When France accuses the US of unilateralism and then threatens a veto regardless of the Security Council vote isn’t there some measure of hypocrisy here?
There are two answers to this.
The first, and most often used, is “yes, but only as hypocritical as the US, Russia or the UK using their vetoes.”
The other is, “no, because that’s what the veto is for - it is designed to protect nuclear powers being drawn into conflicts they oppose.”
What is an interesting bit of word-study is to look at the Nationalistic bent in International posturing. “France is only looking out for its own (oil?) interests!” sneer the pro-war camp, forgetting that the whole reason Bush wants to go to war is because he has been convinced of the urgency of establishing a US power base in Iraq, for the sake of American Interests.
It is, after all, the duty of a national leader to act in accordance with their nations own interest. If France acts in the interests of France and not in the interests of America, why is that any more hypocritical or unusual than America acting in the interests of America and not of France? (You can stick the word “perceived” in front of all those interests if it will make it easier to avoid the "but it’s not in France/America’s best interests comments).
Me, I think this says something about the nature of international governance, and the inherent flaws in expecting it to be able to solve problems. Nobody approaches international government with a Global mindset, because nobody is fully accountable for the whole world. Everyone approaches it from the point of view of their own nationalistic agenda, so nothing of real importance can get done.
Well said.