Posted on 09/13/2002 9:49:19 PM PDT by Brian Allen
Tony Blair was facing deepening Labour disquiet over Iraq last night despite President George W Bush's promise to seek United Nations support for action to force Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction.
The renewed criticism overshadowed a long-awaited declaration of support for Mr Blair's plans by Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr Bush said yesterday that it was "highly doubtful" that Iraq would comply with UN resolutions and made clear that war was all but inevitable.
Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi deputy prime minister, raised the tension when he rejected the demand for unconditional access for UN weapons inspectors.
As military preparations reached a new pitch, it emerged that a team of British planners has begun to identify targets in Iraq for an escalation of attacks by American and British aircraft.
Reports from the United States suggested that American and British special forces were already in western Iraq to prevent Saddam deploying Scud missile launchers for an attack on Israel.
At the same time, around 6,000 British troops were preparing to move stores and equipment to Marchwood, near Southampton, for a major logistics exercise.
The growing prospect of British troops being involved in an American-led action against Iraq provoked renewed discontent among Labour's rank and file.
Chris Smith, the former culture secretary, said that an attack on Iraq could result in a "disintegration of the international coalition on terrorism", with potentially disastrous consequences for stability in the Middle East.
In an interview for GMTV's Sunday Programme, to be broadcast tomorrow, Mr Smith said: "My sense is that the Labour Party overwhelmingly is extremely anxious about what is happening here. People don't think we should be going gung-ho into a military conflict."
Mr Smith urged the Cabinet to restrain the Prime Minister over any attack.
Gerald Kaufman, a veteran backbencher, said he would support military action if it was authorised by a UN resolution on the basis of Iraq refusing to comply with demands to disarm.
But Mr Blair should say "no" to Mr Bush "if the UN doesn't pass a resolution authorising action and America decides to take action anyhow", Mr Kaufman told BBC News 24's One to One programme.
A member of Labour's national executive committee, Ann Black, said party members were considering resigning their membership because they were "alarmed and disturbed" by Mr Blair's stance on Iraq. But she said many in the party would accept an explicit UN authorisation of the use of force.
Mark Seddon, the editor of the Left-wing Tribune and another member of the executive, accused Mr Blair of failing to consult the Cabinet over Iraq. "I wonder if he is aware of the strength of feeling out there in the country and in his own party," he said.
But prospects of a serious Cabinet rift receded yesterday when the Chancellor broke his long silence on the issue and pledged his full support for Mr Blair's stance.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Brown said the Government must have the strength to take the right decisions.
"The international community should not, and cannot, tolerate or leave unaddressed the issue of a regime that proliferates chemical, biological and potentially also nuclear weapons in absolute defiance of international agreements," Mr Brown said.
Asked whether there were serious divisions on Iraq in the Cabinet, Mr Brown replied: "I believe the Government will act as one. I am not going to speculate beyond that."
His backing will come as a relief for Mr Blair at a time when other ministers, including Robin Cook, the Leader of the Commons, and Clare Short, the International Development Secretary, have let it be known they have doubts about how far Britain should go in backing Mr Bush.
Peter Mandelson, the former Northern Ireland secretary, said Mr Blair had been able to exercise influence over the American president, helping to persuade Mr Bush to work through the UN, because he had demonstrated loyalty as an ally.
"His opinions and his counsel would have weighed heavily with the President because the President has a lot of respect and a lot of regard for Tony Blair's views and his position," Mr Mandelson said.
The MoD insisted yesterday it was not stockpiling materiel for shipment to the Gulf and that the movement of troops at Marchwood, a military port near Southampton, was part of a long-planned logistics exercise.
The exercise, Operation Log Viper, which begins tomorrow, will see regular troops and Territorial Army reserves move ammunition, medical supplies, petrol and clothing to Marchwood and RAF Woodbridge in Suffolk.
The MoD insisted that it had nothing to do with preparations for an attack on Iraq.
"There is no stockpiling of ammunition or other stores at ports," one senior MoD official said. "Most of the boxes being used for the exercise are empty."
British officials dismissed as "highly speculative" leaks to The Telegraph that up to 30,000 British troops could begin moving to the Gulf at the end of September and complete the deployment by the end of the year.
"December would be the most likely time to begin any military operations as the desert temperatures will have receded," said the official.
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2002.
Thank God for our real and unshakable allies: the Australians, New Zealanders and Israelis!
How does Helen Clark fit in here?
BTW, these "wankers" talking about how the coalition will split - sound familiar?
Hmmm...Does anyone here know if Scuds launched from locations in Iraq other than western region can still reach Israel?
Good bye, and good riddance.
WHAT THE HELL DO THESE PEOPLE THINK IS SO DAMN STABLE ABOUT THE MIDDLE EAST NOW???!!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.