The French View

Audiatur ut altera pars!


"France is not posturing: we are listening to world opinion, and heeding the wisdom of Churchill
We cannot back Nato's involvement in a war even before the question of the use of force has been put to the Security Council

13 February 2003
by Gerard Errera, French Ambassador to London

By unanimously voting in favour of resolution 1441, the 15 members of the United Nations Security Council all agreed on one objective: to disarm Iraq. We all agreed that rigorous inspections were the best means. We also agreed to go the UN route and keep the Security Council at the core of the decision-making process. Until and unless the inspectors declare their mission to be impossible, there is every reason to stay the course and no reason to cut off the inspections.

The issue before us is a serious one: how to rid Iraq and others of their weapons of mass destruction. Given the utmost priority to maintain a strong coalition to fight terrorism, given the risks resulting from the impasse in the Middle East peace process, we think the last thing now needed in the region is another war.

This doesn't mean that nothing can be done. Indeed, in the 90s, more weapons were destroyed through inspections than in the Gulf War. Between status quo and war, there is a way: to strengthen inspections. To this effect, the French Foreign Minister has put forward concrete proposals. These include reinforcing the personnel of Unmovic (the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission), providing aircraft surveillance, establishing a monitoring unit in Iraq, pooling intelligence and establishing a co-ordinating structure on the spot. They need to be discussed and acted on.

Eighty per cent of world opinion does not think that war is warranted. People feel it would have incalculable consequences; they are asking questions that are not being answered. They feel that one should never tread into war lightly. They have a point. We should heed Churchill's words and "never, never believe that any war will be smooth and easy".

Not that France forgoes the use of force as a matter of principle. This is where the question of a "second resolution" comes in. France was, indeed, the first to call for a second resolution to allow the Security Council to come to a collective decision, including a decision to use force provided it is based on a clearly negative report by the inspectors and is subject to an explicit authorisation. This is very different from a second resolution that would be a mere figleaf.

France is a permanent member of the Security Council. As such, she has a special responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. France will exercise this responsibility.

The current discussion in Nato has to be seen in this light. We are told that the issue is the protection of Turkey. To assume that Turkey needs to be protected from retaliation by Iraq is to assume a military intervention against Iraq. This means we are, in fact, requested to support Nato's endorsement of the principle of a preventive war against Iraq. We cannot back Nato's involvement in a war against Iraq even before the question of the use of force has been put to the Security Council, let alone authorised by it. This would mean putting the Nato cart before the UN horse.

France is not posturing. Neither at Nato, nor at the UN. As for the argument that France is chickening out, I would merely suggest trying it out on the families of the French soldiers who paid the price of blood in the Balkan wars, in Afghanistan against al-Qa'ida and the Taliban, or in the Gulf War. France was the first European supplier of air power during the Nato-led operations in Kosovo. She remains the largest single contributor of troops to Nato operations in the Balkans. Together with Britain, France has undertaken a major increase in defence spending to face the new threats and challenges confronting us all. These facts speak for themselves.

There are no ulterior motives to France's position. We have deeply held convictions. At the heart of them lies the notion that for any action by the international community to be efficient, it has to be legitimate; and that to be legitimate, it has to be based on the respect for international law.

We will defend these convictions without apologies."

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=377850