French Not Completely Convinced by Blair. He Isn't Our President Yet

From the desk of Michael Huntsman on Sat, 2008-01-19 21:40

potuse.jpg

Until the Treaty of Lisbon, better known as the Constitution of the European Union, actually comes into force, the new post of President of the Council (President of the United States of Europe -- POTUSE), a two-and-a-half year position which may be renewed once, does not exist. Yet, with the process of ratification scarcely under way across Europe, horses are being trained for the race.

With the Treaty planned to come into force in early 2009, there is not, as yet, a legal vacancy for a post which does not exist. This has not stopped the backroom manoeuvring getting under way and the starting of a process which will have but one similarity to the USA Presidential Election: it will go on all year as this or that cabal of Euro Nabobs grooms its candidate and sends him or her into the parade ring prior to the serious business fixing the race.

I say ‘fixing’ since in no other way can a process which might see a President put in place by 18-20 people be described as ‘democratic’, given that Europe’s 450 millions will have no say whatever in the election of ‘their’ president, unlike the tens of millions of Americans who will choose theirs come November.

First out of the starting stalls has been Britain’s ex-Prime Minister, Tony Blair, the candidate of France’s Nicholas Sarkozy. The new French President, much preoccupied with affairs of the heart just now rather than the more pressing business of running France, sees Blair as something of an ideal candidate, free and independent of the grubby business of mere politics. Sarkozy may also think of him as the most malleable candidate who will most easily fit with French aspirations.

The problem for Blair, and therefore Sarkozy, is that he brings, shall we say, some rather unfortunate baggage. He is the intimate of President George W. Bush whose policies generally make Europeans throw up their hands in horror and he, together with Bush, is seen as a man with blood, Iraqi blood, on his hands. Though we in the UK would see him as a Europhile who was only deflected from taking us into the Euro by Gordon Brown who was altogether more sceptical (or so it was said) of the worth of that particular adventure, European politicians see him as a failure precisely because he could not deliver the UK into the scheme. And given the UK is seen as always being somewhat at the margins of Europe, the majority may well feel disinclined to support him.

He has another recently-acquired bits of baggage: his appointment to a highly lucrative position as an international adviser to the American Bank JP Morgan which will be taken as further evidence of his closeness to the American establishment. Secondly he has also been taken on as an unpaid adviser to the Rwandan Government of Paul Kagame. This will not appeal to France who will see it as further proof of the Anglos-Saxons trying to muscle in on their patch.

Though the Kagame regime loathes France, suspecting her as it does of complicity in the 1994 genocide, France still harbours the delusion that as Rwanda is Francophone, it has a God-given right to be the mentor of Rwanda or rather that Total Oil has a God-given right to any oil which might be found in the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.

For over this zone Kagame exercises de facto control. Into it he sends his troops from time to time to rampage through the Hutu refugee camps, eliminating any potential resistance to his suzerainty over the oil and mineral resources that explain British interest in the area: not for nothing has Kagame been first the official guest of the UK and then the invitee of the Conservative party at their autumn conference in 2007, notwithstanding that he is a potential indictee of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) on account of his egregious crimes in the 1994 war.

So France will be deeply put out by Blair’s involvement with Kagame which they will see as reinforcing the suspicion that Rwanda is to be prised out of the French sphere of influence and into membership of the Commonwealth which is, theoretically, a club for ex-British colonies (though not if you are a criminal like Mugabe but have no oil to be exploited). Though Belgium’s influence over its former colony has been relatively small for years, it too will look askance at an Anglo-Saxon take-over in Kigali.

So the opposing trainers, such as Giscard d’Estaing and Edouard Balladur of France, who take a more traditional French view of the world than the more modern Sarkozy, have already aired their distaste for Blair and are already looking to get into his stable and nobble him before any momentum can be put behind his candidacy.

As yet, though, no other candidate has been advanced. Perhaps when Guy Verhofstad has done what he can to save Belgium and with it Brussels as its capital, he will be rewarded by the Imperial Government which also thinks of Brussels as its capital city. Or Jan Peter Balkenende, for sparing the Netherlands the temptation to vote ‘Nee’ once more, might be their choice. Whatever the conclusion is, anything, they feel, would be better than Blair. Gordon Brown would doubtless be happy too not to have his old enemies, Tony and Cherie, lording it over him with impunity from Brussels.

Soon enough, then, a used European politician with impeccable credentials who will not rock the boat will emerge and will be ridden carefully to the winning post. Quite whether he or she will be a thoroughbred or not is far less certain.

