France may Veto a War Resolution on Iraq

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

… says the npr news. (Others are welcome to site the actual articles on this issue).

I find it very interesting, keeping in mind the fact that France is currently heading the Security Council and some polls show that up to 85% of French do not wish to be part of any Iraqi war! Also, IMO the matter goes twistier because France in the recent past has tried to make its relations with US a little warmer. And being not the big smoking guns of the few permanent members of the Security Council, they need to be careful where to appose the others & where not to.

Another interesting aspect of any such war resolution will be the fact how the Bush administration, not being a big fan of UN, handles such a veto.

2

you know google has a new “news search” feature…a few sources :\

Toronto Star

International Herald Tribune

Reuters

3

Vive La France :k:

[thumb=A]fr-t.JPG[/thumb]

4

French have a history of talking from both sides of their mouth. Wait until the time comes, see much Vive they've got, and where can they put it.

5

if they're assured a fair share of the post-Saddam Iraqi Oil they'll shut up.. the Russians toned down their objections didn't they?

6

Vive La France.. :biggthumb

** France to rally EU against early war**](http://www.iht.com/articles/84137.html) International Herald Tribune 22 Jan 03

WASHINGTON Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Tuesday that France would try to rally the European Union to “speak with a single voice” and oppose any hasty decision by the United States to unleash a military assault against Iraq.

He said no action should be taken while UN inspectors are seeking more time - perhaps many months - to pursue their search for evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. “We see no justification today for an intervention, since the inspectors are able to do their work,” he said in Brussels, Reuters reported. “We could not support unilateral action.”

7

Hope this is true, but we shoulnt rely on France to save innocent muslims in Iraq. I HATE saddam but this war for oil is going to kill 1000's of our own ppl. Assassinate Saddam if they really want to-but this is simply a war in which they will try to gain control over oil supplies and boost Israeli dominance of the area.

8

bush and hussein arent any different. as stated before we should see the final decision from france.

remember canada said they would not vote for that humanitary thing in africa, well they decided to vote against libya.

9

France didn't stop Hitler from re-arming in violation of the Treaty of Versailles either. We all know where 'that head in the sand policy' lead - a Nazi parade down the Champ-Elysses 5 years later.

10

According to radio news report (CNN) on my way back home today, not only France, but also Russia and China (surprise surprise!) have said that they oppose any immediate war plans, and would rather give more time (read ‘many more months’ per Mr Blix) for Inspectors to complete their work. Also note that from February, the new Chairman of UNSC will be Germany, another blantantly anti-war European.

All well and good. :k:

My first thought is, why would France be so vehemetically opposing war? Having seen so much already, I don’t believe any country has moral or ethical principles to make such policies, and its usually just a matter of where more of their interests (read cash/influence) lies. Russia just signed some kinda oil deal with Iraq. I would hope France’s opposition to war is based on French contracts in Iraq, and not merely on ethical/moral and public relations considerations. Because US will streamroll all such aside through its brutal arm-twisting in the weeks leading to the actual confrontation. Just like it did at the time of UN resolution 1441 a couple of months ago.

Unfortunately, my worry is that these Europeans, and also Russians and Chinese are only holding out for some other gains on the side, and none would really care what happens in Baghdad. Whatever their inner wheelings and dealings with the Bush Administrations are, will come out in weeks and months ahead, but the only casualty will be the people of Iraq.

I wish, for the sake of peace and saving human lives, that Saddam just goes into exile, whereever he wants. Or Allah solves the troubles of the nation of Iraq by calling Saddam back, or something like that.

11

No Iraqi civilian will die in Iraq if Sadam wishes so. No matter what US goals are in this war; oil, hegemony,ouster of Sadam, democracy in Iraq etc etc...mass killing of Iraqi civilians is not one of them. Same was the case in Afghanistan...it just does not serve their goals. Yes there were civilian causalities but nothing like hundreds of thousands like it was predicted before the war. same argument now that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will die. All bull**** if you ask me. Yes Sadam's army boys will be bulldozed again but they are not the real target. if they have the balls they can throw this ******* out and save themselves and their people from any such agony. true that death of even 1 innocent civilian is wrong but when people talk in vague numbers like 100,000's then one needs to evaluate any such damage in those terms.

US bombing killed couple of thousand innocent civilians in Afghanistan but at the same time that war saved hundreds of thousands the same winter and this winter. Similar situation could happen in iraq.

