Chirac's own party worried over repercussions of anti-war stance
23 minutes ago
By KIM HOUSEGO, Associated Press Writer
PARIS - President Jacques Chirac is under pressure from key supporters who fear that an eventual French veto in the Security Council of a U.S-backed resolution to pave the war for war with Iraq could cripple relations with the United States, wreck the United Nations (news - web sites) and leave France isolated.
While not a signal of dwindling support for the French drive to extend inspections in Iraq, the leaders of Chirac's own political party have virtually all voiced concern about the repercussions of a protracted showdown with Washington.
A small bloc of so-called "Atlanticist" lawmakers from the conservative Union for the Parliamentary Majority, or UMP, went a step further, outright rejecting the use of a veto to block a U.S-backed resolution seeking authorization for war.
Saying he believes war on Iraq is inevitable, pro-American UMP lawmaker Herve de Charette said Thursday the use of a veto "is a decision with great ramifications, of great gravity."
De Charette, a former foreign minister, noted that France, one of five permanent members of the Security Council with a veto, has not used one against the United States since the crisis over the Suez Canal in 1956.
"A veto is unimaginable," Claude Goasguen, another senior conservative lawmaker, told daily Le Monde in its Thursday edition. "We are not going to break the United Nations and Europe just to save a tyrant," he said, referring to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).
"We are not going to shoot them (the Americans) in the back," added Pierre Lellouche, the unofficial leader of the "Atlanticist" block.
However, the UMP's president and political heavyweight, Alain Juppe; the party's parliamentary head, Jacques Barrot; and Edouard Balladur, the head of parliament's foreign affairs commission, all stopped short of openly declaring their opposition to a veto.
"We have taken into account the concern about not uselessly breaking relations with the United States," Barrot told Le Monde. "We are not going to get to the point of getting into an argument with Western democracies."
He added strong trans-Atlantic ties were crucial "to build peace tomorrow."
Those comments clearly reflect deep anxiety within the party about the direction French foreign policy is taking, and what it could lead to. There is also deep concern that France's standing will diminish if it tries but fails to stop a war.
"Will France be able to avoid a war and respect the conception it has of (international) law?" asked Balladur, another former prime minister, during the debate. "That's far from certain."
"We must prepare for the future, think about the consequences on the stability of the world of this conflict that appears quasi-inevitable," added Balladur.
In his address to parliament, Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin studiously avoided any mention of a veto, but did say France would not support the U.S.-backed proposal in the United Nations.
The government is keeping its cards close to its chest, saying that discussion on the veto is so far unnecessary because the United States lacks the nine Security Council votes needed to pass the resolution.
France has "avoided committing a mistake, which some are pushing for, that would have left it isolated: brandishing its right of veto at an inopportune moment," Juppe, a former prime minister, said during a debate on the Iraq crisis in parliament Wednesday.
Officials say the threat of veto is a strong bargaining tool that would be rendered ineffective if it became known ahead of time what France intended to do. Under French law, the president alone has the power to decide whether to use it.
"The political establishment is worried," said Philippe Moreau Defarges, of the French Institute of International Relations.
But Chirac could decide to listen to public opinion — which favors the use of a veto if evidence against Saddam is deemed insufficient to justify a war — rather than his lawmakers.
"The parliamentarians are important, but they do not necessarily reflect public opinion," Moreau Defarges said.
The U.S. ambassador in Paris, Howard H. Leach, who has so far remained mostly silent over the Iraq crisis, seemingly confirmed the lawmakers' worst fears.
In an editorial published in Le Monde dated Friday, he hinted that continued French opposition to the United States on Iraq would indeed have serious consequences.
"In the Iraqi crisis, we have reached an important moment when a decision has to be taken," he said. "And France's position could have repercussions for a longtime to come."
Leach reiterated Washington's long-held view that inspections will not solve the disarmament crisis and that "to this day, his (Saddam's) cooperation is insignificant."
"We hope that today we can reconcile our views," he said. "I am a friend of France, and a such, I hope that the French recognize the realities that we are faced with."
Opposition Socialist and Communist leaders, who stridently oppose war, however, have repeatedly urged the government to veto any resolution that could lead to what they believe would be an unjustifiable war.
A standoff has arisen at the United Nations, where a U.S.-backed resolution seeks U.N. authorization for war, while a French-Russian-German proposal seeks to continue weapons inspections at least into July. Canada has proposed a compromise measure suggesting Iraq be given until the end of March to complete a list of remaining disarmament tasks identified by U.N. weapons inspectors.
Guy Tessier, the head of parliament's defense commission, perhaps went furthest of all, urging the government to firmly keep all options open.
"Our armies have the means to participate actively and effectively in an international coalition" to disarm Saddam, he said.
story.news.yahoo.com |