Talking of Rwanda, I note with dismay that many of the Defendants at the ICTR have yet to have their trials completed, notwithstanding that they have been in custody for eight, nine and ten years or more. This is a disgrace.

Though the ICTR has of its own motion concluded that there is nothing wrong with this, they would, wouldn’t they? After all most of its personnel are African and as such have no incentive whatsoever to halt one of the richest gravy trains in Africa: rather they do everything they can to slow it down so that they can go on picking up their enormous (by African standards) salaries and all the perks that go with a post in Arusha for ever and a day.

Even by the appalling standards of this singularly corrupt institution, this is a shameful state of affairs which undermines both its credibility and any claim it might make to dispensing justice and fair trials to those in its custody. Though some of its Judges (notably the excellent Judge Møse of Norway) have striven manfully to keep the thing moving, some of its judicial members and senior staff have not exactly contributed to the process of speedy trials, but then one might expect no better from an institution that is riven with nepotism and corruption from end to end.

The chances of the ICTR finishing its trials on time is small and the danger then is that the untried Defendants will simply be tipped into the back of a truck and driven off to the welcoming arms of Kagame and his henchmen. From that moment they will each and every one be dead men.

@Atlanticist911 again...

Submitted by atheling on Mon, 2008-01-21 18:31.

ROFL!!! Sacre bleu!

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

@Atlanticist911

Submitted by atheling on Mon, 2008-01-21 17:37.

Hey! Bugs Bunny is an American!

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

Marvin and the buzzing voices in his head

Submitted by Zen Master on Mon, 2008-01-21 00:33.

You are right atheling; poor Marvin can’t read well because of those voices telling him what to think and say.  He seems to have spent too much time reading about ‘conspiracy theories.’  Maybe he will run into a few ‘Muslim youths’ who will give him a sample of what life will be like under Shania law.  My guess is he will quickly submit and convert to Islam to avoid ‘offending’ them.

 

 

ICTR # 2

Submitted by marcfrans on Sun, 2008-01-20 23:09.

@ Huntsman

1) I see a clear conflict between calling someone "a potential indictee" (manifestly a pejorative term or 'designation') and then revealing that it is before a thoroughly corrupt institution.

2) I do not know  "prof. Reyntjes of Antwerp university" and I am in no position to judge whether he is "inestimable" or not.  But I certainly reserve myself the right to doubt that, merely on the basis that he allows himself to be even associated with any kind of UN-created 'tribunal' or with the ICC.  I simply have no confidence in the UN in general, and certainly not in anything 'judicial' that is UN-related.  If the Belgian bureaucray has a deserved reputation for being 'politicised', it is still miles better in that respect than the thoroughly corrupted and politicised UN administration. 

3) Who does prof Reyntjes think he is, sitting in his comfortable sofa at Antwerp univ., making judgments about someone like Kagame?  Did he spent years in the brousse, and in exile, fighting to free his homeland from an atrocious regime?  And when that regime proved its atrociousness, by starting and executing an internal holocaust, did Reyntjes urge the Belgian government or the UN to show some backbone of any kind?  Again, I doubt it very much.  So, how would Reyntjes behave in a 'civil war', or how would he control all his troops, after most of them find many of their relatives and friends hacked to pieces? 

If the UN or the Belgian government had lifted 1 little finger and had dared to stick their neck out (with the troops they had on the ground) to stop the atrocious holocaust perpetrated by their former 'friends', then they might perhaps have some inch of moral ground to sit in judgment.  In Nurenburg the US and the USSR sat in judgment of top nazis, but they had 'earned' that 'right' with the blood of their soldiers.  In the  Ruandan debacle, the UN, the French and the Belgian governments had shown themselves to be utter cowards and hypocrites, and they certainly do not deserve the 'right' to engage in their selective and politicised show trials.

4) My views on the Ruandan civil war are largely based on (a) the writings of the Canadian general, Dallaire, who was the UN commander in Ruanda at the time, and who got essentially 'abandoned' by his immediate political boss (Annan) and by the then-Secretary-General, and on (b) many lengthy conversations and listening to many African 'leaders' (including Kagame).   To me that carries much more weight than the opinions and ideological/political games of 'salongeneraals' at Antwerp university or politicians in Brussels and Paris. The latter would be well advised to keep out of 'verbal/political games' surrounding the central African wars that are inevitably going to come over the next few decades, unless they are willing to put the blood of their own soldiers on the line.

