Skip to content or view screen version

France and the veto

D | 22.02.2003 07:42

How should the anti war movement view the French veto?

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.

D

Comments

Hide the following 5 comments

The faults lay elsewhere...

22.02.2003 11:45

Robert Mugabe does not have big nuclear arsenal.

He does not even have a nuclear weapon.

..and Britain should honestly and properly sort out its mess in Zimbabwe that has helped contribute to Zimbabwe's predicaments.

Britain should have honestly and properly sorted out messes like Palestine, India/Pakistan, Cyprus, etc etc etc.

It is a famous habit of ours pointing out everybody else's faults.

And we do not have that great a record, those "enlightened" at honestly and properly sorting out anything wrong they we have pointed our fingers at.

We just go on to become yet another Jack Straw (Pinochet), Peter Hains (Arms-R-Us), Clare Short (UK Powell), and so on...

Yes, we do know how to be critics...

UK "Leftwank" Hypocrisy


saving innocent Iraqies is the priority !

22.02.2003 12:31

the main concern is stopping the yankkkees from starting the
War, if it wasn't for the french they would probably already started the massacre already. the anti war movement must support anyone who's aim is to stop the war from starting.
we can save the chit for later .. STOP THE WAR !!!

pink panther


A comment

23.02.2003 11:12

To the first comment's author - Let us be careful not to fall for the "My government has done wrong so let's not be critical of other governments" line. Your points about British history may be valid but do not detract from what was said about French testing and possession of nuclear weapons. Opposition to war, injustice etc needs to be global. In Australia I have no problem in being critical of my own government's support for the war. I am also critical of other governments supporting the war. I oppose the Chinese occupation of Tibet but I was also very critical of Australian support for the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. Being critical of foreign governments only becomes a problem when one is focussed only on them and ignores or refuses to see the faults in ones own government. Let us remember that the French President who conducted nuclear testing in the Pacific is still in power.

.


I meant

23.02.2003 11:24

I said that the veto was good if it stopped the war . The article was not opposing a veto, merely pointing out a little recent French history.

D


Whoops!

23.02.2003 11:27

Sorry for the double post!

D