Wait, What Just Happened Across the Pond?

I've been frantically busy with exams for the last few days, and now that I have a couple minutes to read the papers over a Sunday morning coffee, I'm seeing an absolute flood of words about the EU, fiscal union plans, an attempt to amend the EU treaty, Britain's veto, and a heap of heated commentary all around.  I better catch up!  I think I'll start with Daniel Hannan.  

Oh, my ... Questions of legality are rife and everybody's lawyering up.  For an interesting perspective, see how British newspaper headlines are shrieking.  I think we can officially declare this a train wreck.  

UPDATE: Niall Ferguson weighs in.

When "Smart Power" Meets a Live Mic

*Sigh.*

Leadership on Libya: Vive La France?

Oui, mon ami!   Note also the role of the Brits and David Cameron.

A Western Coalition Fires on a Middle Eastern Thug State with the Goal of Regime Change

Hmmmm.  Will hysterical leftist protests break out?  Don't hold your breath, I dare say. UPDATE: Heh.

Schadenfreude Alert: Gaddafi Clan Wants Its Campaign Contribution Money Back

Here's the claim/accusation/complaint distilled into one line: "We contributed money to Sarkozy's campaign ... He's leading the coalition against us ... We want our money back!"  So you're telling me there's a possibility that Gaddafi totally got suckered by Sarko?  MWAHAHAHAHA!  Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

A Tale of Two Tsunamis?

Hmmmm.  Well, OK, but in the increasing criticism of Obama as "the president who wasn't there" and his foreign policy as being composed of "the missing presence of the US," it brings up another issue: Here's the world you wanted, those of you who wanted a world without the US as the robust, resolute, active leader -- big bad warmongering imperialist America.  Life without America?  Be careful what you wish for.  You just might get it.  Especially if there's a photogenic but empty suit in the Big Chair.  Related: Libya, duh.

Groundwork for Intervention?: The Brits on Libya

British PM David Cameron is apparently laying the groundwork for intervention.  Perhaps more telling is one British source stating that imposing a no-fly zone is possible without US assistance or a specific UN Security Council resolution.  I'll say this for the resounding vacuity from the Obama White House during the Libya crisis: it's forced some of the Europeans to take the lead. See Sarko and France and now the UK.  See too this quote of the day: "Inaction is not a neutral position." (And this.)  Hmmm.

The First Nation to Formally Recognize the Libyan Opposition

No, it's not the US.  It's ... *drum roll*

Qaddafi's Useful Idiots

Here are the top 10.  You won't be surprised, I think!  Here's a taste of it, in terms of Qaddafi and Hugo Chavez: "The greatest thug bromance since Hitler met Mussolini."

Quote of the Day: WikiLeaks

What do you think?

In addition to their being no big lies, there are also no surprises–at least, no surprises for anyone paying attention to foreign affairs. Anyone really surprised by the fact that in private, Arab leaders are just as worried about a nuclear Iran as is Israel? Anyone really surprised that Nicolas Sarkozy has been said to have an authoritarian streak, that Silvio Berlusconi is too much of a party animal for his (and his country’s) own good, that democracy is dead in Russia, and that the Chinese are sick of the antics of the North Koreans? Oh, sure, the cables are very interesting, and informative. But are they all that shocking in their content? Hardly; we all are familiar with the storylines found in them. The titillating aspect of the cables is that they confirm what many have suspected regarding the opinions that are held by American diplomats, and that many of the cables make their points in interesting and colorful language.

The HopeChange Chronicles: Europe Feels a Cold Draft From Washington

HOPECHANGE! Argh. Here's a quote for you:

“There’s a growing worry everywhere in Europe that we have the first U.S. president since 1945 to show no interest in what’s happening on this side of the relationship.”

Admit it, much as you might hate to: in a cold-eyed analysis, the much-maligned Dubya treated Europe better than Obama is currently doing -- a fact that French president Sarkozy was recently quoted as noting. Oh, my!

UPDATE: Amusing comment: "Well, they sure hated the hip-shootin' cowboy from Texas, didn't they? They got what they said they wanted and they hate that even more." Hm, be careful what you wish for?

The HopeChange Chronicles: When Sarkozy and France Are Better Leaders of the Free World, Smack Down Obama's Naivete

As I said before, I'm beginning to like Sarko. A LOT.

I like Krauthammer too, actually. Check out his new editorial, which does mention Sarko. A LOT.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, there's this too. A blurb: "While the Iranians have conceded virtually nothing of value, President Obama has conceded a fair bit, particularly to the Russians." OY VEY.