Any more clever thoughts Marvin?

Submitted by Zen Master on Sun, 2008-01-20 16:05.

Are you serious Marvin?

 

‘The threat of Islam is a myth maintained by the US and EU. At the next "Islam" attack we can be sure it will be an attack from the US and/or EU leaders just like WTC 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government.’

 

Any one who thinks the threat from Islam is not real should read the news and study history. You only need to listen to what the Islamic leaders are saying today.

 

 

 

@Zen Master

Submitted by atheling on Sun, 2008-01-20 22:12.

How can Marvin "study" history and read the news when the little voices in his head won't shut up?

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine

@ Atlantistic

Submitted by Schaveiger on Mon, 2008-01-21 10:32.

Could be, but I prefer to be part of a big club rather than beg for help to a bigger one.

ICTR

Submitted by The Huntsman on Sun, 2008-01-20 11:30.

There is no conflict between the fact that Kagame is a potential indictee of the ICTR and making the observation that the ICTR is a less than wonderful organisation.

As the inestimable Prof. Reyntjens of Antwerp Univ. has so often pointed out there is ample evidence available which would pass the threshold for indictment against Kagame and a host of his people for egregious crimes committed during the 1994 war.

Sadly the ICTR wilfully refuses to indict anyone from the RPF side because they believe that that would halt the work of the ICTR in its tracks and, incidentally, thus bring the gravy train to an end. Kagame thus controls the ICTR by threatening, whenever the subject of RPF crimes comes up, to end co-operation with the ICTR.

I should like to see Kagame indicted but sadly it is a fact that the tribunal which would try him is a deeply flawed and deeply corrupt entity and he would be unlikely to receive a fair and timeous trial from the ICTR as presently run.

That fact in no way invalidates the nature of the evidence against him which is both credible and voluminous.

He also continues to preside over a military which conducts operations in The DR of Congo which routinely breach the laws and customs of war and which also amount in many cases to crimes against humanity and, probably genocide. As such he would be a candidate for the International Criminal Court but for the fact that Rwanda is not a signatory.

Given Rwanda's history of genocide, you might care to wonder why Kagame has not signed the Rome Statute and made Rwanda subject to its jurisdiction. I suggest it is because he would become a prime candidate for indictment as a superior authority who knows or ought to know that crimes within the ICC's jurisdiction are being committed by his forces in DRC but he steadfastly refuses to prevent or punish such crimes.

 

Carrot for a donkey

Submitted by Schaveiger on Sun, 2008-01-20 09:39.

Although Blair's political skills are undoubtedly of a high standard, I think that there are more suitable candidates available. A candidate from a nation who refuses systematically to contribute their share towards the Union and unwilling to enter the Euro-zone should not be withheld. But Sarkozy maybe thinks that by reaching a carrot the donkey becomes less stubborn.

UK's contributions

Submitted by Bob Doney on Mon, 2008-01-21 02:22.

Schaveiger: "A candidate from a nation who refuses systematically to contribute their share towards the Union..."

Oh, the nation that between 1996 and 2005 contributed net twice as much to the EU budget as Italy and France? That nation?

UK's Eurobargains

Submitted by Schaveiger on Mon, 2008-01-21 10:25.

Bob Doney: Oh, the nation that between 1996 and 2005 contributed net twice as much to the EU budget as Italy and France?

Please use the genuine figures, not the ones chewed for you by the Eurosceptics.
The UK contributions per inhabitant are far below these of Germany, France, Holland and even Belgium.

Contributions

Submitted by Bob Doney on Mon, 2008-01-21 11:26.

Schavagier: "The UK contributions per inhabitant are far below these of Germany, France, Holland and even Belgium."

Net contributions? Your source please for the net contributions per capita of the UK being "far below" those of France for the years I quoted. I'm happy to concede Germany and Holland. Do you concede Italy? (My source was the BBC, those well-known eurosceptics, because at the time I did my post the relevant europa.eu page was unavailable!)

@ Bob Doney

Submitted by Schaveiger on Mon, 2008-01-21 14:41.

The rebate the UK get's since 1984 amounted to 5.7 billion euros in 2006. This loss had to be compensated by all other member states of which France contributed 1.6 billion. They call that "the British correction".

It is true that at the start the UK was contributing more than they got back but this is no more accurate. In fact, the "net contribution" is very difficult to figure out exactly. It is therefore difficult to get official numbers. I don't know which parameters the BBC used to calculate the "net" but I'm pretty sure that they'll be controversial with the UE ones (for if they exist).

