France's Leaders Weigh Risks
Of Vetoing New U.N. Resolution
By CHARLES FLEMING
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
PARIS -- France, by implicitly threatening to veto a new United Nations resolution clearing the way for armed intervention in Iraq, is playing a game of chicken with the U.S.
Eager to avoid military action against Iraq -- arguing war would exacerbate rather than quell Middle East-based terrorism -- French leaders are equally aware that the use of a veto could seriously damage relations with the U.S.
Because of France's position within the European Union, a rift between it and the U.S. over Iraq would likely complicate trans-Atlantic relations. Europe and the U.S. would still work together on many fronts and continue to enjoy a healthy commercial relationship. But a French Security Council veto, added to the long list of issues on which the Bush administration hasn't seen eye-to-eye with Europe over the past two years, would further sour an already difficult relationship.
It remains unclear whether France will use its veto if there is a second vote on Iraq. But it is only by threatening to do so that France is likely to achieve its goal of winning the argument without having to actually use its veto, politicians and analysts say. France believes only such a threat could persuade the U.S., U.K. and Spain not to push for a vote on the resolution as it stands. President Bush Thursday night in a news conference on Iraq said he would ask the Security Council to vote on the new resolution whether or not he thought he had the votes needed to pass it.
Alternatively, this line of thinking goes, the notion that some permanent members of the Security Council would veto a resolution -- namely France, alone or possibly with Russia -- could help persuade other members of the council to follow. That would rob the U.S. of a majority and eliminate the need for a French veto.
"A [Security Council] veto is like a nuclear deterrent: If you have it, you have to state your readiness to use it, but if you do have to use it, you know you're in political trouble," said Francois Heisbourg, the head of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris. Indeed, the last time France vetoed a U.S. resolution was during the Suez Canal crisis of 1956.
It's a risky strategy domestically as well. Jacques Barrot, an ally of President Jacques Chirac and chairman of the parliamentary delegation of the president's Popular Movement Union, or UMP, says a large majority of UMP deputies support President Chirac's analysis and his position on Iraq. But some are now worried about the fallout on France's long alliance with the U.S.
"Even among the deputies who support Jacques Chirac, there is concern that there shouldn't be a serious rift with the U.S. over this," he said.
A similar wariness is guiding French diplomacy. On Wednesday, France, Germany and Russia struck a tough stance against the U.S. by saying they would block any resolution clearing the way for an attack on Iraq. "We will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes resorting to force," said French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin. Although the statement sounded tough, it remained consistent with the line adopted early on by Mr. de Villepin and his boss, President Chirac, of not ruling out military force as a last resort if Saddam Hussein refuses to disarm peacefully. Mr. de Villepin's remarks also reflected the care that French leaders have systematically taken in sidestepping any direct mention of a Security Council veto but of merely alluding to the threat.
The showdown centers on a draft resolution, filed by the U.S., the U.K. and Spain, declaring that Iraq has not disarmed. Approval of that resolution would open the way for an attack on Iraq, those three nations say. If and when the U.S. and its allies call for a vote on the resolution -- which could be any time after Friday's presentation by the U.N.'s chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix -- they would require backing by at least six other members of the Security Council to get it passed. They would also have to persuade France, Russia and China (as permanent members of the Council) not to veto the measure. Thursday, China indicated it may throw its support behind the French-led camp.
Of the current 15 Security Council members, France, Germany, Russia, China and Syria have all said that U.N. weapons inspectors should be given more time to force Iraq's disarmament. The U.S., U.K., Spain and Bulgaria argue for rapid military action. And both sides are vying for the votes of the other six nonpermanent members -- Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan.
Meanwhile, a key question is whether France would stick to its position if its allies -- particularly Russia and Germany -- were to shift theirs.
Germany has taken the most extreme position of any of the Western opponents of war in Iraq, with Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder ruling out the use of military force in any situation. However, officials in Berlin suggest Germany could be seeking to moderate that hard-line position.
Last month, Germany signed a European Union statement on Iraq that didn't rule out the use of force. Officials in Mr. Schroeder's office say that vote could pave the way for Germany to abstain on a second resolution, rather than being forced to vote against it. "The recent events are not coincidence," a German official said. "There has been a subtle shift," he added.
Moscow's opposition to U.S. plans in Iraq has taken the Bush administration by surprise. Last month, top U.S. administration officials said they still hoped to persuade Russia to support a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Even if Russia refused, Washington was confident Moscow would not use its veto in the U.N. Security Council.
However, analysts say Moscow would quickly cave in to U.S. desires on Iraq if there are signs that France or Germany are deserting their positions. "They can't come out and support a war before it starts," said Steven O'Sullivan, strategist at United Financial Group brokerage in Moscow. "But once it starts, they will have a different view."
-- Ian Johnson and Alan Cullison contributed to this article.
Write to Charles Fleming at charles.fleming@wsj.com
Updated March 7, 2003
online.wsj.com |
