France, Russia, Germany to Oppose Iraq War Resolution at UN

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

The opposition to US-UK war plans is as strong as ever, with more and more countries not afraid to openly come out against the US. Can the US gain anything near the nine votes needed to pass another resolution without a veto?

France, Russia Vow No Iraq War Approval

The foreign ministers of France, Germany and Russia said Wednesday they will “not allow” passage of an American-backed U.N. resolution to authorize war against Iraq further highlighting the deep trans-Atlantic split between Washington and two of its closest allies. The three ministers held an emergency meeting in Paris as U.S.-led preparations for war accelerate and the U.N. Security Council prepares to consider a resolution backed by Washington that could open the door for military action. “We will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes resorting to force,” France’s Dominique de Villepin said at a press conference alongside his Russian and German counterparts. “Russia and France, as permanent members of the Security Council, will assume their full responsibilities on this point.” When asked whether France would use its veto in the council as Russia has suggested it might do, de Villepin said, “We will take all our responsibilities. We are in total agreement with the Russians.” In Washington, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said President Bush was confident the resolution would be passed and said the resistance from France, Russia and Germany did not necessarily represent their vote.

2

Re: France, Russia, Germany to Oppose Iraq War Resolution at UN

i guess all those bribes and threats don’t seem to be working?

It is interesting that, public sentiments in both France and Germany are significantly opposed to committing war against Iraq, and both their respective governments seem to be adhering by the wishes of their people.
Since it does not seem as though a second UNSC Resolution will be satisfactorily passed, i think Powell et al will attempt to argue that 1441 provides sufficient legal cover, bypassing the “need” for a second Resolution.

Iraq: A double veto?, Paul Reynolds, BBC, 5 March 2003

3

First France, Russia, Germany and **on Thursday, a third veto-wielding country, China, extended its support to the trio… Other non-permanent Security Council members - including Mexico, Pakistan and Chile - have indicated they would be unwilling to back a resolution calling for an immediate attack on Iraq. **](BBC NEWS | Middle East | Britain seeks UN compromise)

4

By the looks of the events unfolding it appears the US and 'willing' countries are about to go it alone veto or no veto.

5

“We will not allow the passage of a planned resolution which would authorise the use of force,” :k:

Chirac rallies France, Germany and Russia against Bush](Clarifying the Complex | Homepage | Thomson Reuters)

PARIS, March 6 (Reuters) - When George Bush drew up his plans for Iraq, he didn’t reckon with Jacques Chirac and the “non-nyet-nein” front the French president could rally to deny United Nations backing for them.Long known as “The Bulldozer” for the brute political force he can use to get his way, Chirac believes he has now assembled enough support at the United Nations to defy what he sees as a reckless U.S. rush to war in violation of all international law.

The French, Russian and German foreign ministers avoided the word “veto” after their surprise meeting in Paris on Wednesday, but Paris and Moscow clearly indicated they would use theirs. Veto-wielding China joined the anti-war front on Thursday. “We will not allow the passage of a planned resolution which would authorise the use of force,” said French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, speaking for the Paris three.

France has thus led the drive to throw down the gauntlet to Washington – and its own European Union partner Britain – by issuing what the New York Times called “the loudest ‘no!’” shouted across the Atlantic in a half century or more." “We will do our utmost to get a majority against it,” one official, who asked not to be identified, said of a draft resolution presented to the U.N. Security Council by the United States, Britain and Spain that would authorise a war.

“If the Americans get a majority, we will vote no. What we will be saying is: no matter what you did to buy those votes, you will not succeed.” Referring to a dispute in Paris over whether a veto would be an unfriendly act, the official said: “We won’t be shooting them in the back, we’ll be helping them from falling into a hole.” …

6

DHP,
Therein lies one of the problems with using "copy and pastes" as the preferred mode of communication on a "discussion board". It's too easy to leave out the portions used (by a more balanced author) in writing the original article. What the article continues to say is that France's reasons for opposing the war are no more noble than the US and Britian's reasons for advocating one.

