France and the veto
D | 22.02.2003 07:42
France and the Veto
In the lead up to an increasingly likely war on Iraq, attention has focussed on the viewpoints of United Nations Security Council members who have the power of veto over decisions made. The permanent Security Council members are France, Britain, Russia, China and the United States. Other members of the Security Council serve on a rotating basis and do not possess veto powers but can vote on resolutions. The US and Britain are eager to go to war, Russia and China have serious reservations and France has openly opposed the US led war on Iraq. France has not said that it will veto a vote for war but comments from a number of its representatives have indicated this to be a possibility.
What should the anti war movement make of this? Reports have indicated that various French offices have been receiving a large number of letters and emails encouraging a veto, some congratulating the French government on its stand and encouraging its pursuit of peace. Should the French government be held up as a voice for peace and embraced by the anti war movement?
Let us cast our minds back a few years to the Pacific. Chirac and the French government oversaw the testing of nuclear weapons in the Pacific Ocean. These are hardly the actions of a peace loving government. French secret agents sunk a Greenpeace vessel in New Zealand in response to their anti nuclear campaign years before. The French still possess nuclear weapons and are not about to disarm. Other possible veto nations, Russia and China also possess nuclear weapons and are not offering to abandon them.
If the French government was truly interested in peace would they be welcoming Zimbabwe’s dictator, Robert Mugabe to France this weekend? What are French oil company connections and interests in Iraq? When one examines these issues it appears more likely that the French government is opposing war for its own reasons.
I personally hope that France does veto any US war resolution. The UN Security Council with veto rights given to nuclear powers is undemocratic and marginalizes less powerful nations. However any disruption to US war plans is to be welcomed. If France can hinder the US war drive, great. The issue is saving lives and if a French veto will stop the bombing of Iraq that is great. Let the elites disagree amongst themselves. It is more desirable than having all UN Security Council members united for war. Let us however stay focussed on what we are demanding. A world without weapons of mass destruction, a just world, a more equal world where power does rest with the people. We should not be distracted from demanding that the French disarm also and from seeing the French position for what it is. However as a peace movement we need to be careful about holding up the French government as acting for peace, whilst armed with its own nuclear weapons (tested in the Pacific), and acting out of self interest.
In the lead up to an increasingly likely war on Iraq, attention has focussed on the viewpoints of United Nations Security Council members who have the power of veto over decisions made. The permanent Security Council members are France, Britain, Russia, China and the United States. Other members of the Security Council serve on a rotating basis and do not possess veto powers but can vote on resolutions. The US and Britain are eager to go to war, Russia and China have serious reservations and France has openly opposed the US led war on Iraq. France has not said that it will veto a vote for war but comments from a number of its representatives have indicated this to be a possibility.
What should the anti war movement make of this? Reports have indicated that various French offices have been receiving a large number of letters and emails encouraging a veto, some congratulating the French government on its stand and encouraging its pursuit of peace. Should the French government be held up as a voice for peace and embraced by the anti war movement?
Let us cast our minds back a few years to the Pacific. Chirac and the French government oversaw the testing of nuclear weapons in the Pacific Ocean. These are hardly the actions of a peace loving government. French secret agents sunk a Greenpeace vessel in New Zealand in response to their anti nuclear campaign years before. The French still possess nuclear weapons and are not about to disarm. Other possible veto nations, Russia and China also possess nuclear weapons and are not offering to abandon them.
If the French government was truly interested in peace would they be welcoming Zimbabwe’s dictator, Robert Mugabe to France this weekend? What are French oil company connections and interests in Iraq? When one examines these issues it appears more likely that the French government is opposing war for its own reasons.
I personally hope that France does veto any US war resolution. The UN Security Council with veto rights given to nuclear powers is undemocratic and marginalizes less powerful nations. However any disruption to US war plans is to be welcomed. If France can hinder the US war drive, great. The issue is saving lives and if a French veto will stop the bombing of Iraq that is great. Let the elites disagree amongst themselves. It is more desirable than having all UN Security Council members united for war. Let us however stay focussed on what we are demanding. A world without weapons of mass destruction, a just world, a more equal world where power does rest with the people. We should not be distracted from demanding that the French disarm also and from seeing the French position for what it is. However as a peace movement we need to be careful about holding up the French government as acting for peace, whilst armed with its own nuclear weapons (tested in the Pacific), and acting out of self interest.
D
Comments
Display the following 5 comments