Poland Lashes Out at France; "What Gaul!"

The French President's words in Brussels have caused the most serious friction for years in Paris-Warsaw relations and the largest eruption of anti-French comments in Poland.

At a press conference following the European Union's extraordinary summit devoted to the Iraq crisis Feb. 17, Jacques Chirac criticized the pro-American policy pursued by Central European EU candidate countries. "They lost a good opportunity to be quiet... they acted somewhat recklessly, did not demonstrate good manners... their behavior was infantile," said Chirac, adding that this might obstruct the ratification of the Accession Treaty, as "European public opinion" in the countries of the Fifteen looks askance at this kind of policy.

Delegations from the countries attacked by Chirac were not present at the summit in Brussels, as France and Germany did not agree to invite EU candidate states, despite proposals put forward by, among others, Great Britain and Spain. The criticism voiced by Chirac was caused first of all by the "Letter of Eight," signed Jan. 29 by prime ministers of the following five EU countries: Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Great Britain and Italy, and of three EU candidate countries: Poland, Slovakia and Hungary; one day later, the letter was also signed by retiring Czech President Vaclav Havel. The letter, a declaration of solidarity with Washington's policy, triggered many sharply critical comments both in France and Germany. "When you are in the family, you have more rights," said Chirac, when the fact was brought to his attention that the heads of governments of five EU countries also signed the letter. On the following day in Warsaw, French Defense Minister Michelle Alliot-Marie used the same rhetoric, comparing the candidate countries to a "daughter-in-law, only about to enter the family."

"In Europe, there are no better ones and worse ones; there are no children, or states too immature for partnership," said Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs W³odzimierz Cimoszewicz in Brussels Feb. 18, stressing that the idea of certain countries having more of a say is unacceptable.

Cimoszewicz's response was one of the mildest of those provoked in Poland. A majority of politicians and commentators reserved much sharper criticism for Chirac. The French president's earlier controversial statements were cited, including from Moscow last year, when Chirac, without prior consultation with any of the states concerned, reassured President Vladimir Putin that in the future the newly admitted EU member countries-or Poland and Lithuania-would not introduce visas for Russian citizens living in Kaliningrad district. It was also remembered that France was partly responsible for the Polish state finding itself in the Soviet camp for half a century in the wake of World War II. Charles de Gaulle was the first among the leaders of Western superpowers to officially recognize Boles³aw Bierut's Moscow-installed government, thus substantially helping Joseph Stalin in his political objective vis-á-vis Poland.

"France is not a pacifist country... it loves war-provided it is the country that is heading it," said Marek Siwiec, the head of presidential National Security Office (BBN), commenting on Paris's stance on the Iraq crisis.

Voicing their feelings concerning Chirac's threats over Poland's accession to the EU, both Polish Chief Negotiator Jan Truszczyñski and Minister for European Integration Danuta Hübner reacted calmly, expressing the hope that these words were effected by emotion. Hübner also pointed out that the content of the "Letter of Eight" did not conflict with the decisions made earlier in Brussels in discussions over EU foreign policy.

Politicians from other countries aspiring to the EU also voiced their criticism of Chirac. Slovak Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda, a signatory of the "Letter of Eight," said that his country was fully entitled to participate in formulating a common European policy. Deputy Foreign Minister of Bulgaria Lubomir Ivanov said that Chirac's words were yet another form of pressure exerted on Central European countries by Paris. Romania's President Ion Iliescu described Chirac's words as "completely out of line."

Some Western European politicians described Chirac's behavior in an unambiguously critical manner. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who had earlier strove in vain to invite representatives of EU candidate countries to the Brussels summit, said that endeavoring to deprive any state of its voice is a serious political mistake. European Parliament President Pat Cox shared Blair's opinion. Chirac's words were received most bluntly by Chris Patten, EU commissioner for external contacts, who said that "the European Union is no Warsaw Pact."

The meaning of EU is to build a mirror of the US power for the sake of the western side. Some countries like England still hesitate and sometimes undermine this construction, now the eastern countries seem to follow this dangerous path.

What absolute rubbish, someone ought to drag you outside and whack you with a dead fish for this nonsense. The EU was not presented to most member states who joined as being an alternative superpower. It was supposed to be an economic arrangement; and this is how it was presented to the British public in 1974 when we voted on it.

