 08:04 PM PST [ continue ]
EXCHANGE WITH JOHN NEU ABOUT THE US'S EUROPEAN ALLIES, FOR AND AGAINST BUSH'S POLICIES
From John Neu
I'm listening to Christopher Hitchens speak on NPR at a Commonwealth Club debate on the appropriate use of US power, with focus on Iraq. In his summation, Hitchens exhorts the audience to consider the available facts and answer for themselves the question of appropriate action in Iraq, rather than mindlessly deferring that decision to international consensus. Your posts underscore Hitchens' point by exposing the less-than-benevolent motivations of our detractors on Iraq and, accordingly, the danger of deferring an Iraq decision to international consensus. Following Hitchens' point, however, should it matter which European nation supports the US or doesn't? Isn't that just a rebuttal to anti-war advocates based on their own flawed deferral to international consensus? The facts, which you've brilliantly presented in earlier posts, should alone inform any decision on Iraq. I recognize that as a
I'm listening to Christopher Hitchens speak on NPR at a Commonwealth Club debate on the appropriate use of US power, with focus on Iraq. In his summation, Hitchens exhorts the audience to consider the available facts and answer for themselves the question of appropriate action in Iraq, rather than mindlessly deferring that decision to international consensus. Your posts underscore Hitchens' point by exposing the less-than-benevolent motivations of our detractors on Iraq and, accordingly, the danger of deferring an Iraq decision to international consensus. Following Hitchens' point, however, should it matter which European nation supports the US or doesn't? Isn't that just a rebuttal to anti-war advocates based on their own flawed deferral to international consensus? The facts, which you've brilliantly presented in earlier posts, should alone inform any decision on Iraq. I recognize that as a
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 05:44 PM PST [ continue ]
Thursday, February 6, 2003
PART TWO: THE US AND ITS EUROPEAN ALLIES IN THE WAR ON TERRORISM: THE DIVISIONS WITHIN NATO EUROPE
PART TWO
I.THE NATO ALLIES WHO SUPPORT THE US
First off --- at least for now, tomorrow when I'm fresher, something else will start the analysis here --- consider the following table sets out the relevant differences between the US and all other major countries in the world, including the European Union of 15 member-states . . . itself a long way from being a unified politcal entity with its own distinctive and coherent foreign and security policies.
On the contrary, as the analysis in Part One showed, the EU countries are themselves heavily divided on lining up for or against the US policy toward Iraq . . . a pro or con position that extends way beyond the Iraqi controversy to underscore different underlying attitudes in and mass elite circles ---in France right across the political spectrum with widespread popular support: in Germany, with more noticeable divisions between Christian Democrats and Social Democrats and Greens, but with German opinion increasingly anti-American and lurching toward utopian and tiresome self-righteousness ("the German way") and neutrality within NATO--- and Britain, Italy, and Spain far more attached to the US alliance and close relations with this country. As for the East European members of NATO --- not yet in the EU, but likely to be there in 3-5 years --- Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary line up closely with the US on almost all issues; and that's the case of almost all the other new members in the NATO alliance in East Europe that will be joining the alliance this year, including Bulgaria and Rumania and the Baltic States.
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 12:34 AM PST [ continue ]
Monday, February 3, 2003
THE US AND ITS EUROPEAN ALLIES IN THE WAR ON TERRORISM: THE DIVISIONS WITHIN NATO EUROPE
PART ONE
Part Two Tomorrow
I.THE EUROPEANS AT SIXES AND SEVENS
Actually, a more accurate sub-title here would be "The European Allies of the US at Fives and Nines," the exact number of how they've lined up so far, explicitly, in supporting or opposing the US-led campaign to topple Saddam Hussein's regime as part of the wider war against terrorism. Eight is the exact number of NATO allies on that continent that signed an explicit declaration last week supporting President Bush's position: Britain, Italy, and Spain --- the former two roughly 60 million in population each, Spain 40 million --- plus Denmark and Portugal as the other EU members (both less than 10 million), and in East Europe Poland (40 million) and Hungary and the Czech Republic . . . about the size of Denmark and Portugal. Nothing too surprising here. As we've repeatedly noted over the last several months on our listserver, it's journalistic sloppiness to say that the US has been at odds with its European allies. If anything, the only surprise about that declaration was the failure of Holland to sign. Its government, after all, officially went on record last fall --- backed by a parliamentary resolution --- supporting the US coercive diplomacy aimed at Saddam's brutal regime and its weapons of mass destruction programs, nuclear, chemical, and biological . . . to the point that the Dutch resolution called for going to war with the US even without UN Security Council approval.
What explains the lack of a Dutch signature last week? According to one report in the New York Times today, Safire the French and
Posted by Michael Gordon @ 09:23 PM PST [ continue ]