|
< Previous Post | Next Post >
Wednesday, February 18. 2009Favorite HypocrisiesPosted by Editors in Transatlantic Relations on Wednesday, February 18. 2009 Moisés Naím starts his FP Magazine article on US foreign policy hypocrisies with this:
What is your favorite foreign policy hypocrisy? European and North American examples only, please. Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
quo vadis
- #1 - 2009-02-19 05:14 - (Reply)
I suppose it's easy to find hypocrisy when you willfully misinterpret the motives of your subject. The US doesn't support Turkish integration into the EU so that Turks can work in the EU, we support it because we believe that it will empower the western leaning elements of Turkish society at the expense of the Islamists. Comments ()
Zyme
- #2 - 2009-02-19 19:05 - (Reply)
The Hypocrisy with the American Turkey-policy does not lie in the point that the Americans need to errect border defense while they want the EU to aquire a similar border situation - it rather lies in the point that they do not support Turkey's ambition for their European nature of whatever good-sounding reason but instead want to see Turkey in to further weaken the EU. Comments ()
Marie Claude
- #2.1 - 2009-02-19 20:58 - (Reply)
more simply, they do believe in "democraty" like the one they tried to insert in Iran...oops in Irak :lol: Comments ()
Pat Patterson
- #2.2 - 2009-02-20 06:07 - (Reply)
Isn't there a rather large difference in the supposed hypocrisy considering the US does have a trade relation with Mexico already but doesn't have a military one? OAS, notwithstanding. While Turkey was already a member of NATO and its southern flank protector but is now being blocked from the trade agreements that are still the most important part of the EU. Comments ()
Anonymous
- #2.2.1 - 2009-02-20 07:44 - (Reply)
"While Turkey was already a member of NATO and its southern flank protector but is now being blocked from the trade agreements that are still the most important part of the EU" Comments ()
Marie Claude
- #2.2.1.1 - 2009-02-20 07:58 - (Reply)
uh, I suppose it's no surprise, that the an... post was mine Comments ()
Pat Patterson
- #2.2.1.2 - 2009-02-20 11:25 - (Reply)
So Turkey has bilateral trade agreements but still does not have the trade agreements that it wanted with the EU. I'm not sure if that was really much of a counterpoint. As to controlling the access routes to the Black Sea it is important to remember that during the Georgian War the Russian fleet, basically one missile cruiser had to retreat as the Americans were allowed by the Turks to send three Burke class missile destroyers into the Black Sea and unlimited air flights. The Turks would not allow any of the Russian fleet from Odessa through the Dardanelles. Comments ()
Marie Claude
- #2.2.1.2.1 - 2009-02-25 05:17 - (Reply)
http://www.courrierinternational.com/article.asp?obj_id=94312 Comments ()
Pat Patterson
- #2.2.1.2.1.1 - 2009-02-25 14:01 - (Reply)
I think you were referring to a stand alone RRF that some of the 'Stans and Russia agreed to create earlier this month. This appears at first glance something different to the EU's idea but its main OOB is terrorism, counterinsurgency and natural disasters. But since the Kyrgyz military only numbers 12,500 with now reliable air assets its contribution will probably be limited unless the Russians are planning on providing transport and CAPs. Comments ()
Marie Claude
- #2.2.1.2.1.1.1 - 2009-02-26 00:13 - (Reply)
a bit more infos here Comments ()
Pat Patterson
- #2.2.1.2.1.1.1.1 - 2009-02-26 01:57 - (Reply)
Interesting because once one looks at a map its plain that this "task force" made up either from a new force under the command of the 331st Guards Regiment or from the disgraced 106th Guards Airborne Division has nothing to do with a regional Warsaw Pact treaty organization. But rather internal security in areas the Russians consider theirs but also are deathly afraid the Muslim majorities may constitute a threat to the other peripheral areas still under nominal Russian control simply because as of yet no one else, except the Chinese or Indians, has any interest. Comments ()
Zyme
- #2.2.2 - 2009-03-07 13:36 - (Reply)
Sorry Pat, I haven't checked this thread again later on. Comments ()
Pat Patterson
- #2.2.2.1 - 2009-03-07 17:02 - (Reply)