Hopefully second tier iraqi officers get the cue and settle this feud by themselves. That will be a loss for Sadaam and loss for Bush too. works for me.

12

I don't have any hopes from French either as they will back out nearer the time of war. Germany, on the other hand, might resist since the government won the elections recently based on anti-war policy but we will have to see.

I also think that there should be a peaceful solution and Saddam's exile is the only peaceful solution looks feasible for the time being. How the next 5 or 6 Iraqi groups, already in negotiations for post Saddam government, will react towards each other when they are in power is another question to think about since they come from completely different backgrounds. I just hope it's not another Afghanistan where the same old war lords are ruling in their local areas and promises of liberating women, construction aid and so on have been forgotten.

War will be catastrophic for Iraqi people and maybe more than 1 million of them will die indirectly when the remaining infra-structure of the country is damaged during war. It might be possible that no civilian dies in the war but the effects of it will haunt the already suffering Iraqi people for decades for sure.

Therefore, I think any voice, no matter how small it is, should be welcomed if it is to stop the war.

13

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by ChannMahi: *
No Iraqi civilian will die in Iraq if Sadam wishes so. No matter what US goals are in this war; oil, hegemony,ouster of Sadam, democracy in Iraq etc etc...mass killing of Iraqi civilians is not one of them. Same was the case in Afghanistan...it just does not serve their goals. Yes there were civilian causalities but nothing like hundreds of thousands like it was predicted before the war. same argument now that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will die. All bull*** if you ask me. Yes Sadam's army boys will be bulldozed again but they are not the real target. if they have the balls they can throw this ******* out and save themselves and their people from any such agony. true that death of even 1 innocent civilian is wrong but when people talk in vague numbers like 100,000's then one needs to evaluate any such damage in those terms.

US bombing killed couple of thousand innocent civilians in Afghanistan but at the same time that war saved hundreds of thousands the same winter and this winter. Similar situation could happen in iraq.

Hopefully second tier iraqi officers get the cue and settle this feud by themselves. That will be a loss for Sadaam and loss for Bush too. works for me.
[/QUOTE]

I could not agree with you more Chanmahi,these same arguments have been trotted out by the same people before the Yugoslav war,the Afghanistan war.
And the outcome is always the same,so it will be in this one.

One thing i must say though,is that,we havn`t even seen this war yet,mabe Saddam will be taken out in a surgical strike.No one knows what the outcome will be,there may not even be war,unlikely,i agree.
But Saddam could always do the right thing by his people and just get him and his family out of dodge,he surely will have enough money stashed away in Switserland,to live comfartably.

14

What would all these vetoes mean? Even if Russia, China, France and UK combined to hit the resolution with 4 vetoes, the war is still on. The only UN action that affects Iraq is the one mandating sanctions...that too for 12 yrs running. A UN action calling for no war will stand for 12 minutes maybe.

15

Whats fairly clear now is that France, Russia and China will not support any unilateral action against Iraq.. Whats yet to be decided is what happens after the UN weapon inspectors present their interim reports.. even after this, some analysts state they still require many months to carry out their inspection duties… but this is being rejected by the Bush administration which supports military action regardless of what the UN decides.

Putin Calls Bush on Iraq, Sides with Germany, France Reuters 23 Jan 03

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin, lining up behind France, Germany and China, told President Bush on Thursday that the world had to hear U.N. inspectors before any military action against Iraq.

Putin, in a hotline call to Washington, told Bush next week’s report by the arms inspectors to the U.N. Security Council held the key to the next move in the Iraqi crisis.“The Russian side noted that the main criteria in evaluating the situation (on Iraq) were the conclusions by international inspectors which are soon to be presented to the U.N. Security Council,” a Kremlin statement said.

**Russia, which has deep economic interests in Iraq, has striven to avert unilateral U.S. action against Baghdad, urging Washington to seek clear authorization for use of force from the Security Council where Moscow has veto power.

The Kremlin said Putin’s remarks were part of a broader exchange of opinions on Iraq but it did not elaborate. Putin’s step followed declarations by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and French President Jacques Chirac that they would do all they could to avert war. China said its position was “extremely close” to that of France. Earlier on Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov told reporters in Athens that there was no justification at present for U.S. action against Baghdad.**

“Russia believes that there are no grounds at the moment to use military force against Iraq,” Ivanov said. Faced with international opposition to its war build-up, Washington signaled it would not make any hasty moves though it considers it has already received the green light from the United Nations to act single-handedly.

