Hypothetical French Veto

While this is more of an IMHO OP, my guess is it will probably evolve into a political debate, so I figured it belonged in GD.

This is essentially a question for those who are angry about the US mounting an attack on Iraq “unilaterally” (which in this case appears to mean without specific authorization from the UNSC):

Would you have been upset if France vetoed a resolution authorizing the use of force that otherwise would have passed?

There are all sorts of interesting questions related to this, such as:
[ul]
[li]Would you then support a US attack on Iraq?[/li][li]What if Russia had vetoed as well?[/li][li]Did you feel the French threat to veto any resolution providing for the use of force was wrong?[/li][li]Would any particular number of countries supporting the US stance (or any particular number actually willing to take part in military action) make this war legitimate without a specific sanction from the UNSC?[/li][/ul]

Personally, while I’m against the war as a US self-interest consideration, I do not believe international consensus or UN authorization make an action legitimate or illegitimate. I think a democracy has the right to remove a dictator from power, as long as it will put a better government in place. However, my own thoughts are really not the ideas I’m interested in debating in this thread, as legitimacy is not a question of UN authorization in my book. So please discuss the questions (particularly the first) above, and whatever side discussions they may lead into.

The French veto wouldve been inconsequential had the US mustered the 9 votes to support a new resolution. What is highly objectionable is France announcing to the entire world that they would say/veto a second resolution under all circumstances. That rendered the democratic process moot.

How many would vote for Al Gore (or even vote at all) if the US Supreme Court announced before the 2000 election, that under any circumstances of a recount, Gore will lose.

The veto would not have been inconsequential at all, it would still have stood. But the US didn’t even muster the aforementioned support, so in that light now, the speculative vetos of France and Russia are inconsequential.

Democratic Processes are hurt by people who don’t abide by the rules, if an election doesn’t turn out in their favour. The Vetos are perfectly ok by the rules of the UN, so there is nothing wrong with them.

Fang

Well, yes and no. The UN wasn’t really anything new. It was a framework for enacting multilateral agreements between sovereign nations on a large scale, just like everything else. Anything decreed by the UN, although given the shade of legitimacy by the fact that there was a LOT of multilateralism going on, could never do anything except paper over the cracks of the fact that the UN was only legitimate if everyone agreed with it. It had no real power over its members, like a government has over its members.

It’s quite sad, actually, that Kofi Annan couldn’t have been President of the World, and had to make do with being in charge of the UN. He’d have been a great PotW. Maybe.

X~Slayer(ALE)

Well, quite. Except that, in context, the quote would have been more accurately translated as “In any case, France will Veto this resolution, because tonight we see no cause for military action.” Much movement by the French Prime Minister and Foreign Minister over the last few days, although not backing away from the President, has underlined that no National Government, and certainly not one on the UNSC, ever makes a decision to avoid something “under any circumstances.”

It wouldve been inconsequential to the US Policy. It wouldve proven to the world that They did have international support and France is the one blocking the process. In its effort to derail support for a US backed resolution, France made the democratic process moot.

Excellent point, X~Slayer. That’s exactly why the United States has taken the principled position of never vetoing a UN resolution that otherwise would have passed. We sure don’t believe in flouting the established democratic processes like that.

Daniel

I dont object to the veto, DanielWithrow. I object to announcing the veto before any proposal is tabled and refusing to even consider its points before seeing them.

How is it objectionable for France to state it’s position on a vote while the U.S. and Great Britain are not criticized for stating theirs ? A no vote by any of these nations would have sunk the US resolution. Surely democracy doesn’t involve muzzling those on just one side of an issue ? France backed several proposals involving extending the inspections, which the U.S. immediately quashed as “unnacceptable” Why do you not apply your asymmetrical concept of democracy to those actions as well ?
How many nations did the US end up recruiting to its position, 4, 5 ? With the outcome that lopsided, these objections to the superior tactics of the French sounds a lot like sour grapes.

I don’t think that’s entirely accurate, X~Slayer. My understanding is that France is saying, “Military action is not necessary at this point, so any proposal that will form an excuse for military action is unacceptable.” And that’s totally appropriate.