France's Sarkozy on Iran and North Korea

France's president has some home truths to deliver to Obama about rogue states with nuclear ambitions. Here is a piece of it (my emphasis in bold italics):

And President Obama has even said, “I dream of a world without [nuclear weapons].” Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite. Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council resolutions. Since 2005, Secretary-General, the international community has called on Iran to engage in dialogue. An offer of dialogue was made in 2005, an offer of dialogue was made in 2006, an offer of dialogue was made in 2007, an offer of dialogue was made in 2008, and another one was made in 2009. President Obama, I support the Americans’ outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing. More enriched uranium, more centrifuges, and on top of that, a statement by Iranian leaders proposing to wipe a UN member State off the map.

What are we doing? What conclusions are we drawing? There comes a time when facts are stubborn and decisions must be made.

"Facts are stubborn"! The man is paraphrasing John Adams. I'm beginning to like Sarko ... a LOT. Read the whole thing.

Quote of the Day: Obama's Response to Iran -- "Diplomatic In the Worst Sense"

This is from an editorial in the left-leaning Nation:

The president says he entertains "deep concerns about the election" in Iran. Well, who doesn't? Expressing concern is "nice," it's "diplomatic"--in the worst sense--but it is not sufficient to the circumstance...

By every measure, the US president's response has been less than that of other world leaders, especially French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has branded the announced election "result" a fraud and bluntly decried the government's clampdown on dissent "brutal," "totally disproportionate" and "extremely alarming."

Read the whole thing. Hmmm, are we all neocons now?

Geek News: Top French Court Declares that Internet Access is a Basic Human Right

Oh, here we go.

I'm telling you, pretty soon everything (from health care to organic tofu-burgers) will be a basic human right except self-determination and individual liberties. Oops, did I say that out loud?

Anyway, blurb from the news:

France's highest court has inflicted an embarrassing blow to President Sarkozy by cutting the heart out of a law that was supposed to put France in the forefront of the fight against piracy on the internet.

The Constitutional Council declared access to the internet to be a basic human right, directly opposing the key points of Mr Sarkozy's law, passed in April, which created the first internet police agency in the democratic world.

The strongly-worded decision means that Mr Sarkozy's scheme has backfired and inadvertently boosted those who defend the free-for-all culture of the web.

Euro Notes: Sarkozy Busy Making Friends and Influencing People

Seriously, Sarko, tell me what you really think!

Eureka! -- Race Obsession Is Harmful

You know, I'm not sure whether to facepalm and yell, "Well, DUH!" or be happy that a light bulb has gone off finally for at least one person.

Here it is:

Should public policy be colour-blind? Or must governments and public institutions take account of people’s ethnicity and culture in formulating policy? It is a debate that has been reignited by President Nicolas Sarkozy’s attempt to introduce ethnic monitoring in France.

Unlike in Britain, where public institutions routinely collect information about people’s ethnic origins, it is illegal in France to classify people in this fashion. The foundation stone of the secular French republic is that all citizens should be equal and free from distinctions of race or religion. But senior politicians have begun to recognise that France remains deeply disfigured by racism. To combat this, Sarkozy argues, it is necessary to collect ethnically based data. The British experience suggests that such policies often do more harm than good.

Two assumptions underlie the argument for ethnic monitoring: first, that ethnicity and culture are the most important labels we can place on people; and second, that there is a causal relationship between membership of such a group and disproportional outcomes between groups.

Both those assumptions, of course, are DEEPLY and perhaps IRREMEDIABLY FLAWED.

Why not just listen to the excellent Mr. Morgan Freeman?

Oh, and my campus is doing one of its self-analyses for ethnic/racial population numbers. Some diversity/multiculturalist-y office sent me a survey asking me to identify myself by my race/ethnicity. I simply refused to answer. So I got a second one. I ignored that too. And I'm going to keep on ignoring it.

Euro Notes: After World War II with France, the UK, and the US

It was often a difficult relationship where the French were concerned.

Oh, and are we now to consider Sarko a "post-Gaullist"?

Sarko Versus the Mullahs of Iran

French president Sarkozy lit some verbal fireworks indeed:

In the speech, given on 8 December on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Mr Sarkozy said: "How is it that a people such as the Iranian people - one of the world's greatest peoples, one of the world's oldest civilisations, sophisticated, cultured, open - have the misfortune of being represented as they are today by some of their leaders?

"I have said this to my friend Kofi [Annan]: I find it impossible to shake hands with somebody who has dared to say that Israel must be wiped off the map.

"I know perfectly well that we must resolve what is perhaps the most serious international crisis we are having to resolve: that of Iran moving towards a nuclear bomb.

"We cannot resolve it without talking to Iranian leaders, but, after what was the Shoah, after what was the 20th Century, I cannot sit at the same table as a man who dares to say: Israel must be wiped off the map."

Maybe I've gotten used to hearing mealymouthed, whinging, cringing, handwringing accommodationist sap about Iran, but Sarko's plain words were . . . kind of thrilling. Plus I'm happy to see a European leader clearly call out Ahmadinejad about his anti-Semitic rants.

(And you see why I'd never make it in diplomacy.)