| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Signs, Portents, and the Weather- |
| France sees Security Council 'cowardice' on Myanmar |
| 2008-05-20 |
| French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Monday countries on the U.N. Security Council that did not agree to pressure Myanmar into opening its doors to foreign aid were guilty of "cowardice". France has tried unsuccessfully to convince the Council that Myanmar's military rulers should let aid reach the victims of Cyclone Nargis under a "responsibility to protect" principle recognized in a 2005 U.N. resolution. China, Russia, Vietnam and South Africa have opposed Council involvement in what they say is a humanitarian, not a political issue. "We denounce the impending death of thousands more civilians, and we are accused of meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign state," Kouchner, who founded medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres, said in an opinion piece in newspaper Le Monde. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #19 Sigh. Why do people think the UN was designed to "do something"? It was NOT. It was designed to be a do-nothing gas factory, and it performs that designed function perfectly well. |
| Posted by: mojo 2008-05-20 16:14 |
| #18 I mean hell we might have been speaking English if it wasn't for the French fleet. (luckily at a peak) |
| Posted by: George Smiley 2008-05-20 14:23 |
| #17 Hear, Hear JFM and the AnonOne. It's also good to remember that the march on YorkTown was paid for with 3 casks of Frankish Coin. |
| Posted by: George Smiley 2008-05-20 14:21 |
| #16 C'est Legion Etrange, n'est pas? In dien bien phu, they were of course present, but in WWI, insane acts of bravery (including the simple fact of enduring and going through) was a common denominator of all the fighting men, of all nationalities, speaking as a whole. This would IMHO simply impossible to replicate today, with today's french, today's germans, today's brits, and, dare I say it?, today's americans. We're simply not what we used to be. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2008-05-20 13:34 |
| #15 Btw, I don't care about the clichés about french, even when they come from someone I enjoy like Mark Twain (and his are quite virulent, to say the least, though cowardice is not yet one of them, this is a post-WWII, post-60's one), because as I read french rightwing websites, I'm exposed to quite a range of anti-americanism feelings (and, beware, for the french wingnuts, the cowards are the US soldiers, who can't fight, are mirred in afghanistan and iraq, and use aerial firepower to squash resistance)... so, from being exposed to both kinds of xenophobia and clichés, it's kinda like when the irrestisible force meets the unmovable object, I just don't give a crap anymore about both. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2008-05-20 13:30 |
| #14 The Légion had a relatively minor role in all french conflicts except the post-colonial "police operations", where they are employed along the marines (formerly the colonial infantry); in indochina, according to wikipedia, they totalled between 5 and 12% of the troops (after the initial expeditionary corps of which they were 25%), though they had 12% of KIA (against 7% for the troops in general). Don't forget this is a very small force, less than 10 000 men today; anyone imagining they've been doing the heavy lifting of the french fighting, because they're furriners, and french are cowards, is badly mistaking. This always had been a marginal, if renowned, part of the french army. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2008-05-20 13:26 |
| #13 Exactly right, JFM. French soldiers have traditionally had a lot of courage. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2008-05-20 12:58 |
| #12 spot, glad to see I misread your comment. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-05-20 12:55 |
| #11 I will refrain on mentionning some criminally stupid but still brave actions like assaulting machine guns while being clad in bright blue jackets and bright red trousers or people who had never used a parachute volunteering for a combat jump on Dien Bien Phu. C'est Legion Etrange, n'est pas? |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-05-20 12:46 |
| #10 It is not really cowardice when Myanmar is protected by China. Cowardice is not actually calling the Chinese out on their association and protection of the worlds' vilest regimes (Sudan, Burma) for fear of hurting 'future' sales into China. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-05-20 12:29 |
| #9 I think the French Foreign Minister is wrong. If we offer up aid and the Myanmar Gov't doesn't want it then fine by me - piss on 'em. If NGOs or private charities want to go there & try to help out that's okay. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2008-05-20 11:01 |
| #8 Getting called cowards by the French?! Ever heard about Austerlitz, Iena, Marengo, Auerstaedt, Verdun? I will refrain on mentionning some criminally stupid but still brave actions like assaulting machine guns while being clad in bright blue jackets and bright red trousers or people who had never used a parachute volunteering for a combat jump on Dien Bien Phu. |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-05-20 10:39 |
| #7 We're cowards? Oh, my. Where's that lunch menu? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-05-20 10:27 |
| #6 "Is that what you want? A UN with its own army, enforcing its will by over-riding national governments" first kouchner isnt talking about a UN army. IIUC hes calling on the UNSC to authorize national forces to bring in aid without the permission of the Burmese govt. Even were he to call for its overthrow (which he is NOT doing), it wouldnt be by a UN army, but by national forces authorized by the UNSC. And hes not asking for the veto power to be eliminated (the ultimate protection for the US) but for Russia and China to use their veto RESPONSIBLY, which means recognizing the distinctive aspects of whats going on in Burma. And I dont know what UN rapporteur trying to get Obama elected youre talking about. Someone appointed by the UNSC? Even if there was a UN army (now the need of the UN to rely on national forces adds another layer of protection for great powers, beyond the veto) its likely that such an army would either small, ineffecient, or both. The US military in the future will be sized to fight a shooting war with the Peoples Republic of China. Is such a force going to be intimidated by a couple of divisions of Bengalis and Ghanains? I dont think so. (leaving aside that a dedicated UN force designed, in all likelihood, for peacekeeping and MAYBE humanitarian interventions wont have its own navy or air force) |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-05-20 10:02 |
| #5 lotp - if you're responding to me you're confused. I was mocking the frogs because they are unwilling to use (their own) force even if necessary. As to the UN, if you've been paying attention, "UN delenda est" (hat-tip to JFM). |
| Posted by: Spot 2008-05-20 09:14 |
| #4 Is that what you want? A UN with its own army, enforcing its will by over-riding national governments? The junta sucks and richly deserves to be dismantled. But keep in mind that we already have a UN rapporteur coming to announce to the world that the US is racist and to try to get Obama elected. You want more of that here??? Because if it's okay for Burma it will be more than okay to enforce UN desires on us as well. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-05-20 08:31 |
| #3 Sure the UN is cowardly. This is news to you? What do you want them to do anyway, issue a strongly worded letter? That should do the trick. The Burmese junta is saying "Oh yeah? You and what army?" and all you can do is whine to Le Monde. Maybe if you had an army and the balls to use it... |
| Posted by: Spot 2008-05-20 08:21 |
| #2 No, the real surprise here is Medecins Sans Frontieres using the pages of Le Monde to complain about someone other than America. |
| Posted by: gromky 2008-05-20 02:06 |
| #1 Getting called cowards by the French?! Well, there's a standard that's going to be hard to beat. |
| Posted by: Spats Clolulet2136 2008-05-20 01:33 |