Europe, the Birthplace of Hypocrisy
Written by: Lina Maria
Date: Tuesday, March 22nd, 2005
“Europe irritates me to no end. I have been upset with European leaders for a long time, because they have welcomed with open arms the commanders of the armed guerrillas in Colombia that have besieged my country for decades. Europe is also home to numerous “human rights” organizations that constantly accuse the democratic government of Colombia of human rights violations but that conveniently forget to mention a word about the leftist guerrillas heinous crimes. However, the source of anger against Europe is deeper than that. I do not trust a group of nations that pretend to be all nice and peaceful, but that love to deal with other nations who are in clear violation of international law and that have been sanctioned numerous times by the UN.
What is it with Europe anyway? They pretend to be the standard bearers of peace and integration, but in reality they are war profiteers that integrate only with themselves, alienating the rest of the world and especially the United States. I understand that they would be mad with the Bush administration for going into Iraq against the U.N’s wishes and on false information, but they are bringing this act too far. They want to blame all the ills happening in the world on the United States. Now wait a second there!If there is anyone more guilty of the anger of the people in the Arab world and the rest of the third world that would be Europe. Let us not forget that not too long ago the European countries colonized good part of those areas and that the Spaniards exploited every bit of land in Central and South America. As a matter of fact according to this article, the French were in the Ivory coast and without a UN resolution I might add, as the war in Iraq was underway. Historical amnesia is what I call that. As far as I can remember, and please correct me if I am wrong, the United States did not hold any colonies that it exploited to the point of vanishing. But the hypocrisy is not only historical, it also appears to be rampant in the present.
While Europe yells and screams that the United States “invaded a sovereign country” that did not attack them first, the Europeans were making deals with Saddam Hussein, who was supposed to be under an international embargo. Russia, France and Germany were happily selling arms to this murderous dictator and apparently they don’t stop at Iraq either. They are profiting from arm and nuclear technology sales to rogue states that have all the intentions of using them to wreck havoc in the international community. I am specifically talking about Iran and Venezuela and its deals with Russia, as well as Spain sending Jet fighters to Fidel-wannabe Hugo Chavez.
I did and still do not agree with our reasons for going to war, which are not all that clear anymore, but I will not side with the European hypocrites who have been “free riding” on America’s back for far too long. As a matter of fact, I think the U.S should force them to militarize themselves and share some of the burden of keeping the international order. They are largely benefiting from the fact that they don’t have to worry about solving pesky problems like the North Koreans building nuclear weapons, because of course, they have always relied on the United States to take care of everything for them. It is time that Europe stopped playing “good guy” and took responsibility for some of the fall out of their own past mistakes. I don’t believe their pacifist act for a second.
Thomas Friedman wrote a very interesting article in the New York Times, that pretty much sums up Europe’s hypocrisy in one sentence: “there is nothing worse than a pacifist that sells arms – especially in a way that increases the burden on its U.S. ally and protector.”(read full article).”
————————————————————–
We’ve all heard enough about American hypocrisy. It exists. Most of us are aware it. However, some of us are tired of hearing that everything bad that takes place in the world is somehow “connected to the US”. Our media portrays Europe in a good light, generally speaking.
It’s about time Americans hear the other side of the story as there are always two sides to every story.
Before you start accusing the American government for selling arms to dictators…
Eighty percent of Britons believe that between 1973 to 1990 the United States sold Saddam Hussein more than a quarter of his weapons.
This is a myth brought on by Anti-American propaganda.
Truth: According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s investigation, the US supplied 200 (0.46%) of Iraq’s imported weapons in this period, of a total 43,915 from all countries. The UK supplied 79 (0.18%) of Iraq’s weapons. The USSR, France and China supplied 57%, 13% and 12% respectively.
Lina Maria is a Colombian living in the United States. Feel free to look at more of her essays on politics:
- Average Americans
- Things and People that Make me Want to Turn Republican
- Things and People that Keep me a Liberal
you cannot compare the French presence in Ivory Coast and the Iraq war, it’s preposterous :
The Force’s main mission is to support the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire, with a third rank force, which may be rapidly deployed to support the Ivorian Army. The Force Licorne can also be used to ensure the security of French and foreign nationals.
