| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| France could suffice with ’threat’ of war veto |
| 2003-03-03 |
| It is too soon to say whether France will use its veto in the UN Security Council to block any US-backed resolution paving the way for war in Iraq, the spokesman for President Jacques Chirac's party said Monday. "Tactically, the threat is more important than the act," said Francois Baroin, spokesman for the ruling Union for the Presidential Majority. "To brandish the threat" is equivalent to using it, given the current situation, Baroin told reporters. "What we say we might do is more important than what we do, if we do anything, or we don't!" France's line is "to leave all possible margin of maneuver and freedom of maneuver for the president (Chirac) to choose, when the moment comes, on the basis of a text, what needs to be done," Baroin said. "Waffles, anyone?" France is one of five permanent members of the Security Council, and each has a veto right that gives added weight to its opinion. France also has taken the lead among nations trying to resolve the Iraq crisis peacefully a stance that runs counter to that of the United States. Many in Washington and elsewhere are wondering whether France would use its veto to block an eventual US-backed resolution paving the way for military action to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. Reading this statement, I'd say they won't. Russia and China, nations which back the French effort to give UN inspectors more time and means to seek out weapons, also have veto power. I can just hear the debate now: "You vote first." "No, you vote first!" "I insist, you first!" "What do you think I am, crazy? You vote first!" The United States, Britain and Spain have put forth a draft proposal to open the way to war but that has yet to translate into a resolution ready for a vote in the 15-member body. The United States and Britain are the other two veto-wielding countries. "Why ask the question about veto rights on a text that, today, we have (not seen)," Baroin said. Standing firm on not taking a stand on taking a stand. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #4 These little weasel moves remind me of the US Senate. The UNSC should be known as "the Terrarium of Weevils". |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-03-03 20:22:37 |
| #3 The Canadian proposal might have got some support until Carolyn Parrish opened her big mouth. Chirac and Chretien may as well be the Bobsie Twinks. The issue at the UN is time wating diversion. I suspect that the US and UK are using the old NBA strategy: the thirty second coundown is in effect an if France wants the ball, they are going to have to foul somebody. |
| Posted by: john 2003-03-03 19:36:15 |
| #2 they've seen the resolution US/UK have introduced - what they haven't seen is the resolution that will ultimately be voted on - this implies that a change in wording (like the Canadian proposal) could give them the "out" to change their minds. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-03-03 11:43:46 |
| #1 I thought the UNSC had seen the US/UK resolution. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-03-03 10:55:56 |