The Hypocrisy of Europe

So everybody should negotiate with terrorists, except for Europe?

Published on April 16, 2004 By messybuu In Current Events

If there's one thing I've noticed about Europe, it's that its belief that negotiations are best only applies to everybody excluding Europe. After all, when there was trouble in Yugoslavia, rather than try to negotiate a peaceful resolution, which was very possible, they decided to use force to exercise their will. However, when the U.S. used force against Iraq, they criticized that the U.S. used force when force, they claim, was not necessary. A few years later, Europe criticizes Israel for using force against a terrorist who longs for the death of all Jews rather than participating in futile negotiations with that leader of terrorism. However, when Osama bin Laden seeks a truce with Europe, Europe responds with something along the lines of "No negotiations with terrorists! We will continue to use force!" I guess that all the preaching by liberal European countries of negotiating rather than fighting only applies to non-European nations.

Comments

Solitair

on Apr 16, 2004

While negotiations are best most Europeans accept that there comes a time when military action is required.

European problems with US military action in Iraq was that the US blocked the negotiated work of the weapons inspectors. They refused to give the weapon inspectors the time they had previously agreed to in 1441. I personally supported the war in Iraq but not because of WMD.

The war in Yugoslavia was initially dealt with by negotiations. It's improtant to realise though that Yugoslavia was a case of 1 culture trying to 'ethnically cleanse' another culture. This makes it genocide and hense military action was immediately required. Not much good negotiating for a few years getting an agreement and then discovering that the Serbs had moved their population into new areas supplanting the Bosnians. Very different to Iraq in 2003.

As for terrorists and terrorism there is a bit difference between a radical, Israeli hating, Palestinian cleric, fighting against an illegal occupation of his country (as acknowledged by the US) and Osama. By your definition George Washington would have been a terrorist for longing to be free of the Brisish. I certainly do not agree with suicide bombers and targeting of civilians but trying to free your country is different from terrorism.

Paul.

messybuu

on Apr 16, 2004

I see a very simple solution for Yugoslavia that could have avoided war: Move the people that Milosevic wanted to destroy to a place in Europe where they would be safe from genocide. Not only would Milosevic maintain his sovereignty over his nation, but nobody would have to die in an unnecessary war and no genocide would occur.
Did George Washington target innocent civilians? If so, then he was a terrorist. If not, then he wasn't. Also, Osama wants to free the Arab world from the influence of the western world, just like Yassin wanted to free some land from Israeli control, so one might say that he's not a terrorist, but a freedom fighter, just like George Washington. Maybe Europe should practice what it preaches and call bin Laden, not a terrorist, but a political activist.

Mackintosh

on Apr 16, 2004

SB, and which country in Europe do you think would want a couple million of muslims?

Solitair

on Apr 16, 2004

Super Baby,
are you really suggesting that it's ok to relocate people you don't like elsewhere? I really hope that was sacrasm.

That was Hitler's initial plan for the Jews. Move them away from the areas you want and into Ghettos. Then he came up with a 'brilliant' idea of just exterminating them instead. So much easier. Once you take away one basic human right it's so much easier to take away others.

Paul.

moshi

on Apr 16, 2004

"I see a very simple solution for Yugoslavia that could have avoided war: Move the people that Milosevic wanted to destroy to a place in Europe where they would be safe from genocide. Not only would Milosevic maintain his sovereignty over his nation, but nobody would have to die in an unnecessary war and no genocide would occur."

or how about moving the Kuwaitis to Arizona? Not only would have Saddam gotten access to the oil fields he wanted and nobody would have had to die in an unnecessary war.

see how bizarre your logic is?

Mack/N.G.E.: not only Bosnian and Albanian Muslims, Croatian Christians as well. btw: there are millions of Turks here in Germany. nice people overall.

messybuu

on Apr 16, 2004

SB, and which country in Europe do you think would want a couple million of muslims?

If they don't want them either, then why demand that another country keep them? It sounds like another example of Europe shifting the burden elsewhere.

Super Baby,
are you really suggesting that it's ok to relocate people you don't like elsewhere? I really hope that was sacrasm

If it's all right for Hussein to kill his own people, which I'm assuming it is for the Europeans who criticized us for invading Iraq, then why not? At least they'd still be alive.

or how about moving the Kuwaitis to Arizona? Not only would have Saddam gotten access to the oil fields he wanted and nobody would have had to die in an unnecessary war.