Most of what you say is very reasonable until we get to the EU signing bilateral treaties with Turkey for access to the Black Sea. The Dardanelles are already international waters and the Turks have shut it to any freight traffic they desire. The EU recgonized this as de facto and asks pretty please everytime they want access. In fact the only two powers that have never acknowledged this state of affairs is the US which the Turks have never challenged and the Russians which the Turks have basically said never. That alone would make access via a regional agreement more than important to the EU but would be restoring maritime law. Comments ()
quo vadis
- #3 - 2009-02-19 21:22 - (Reply)
And for those here who seem to be having a little trouble with the concept of hypocrisy, Marie Claude's comment provides us with a perfect example to contemplate. Comments ()
Marie Claude
- #3.1 - 2009-02-20 03:20 - (Reply)
No, I am amused by the American candor, lots of you believe what their politians and or leaders say ; Comments ()
quo vadis
- #3.1.1 - 2009-02-20 05:11 - (Reply)
[i]any time you can reverse from a pro-XXX opinion to his yesterday anti-XXX'. Seen that with McCain, Clinton, ... and, unbelievable, Bush !!! they would even praise Putin for his last discourse in Davos[/i] Comments ()
Marie Claude
- #3.1.1.1 - 2009-02-20 07:11 - (Reply)
nah, we call it "reverse one's jacket", then not trustful !!! Comments ()
Joe Noory
- #3.1.1.1.1 - 2009-03-07 20:53 - (Reply)
Currently this is my [url=http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=cda06920-2d41-4413-8d31-24af92a0ffb9]favorite hypocrisy[/url]. Comments ()
joe
- #4 - 2009-02-22 08:34 - (Reply)
my favorite bit of FP hypocrisy is the claim by france and germany that they are America's allies. Comments ()
Marie Claude
- #4.1 - 2009-02-25 05:20 - (Reply)
America doesn't (?), or rather didn't need alliees but vassals Comments ()
Joe Noory
- #4.1.1 - 2009-03-07 15:04 - (Reply)
If the United States doesn't need allies, why are you emoting that they need vassals? Comments ()
joe
- #5 - 2009-03-01 22:30 - (Reply)
It is an open question if the french would be an ally to anyone but themselves. But the good thing about the french is they provide a perfect example of what a nation can become. Comments ()
Marie Claude
- #5.1 - 2009-03-02 13:54 - (Reply)
yeah, the N° 5 in the rank of GDP's with the aera of one state of the US, isn't it amazing !!!! Comments ()
Pat Patterson
- #6 - 2009-03-02 14:14 - (Reply)
You might want to check that claim as both the IMF, the World Bank and the CIA Factbook have France in the #8 spot behind the UK and Germany which are even smaller than France. BTW, France is as big as Texas while Germany has 1/2 the land mass and twice the GDP and the GDP per capita as France. Comments ()
Marie Claude
- #7 - 2009-03-03 14:38 - (Reply)
It was said in a conservative british paper last year, in january, that we passed UK, from 6th to 5th rank, due to the bonus that the euro gave Comments ()
Pat Patterson
- #7.1 - 2009-03-03 18:51 - (Reply)
The first link compares the rate the countries economies are shrinking not to their relative size. France still is at #8 by all recent calculations in both GDP and GDP per capita. The second link is to an opinion piece that claims that Britain's deficit will be 10% of its GDP this year. I can only assume that is a typo as the UK has announced that they will have to borrow 60 billion Pounds which represents only 2.5% of the '09 HM Budget. Comments ()
Marie Claude
- #8 - 2009-03-03 20:53 - (Reply)
I tell ya, we are in a deep sh*t LMAO um, I am tired, keine Lust für suchen !!!beside the link that said it was already posted heree and on superfrenchie a year ago Comments ()
Pat Patterson
- #8.1 - 2009-03-04 00:20 - (Reply)
The first link merely repeats what I noted earlier that France has a higher percentage of debt to GDP then the United States. As to China owning the US and other fairy tales they only own 21% slightly above Japan at 18%. The American public owns almost 60% of the debt so they are the true owners of the US as it should be. Comments ()
|
Contact UsEmail Joerg Wolf and Kyle Atwell at:
ar-team AT atlanticreview.org We are available for interviews, and appreciate feedback and suggestions. Subscribe and FollowWelcome!
You are reading the ATLANTIC REVIEW, a Press Digest on Transatlantic Relations combined with commentary and analysis. More about us. Follow Atlantic Review on Facebook or on Twitter. Subscribe to one of our RSS-Feeds or to our newsletter. SponsorSUPPORT THIS SITEBlogrollHot TopicsClick on one of the following links to see all Atlantic Review posts about this topic in a chronological order with the latest post on top:
Afghanistan Anti-Americanism Economics Iran Iraq Merkel Polls Terrorism Click here for the full list of all topics. |
Home - About Us - Newsletter - Transatlantic Relations - US Foreign Policy - Various RSS Feeds Designed for Atlantic Review by Carl.

