| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Europe | |
| Chirac pledges to | |
| 2003-02-18 | |
| Tony Blair's options for going to war on Iraq were shrinking last night after Jacques Chirac publicly pledged that France would veto an early second United Nations resolution explicitly authorising military action. "There is no need for a second resolution today, which France would have no choice but to oppose," Mr Chirac insisted as he arrived for the European Union's emergency summit in Brussels. He called it "the worst solution". No doubt Chirac thinks the key word in his statement is "today". When it comes around to payback time, we're going to remember his weasel words. But Mr Blair, who is determined to avoid being provoked into a worse EU split over Iraq, repeated what he and his aides have said for weeks; that time is still needed to answer the key test: "Is Saddam co-operating or not? The most important thing is to send a signal of strength, not weakness, because that is the language Saddam will understand. That is also our best chance of avoiding war."
And Chirac isn't helping, since this tends to make Turkey hold back. France's position dashed already slim hopes that the EU would be able to bridge the gap between those who back impatient US rhetoric and those demanding more time for UN weapons inspections. There were no hopes. On top of the challenge of peace protests around the world, it intensified pressure on Mr Blair. He has insisted all along that a second security council resolution is desirable, though not necessary. No 10 still believes it will get one. What he wants at this point is 9 votes in favor, even if the French veto. He's already said that would be good enough. Faced with France's flat refusal to go back to the UN at this stage, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, appeared to be moving to the government's fallback position, saying that resolution 1441 "gives us the authority we need". No 10 was also adamant that the prime minister's new stress on the moral and humanitarian arguments for removing Saddam Hussein to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people does not represent a hardening of policy towards "regime change" in Baghdad. It does, but he can't say that publicly. But it does appear to offer President Saddam two choices: despite Downing Street's blood-curdling description of the Iraqi dictator as a man "who runs his country like a butcher's shop", he could be allowed to stay in power if he complies with 1441. But if the US leads a coalition to war without UN sanction - or restraint - he will be removed. Faced with the weekend's mass protests, No 10 again said: "There is another side to the moral balance sheet. There is no moral monopoly." It's pretty heavily tilted towards allieviating the suffering of the people of Iraq, but okay. In Brussels, Mr Straw conceded ministers should "listen carefully" to the protesters' message, but he said people taking part had different concerns; some would support war if all else failed. As if to confirm that claim on a day of mixed messages, Germany signalled that it might back war "as a last resort". Is this just jerking Tony's chain, or did the NATO Defence Council vote yesterday put some gray remover in Schroeder's hair dye? Foreign ministers put a positive spin on their talks, described by Mr Straw as "serious and constructive", but left the hard graft to heads of government, who were meeting Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general. The EU, facing embarrassing disarray over the crisis - and a potentially mortal blow to its aspirations to play a coherent role on the world stage - is divided into three camps. The group of hawks, led by Britain, includes Spain, Italy, Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands. The doves are France, Germany, Belgium Luxembourg, Greece and Austria. Ireland, Sweden and Finland are somewhere in between. "We all know that this is about the question of Iraq, but it's also about the question of Europe," Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, said. Greece, which holds the EU's rotating presidency, called the summit to try to heal divisions after the highly damaging row in Nato. But many feel it will only serve to highlight the rift. It did. The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said UN inspectors should be given more time and that Britain, Italy and Spain, were taking "strictly an American line". As opposed to a French line. As grassroots mutterings grow against Mr Blair's leadership, leftwing MPs stepped up their demands for abandonment of New Labour's "market-based and militaristic" policies and promised to organise an anti-war conference next month. "It is time for party members to take back our party from the New Labour clique that have hijacked it," said John McDonnell MP, chairman of the Campaign Group. Wonder if it's time for Dame Margaret to start talking about the "Looney Left" again? | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #9 There will be no second resolution until after the Marines are in Iraq. GW already has a plurality of support for war, and Blair made his stand on Sunday facing down the party and protestors. The diplomacy is over. Chirac knows this (and so does Saddam for that matter), and he has to support the next resolution because Kofi needs it, and Chirac needs it for the UN to live another day. Kissing off a veto vote at the UN over a done deal would mean the end of Chirac, and all the sordid stories would start to leak/appear. |
| Posted by: john 2003-02-18 15:32:00 |
| #8 He said literally "La France ne pourrait que l'opposer" (France could only oppose it). |
| Posted by: Peter 2003-02-18 14:10:58 |
| #7 Aargh, that last anon comment was me. My bad. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-02-18 10:07:05 |
| #6 For Becky and 'someone', the headline was correct. Click on the source and you'll see that the Al-Guardian uses the word 'veto' both in the title and in the first paragraph. But perhaps Chirac meant to say 'oppose'. After all, the French are incomprehensible! |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-02-18 10:05:17 |
| #5 Headline is wrong: Chirac promised to "oppose" it, not veto. Ha. Good catch. Chirac seems to be self-destructing, but perhaps he has left himself a little weasel room. We can always hope! |
| Posted by: becky 2003-02-18 06:50:04 |
| #4 As usual, I don't think the French are interested in friendship. What would the most progressive, morally superior and culturally sohisticated country on the planet need with friends? You get some idea of the breathtaking arrogance involved from Chirac's threats to the Eastern half of the continent. They want their EU Empire back, 'cause they are watching it slip out of their fingers. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-02-18 03:36:03 |
| #3 Headline is wrong: Chirac promised to "oppose" it, not veto. Ha. |
| Posted by: someone 2003-02-18 02:53:53 |
| #2 I am reminded of french friendliness towards Bob... The way things are heading (esp. with Chirac lambasting the Vilnius Group), Bob may be France's best and only friend come summer. Maybe Chirac should start proclaiming his fondness for Daffy Duck. That'd get them another new friend. |
| Posted by: Dishman 2003-02-18 00:50:58 |
| #1 Kofi laid it on the line, Bertie agreed, and Chirac open mouth and inserted both feet. Just hope it's in time to save Blair, although I do not agree w/his policies. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-02-18 00:48:18 |