Sir Jeremy Greenstock was centre stage in UK-led efforts to negotiate a second UN resolution in early 2003, seen by many countries as necessary directly authorise military action. The move was vetoed by France and Russia, leading critics to claim the subsequent invasion was illegal.
The move was not vetoed. There was no need to veto it because the UK and USA came nowhere near achieving the majority that would have allowed it to be passed. They needed nine out of the 15 Security Council votes and, if memory serves, they only got Spain and one African country to support them. To say that it was vetoed gives the impression that France and Russia prevented something that would otherwise have been approved. That was not the case. The claims that the invasion of Iraq was illegal are based on the failure of the would-be invaders to get a majority; but they failed because there was no majority to be had, or anything near it, not because approval by a potential majority was vetoed by one or two countries.
President Jacques Chirac explained this very clearly in an interview on French television at the time. Here is an extract:
THE PRESIDENT – I’m telling you what I feel. I firmly believe, this evening, that there isn’t a majority of nine votes in favour of that resolution including an ultimatum and thus giving the international green light to war.
Q. – In other words, France wouldn’t need to use her veto?
THE PRESIDENT – In this scenario, that’s exactly right. In this scenario, France will, of course, take a stand. There will be nations who will vote “no”, including France. Some will abstain. But, in any case, there won’t, in this scenario, be a majority. So there won’t be a veto problem.
This quotation is taken from Brian Barder’s Ephems web site, where he has posted a large collection of information relevant to the invasion of Iraq. Notice that Chirac talks of ‘this evening’ and ‘this scenario’. He says nothing about how France would vote, or whether or not it might use its veto, in any future situation.
Recent Comments