Now, what you are saying is that we are undermining the "construction" of this entity we do not want. Have you considered the possibility that your own country is undermining it? The vast majority of EU and potential EU states DO NOT agree with you on Iraq. We don't. And Chirac's arrogance in telling Eastern Europe to be quiet is outrageous.

Quite frankly, if you want to heal the rifts in Europe, the best that your country can do right now after shovelling out these heaps of rubbish towards the British, Spanish, Americans, is to do the following:

SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP.

Ivan

Makes you loose all credit to me. Just read what he actually said not what your press said he said.

Typical bloody frog. Your President's words are meaningless; his ACTIONS have been directed towards ensuring that Saddam remains in power. And that is the end of the discussion.

This was supposed to be civil nuclear. But to be honest, under cover it's true that the west and Russia supported him hugely, because Iran was the main threat. There is no reason for you to focus on France specially about it all. But yes I am plain ashamed by the past compromissions of the west in general. I am not naive.

America and Britain NEVER went so far as to sell him a nuclear reactor. In case you haven't been reading here, France has been the broker for Iraq for the Chinese to sell fuel for Iraq's missiles. This occured this year.

That's why I consider Bush is right not compromissing with the errors of the past.

Well you get one part of it right.

Ivan

I think and I wish that the results of the post war will open some eyes in Europe.

That is a possibility.

Remember that Frnace assisted you in many conflicts before 2001.

And didn't assist us in many others. It dragged its feet in 1991, eventually sending only a very light force at a very late date that was intentionally placed where it would not see combat. And the refusal to grant overflight rights in 1986 still rankles a lot of people here.

Karl, the reality is that a body such as the enhanced EU you envision is going to be constrained by the views of its individual members. Inertia and deadlocks are going to be the primary characteristics of whatever international outlook it has because there will be too much internal disagreement. It will act as a lease on our true allies, and a forum for our opponents.

The vision of a more united EU may be beneficial from the perspective of some Europeans, but not from the U.S. We like our current crop of allies just fine, because they are free to side with us if they choose. They might not have that freedom if they were part of your enhanced EU.

The poles did not resist more against the Blitzkrieg. At least I bet the english did not. So the soldiers, british included were encircled. The worst case scenario.

I have sympathy for the losses France suffered in WWI. But this is just bad revisionism. Poland fought on even after Warsaw fell. Britain fought on even after it was completely ejected from the continent and had the option of peace with full territorial integrity. France did get hammered in the campaign, but you can't really argue that it fought on until resistance was impossible.

Several heroic desperate battles have been attempted by those who still had some means to fight, specially those under the commandment of De Gaulle.

However much he hated Americans, De Gaulle was a patriotic Frenchman with balls. No question on that. And I wouldn't insult French troops by implying that they weren't brave. It was a lack of will on the part of their leaders.

Karl B, I feel badly for you because you're defending your country, which is admirable. Unfortunately, the record of the French government with respect to Iraq is pretty abysmal, and I don't think there's a way to explain it away. I don't blame you or all your countrymen for that, though. Its not your fault.

I have enjoyed reading your commentary about Europe and the hopes for the future. May it be so! No ones knows what lies ahead, yet as the adage goes "the best predictor of future behavior is former behavior." Many conservatives are angry about the recent behavior of the French government, whose primary motivation is anger/fear of the global primacy of the USA. Our national character is shaped by our isolation...we do not have to get along with any one. Our own matters, failings, troubles, are enough to occupy us. (We of course want to buy and sell with Europe and the world, but that is a sideline.) It feels a bit like a younger athletic son rushing to aid in the fight of an admired older father, only to find afterwards the father resents the strength of his son…..the son’s respect and honor begins to change into bitterness. I wish the French/Europeans could find some way to understand and respect us for who we are…..we the people who come to war reluctantly. The same forces that bring us to a cause of action late leave little time or room for negotiations…..

Right because I am pro Bush about Iraq ! Amazing how two consecutive errors lead to the right conclusion ! ROFL

The arrogance of the French rears its ugly head again. Spain, Portugal, Italy, the Netherlands, and the UK support the US. France, Germany and Belgium oppose the US. That is precisely what I meant - you are in the minority, yet you are trying to foist this anti-US policy off on the rest of us as being the "true voice of Europe". To which my response is, "Sod off".

