The country that gave into 'Bonaparte’s'forays so willingly and still reveres the remain of the despot as a national hero has the cheek to say this..<<. At
least France, with the support of Germany -- without which nothing would have been
possible -- and other countries in Europe and the world would be a beacon of hope for
those who believe that right must not yield to might, even if this might is clothed in good
intentions.>> My view is that France will not use the veto, it is possibly about concessions and probably they will not try to derive the schism in the western alliance far too deep. They need to keep their northern African population of immigrants under control so does German immigrants Turks. Their geogaphical proximity to 'muslim lands' is also a genuine concern for them, 'strategic dissent' as a part of grand strategy is the best course.I would be definitely surprised if they use the veto. However on the other hand, the toothless veto may give them something to crow about moral authority French historically display. That may give them some collective kick of sorely missing low levels of national adrenaline. Viva le France anyway..They have never opted for bitter medicine to cure their ills..It is for this until today they never discuss collaborationists with Nazism, bury the hatchet goes the general psyche..
Why France must use its veto
Pascal Boniface
Le Figaro
13 February 2003
As public opinion all over the world mobilizes against a possible war in Iraq, American
leaders and the press are focusing their attacks on France. Statements in the press and on
television could make one think that Paris has become the fourth capital in the Axis of Evil.
Anti-Americanism has been much debated in France, with the inclusion under this rubric of
what is often no more than opposition to the policies of George W. Bush. Various public
opinion polls confirm that there is no anti-Americanism among a majority of French. From
the Kosovo war, to 11 September to the war in Afghanistan, French leaders and the public
supported U.S. military actions when they considered them justified.
There is, on the other hand, real Francophobia in the United States, along with a surge of
generalized aggressiveness towards the French. France is considered to be essentially a
country made stubborn by its past grandeur, whose only goal is to prove its presence by
opposing the United States, before finally rallying round in order to preserve its grubby and
mediocre interests. That Paris' policy is in tune with world opinion has apparently passed
without notice. So, if the British present a second resolution at the end of the week, what,
in the absence of major revelations about the the extent of the Iraqi arsenal, could France
do in such a situation? It appears impossible that France could totally change its position
and follow the Americans.
The choice, therefore, is either to abstain, or to use the "nuclear option" of the veto. If until
now France could legitimately be ambiguous, in order to preserve the maximum room for
manoeuver, and if France as a permanent member of the Security Council could not rule
out in advance the use of force, today, the veto would be the lesser evil. Certainly a veto
risks provoking more American hostility towards us. It also risks temporarily distancing us
from those European governments favorable and/or subject to Washington. A vast
campaign of denigration would be launched towards us. And one also hears that we would
be better off abstaining in order to avoid a final rupture with the United States or too great
an isolation.
But if using the veto has its disadvantages, an abstention would be even worse. We would
give the impression that our protests were louder only so that our concessions could be all
the greater. This would vindicate the American view that France protests only to quietly
submit later on. Even the extent of American criticism leaves us almost no choice. If we do
not use our veto to block a second resolution permitting the use of force in the absence of
extra evidence, it will be the end of our credibility should we ever again want to provide an
alternative voice to American policy. Our voice will simply be inaudible in future. We would
lose all the capital of sympathy and even admiration we have gained around the world,
without bringing the Americans to respect us more. Quite on the contrary.
A veto would not only be logical, given the approach French diplomacy has taken on the
Iraqi file since September, but it would reinforce the global image of France as a country
that stands firm. An abstention would be seen in the United States and elsewhere, not
merely as rallying to the cause, but as abject submission. The best response to the torrent
of Francophobia in the United States is coherence and dignity. We know well that a French
veto would not stop the war if the United States has decided that its vision of a multilateral
world is one where national decisions are imposed on/ratified by the rest of the world. At
least France, with the support of Germany -- without which nothing would have been
possible -- and other countries in Europe and the world would be a beacon of hope for
those who believe that right must not yield to might, even if this might is clothed in good
intentions. |