FRANCE SEEKS ROLE IN CHANGING WORLD

The argument long heard in Washington and London that Paris would fall in line in the end sounds like wishful thinking in France, where Chirac's resolve to get his way is legendary.

He has steadfastly blocked repeated bids to reform the European Union's lavish farm subsidy programme, of which France is the largest beneficiary. At home, he toughed out years of damning sleaze charges to end up being reelected by a landslide last May.

Some battles, such as the 1996 showdown over the European Central Bank presidency, have seen him shout and pout for hours on end to defend what he saw as France's national interests.

Paris-based diplomats say Chirac's defiant stand is mostly due to his determination to assure a place for France in a changing world overshadowed by the U.S. "hyperpower."

"Chirac sees this as a transition point in the post-Cold War world and he wants to ensure a role for France in it," one envoy said. "He is using international institutions and all of France's considerable skill in manipulating them to do this."

"The French are also very concerned that the U.S. plan can go very badly wrong, further destabilising the Middle East and fuelling terrorism around the world."

While France's permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council is a key pillar of its continued world role, French officials do not agree that sidelining the Council now -- as Washington would do if it launches an Iraq war without U.N. approval -- would mean that France's influence is diminished.

Once the war is over, they say, Washington will have to come back to the Security Council to deal with issues such as the trade embargo or "oil for food" programme -- two measures decided by U.N. resolutions that will no longer be appropriate.

The argument that France would fall in line to ensure it gets lucrative contracts also falls flat because Paris does not expect Washington to share them out anyway, officials add.

7

Semi, I only paste the beginning of the article as they are very long and highlight relavent texts which relate to my arguments. As for posting the rest of the article your comment is irrelavent as guppies are not that dumb that they cannot click the URL for the full story.

Returning to the topic in question, millions of Europeans strongly oppose war, it doesnt matter what the personal reasons are for their countries opposition to war but if it means saving thousands of Iraqi civilians from further death and destruction than thats all that matters. At the end of the day PEACE must be allowed to prevail!

8

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dil he Pakistani: *
Returning to the topic in question, millions of Europeans strongly oppose war, it doesnt matter what the personal reasons are for their countries opposition to war but if it means saving thousands of Iraqi civilians from further death and destruction than thats all that matters. At the end of the day PEACE must be allowed to prevail!
[/QUOTE]
Would not the removal of Saddam save more deaths, starvation, and destruction than would occur with this impending war? Don't you think that Iraqis will be living in a more peaceful country after he's gone?

9

Sadam should go, but thats for the Iraqis to decide. Its nothing to do with Bush or anyone else for that matter when, how or if Sadam decides to step down. How the Iraqis run their own country and who they decide to lead them is their decision to make not Bush's. What Bush and his pro-war Administration want to do is to oust Sadam and impose another dictator who will only serve US interests within the region; A Bush freindly leader will almost certainly sign over control of Iraqs vast Oil reserves to US oil conglomerates which everyone knows have strong links to key members within the Bush Administration. The whole Iraq crisis has been a public relations disaster for Mr.Bush, they have seen accusations against Iraq as being exposed as unsubtantiated stories by the worlds media, they have seen the vast majority of the worlds nations strongly oppose war, they have seen intelligance reports which were praised by Powell at the UN security council exposed as stories written by a college student.

10

DhP :k: Thank you for sharing all of these articles. i think, at the very least, European politicians deserve credit for presenting an alternative point of view. Canada’s CBC aired an interview two nights ago of Dominique de Villepin, it was so immensely refreshing to hear someone articulate those views on a mainstream North American news programme. i don’t have any statistics but from what i can personally tell, the majority of the public in France, Germany, and Russia seem to be against war; far more than what i can say is valid for Blair, at least these European governments are doing precisely what they were elected to do: i.e., represent their public. That is simply not true for Blair. This alone warrants giving them some credit, surely.