Big difference. Kuwait didn't belong to Hussein, so it was an invasion. However, those Muslims were on Milosevic's land.

shadesofgrey

on Apr 16, 2004

However, those Muslims were on Milosevic's land.

how did become Milosevic's land? It was just as much "those muslims" land as it was Milosevic. Your argument seems to be the one with the most toys (or the biggest guns) gets to keep the land. Might I remind you that Milosevic was tried for war crimes...there's pretty much agreement that his methods were despicable--I certainly hope you are not arguing otherwise.

And regardless of whether or not a country in Europe *wants* them--they might not *want* to go. That's the problem in the West Bank--sure they were moved--but they sure as hell didn't move there by choice and they are doing everything possible to return.

messybuu

on Apr 16, 2004

If Yugoslavia wasn't Milosevic's land even though he was president, then Iraq was not Hussein's land, in which case, nobody violated anybody's sovereignty.

My argument is that the U.S. is criticized for invading a country, even if the dictator was killing his own people, while Europe is praised for invading a country because a dictator wanted people off the land over which he ruled. Both could have negotiated a compromise, but both went to war instead, and Europe praises itself for going to war while criticizing the U.S. for going to war.

Solitair

on Apr 16, 2004

Super Baby,
you need to be very careful with your arguments. Genocide and ethnic cleansing is a very touchy subject. Lets clear up some legalities.

Milosevic was an elected president. He did not have a legal right to ethnically clense those he didn;t like from any land within the territory of Yugoslavia. When he spent years raising national divisions within his country Europe tried diplomancy. It failed. Once people started dying they acted in war.

Saddam was a dictator. He also did not have a legal right to ethnically cleanse those he didn't like. When he did so against the south around Basra the international community reacted by putting a no fly zone in place. If they had invaded to protect the Shia people then many people internationnaly would have been in favour. Why they didn't I don't know. Over half a decade later Saddam was NOT ethnically cleansing his poeple. They were indeed repressed, but there was no large scale cleansing of a particular population occurring. The US invaded and many people complained. For the record, I supported the war.

Don't confuse the Invasion of Iraq with an attempt to stop genocide though. It wasn't and no-one ever tried to claim it was.

Iraq was officially about WMD although a large number of other reasons were suspected. The fact that the US failed to allow the weapon inspectors to finish their work claiming that Iraq was an 'imminent threat' is what annoyed many peopel who favoured negotiation. Turns out that Iraq was not an 'imminent threat' and didn't have WMD and that the negotiators were indeed correct.

Paul.

shadesofgrey

on Apr 16, 2004

If Yugoslavia wasn't Milosevic's land even though he was president, then Iraq was not Hussein's land, in which case, nobody violated anybody's sovereignty.

I think Paul summed it up quite nicely, but I just want to add, that it wasn't "Hussein's land" it was Iraq--and the sovereignty of Iraq (not Hussein) was violated--if that' the argument that one is trying to make. Even in democratically elected countries the land doesn't belong to the President. I live in the United States, not "Bush land." If Bush decided tomorrow that all Virginians had to leave the US, he would be WRONG--just because he's the leader of the country doesn't mean he can violate laws and human rights.

I realize that my response is not as eloquently put as Paul's, but I needed to add my two cents.

messybuu

on Apr 16, 2004

I understand that European countries disapprove of the WMD argument. However, even if some of "official" reasons to justify the war were wrong (kind of like the claims of mass graves), that does not change the fact that those other reasons (including the murdering and oppression of Iraqi civilians) existed. Despite that, some countries think that the war is completely unjust.

Solitair

on Apr 17, 2004

I would agree with you on this issue SuperBaby.

In Europe the war was portrayed as a war against WMD. Blair stated categorically that 'this is not about regime change'. The problem was that the US evidence failed to convince France, Germany or Russia. They all objected saying that there was no proof. Colin Powell provided 'proof' but they said it was all circumstantial and open to other interpretation. Turns out that they were right. The US never asked them to support war for any other reason other than WMD.

What their reaction would have been if the US had honestly said in the beginning that Saddam had to go I don't know. Would they have supported war? Would the UK have supported war?

The unjustness of the war is an issue of timing I think. If the US had invaded when Saddam gassed the south then yes they would have supported it. If the US had invaded in 1998 then most would have. But why in 2003? Why when nothing negative had changed? Why when Saddam was cooperating? To a European it looked like revenge and re-election politics.

Paul.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!