Now Blair stands eyeball to eyeball with his own party

It was hard not to feel a batsqueak of sympathy for Hans Blix on Friday as he delivered his third report. There was a time when a statement by the United Nations chief weapons inspector was the main event in the Iraqi crisis: the world - quite literally - hung on his every word. Remember in February when Dr Blix's laconic attack on Colin Powell drew gasps in the UN chamber? Contrast the reception of the inspector's report last week. Dr Blix sounded like a public school house master giving a very dull end-of-term speech to a hall full of restless boys eager to get out on to the pitch.

He called for better intelligence; he looked forward to using the night vision equipment offered to him by the Russians; he said that his work would take many more months. The ministers and officials gathered around him listened politely, but they knew every word - every carefully-chosen bureaucratic phrase - was totally and utterly irrelevant. They indulged the fiction that the inspectors' work is work in progress. Even Jack Straw, in his magnificent demolition of his French opposite number, Dominique de Villepin ("my good friend Dominique"), found time to praise Dr Blix's industry. But they all knew that the inspectors' work is over. Something very different is at hand.

Dr Blix had himself been victim of a pre-emptive strike the night before when President Bush declared that "if we need to act, we will act and we really don't need the UN's approval to do so". Of course, Mr Bush has said as much many times before. But his tone on Thursday suggested that presidential patience has, at last, run dry. Most telling was Mr Bush's demand that there be a formal vote at the UN on the second resolution "no matter what the whip count is". Even if - especially if - the resolution is doomed, the President wants those nations hostile to it to be forced to cast their vote. There was impregnable menace in these words: America will not forget.

I doubt any of us will quickly forget the days ahead, least of all the Prime Minister. Alastair Campbell likes to mock the press for the frequency with which it announces "Tony Blair's worst week". This will probably not be the Prime Minister's worst week, but it may feel like his longest. Between now and the Security Council meeting expected on Tuesday, he and his colleagues will continue furiously to lobby those nations which resist the claim that Saddam is in material breach of Resolution 1441, and must accordingly face "serious consequences". If the second resolution fails, Mr Blair must then decide what to do. He has already made clear that he will treat a veto - or more than one veto - as perverse obstruction. But what if he and the President fail to secure even a simple majority on the Security Council?

This is an important distinction for the Government. If the French or other nations use the veto to thwart the majority will of the council, it will be easier for ministers to present such behaviour as vexatious. If, however, a veto is unnecessary - because the Security Council rejects the resolution outright - then Mr Blair will find himself in a quite different political position. In practice, of course, there is little doubt that he will support America. But it will be much harder for this instinctive liberal internationalist to explain to his colleagues and his party why he is doing so; why this great defender of international institutions is apparently defying the "democratic" will of the UN.

As we report today, there will be resignations from the Government if Britain takes military action without a second resolution, whatever the precise circumstances. You may not have heard of Andy Reed, one of the members of the Government who has disclosed to The Telegraph that he would resign, but it matters that he is PPS to Margaret Beckett. Anne Campbell's name probably won't mean much to you, unless you live in her Cambridge constituency: but she is PPS to Patricia Hewitt, the Trade and Industry Secretary.

The stand taken by such people does not necessarily mean that their respective bosses feel the same but cannot say so. Its true significance is that those on the first rung of the Government ladder - ambitious bag-carriers working for prominent Cabinet Ministers in hope of greater rewards - should be making such threats. Mr Blair has never been troubled by the hostility of Left-wing backbenchers. But he will be unsettled that junior members of his Government, those who ought to be most hungry for preferment, should have taken the political temperature and reached the conclusion which they have. Four such Government members spoke on the record to this newspaper: it is a safe bet that a great many more feel the same, or are weighing their options.

Let us say that the second resolution fails: the deadline for disarmament, set by Britain and America, of March 17 approaches and with it the certainty of war without a second UN mandate. Imagine, then, the choices facing those Labour MPs - hundreds of them, in total - who have expressed misgivings about the conflict in public or private. At this point, all eyes would turn nervously towards Clare Short and Robin Cook. Downing Street is so confident of Ms Short's loyalty that one suspects a deal, tacit or otherwise, has been struck. As for Mr Cook: he would have to decide in such circumstances whether posterity would look kindly on a Leader of the House of Commons who resigned as British troops went into battle. One of his closest allies admitted to me recently that "Robin won't know until the moment comes".

It looks like the moment may be coming very soon. At that point - when, to state the obvious, the Prime Minister will be more than a little preoccupied - he will also find himself in a stand-off with his own party. Mr Blair's own position looks pretty non-negotiable to me. So what ministers and MPs opposed to that position will have to decide is whether to hold their noses, cross their fingers and hope that the war is quick and as bloodless as possible; or, alternatively, to round on the Prime Minister at a time of national crisis.

Mr Blair's allies believe that the shock of war will trigger, as one put it quaintly to me, "a realignment of opinion". What they mean is that the reality of British troops risking their lives in the desert will severely limit the scope for political grandstanding and rebellions at Westminster. As the fog of war gathers abroad, the Prime Minister hopes for greater clarity at home. He hopes that military action will breed loyalty - knowing, of course, that it could breed precisely the opposite.