Anyway, the UK was the only one who claimed a "rebate" while others did not. Now claiming the presidency is a bridge too far for me ...

Blair is a perfect Euroweenie CEO.....

Submitted by onecent on Sun, 2008-01-20 06:15.

"The problem for Blair, and therefore Sarkozy, is that he brings, shall we say, some rather unfortunate baggage. He is the intimate of President George W. Bush whose policies generally make Europeans throw up their hands in horror and he, together with Bush, is seen as a man with blood, Iraqi blood, on his hands."

 

Question to the "horrified" Euroweenies: just who do you think if the US died tomorrow would have the decency and military might to protect you from the thugs, be it the Putins or Iran, of the world?

 

No answer necessary.  Sip your lattes and continue keeping your dhimmi heads in the sand, and, perhaps, reflect on all of the reasons that Americans find you pathetic. 

 

Blair is perfect as President of the EU, a non-elected self-designated socialist slob filling his private coffers and ego in Brussels.  

 

 

To be "defended" by liars and mass murderers?

Submitted by Marvin Brenik on Sun, 2008-01-20 10:21.

To be "defended" by liars and mass murderers?
Thanks, but no thanks.

Europe prefers not to be defended by those who mass murder their own people. See:
www.911belgium.be

It would be a great advantage for everyone on Earth if the US would die as it is today and would collapse into its state and Europe would never integrate into Euviet Union.
Big empires are realms of neros, hitlers, stalins, bushes, sarkozys, merkels, and the like. The threat of Islam is a myth maintained by the US and EU. At the next "Islam" attack we can be sure it will be an attack from the US and/or EU leaders just like WTC 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government.

Democracy is a system of self-governance and designed for small countries, who have the sense of a big family and can develop a free economy, autonomous budgetary system, monetary policy and a welfare state of their own. We don't need thugs and parasites like Merkel and Sarkozy who spend their dear work hours paid richly by Europe's taxpayers' by designing a conspiracy against Europe's taxpayers. These troubled minds, power-thirsty thugs, liars and warmakers of the US and EU and their parasite administration (including Blair) may settle down on an other planet within another galaxy. Have fun building a brave new world over there. (Hint: you may invite some living communist experts of the past, as the best advisers on the subject.)

Analysis

Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2008-01-19 23:32.

1) That the French public will have its reservations about Blair as POTUSE would seem a reasonable position to take.  But what is the rationale for this lengthy and manifestly biased attack on Kagame of Ruanda?

2) It is also reasonable to assume that central-african leaders in general cannot be exactly boy scouts, but Kagame certainly appears to have a much better record than his opponents, including those European governments that wanted to destroy him.  Let's remember that: (a)  the Ruandan holocaust took place BEFORE Kagame got into power in Kigale, (b) that the French government continued to help militarily the Hutu government that was perpetrating the Ruandan holocaust, and (c) that the Belgian government 'turned tail' as soon as some of its 'UN peace keeper soldiers' got murdered at the beginning of that holocaust.  Given the way 'francophone European governments treated Kagame, how can it be surprising that he has been seeking support from the dreaded anglo-saxons?

3) It is ironic that the author undermines his own position by: (a) first referring to Kagame as "a potential indictee of the International Criminal Tribunal for Ruanda (ICTR) and, (b) then proceeding with his own lengthy and justifiable indictment of the "appalling standards of this singularly corrupt institution".  How could it be otherwise, but corrupt?  Anyone who can take serious judicial institutions of a very corrupt and undemocratic 'international community' ought to have their heads examined.  I am afraid that would thus have to include the French (and European) public which wilfully-naively does 'believe' in such institutions.  How could the international community be a 'democracy'?   And how could a nondemocratic 'polity' produce a 'legitimate' judicial body?

4) While no one should have any illusions that terrible things occur in civil wars, it doesn't take much intelligence to be able to realise that Kagame is a much more 'civilised' African leader than most of his 'colleagues', at least if one is willing to engage them in a serious and lengthy conversation.  And if one is going to hold some people INDIRECTLY responsible for the Ruandan holocaust, then a number of European politicians (plus the 'passive' Kofi Annan himself) belong IN FRONT of Kagame on the bench of the accused before the ICTR.  Of course, the people that truly belong there are the actual perpetrators of that holocaust, and not Kagame.