John Armstrong: The unilateral action that spawned the gamut of factions

Were he not distracted by more pressing matters, Saddam Hussein might have cracked a wry smile of satisfaction had he witnessed the New Zealand Parliament's special debate on Iraq.

Just like that other talk shop in New York, the House ruptured into three camps.

There was the minority coalition of the willing - Act and National, the latter a last-minute recruit to the Bomb Baghdad club.

There was the force-as-last-resort, majority coalition of the unwilling - Labour, NZ First, United Future, and the Progressive Coalition.

And the peace-at-all-costs coalition of the never-ever willing, thank you very much. A coalition of one - the Greens.

But it was Keith Locke, that party's fundamentalist foreign affairs spokesman, who finally injected some emotion into what had been until then a fairly antiseptic discussion of the rights and wrongs of going to war.

He decried "men in fine suits" in Washington unleashing their "murder machine" on the helpless children of Baghdad.

The coalition of the willing was better named the coalition of the killing.

And, barely containing his anger, he finished by calling President George W. Bush a war criminal.

Like cats which have had their fur stroked the wrong way, nearby National MPs responded with muffled snarls of derision.

Those MPs had been feeling pretty pleased with themselves, having finally "come out" and expressed support for pending unilateral military action by the United States and its allies. (Not to be upstaged by National's eve-of-war conversion, Act leader Richard Prebble went one better by expressing "strong" support.)

Until then, National had looked somewhat equivocal about military action without a United Nations mandate.

But Bill English told the House that not supporting the coalition of the willing in the wake of UN disagreement would effectively mean wanting the withdrawal of US forces from the Gulf and victory for Saddam Hussein. And that would be ridiculous.

Wayne Mapp, Mr English's foreign affairs spokesman, was more straightforward.

He said it was simply in New Zealand's long-term self-interest to be aligned with traditional allies - the US, Britain and Australia.

The Prime Minister, in contrast, has aligned herself with public opinion - but has to take heed of the country's self-interest.

This balancing act meant there was no Helen Clark tour de force yesterday.

She expressed "profound regret" that "close friends" had chosen to act outside the Security Council and set a "dangerous precedent".

However, she refused to venture an opinion on the legality of what the US is doing.

And she was determined the difference of opinion on Iraq would not damage New Zealand's longstanding friendships.

Diplomacy may have run its course in failing to avert war.

In Helen Clark's case, diplomacy continues.

Herald Feature: Iraq