From today's Times:
No turning back for Britain or Blair
By Philip Webster, Political Editor, and Roland Watson in Washington
TONY BLAIR prepared his party and country for war without further approval from the United Nations yesterday.
He served notice that he would defy scores of Labour MPs and millions of voters as he dismissed the idea that America could go it alone.
He said for the first time that Britain and America already had legal authority for attacking Iraq. And he implied that if the UN could not bring itself to enforce its will, others would have to do so.
Within hours of Mr Blair’s remarks, there were strong indications that Britain’s struggle to win a majority in the Security Council for authorising war is close to failure — leaving war likely within days.
Frantic attempts to persuade wavering countries were continuing last night and an American diplomat said that as many as seven Security Council members were backing the new resolution — two fewer than required. But it was clear that the battle could end with Britain, America and Spain walking away from the process rather than face humiliation if the resolution were put to a vote.
As the word from New York became gloomier, the government machine braced the nation for diplomatic failure — and blamed the French.
Mr Blair told a private meeting of Labour’s parliamentary committee that he was working flat out to win a Security Council majority, but that the signs were not good. President Chirac’s promise to veto the second resolution whatever the circumstances had made the task of America and Britain at the UN hugely difficult.
He said it was hard to persuade the “swing” countries that they should come on board when the French had said they were going to veto the resolution in any case and he said that it was illogical for France, having backed the original UN Resolution 1441, to veto its implementation.
The arithmetic in New York appeared to be going against Mr Blair and President Bush. A senior British diplomat told The Times: “I fear that we’re not going to make it.” There were signs, however, that the mood in the Parliamentary Labour Party was beginning to shift in Mr Blair’s favour after an impassioned meeting at which the behaviour of hardline rebels calling for his removal was condemned.
Mr Blair still faces the prospect of a rebellion even bigger than that of two weeks ago. In a Commons debate, probably on Monday, he will argue that he has worked as hard as humanly possible to secure a second resolution but was in the end thwarted by the “unreasonable” behaviour of the French.
Mr Blair is nevertheless determined that the UN process should be pursued to the end and yesterday Britain published a fresh set of tests for President Saddam Hussein that could be incorporated into a second resolution. Some diplomats said that although the outlook was bleak, it could be tomorrow or even Saturday before final failure was accepted. “So long as there is any life flickering in this process he (Mr Blair) wants to carry on.”
The new strategy appears to be that in the event of the second resolution failing to materialise, the allies will rely on the authority given by the original Resolution 1441 to go to war. UN experts pointed out that Britain and America would be better advised to walk away from a vote that was certain to fail because they would still have 1441, which promised “serious consequences”. That demanded a further meeting of the council but not another vote.
Mr Blair left MPs in no doubt about his intentions should the diplomatic route fail. Despite Donald Rumsfeld’s suggestion that the US could go it alone, Mr Blair said that was not his intention. “The reason why I believe it is important that we hold firm to the course we have set out is because what is at stake here isn’t whether the US goes alone or not; it is whether the international community is prepared to back up the clear instruction it gave to Saddam Hussein with the necessary action,” he said. “That is why I am determined we hold firm to the course we have set out.”
A close associate of Mr Blair said: “Some people saw Rumsfeld’s words as an exit strategy for him. He was not looking for one.” In his most direct promise yet that he would go without the UN, he told a Tory MP: “It would be a tragedy if the UN, when faced with this challenge, fails to meet it. We have to make sure that the unified will set out in 1441 is implemented.”
Jack Straw acknowledged that Britain may have to abandon hopes of securing a new resolution before going to war, although he repeatedly refused to say at a Foreign Office news conference whether the draft resolution would be put to a vote. “What I guarantee is that we are working as hard as we possibly can to secure a second resolution,” he said.
But his Spanish counterpart, Ana Palacio, openly accepted that the resolution may be withdrawn, citing the threat by President Chirac to wield the French veto “whatever the circumstances”. Washington made clear that there was little time left for diplomacy. Delays at the Security Council had already cost vital time, senior Bush aides said.
“We’ve lost ground in trying to find a diplomatic solution because the world has not spoken with one voice,” Condoleezza Rice, President Bush’s National Security Adviser, said. “The Security Council needs to stand up, give him a very clear message that he needs to disarm, that he has days, not weeks, to disarm.”
As Mr Bush maintained a breakneck diplomatic pace, his spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said: “It’s become a worldwide phone call. You are seeing the final moments of action, or inaction, at the UN Security