"We were eyeball to eyeball and the other fellow just blinked": Dean Rusk's famous words during the Cuban missile crisis resonate once more, on the eve of a very different conflict. But in this case it is not only Saddam's eyeballs which Mr Blair is scrutinising. He watches and waits to see what his own mutinous party does, as he embarks upon a terrible, courageous and lonely path. Let us see who blinks first.

Blair will not blink. In addition to those who support him, the Conservative Party is fully committed to fighting Saddam. That adds over 160 MPs to the pro-war total.

I am impressed by what Blair has done in terms of foreign policy, but it is important to be mindful that he leads a party full of utter morons and degenerates.

Regards, Ivan

Symbol of the Conservative Party

Ivan, I heard there was a war poll taken in the UK and 70%(I think) support a war with Iraq. Is this true?

Yes, with the second resolution. However if the French are the only veto, I think we can say that the approval would hold.

But this is not a matter of public opinion, this is a matter of the left wing lunatics inside the Labour Party. Blair is more right wing than his party, and this is his problem.

Regards, Ivan

Greetings From the Big Sky Country of Montana Cousin!

How I look forward to your posts from across the pond! Top shelf... It's so refreshing to know there are sentient folk over there on the other side of the pond. Like you, I've gotta tip my conservative hat to Tony Blair. He's hanging tough, so far anyway... Unlike those ingrates on the other side of the Channel, whom the next time they find themselves in a spot, well I say tell them to p*ss up a rope... Oh how I'd like to walk the lot of them barefoot across a league of prickly pear...

Hang tough my friend, for when its all said and done we'll win, together...

"Blair will not blink"

If he does, I'm pretty sure that Bush will not. At least I hope not. I too have been impressed with Blair throughout the current situation. But I'm convinced that Bush will push ahead anyway, even without the Brits.

Bush thinks that there is no other choice and I agree. We can't sustain the current level of effort on useless rhetoric from the UN. It is now a matter of dollars and (common)sense.

If these little weasles resign, Blair ought to replace them immediately with the best people possible.....from the people who are supporting him.

After this is over, and the British people get to hear the Iraquis and see the WMD's themselves, I pity those who stood against the war.

Blair could create a coalition government, perhaps, if the war lasts a long time - the Conservatives going into coalition with pro-war Labour MPs. Also the Ulster Unionist party is pro-war.

Regards, Ivan

I saw Blair on MTV last night, it was a town meeting type thing, with a bunch of young people asking questions about Iraq. It was broadcast on all the MTV networks around the world. Blair was golden, he was one of the best debaters I've ever seen. The little punks brought out all kinds of stupid arugments up, he just put them down over and over again. The most touching moment was when a young Iraqi man thanked Blair solemnly for liberating Iraq. It was a great show, Tony is the man!!

The operative passage:

President Bush declared that "if we need to act, we will act and we really don't need the UN's approval to do so". Most telling was Mr Bush's demand that there be a formal vote at the UN on the second resolution "no matter what the whip count is". Even if - especially if - the resolution is doomed, the President wants those nations hostile to it to be forced to cast their vote. There was impregnable menace in these words: America will not forget.

I can live with the idea of IDS as Defence or Foreign Secretary. He's a former soldier and has been more militant about getting rid of Saddam than even Blair.

Regards, Ivan

Blair sure fooled the hell out of me

Everytime I saw him with Clinton during the Kosovo War I figured he was a fop and another BS artist just like the Slickster

They seemed like twins

What a difference a couple years make

"There is a difference between leadership and commentary." This statement by Blair is one of the great rejoinders in political history. It was directed to the "comments" by the new Anglican archbishop, a self-described "hairy leftist."

I join others here in thanking Ivan for his posts.

I'm surprised that Blair is having so much trouble with the Leftmost segment of his party.

It would seem obvious that Blair has a broad liberal agenda he wants to fulfill and serious problems to solve at home. The war in Iraq will be costly and he will still have to deal with domestic problems and try to fulfill the rest of his agenda. So, the question is: why does his party think he's going into Iraq? It's not as though, like Clinton in bombing an aspirin factory, Blair can hope to distract the voters or solve his other problems in this way.

Obviously, Blair sees a broader menace, one that cannot be ignored. But why is Labor so blind to this and why do they think Blair is spending his political capital on this cause and risking his premiership?

Most telling was Mr Bush's demand that there be a formal vote at the UN on the second resolution "no matter what the whip count is". Even if - especially if - the resolution is doomed, the President wants those nations hostile to it to be forced to cast their vote.

It is clear that the diplomats buzzing and the overseas press understood the awesome significance of the President's statements on Thursday. It is amazing how do many of the knee-jerk liberals in the US didn't.

Sounds good to me. Blair and the rest of the pro-war Labour MPs can recognize good and evil, which means IMHO they don't really belong with the rest of the party's moral relativists.

there will be resignations from the Government if Britain takes military action without a second resolution, whatever the precise circumstances.

Those that leave the field ... anyway you look at it ... have lost.

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.