My country, France, will oppose its veto to the United States in a few days, or so it says. It bothers me a little.

Unanimity bothers me. While the French President is a right-wing conservative, the socialists and communists support him completely on this issue. The far-right, too, opposes the war. A very large majority of the people have the same opinion. As far as I know, only two politicians (including Bernard Kouchner, a former NGO leader) and a few intellectuals (not the ones you would expect) support the war in France. One cannot say, as in Great Britain or Spain, that the President does not express the will of the nation.

It bothers me because I don't think the situation is clear enough to justify such a unanimity. I think I am against the war, but I am not completely sure. The Iraqi people have two problems today: Saddam and the US embargo. A US war would put an end to both. On the other hand, there is no 'good war': it's an oxymoron. So I'm not sure. I'm probably against the war because most of the people in my country are against it. I had a much harder military service than most well-educated young men. The U.S. know how to win a war, it has not shown in the last 50 years if it still knew how to win a peace. I don't completely know what to think.

In another writeup this morning I tried to explain that the U.S. may or may not be right, but they cannot be so right as to justify bombings and embargos without taking into account the opinion of the world. I must also ask myself whether my country can be so right as to justify a veto against the majority of the Security Council.

I don't think France should veto a decision of the Security Council if the majority of the Council votes against it. Not because the United States will overcome the opposition of France and act alone: you don't preserve a power by not using it, a useless veto will only reveal the weakness of the United Nations, not create it. What bothers me here is that, if the majority of the Security Council dissents from the French opinion, France does not represent enough in the world today to have the legitimacy to oppose it. That's why I think France should abstain from voting if the majority of the Council disagrees with it. That's why I don't think my country should have veto power in the Security Council.

Neither should Great Britain, which only merit over France is that it always agree with the US while France only agrees 80% of the time. Maybe the European Union should have that veto power. It would probably be unable to use it since it cannot define a common foreign policy, but this is not a problem: it would simply abstain when its members disagree, and at least there would be no harm. Or maybe no country should have the veto power: the U.S. are ready to go to war in spite of another member's veto, so why should they have a right they don't respect?

Of course, France has a moral superiority about the U.S.: even if it's evil, it is much less powerful, and therefore cannot make as much harm as the U.S. can. It cannot do as much good, either.