Does not work like this Ivan. Watch the holy grail again. Shut up means keep on arguing for a french.

Fine. Continue to argue - the more a Frenchman talks, the more he looks like a jackass, and I will take tremendous pleasure out of figuratively tearing your guts out until you give in. And I will not stop until you do.

You people made a huge mistake - you made an Englishman angry. And I am blood red with rage at what France has tried to do in recent days.

You were not there when Europe has been built so sit down and hear : the fundamental goal of EU was targetting the security and peace inside Europe, the founders of Europe clearly targetted a united and coherent entity, respectful of the national differences.

You don't respect national differences. Chirac made that quite clear when telling the Eastern Europeans to shut up. Try this on for size: Eastern Europe and the majority of the EU are telling YOU in response: SHUT UP.

But uncoherence is yours, as long as you wish to stay between two chairs. Incoherence weakens. But I know which side you personnally choose. And those like you are properly undermining Europe as long as UK does not get the idea of what Europe could mean if everyone was ready to go forward.

Here is why I am furious with this suggestion - you are demanding that this coherence comes on FRENCH terms. To which I say, go sod yourself.

We are not all protected by a cute island you know. In 1940 the panzers would have stormed UK if a cold age had spread ice across the channel.

Lies. We would have fought to the last man. Even the German order of battle of the invasion of England reflected this.

I keep straight in my boots. Unlike most british citizens I support Bush decision to wage war in Iraq.

Liar. Polls this morning showed Blair had the support of the vast majority of the British people.

This is the current european unity, this way I regret. The Blair report ridiculous scandal is english not french.

So you deny the content of the report that Saddam is hiding weapons of mass destruction? Not even Chirac says this.

Don't blame us when you are able to convince your own citizens.

They're already convinced, you pompous twit.

Even the USA will learn that an inconsistant Europe is a danger for them. As Europe is also a bridge to the USA. And many powers worldwide don't have benevolent intentions towards Europe or the USA.

I am sure my American colleagues will agree with me that they don't need a yapping inconsequential poodle like the French snapping at their heels. And this is the curse of what your country has done: you are nothing. Your words will be ignored.

Ivan

No it's a very know fact for anyone serious. It do not intend that the poles themselves did it with their own means. It's true they have been courageous to stand in front of their dictator. But you are naive if you don't know that there has been a terrific efforts made by the Reagan administration at all levels - strategy, economy, politics, and intelligence.

You are rambling and incoherent. For you to suggest that the Poles are not exercising their free will in standing up to you is insulting and wrong. This is not a debt of gratitude, were it a merely a debt of gratitude, they would not have sent troops in addition to giving the verbal support which was all that was required to show such gratitude.

Let me tell you you hate the french because you are biased towards any french argument. Reading your press also explains a bit. You only prove it once again that english like to seek polemics where they are not.

Let me explain something - I absolutely hate your country because your leader tried to depose my Prime Minister with his shenangians, rather than concentrate on the safety of the world. The French disgust me because you are unbelievably arrogant, condescending and haughty. Your entire demeanour on this thread is of someone who is here to lecture the rest of us, and you attempt to do so with your long, rambling, snooty posts.

I am revulsed by such nonsense, as I am sure my American colleagues are too.

Ivan

The USA also owes us a lot, by all the ppl that emigrated and made the USA bigger.

We owe you nothing. Yes, we are mostly Europeans, but we are Europeans who were despised and victimized by the rest of Europe. Europe hated my ancestors and drove them out.

America took in the religious dissenters, the poor, the indebted, the criminal, the losers of wars and the dreamers of dreams. We vowed not to repeat the mistakes of Old Europe and we built a nation that eclipses all that Europe ever has or ever will accomplish.

The greatest society in all of history was built by the hard work of the poorest, humblest, lowliest sons of Europe. The so-called 'elite' were left behind to quarrel and stagnate. Now their culture is dying off and their ludicrous socialist economies are failing. The birth rate has plummeted as Europeans lose faith in the future.

Only the Mohammedan ant-hills continue to breed, and in a hundred years Europe will be a seething Muslim sh*t-pile, indistinguishable from any other Muslim sh*t-pile in the Third World except by its architecture.

-ccm

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.