Report: France will not use its Security Council veto.

Story News Yahoo.COM ^ | Tuesday March 4, 2003 | Ass O Cia ted Press

[ConservativeMan55]

Report: France will not use its Security Council veto Tue Mar 4, 2:57 PM ET

PARIS - France has all but ruled out using its veto in the U.N. Security Council to block a U.S.-backed resolution paving the way for war on Iraq (news - web sites), a weekly newspaper reported in its Wednesday edition.

Le Canard enchaine quoted President Jacques Chirac as telling a small private gathering on Feb. 26 that a veto would be pointless because it would not stop U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites) from launching military action.

"France is doing everything it can, but the problem is that it is impossible to stop Bush from pursuing his logic of war to the end," Chirac was quoted as saying by Le Canard, a satirical newspaper that is known to have well-informed sources.

Le Canard also quoted Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin as privately telling a group of conservative lawmakers on Feb. 25 that "using the right of veto would be shooting the Americans in the back."

The newspaper did not say how it obtained the information.

The Foreign Ministry declined to comment on the report.

Chirac has been a leading critic of quick U.S.-led military action against Iraq, arguing that more time is needed for U.N. inspectors to find and destroy Baghdad's weapons of mass destruction.

He thus opposes a second resolution that would effectively open the way for war, but refuses to comment on France's right to use its veto power.

French officials say that talk of a veto is premature because Washington currently lacks the necessary support in the Security Council to pass a new resolution.

A French diplomatic source said Tuesday France believes it has 10, perhaps 11, nations on its side — more than enough negative votes to block a second resolution. The source asked not to be further identified.

[ConservativeMan55]

I'm confused by this article. France says its not going to use its VETO because were going to war anyways, but then they say they aren't going to use their VETO because they already have enough nations using their own VETO????

[VRWC_minion]

There are two ways the US and Britain can lose the vote. Either we don't get the majority votes or if those members with veto power use their veto regardless of the votes. So, assuming we need 9 countries out of 17 to win we could still lose if France uses its veto.

[hippy hate me]

I'm confused by this article. France says its not going to use its VETO because were going to war anyways, but then they say they aren't going to use their VETO because they already have enough nations using their own VETO????

I think that translates into: The French are grandstanding and hoping someone else will act on it.

[ConservativeMan55]

The French are basically afraid to take any position at all.

[veronica]

What a swell idea this going to the UN has turned out to be.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I'm confused by this article. France says its not going to use its VETO because were going to war anyways, but then they say they aren't going to use their VETO because they already have enough nations using their own VETO????

Maybe if we don't veto, the Americans will start buying our stuff again.

But we will tell the Arabs that we helped defeat this resolution and then they will still buy our stuff.

[ConservativeMan55]

Chile, Mexico, Pakistan, Guinea, are the deciding votes.

[Steve Eisenberg]

I'm confused by this article. France says its not going to use its VETO because were going to war anyways, but then they say they aren't going to use their VETO because they already have enough nations using their own VETO????

I am a little confused too, except that:

a. I strongly believe Secretary Powell will never get nine votes (not that I have never been wrong before).

b. Many if not most security council members do not really want to vote on the coming resolution one way or the other, for fear of antagonizing one side or the other.

I've just read that Russia is now implying they will veto. So I guess that there will be a big thread starting up to villify Putin. But Putin probably is just letting go this trial balloon to try to convince the US not to force a vote. And that's fine with me.

[ConservativeMan55]

LOL it was a terrible idea! The supporters of it originally were Bush Sr Administration officials who didn't want their coalition broken up.
Remember in the beginning the Rats wanted us to ignore it, Bush Sr Adminstration Officials wanted us to go to the UN, Bush Jr has said the same thing, and hasn't changed.
Now Bush Sr officials back the war, The Rats want inspections, and Bush Jr remains the same.

[Always A Marine]

Sounds like the French leader is wimping out on the eve of battle. Wonder if that's ever happened before...?

Actually, M Chirac won't have to exercise his veto because Dubya's good buddy Vlad Putin has volunteered to use his instead. This way, Chirac can surrender to both sides...

[Common Tator]

Only the permanent members of the Security council have a veto. The seven other members can vote against a resolution but NOT veto it. There are 5 permanent members and 7 members who rotate terms on the council. Thus a vote could be 9 for the resolution and 3 against. You would think that means passage, but if France Vetoed it the resolution would not pass even though the vote was 9 to 3 for the resolution.

England, France, Russia, China, and the USA are permanent members and have veto power in the security council. Any one of these nations can veto anything. The vote could be 11 to 1 for the resoution. But if France vetoed the resolution and it would not pass.

Harry truman got UN approval for the Korean war by making the Russians so angry that Stalin ordered the Russians to walk out of the security council meetin in protest. While the Russian delegation was gone, Truman had the resolution brought up to a vote. Russia was counted as not present. If the Russians had not walked out, they could have vetoed the Korean war.

[hippy hate me]

Ari Fleischer mentioned today that the counsil will have the opportunity to vote after Blix's next report, Friday I think. He didn't say if the US would call for it, but I can imagine we might just to bring this UN circus to an end one way or another.

[DoughtyOne]

At least they are consistant.  When it comes to principle they punt nearly every time.

After all the steam, they won't use their veto.  Once again the national flag of France comes into play!

[xJones]

I think that translates into: The French are grandstanding and hoping someone else will act on it.

Thank you, that sums Chirac's blatherings up very well.

[Monti Cello]

Agreed. No vote is best. Also add the concern that the French may be trying to sucker us into a vote so they can backstab us.

Plus a precedent will be set that we are not compelled to get UN approval for every subsequent military action. Best to move on and discredit them now once and for all.

[veronica]

I don't remember it exactly that way, though certainly some of 41's crowd made a case against "unilaterlism." Personally I would think Powell wanted to go to the UN, but the UN has gone so left and Third World, as well as anti-Bush, it's become farcical. Thinking that gang would make the moral choice was a miscalculation, imo.

[South40]

France will not use its Security Council veto.

Perhaps not. But there's a greater chance that the Vodka soaked Russians will.

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[Salgak]

Gee, the French are surrendering. How novel ! (g)