The Force Licorne and the ONUCI are known in Côte d’Ivoire as “Impartial Forces”.
The cost of the operation is estimated at around 200 million Euros per annum.
This military operation included at the start more than 4000 men (down to 2400 in August 2007), started in September 2002 (at the start of the Ivorian Civil War), independently of the United Nations, to honor the defense agreements signed in between France and Côte d’Ivoire on August 24, 1961. France and later the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), sent important military contingents to separate the belligerents (interposition forces). According to French authorities, supported by a UN resolution, this interposition avoided a civil war and massacres.
An agreement among all the involved political forces was signed in France, at Marcoussis, on January 24, 2003.
On April 4, 2004, the ONUCI took over from the contingents of the ECOWAS, while the Force Licorne (then 4600 men), which remained under French command stayed in place to support the United Nations force UNOCI.
(read all details on wikipedia)
1) there wasn’t any US nationals in numbers to protect in Iraq
2) there wasn’t any defense agreement between the two countries (US/Iraq).
3) the mission despite a few violent intermezzos cannot be described as a “war”.
4) the French were ALREADY and LEGALLY present when a coup triggered unrest. They just went in between and of course both sides accused France “to take sides”.
5) If the French hadn’t been present a bloody civil war had erupted. In Iraq it was rather the contrary.
so if you look for examples for Europeans acting “single-handed” and without UN mandate, this is a very bad one.
2) Weapons in Iraq.
It’s true that most of the weapons were provided by other parts than the US.
But
1) UK and France don’t provide weapons without tacit US approval. At that time the west/east saw Saddam as an “ally” against Iran because of their fundamentalistic Islamic rule. Remember that at that time the mollahs were far “worse” than today (hostage taking of US embassy etc…)
2)The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialised computers, lasers, testing and analysing equipment. Among the better-known companies were Hewlett Packard, Unisys, Data General and Honeywell.
Billions of dollars worth of raw materials, machinery and equipment, missile technology and other “dual-use” items were also supplied by West German, French, Italian, British, Swiss and Austrian corporations, with the approval of their governments (German firms even sold Iraq entire factories capable of mass-producing poison gas). Much of this was purchased with funds freed by the US CCC credits.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html
there are plenty of similar credible sources on that story on the net.
By this I don’t mean that Europeans are always right and “angels”. But please don’t throw stones in a glass house.
I’d expect Lina Maria to do a minimum of research before spewing a lot of BS.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment and for supplying additional reading material. I will definitely have a look at it. I can’t really speak for Lina, but my guess is that she was trying to prove that Europe is not always right and that the US is not always wrong.
We used to give Saddam foreign aid and other means to support him against Iran because they had captured some of our people and made them into hostages, etc. We made friends with him for our own self-serving purposes, and then we made enemies with him for our own self-serving purposes. But whether we give the “go ahead” to Europe or not to sell arms and support to these people – that’s somewhat irrelevant as Europe still managed to support Saddam.
We all, to some degree, have blood on our hands. But at the same time, the US doesn’t claim to be pacifists.
“Europeans were making deals with Saddam Hussein, who was supposed to be under an international embargo. Russia, France and Germany were happyly selling arms to this murderous dictator and apparently they don’t stop at Iraq either. They are profiting from arm and nuclear technology sales to rogue states that have all the intentions of using them to wreck havoc in the international community.”
has this been written by Kristol or Rove ? Same BS than the “oil for food scandal”. If it was so why hasn’t Honeywell be indicted for treason ? Or shall I remind of the “Iran-contras” ? Besides the phrase contains a pure lie : Saddam WASN’T under UN embargo when the massive arm sales (US included) took place. He even purchased uranium completely legally through Portugal and Niger, no big deal at that time until the Israeli got cold feet.
The embargo happened AFTER his invasion of Kuweit, and there isn’t a SINGLE proof that Europeans sold him weapons at that time or after (would have been very stupid since they participated in the war AGAINST him and later no-fly zones).
