Posted on 02/27/2003 5:21:26 AM PST by kattracks
PARIS, Feb 27, 2003 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- Key lawmakers from President Jacques Chirac's party have voiced growing concern over the damage France's anti-war stance is having on relations with the United States and the future of the United Nations.
Herve de Charette, a former foreign minister and lawmaker with the ruling center-right UMP party, was the latest to add his voice to a string of warnings about the consequences of an eventual French veto in the Security Council.
Saying he believes war on Iraq is inevitable, de Charette told LCI television that any veto blocking a U.S-backed resolution seeking authorization for war "is a decision that has great ramifications, of great gravity."
He noted that France, one of five permanent members of the Security Council that holds a veto, has not used one against the United States since the crisis over the Suez Canal in 1956.
The UMP's president, Alain Juppe, the party's parliamentary head, Jacques Barrot, and Edouard Balladur, the head of parliament's foreign affairs commission, have also all warned that a veto risks a complete breakdown in relations with the United States and some European countries.
France has "avoided committing a mistake, which some are pushing for, that would have left it isolated: wrongly brandishing its right of veto," Juppe told a debate on the Iraq crisis in parliament on Wednesday.
"A veto is unimaginable," Claude Goasguen, another UMP lawmaker, told the 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.
"We have taken into account the concern about not uselessly breaking relations with the United States," Barrot also told the paper. "We are not going to get to the point of getting into an argument with Western democracies."
He said strong trans-Atlantic ties were crucial "to build peace tomorrow."
The comments do not indicate dwindling support for Chirac's drive to give weapons inspectors more time and muscle to disarm Baghdad peacefully, and the belief everything should be tried before resorting to war.
But it does reflect mounting concern about the direction French foreign policy is taking, and where it will lead - perhaps a sign the pendulum in France may now be slowly starting to shift toward the position of the United States.
Addressing Wednesday's parliamentary debate, Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin said France would not support the U.S.-backed proposal in the United Nations, and warned that war would be perceived as illegitimate. But he did not say France would use its veto to block military action.
Ahead of the debate, an influential pro-American UMP lawmaker Pierre Lellouche told French radio: "We are not going to shoot them (the Americans) in the back."
Opposition Socialist and Communist leaders, however, who stridently oppose war, have repeatedly urged the government to veto any resolution paving the way for military strikes.
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.
By KIM HOUSEGO Associated Press Writer
No American is stupid enough to turn his back towards a *frenchman*! We know well the behavior of treacherous, feeble, cowards...
Au contraire, they still don't get it at all. But they are not entirely stupid, what they are seing is the consequence of a veto against the U.S. in the upcoming vote at the U. N. Their laundry bill must be skyrocketing lately going through so many pantalettes per day, being on the sh*t list of the U.S. is not something one looks forward to.
The same maggots are the core of Schroeder's support also. But I "disrepect" maggots by making this comparison: THEY eliminate putrification; THESE guys cause it.
Looks like they're a little late. At this point, they've lost the public relations war here in the US and have again distanced themselves a little farther away. Too little, too late.
No need to worry. After all, turning your back on a Frenchman means that you will be back-to-back with him as you head towards the battle and he runs from it.
That's how I read it, too. Basically, they may just start surrendering their "principles" soon.
That's how I read it, too. Basically, they may just start surrendering their "principles" soon.
Me, too. The second would be even better than the first!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.