Analysis: Its not just France against war
By Claude Salhani
From the International Desk
Published 3/19/2003 1:12 PM
View printer-friendly version


LONDON, March 19 (UPI) -- While France bore the brunt of the recent trans-Atlantic diplomatic dispute over Iraq, it should be noted that President Jacques Chirac's opposition to war is widely mirrored across much of Europe.

Even here, in the United Kingdom, where Prime Minister Tony Blair has proved throughout these difficult months of intense behind-the-scenes diplomatic haggling to be President George W. Bush's best friend and ally, public opinion is far from supportive of the U.S.-led war effort.

Blair, many analysts believe, might be gambling his political career, betting on a quick, clean war. Britain's prime minister is hoping the conflict in the Middle East will meet with rapid success in its efforts to oust Saddam Hussein and identify, and neutralize, his weapons of mass destruction.

For the moment, Blair is riding strong, having won what one British newspaper called a "historic vote for war." The anti-war motion was defeated in the Commons on Tuesday 396-217, giving the prime minister a majority of 179, despite the biggest Labor Party rebellion since he became prime minister.

The government's motion for military action to disarm Iraq, "using all necessary means" was approved 412-149. In a passionate speech, Blair told Parliament he would resign if the members voted against military action, forcing him to withdraw British troops lined up to battle Saddam and his military forces.

But already Robin Cook, a former foreign secretary and leader of the House of Commons, has resigned from the government. And on Tuesday, two more ministers -- John Denham and Lord Hunt -- resigned. However, Clare Short, the international development secretary, who had earlier threatened to quit, changed her mind, saying it would be "cowardly" to do so now.

Cook announced his resignation in an impassioned statement to Parliament on Monday. Cook, who for the first time in his 20-year political life addressed the House from the Back Benches, stated that while "France has been at the receiving end of bucketloads of commentary in recent days, it is not France alone that wants inspections.

"Germany wants more time for inspection; Russia wants more time for inspections," said Cook.

"We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac," added the British politician.

While, indeed, Chirac did seem to be spearheading the anti-war, anti-Bush campaign, it is important to note that Russia, Germany, Belgium and other nations remain just as opposed to U.S. unilateralism and to Bush's urge to act outside the framework of the United Nations.

In fact, although their governments support Bush's initiative, the majority of Britons, Italians and Spaniards are just as opposed to going to war without a second U.N. resolution. As, too, are the United States' immediate neighbors and largest trading partners, Canada and Mexico.

So why is America's ire and frustration at France's refusal to accept the war option so vociferous?

It could be explained primarily because France -- one of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- repeatedly threatened to use its veto power, thus blocking any resolution that would automatically authorize use of force.

While Russia and China -- also veto-wielding permanent Security Council members -- also opposed recourse to war, unlike Chirac their leaders were careful not to mention the possibility of using their right to veto. Putin, for example, simply said he was opposed to any new resolutions. France, on the other hand, showed no such reserve.

Chirac, and his energetic foreign minister Dominique de Villepin, who actively campaigned to insure the support of African countries currently sitting on the Security Council, kept reiterating that there was "no justification for use of force."

"Opposition to war," said Chirac in a televised address that closely followed Bush's ultimatum to Saddam on Monday, "was showed by a majority of countries."

Part of this can be explained by the fact that France firmly sees a bigger role in international politics for Europe, which it sees itself, along with Germany, leading. Additionally, most Europeans have a stronger desire to find a peaceful solution to the crisis, even if it means being more flexible with Saddam, and according him more time.

"Ironically," said Cook, "it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can contemplate its invasion."

And second, Chirac believes himself to be the political heir -- and spiritual son -- of Gen. Charles de Gaulle. As such, he believes he should stand up to American unilateralist policy in the good old Gaulist tradition.

This diplomatic squabble between France and the United States is nothing more than the continuation of a dispute started by de Gaulle with Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower during World War II, when de Gaulle was in exile in London and Ike commanded the Allies.

There is little doubt here that in his more quiet moments, Chirac must be asking himself what would the good general do in a similar situation.

It is also worth noting that some time after the war, once the dust of this dispute settles, historians will most certainly point out the importance of France's "mediating" role in this crisis.

"Chirac's and France's position vis-à-vis this debate is proof that this crisis is not a clash of civilizations," said one high-ranking French official to United Press International. "France's, as well as Germany's position, shows that at least this is not a dispute between east and west."

In the final analysis, France will side with the coalition.

And as Bush's 48-hour ultimatum winds down, and with Saddam still firmly in Baghdad, and showing no signs of abdicating, hostilities will soon replace diplomacy.

In the words of Cook's departing comments to Parliament: "To end in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse."