# Why is France acting so anti war?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-france-acting-so-anti-war/163304>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [March 22, 2003, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-france-acting-so-anti-war/163304 "2003-03-22T05:28:43Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wolfstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d6d6ee/32.png) [@wolfstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfstu)\
**Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-france-acting-so-anti-war/163304/21 "2003-03-22T15:21:49Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by elucidator \*  
> \*\*Further, “a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting” doth severely raise the eyebrows. That would seem to imply that America, who is most certainly a party to a dispute, or at least eagerly trying to be a party to a dispute, should be obliged to abstain. Unless, of course, bombing the bejabbers out of a foreign nation does not necessarily entail a “dispute”.  
> \*\*

I read that to mean that, if a member of the security council is involved in a matter that may require UN action, it cannot vote, since this would obviously bring into question the impartiality and motivations of the Security Council.

An example: Mexico is currently on the Security Council. Let’s say Mexico invades Belize, and starts ‘ethnically cleansing’ the place. The Security Council might decide that it should consider intervening, but Mexico is not allowed to vote.

But, IANAUNDiplomat, so I may be wrong.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\
**Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-france-acting-so-anti-war/163304/22 "2003-03-22T16:23:49Z")

</div>

**LC** , I offered no specific criticism of GB’s Parliament in my remarks, nor am I ready -particularly in this thread- to analyze whether such a parliamentary system best reflects either the will or the interests of the people. My objection is to the idea that, in matters of immediate high effect on the security and wellbeing of the country, such as the present exercise against Iraq, the public interest as perceived by the representatives of the people should by default supercede the widely expressed and determined will of those people.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-france-acting-so-anti-war/163304.md?page=1)