“We believe there is sufficient authority to move now without a second resolution,” U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told Russia’s Ekho Moskvy radio, referring to a tough first U.N. resolution on Iraq passed in November. “No decision yet has been made on whether or not to seek a second resolution and certainly we will want to have a discussion in New York at the Security Council after we have heard what Mr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei have to say on the 27th.”

Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and U.N. nuclear agency head Mohamed ElBaradei are due to report to the Council on Monday on findings in their search for weapons of mass destruction since their return to Iraq in November. Bush has repeatedly accused Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of failing to cooperate with the inspectors, but Armitage said Bush had not yet set a date for military action against Iraq.

16

“it was striking that the Americans today don’t seem to be taking into account the progress of the weapons inspectors, that the weapons inspectors say they are making”

France and Germany reinforce inspections plan](AM with Sabra Lane - ABC listen) ABC, Australia. 25 Feb 03

LINDA MOTTRAM: As Iraq continues to mull that issue of the al-Samoud missiles, France and Germany remain convinced that the path to disarmament lies through inspections and not through war. France and Germany, backed by Russia are putting their own proposals to the Security Council to bolster weapons inspections and that course was discussed at a dinner meeting in Berlin overnight between Jacques Chirac, the French President, and Gerhard Schroeder, the German Chancellor. As they emerged from their talks, I asked our Europe correspondent Michael Brissenden whether there was any change in their position.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: No, absolutely none. In fact, they’ve reiterated their position that they see absolutely no reason for a second resolution. Jacques Chirac said the inspectors must be given the utmost chance to succeed and the use of force could only be used as a last resort. The French are putting a new proposal to the Security Council, backed by the Germans, and they say the Russians and the Chinese, that will define concrete criteria for disarmament.

Now the French Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, said that destroying the al-Samoud II missile program by the end of the week would be a positive step by Iraq, but one thing he did say was that it was striking that the Americans today don’t seem to be taking into account the progress of the weapons inspectors, that the weapons inspectors say they are making. Jacques Chirac when he came out, out of this meeting, answered a number of questions, but he still believes, his essential point was that he still believes Iraq could be disarmed peacefully.

17

France to say ‘NON’ to War](http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12694251&method=full&siteid=50143) Mirror 04 Mar 03

By Bob Roberts, Political Correspondent
UN will not rubber stamp Iraq attack, France tells Blair

FRANCE yesterday said it would vote against a strike on Iraq, shattering Tony Blair’s hopes of getting United Nations backing for war. Foreign minister Dominique de Villepin said his country would not allow the UN to become a “rubber-stamp” for America. France, which has the power of veto, said it would oppose a second United Nations’ resolution authorising war.

That leaves the Prime Minister facing a nightmare scenario of an Iraqi conflict without UN support.Mr de Villepin said: "Sometimes at night I wake up thinking, ‘Have we tried everything?’ France says no. Are we going to oppose a second resolution?"Yes - as are the Russians and many other countries."He said France would not be pushed by America’s timetable to rush into conflict.

He said: “You do not make war on a timetable. The timetable of the international community may not be the timetable of war.” After Mr de Villepin spoke on the BBC’s Breakfast with Frost, Mr Blair urged Security Council member Chile, which has not yet decided what to do, to back a second resolution.

He must secure nine votes out of the 15 members. Russia, China, Britain, the US and France have a veto. France has not said it will veto the resolution. Only Bulgaria has backed the joint US-UK-Spanish resolution.

But Mr Blair showed no signs of wavering. He said yesterday: “Just as I don’t doubt the sincerity of those who oppose military action, I hope they will understand that I believe equally firmly that the international community can’t let Saddam’s defiance continue.” Former Labour Cabinet Minister Chris Smith, who led last week’s rebellion in the Commons, warned the PM he would face a bigger barracking if he went to war without the United Nations.

He said: "If the weapons inspectors are still saying we need more time, the world community is saying, ‘We agree with that, we’re not going to have a second resolution at this stage’ and nonetheless America and Britain go to war, I suspect there will be a lot more than 199 MPs very unhappy."But Welsh Secretary Peter Hain said: “Tony Blair’s stance on this issue will be vindicated in the months and weeks to come. We’re risking unpopularity but I think we’ll win through.”

18

Slight correction Ahmadjee, Germany is the one currently heading the UN security council and not France. But, I heard Mr. Villipain's interview last night, in which he flatly said that there's no way that the US will get the second resolution passed.