Imagine the United States saying, “Iraq doesn’t deserve nuclear weaponry right now. We’ll veto any proposal that offers to help Iraq build nuclear weapons.” Would that be a subversion of the democratic process, or should the United States examine each give-nukes-to-Iraq proposal individually, rather than making a blank statement?

France has simply told the United States not to waste its time submitting variants of the same proposal over and over: it’s telling the US which aspects of the current proposal are responsible for the veto threat. That’s wholly appropriate.

Daniel

DanielWithrow said:

This link shows several resolutions that the US has vetoed when they would have passed but for the veto (they happen to all be associated with israel, i use this link since it was the first one googled to)

What is being objected to is not that France opposed the resolution and said so, but the fact that they said they would veto any resolution. If they opposed it, they could have voted “no”, decided to abstain or vetoed it, so opposing and saying you will veto are two different things.

We actually had enough to pass the resolution on our side, but when they heard that France was going to “veto” any resolution, they decided that their vote was not going to count, so why take the heat.

[ul]:wink: [sup]By the way, do you notice all the nations jumping on the band-wagon NOW?[/sup][/ul]

…what kniz said.

:cool:

Again, slayer, they object to a specific type of resolution. Why shouldn’t they tell everyone that they’ll veto any such resolution? That’s prefectly legitimate. Hell, they’d probably veto any resolution that called for kicking puppies, too.

That’d be sarcasm, bob.

Daniel

my name’s not bob and I gathered that…

I’ll take Tony Blair’s position on this

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/03/10/sprj.irq.france.chirac/index.html

http://www.un.org/Overview/Organs/sc.html
In simpler terms, a No vote by France is a veto. There is no mechanism whereby France could vote no and NOT veto. Your objection is thus to the idea of France casting a vote at all. France has proven willing to consider proposals that do not involve immediate invasion of Iraq. The US rejected those proposals with what amounts to threat to veto. This is the same tactic to which you are objecting so strenuosly. Bush himself called for the nations of the security council to lay their cards on the table, and now this cockup is somehow Frances fault for having done exactly as the president requested ? That’s more than the US and its allies did here.

Cite ? You’d have an easier time with this if the US hadn’t wimped out on an straight up or down vote.

Yes. With great democracies like Uzbekistan, Ethiopia and el Salvadore backing us up, how can we go wrong ? :wink:

Well then THIS strikes me as very very odd.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/18/sprj.irq.france.chemicals/index.html

I mean is if this President is so sure that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction that he would veto any resolution that threatens war under any circumstances, why would he even offer to help if Iraq uses them? Theyre not there, right? How could Iraq use them then? If France knew they were there, why would they hinder any effort to force Saddam to give them up? Its not like this war is going to cost any french lives, hardware or status. I believe they should make a stance for peace but why muck it all up?

Actually, France could abstain from the vote, which would be seen as voting no without vetoing, in this situation.

Just a tuppence for you.

It’d also be seen as not voting, and would have left France open to accusations of wimpyness and withdrawing from the world stage on a critical issue. Not that anyone would try to use that against them. :rolleyes: On a related note, it’d sure be interesting to know what China would have done in the event of an actual UN showdown.

X~Slayer(ALE), no one except possibly Saddam is sure about whether Iraq has chemical or biological agents ready for use. France’s offer of assistance in the event of BC attacks is consistent with their oft stated goal of defusing the crisis with as little mayhem as possible.

Uhhh…Chirac never said Saddam didn’t have WMD. He said that the inspection process needed more time to work.

Oh, I don’t know. Maybe from the point of view of the “With us or against us” current US Administration this might have been the case, but abstaining rather than voting has been used to maintain a sense of diplomatic aloofness on issues. It might not have spun well in Washington, but it would have been far more conciliatory in the UK. Indeed, if the US and UK couldn’t get 9 votes, and France abstained, it would have produced a vote down without a veto being cast, which would have been doubly damaging to the US’ legal position.

Agreed.