France's veto conundrum

France's veto conundrum

By Hugh Schofield Paris

France is being hailed by anti-war activists across the world

President George W Bush says he wants a vote on Iraq at the Security Council so that America can see once and for all who its friends are.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin says that for its part France wants heads of state and government to come to New York for the debate, so that the vote "takes place before their peoples and before the world".

Any hope that a convenient form of words could be found to paper over the fissure at the heart of the UN has disappeared.

The showdown - one that will shape international relations for a generation - is days away.

For France, the conundrum boils down to this: to veto or not to veto.

Artful position

Mr Villepin - arch-diplomat that he is - has never actually uttered the word "veto", but he has made it abundantly plain that France is prepared to use it.

Villepin and Chirac have a "diplomatic atomic bomb" in their hands

As he repeated in Friday's debate following the latest report of the weapons inspectors: "France will not let a resolution pass that authorises the automatic use of force."

There is no reason to believe France is bluffing.

The days when pundits were conjecturing about the moment France would do a 1991 and jump on board with the allies have long since gone.

But there is also something artful about France's position.

French calculations

Mr Villepin and President Jacques Chirac are well aware that the use of the veto against the US for the first time since the Suez crisis in 1956 would be what Liberation newspaper described Saturday as a "diplomatic atomic bomb".

What they hope is that the more they show their willingness to wield it, the less likely it is that the dreaded moment will come.

The use of force risks aggravating grudges and hatred

Dominique de Villepin

The key to this calculation are the Security Council waverers - Chile, Pakistan, Mexico and the three African states, Angola, Cameroon and Guinea.

Paris wants to convince these countries' governments that there is no point in their rallying to the US side - and thus no doubt incurring considerable popular displeasure at home - because a resolution will any case be blocked by the French veto.

If enough of the six yield to this logic - and Mr Villepin flies to Africa early next week to try to twist arms - then the US-British-Spanish resolution will not get the nine votes necessary to pass on the Security Council. And, France will not have to take the ultimate step.

Because there can be no doubting the seriousness of the consequences if France does go head-to-head with the world's most powerful nation.

Risks

Commentators in the US are saying that Washington might be willing merely to relegate France to "not-especially favoured nation" status - if the war on Iraq goes well.

Having the plaudits of the huddled masses around the world is all very well - but powerful friends are useful too

But if it goes badly, all bets are off.

If the US loses a lot of men - if the campaign is longer than the quick offensive that is widely predicted but hardly a certainty - then France will be seen as largely responsible for having encouraged Saddam Hussein to resist.

If France is loathed in the US today, the feeling is nothing compared to what could follow.

Paris appears willing to take all this because it says it is defending a point of principle.

As Mr Villepin told the Security Council: "The use of force risks aggravating grudges and hatred, stoking a clash of identities, a confrontation between cultures which it is precisely the responsibility of our generation to avoid."

But the government must be aware of the risks it is taking.

Having the plaudits of the huddled masses around the world is all very well. But powerful friends are useful too.

And powerful enemies can be extremely troublesome.