Germany turns down Sarkozy nuke offer

[Nono]

The German news magazine Der Spiegel is reporting in this week's edition that Nicolas Sarkozy proposed last Monday to German chancellor Angela Merkel that Germany cosy up under France's nuclear umbrella and share in the launch-decision process. The Germans refused, the magazine reports, on the grounds that non-possession of nuclear weapons is one of the pillars of Germany's post-war defence posture.

Anyway, whaddya know? Do I detect a slight fade in Anglo-Saxon crowing over Sarkozy's election?

[bishop]

i wonder if there's any rhyme or reason to sarkozy's policies... he's busting his budgets (and pressuring the ECB to keep rates low to permit him to borrow more), building a nuclear reactor for/in lybia, etc...

what was the rationale for him wanting to include germany under their nuclear umbrella?

(and, do you have a source to link to?)

[Nono]

When I posted it I couldn't find any source in English. In the meantime there's this: Sarkozy wants German role in nuclear defence: report

As you can see, the article offers little illumination, other than that the countries are right next door to each other. But then I don't see the US offering Ottawa or Mexico City a chance to put their finger on the button.:)

So it beats the hell out of me too.

[Milton Bradley]

Peculiar.


Obviously theres not a lot of chatter about over here either.


( I suspect that's the main reason the European threads never take off. )

[Nono]

Quote by: Milton European threads never take off.

So true -- Here's why: Is Belgium disappearing? - the Flemish would like it.

[bishop]

what's the real significance of including germany under france's nuclear umbrella anyway? as it is, all of western europe is already included under a u.s. nuclear umbrella.

Arms Control Association: Arms Control Today: Belgium, Germany Question U.S. Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Europe
WISE - Nuclear issues information service

the french have been extending this offer to the germans for over 10 years now, and have been met with the same response. as the 2nd article i linked states:

In fact, the European defence establishment remains rather pessimistic. The third surprise announcement - after testing resumption and the nuclear umbrella offer - orchestrated by the French government over the last few months is its potential reintegration into NATO's military command structure. Jacques Baumel, president of the defence commission of WEU and vice-president of the French National Assembly's defence commission, commented that France's comeback into NATO - France left the integrated command in 1966, but stayed a member of NATO - "is an important turning point of our strategy, the end of a certain idea of France and the sad consequence of the European's incapability to create a real European defence outside of NATO".5 What does not work outside NATO shall work from inside?

the refusal could be interpreted as an example of how the EU member states aren't as closely allied as they hoped they would be. and economically speaking, none of the major members seem to be paying much attention to their stability and growth pact - another example of the loose affiliation between member nations.

[Nono]

Quote by: bishop the refusal could be interpreted as an example of how the EU member states aren't as closely allied as they hoped they would be.

Or it could be much more justifiably interpreted as Germany -- for notorious historical reasons -- wishing to have no part in weapons of mass destruction. (And bushbots, kindly refrain from pointing out the Saddam connection -- that wasn't government policy.)

If the French have been offering it for 10 years, then it is by now a ritual gesture. Probably they realized from the beginning that the Germans would refuse, but knew it would look neighbourly like.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Nono So true -- Here's why: Is Belgium disappearing? - the Flemish would like it.

What, shall I post absolutely absent of my own experience?

[Nono]

What do you mean? Since you live in the US you have no "experience"?

I post on Latin America, say, without ever having been there. It's a matter of curiosity and being aware of the limits of one's own direct knowledge.

But you know how it is in the US -- one lives at the Hub of the Universe and everything else is a sideshow. (Not you, personally, Milton. I know you're an exception.)

[bishop]

heh.. if you see something very debatable about this story, though, please let us know. doesn't seem to be anything that makes any difference to any country, save france.

[Nono]

Well I half-expected the francophobe crowd to throw a major fit.
That would have made for a debate, as usual.

[bishop]

man... you can't just post up a story, and criticize everyone else for not having anything to say (solely because it's a european story)... that's a bit disingenuous.

[Nono]

You'll search my posts in vain for criticism. I simply observed (as in: "the current temperature is...") that Americans -- with a few exceptions -- just aren't interested in the rest of the world.*

I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of launching this thread if I didn't think there was some chance of getting a debate going. I merely figured the best chance lay in francophobe salivation at the tone of the bell.

* You would have thought -- and here I am criticizing -- that 911 would have suggested to them that maybe there's a connection. But no.

[Nono]

By the way, one shining exception would have to be James Carroll. Here, in the Boston Globe, he looks, from a slightly different angle, at basically the same thing:

(...) The US conflagration in the oil well of the globe was ignited without attention to history, which is why it flares out of control. But that war, fought by GIs, mercenaries, and proxies, will continue indefinitely, because, under the martial law that implicitly governs the United States, history can never be invoked except for its celebrity value — not even history in the making. Therefore, it is certain that the staggering failures of Washington’s current policy, so evident today, will be forgotten tomorrow, even as that policy is reaffirmed.(...)

The Peril of Valuing Celebrity Over History - CommonDreams.org

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Nono Well I half-expected the francophobe crowd to throw a major fit. That would have made for a debate, as usual.

a fit over what? Sarkozy shared a vacation with bush, that's more than most americans would do at this point. He's obviously not Charles de Gualle.