“there is nothing worse than a pacifist that sells arms – especially in a way that increases the burden on its U.S. ally and protector.”
more BS
1) Europeans have never pretended being “pacifists” (being a pacifist in the neocon/republican mind is wanting to use all means of diplomacy before using force)
2) the whole story is based on the same jingoistic approach characterized by the Bush administration : “if you are not with us, you are against us”. The US administration(s) (not its citizens in general) has never tolerated any critical approach to its military operations. For some reason they are always “right”. No matter what. So they have the “burden” and the allies must STFU.
I want proofs : when and where did European sell weapons to a part involved in war against the US ? bring it on. Then if some arm sales to some regimes aren’t always judicious, is another story. But in the later case the US isn’t probably the example maker. What about the recent sale of top-notch planes to Pakistan ? India is surely very happy about that, specially regarding the last events.
Besides what jet-fighters were sold to Chavez ? What I know of the sale was 10 C-295 transport planes and two CN-235 patrol planes.
In reality the Venezuelans have an obsolete F-16 fleet purchased 1982 in the US. The recent problem was that the US had to stop the Israeli, those staunch allies, to upgrade them with modern US components.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060517-venezuela-arms-ban.htm
In 2005, Israel had an agreement with Venezuela to service and upgrade its U.S.-built F-16 fighter jets, but the Sharon administration angered the U.S. State Department when it sold U.S.-built aerial drones to China.[9] According to journalist Alessandro Parma of Voltairenet.org, “The arms sale to China that upset the Americans so much had been for a sophisticated early-warning aircraft system called Phalcon. The repair of the relatively old Venezuelan F-16 fighters is quite simple by comparison.”[10] In October 2005, the State Department prevented the Israeli-Venezuelan F-16 deal by refusing to grant export licensing approval to the Israeli government. JINSA reported that the State Department “request[ed]” the Israeli government end all military contracts with Venezuela that involved U.S.-derived technology and refrain from future sales of Israeli military technology to Venezuela.[9] Parma says that the United States Defense Department responded on October 21 by saying, “Israel asked for Washington’s green light over the contract”, to which Washington said no.[10]
(wikipedia)
the accusations of Lina Maria and of Friedmann are not only false but ridiculous.
PS
Mr. Friedman joined The Times in 1981 and was appointed Beirut bureau chief in 1982. In 1984 Mr. Friedman was transferred from Beirut to Jerusalem, where he served as Israel bureau chief until 1988. Mr. Friedman was awarded the 1983 Pulitzer Prize for international reporting (from Lebanon) and the 1988 Pulitzer Prize for international reporting (from Israel).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman
not biased eh ? When I read the original posts above I have the strange feeling of being sent back to 2003 reading “free republic”.
So, please if you want to criticize European bias or even unjustified anti-americanism, try something coherent and not ressassing neocon propaganda of the worse kind.
Old Frog, you are one of the few commenters that can attack a controversial subject, stay right on topic, and not get personal and abusive. I respect your opinion.
To me a pacifist is one who is anti-every-war, and just stays out of the way when hell is breaking loose elsewhere. There is no right or wrong. It’s just the way I see it.
I very much respect the French, the Germans, and every other nation that rejected the invasion of Iraq. It took guts for your leaders to not let the Cheney/Bush administration to intimidate you.
You have put a lot on the table for everyone to go through. If you don’t mind, I just may submit some of what you wrote to rebut Lina.
virgo
“Europe is not always right and that the US is not always wrong”
on that we can all agree. My posts aren’t directed at you. But when Lina and Friedmann produce so blatant lies, it makes me really angry. Because either they are ignorant of the facts (which is probable regarding Lina but not Friedmann) or they have another agenda.
Hmmm… In my thinking this is all much ado about nothing as the saying goes. Every nation on earth plays politics, and no single one has a corner on that.
As for selling Pakistan “Top Notch” anything? That is somewhat misleading. We never, ever, sell another country our very best and latest versions of high tech armaments. That is not to say that other countries don’t do a bit of their own engineering, and what the Israeli’s did with the M-60 tank is a perfect example.
Did Lina go a bit overboard? Perhaps. Been to her home country to actually take a look at what has been going on there? Use Wikipedia for reference in a serious context? Not a chance!
Seems as though the original intent of this thread got tossed by the wayside.
“Europe is not always right and that the US is not always wrong”