The Hindu : France scores a diplomatic coup

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Feb 22, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

France scores a diplomatic coup

By Vaiju Naravane

Paris Feb. 21. The diplomatic battle over Iraq has entered the straight and the fight over the votes of non-permanent U.N. Security Council (UNSC) members has well and truly begun.

What transpires in the Council if and when a second resolution on Iraq is put to the vote will have far reaching consequences, not just for Iraq and the entire West Asia, but for the future of NATO and the European Union as well. For the moment, the French, supported by Russia, Germany and to a less overt extent by China, have scored a diplomatic coup. The French position has been bolstered by massive anti-war demonstrations across the world, particularly in those E.U. countries that have supported the U.S., namely Britain, Spain and Italy. This has resulted in the Italian Premier, Silvio Berlusconi, significantly toning down his pro-war rhetoric while the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has begun a desperate scramble to give a moral spin to his arguments.

France and 52 African Heads of State and Government meeting in Paris on Thursday backed the French call for continued and intensified U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq and urged Baghdad to show active cooperation. "There is an alternative to war,'' the nations said in a joint declaration. "The use of force, which entails serious risks of destabilization for the region, for Africa and the world, should only be a last resort.''

Three African countries, all of them represented at the Paris summit, are currently non-permanent members of the Security Council — Angola, Cameroon and Guinea. France is a permanent Council member with veto-wielding power. France has insisted that stepping up inspections under the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 is the best way to ensure Iraq's disarmament, but the U.S. and especially Britain, reeling under pressure from adverse public opinion, are pushing for a second resolution that could then be interpreted as having authorised military action.

Britain and the U.S., both working on a short text to be tabled next week at the U.N. Security Council have become more cautious in their approach. Informed sources say the text will not attempt to impose a calendar and that the Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, will be allowed a "little more time''. The wording is expected to be as anodyne as possible, making it difficult for countries like France, Russia or China, all of whom have veto powers, to take exception to any particular clause. The U.S. President has insisted that there is no need for a second resolution, that 1441 authorises him to impose "serious consequences'' (meaning war) if Mr. Hussein fails to comply with it. And although that stand has been reiterated both by Mr. Bush and his top advisers, the Anglo-American combine would feel happier if the U.N. Security Council were to give them its blessing through a new resolution. In all this there is a curious reversal of roles. In theacrimonious debate in the U.N. Security Council that led to the adoption of resolution 1441 last November, the French fought hard to remove what they described as "automaticity'', insisting upon the need for a second resolution if Mr. Hussein failing to cooperate with U.N. inspectors was deemed to be "in breach'' of the resolution. Resolution 1441 should not be used as an automatic trigger for war, they had warned. Now it is the French who are suggesting there is no need for a second resolution, while Washington is actively seeking one. There are several reasons for this. The demonstrations have placed Mr. Tony Blair in an extremely delicate position at home with support from within his party falling sharply. Observers say his intransigence could cost him his job and are no longer excluding the possibility of a hostile coup within the party. France on the other hand, has managed to garner enough support to seriously blight the future of a second resolution. The French are fighting hard to avert a situation where the extent of their opposition to the war will be put to the test. France would not like to be placed in the uncomfortable position of having to use its veto. In all likelihood France will abstain. Paris is however hoping that the U.S. will fail to receive the qualified majority of nine without the concurring vote of the permanent members. This will let the French off the hook. The U.S. needs a qualifying majority of nine in the U.N. Security Council, composed of 10 non- permanent members and five permanent ones with full veto powers. Of the ten, Britain and the U.S. are sure of Spain, Bulgaria Chile and perhaps Pakistan. Germany and Syria have both expressed their opposition to war, while Angola, Guinea and Cameroon have expressed solidarity with French position. against any immediate invasion of Iraq. It is clear the U.S. and Britain will introduce a second resolution only if they are relatively sure of getting it through. The U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, on Thursday denied that America was either threatening or blackmailing any country to vote for the Anglo-U.S. combine. The French are now in a genuine quandary. Whether the French President, Chirac, will stick his neck out or not remains to be seen. Having opposed the use of force this far they cannot allow themselves to tamely give in. But the exercise of a veto would inflict further damage on a Franco-US relationship that is at rock bottom and seriously compromise the future of the Atlantic Alliance.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Dangerously partisan

Dubai and deportation

The U.N. stays relevant

Cultural globalisation

Privacy in the time of celebrity

France scores a diplomatic coup

India's forward policy