[Nono]

Man, all ya hafta do is utter the word "France" and they start salivating and barking. They can't even spell de Gaulle ...

[Gods_Mercenary]

Damn it, I have enough trouble spelling english words, (gualle, you gotta be kidding me it doesn't even look right, my spelling in french has deteriorated more than I'd thought)

[BobbyO]

Quote by: Nono You'll search my posts in vain for criticism. I simply observed (as in: "the current temperature is...") that Americans -- with a few exceptions -- just aren't interested in the rest of the world.* * You would have thought -- and here I am criticizing -- that 911 would have suggested to them that maybe there's a connection. But no.

This has frequently been a rather irrational crticism of the USA by non-Americans. Its probably true to a degree. Americans are at heart isolationists. The argument has been that problems over there have a way of sucking in the USA. So it might as well be stopped early.

But then non-Americans tend to have an almost schizophrenic view of the issue:
1. United States is the problem.
2. United States is the solution.
This has to do with the frequent inability of others to solve their own problems, then seeking out the USA for assistance, BUT ON THEIR OWN TERMS. When those terms are not met, the resentment grows, and results in acts completely odds with their own intererests.

Look at the issue with Iranian nukes: Europe has led the charge in negotiating with Iran their agreement to give up their pursuit of nuclear energy. They have been doing this for the better part of the twenty-first century. With the full support and backing of the USA. Clearly, in the opinion of Europe, a nuclear Iran was a bad thing.
And they have failed in their negotiations. If anything, such negotiations simply gave Iran time and cover to develop such energy. The USA is saying, in light of this failure, the policy needs to change, to become a little more rougher with Iran.Yet Europe is now busy rationalising its failure, and explaining why a nuclear Iran is not such a big deal. And where is the outrage by the voters of Europe as to this waste of time and resources by their elected officials? After all, if a nuclear Iran is not such a big deal, why were their tax dollars used to solve such a non-issue? Instead, the outrage is directed to the USA, which seeks a solution to the problem along other terms by which Europe had wanted to go.

Europe, and the world need to remember that the USA is not a mercenary nation.

[Nono]

Quote by: Bobby This has to do with the frequent inability of others to solve their own problems, then seeking out the USA for assistance, BUT ON THEIR OWN TERMS. When those terms are not met, the resentment grows, and results in acts completely odds with their own intererests.

You're talking about Iraq -- no, wait, Somalia -- no, Iraq again. Or perhaps Vietnam.

The US is notorious for going out and making big messes even bigger. It can plead -- like the Russians in Afghanistan, for example -- that it was only answering a call for help. But do we believe this? America's credibility has worn down to nothing.

There are exceptions, of course, like Bosnia.

Europe is now busy rationalising its failure, and explaining why a nuclear Iran is not such a big deal.

Do you have a source for this. No, eh?

The fact is that negotiations were perhaps hopeless but had to be at least tried for decency's sake.

The other fact is that there's no way you or the Israelis are going to stop the Iranians getting nukes. The idea that you can is truly irrational. It ain't like they don't see y'all coming or anything.

You've turned a blind eye to India, Pakistan and, yes, North Korea. So what do you propose to do about Iran, bomb it flat? Try it -- you'll just be giving yourselves yet another giant kick in the balls.

[bishop]

ok... shall we get somewhat back on topic?

Thanks but No Thanks: Sarko's Nuke Offer Bombs with Berlin - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

But the Germans and French are not just clashing over questions of style -- issues of substance are also leading to cracks in the European Union's most important partnership. The German Foreign Ministry was completely surprised by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner's recent visit to Baghdad to express France's new willingness to support the Americans there. Sarkozy was also keen to be the hero in the release of five Bulgarian nurses held for years by Libya, even though the German government played a key role in brokering a deal. He then proceeded to use the occasion to announce a controversial nuclear deal with Libya (more...) -- naturally without informing his EU partners in advance. It's possible that Europe's legendary Franco-German motor might shift into neutral for a while. Sarkozy has replaced consultations with a tendency to dictate. The implied threat for Berlin is clear: Either you go along with French plans, or Paris will go it alone. And that could lead to the next showdown. Sarkzoy wants to force the EU to impose extra sanctions on Iran. But instead of working with Germany on a plan of action as a preferred partner, Paris simply informed Berlin of its intentions via a diplomatic note, as if it were any other EU member. During the meeting at Meseberg, Steinmeier pointed out that the Germans had already drastically reduced their business interests in Iran. Instead of demanding more sanctions, Paris should call on French banks, energy firms and carmakers to scale back to German levels first. Since then, the tone has become somewhat harsher between the two European heavyweights.

and this second article furthers the point germany made by refusing french nuclear protection. they don't want american nukes on their soil either. quite frankly, the fact that germany hasn't been more vocal in demanding we remove our nukes is a sign of that country's political inefficacy. more than likely, the germans are more concerned about us removing our economic engines (i.e. our military bases), than they are about us removing our nukes.

Germany: 'Get US Nukes off Our Soil'