Thank you for sharing all these articles. :flower1:

11

Nadia, thank you for those kind words. The Chinese have now stepped up their opposition to any military attack against Iraq. This is very important as it will help sway some of the non-permanent members of the security council to reject any UN resolution advocating war. :k:

China joins objectors to U.S.-led war](http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1429_W_800458,00.html)

China has joined two other UN veto powers, France and Russia - plus Germany - in vowing to block any resolution that would legitimise a U.S.-led war against Iraq as Britain mulls over an amendment. With chief UN inspector Hans Blix due to brief the UN Security Council again on Friday, Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan left open the veto option but said China wanted strengthened monitoring. China’s stance, said Tang, was “consistent” with that of France, Russia and Germany. Their foreign ministers issued a joint statement in Paris on Wednesday.

At the UN, sources said Britain, a Bush administration ally, was considering an amendment that would set Saddam Hussein a brief ultimatum and “precise” disarmament tasks. Shi’ite dissidents in Iraq have rejected U.S. plans for an American military administration after an invasion. Only an Iraqi government comprising all factions could ensure stability, they said.

12

France, Russia, Germany, China... Insha'Allah when the time for action comes, i hope each of these governments step up to the plate and honor their word and vote against the invasion-Resolution. They represent the little bit of hope left to prevent an invasion of Iraq.

13

Actually Nadia if those nations you stated vote against the resolution Saddam is likely to continue with his deception, and war will follow. On the other hand if the world unites against Saddam, a man who’s killed hundreds of thousands, and vote for the resolution he may come clean.

And remember, with Saddam in power the sanctions would continue, without him they will end. Lives will be saved with Saddams ouster. That’s the bottom line. While it would be nice to think the Iraqi people could rise up and free themselves from this torturous Saddam regime, we all know in reality that this is not possible. Do you not want to see a free Iraq?

14

Lives will be saved with Saddams ouster. That’s the bottom line.
With all due respect to yourself UTD.....IMHO, no, the bottom line is that no government in the world today seems to be capable of putting itself at a moral par that is superior than that taken by dictators. Your country, and my country, have adopted the attitude that it is better to let a million+ civilians die of malnutrition and water-borne diseases rather than lift an embargo that would save their lives. That's the bottom line.

15

"We believe that a military operation would be a tragic mistake and we are against it,‘’

Russia vows to block war resolution](hinduonnet.com - This website is for sale! - hinduonnet Resources and Information.) The Hindu

MOSCOW MARCH 7. Russia has reiterated its resolve to block the United States-British war resolution on Iraq, despite mounting pressure from Washington. The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, told the U.S. President, George W. Bush, that Moscow was determined to press for a peaceful settlement of the Iraqi crisis.

Mr. Bush called the Russian leaders overnight to try and soften Russia’s rejection of the war option hours ahead of a U.N. debate on Iraq. However, he failed to sway Mr. Putin. ``The Russian side reaffirmed its consistent position in favour of a peaceful solution: It was stressed that all means exist for such a solution and these can be strengthened and augmented if U.N. inspectors require it,‘’ the Kremlin press service said in a statement.

Moscow also said today it would not support a compromise resolution mooted by Britain if it were just a ploy to win approval for war against Iraq. We believe that a military operation would be a tragic mistake and we are against it,'' the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, Georgy Mamedov, told a press conference in Moscow. At the same time, he said Russia was ready to discuss the British proposal if it is aimed at finding a political solution.‘’ …

16

:k: :k: At least some governments still have their morals intact. (In my humble opinion which can be wrong).

17

Once again Nadia, do you want a free Iraq or not?

18

Funny that we should talk about 'freedom' after 12 years of deliberately inflicting a genocide.

Yes i want the people of Iraq to be given the right to determine their own fate, without external interference of any sort. i want us to cease our condescending attitude of 'we know what's good for you'. The post-Saddam Hussein transition plans do not, at this point in time, seem to me to be very well thought-out. i would prefer that the people of Iraq be fully and fairly represented in future governments; nothing that i have read so far regarding US plans, gives me the assurance that this will occur.

19

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Funny that we should talk about 'freedom' after 12 years of deliberately inflicting a genocide.

Yes i want the people of Iraq to be given the right to determine their own fate, without external interference of any sort.
[/QUOTE]

This is not possible. Be realistic.

20

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Once again Nadia, do you want a free Iraq or not?
[/QUOTE]

You mean like the US has "freed" other people's in that region?