War with Iraq: the British position

By ANDREW GRICE

LONDON - When the Cabinet gathers at Chequers for its usual September get-together ahead of the Labour Party conference, there is no doubt which issue will top the agenda - Iraq. The Cabinet has not met since July and some ministers are increasingly worried about what appears to be a drift to war during Parliament's summer recess.

Tony Blair will break his recent silence on Iraq today when he gives interviews during his flight to Mozambique en route to the Earth Summit in Johannesburg. His words will also be studied carefully when he holds a press conference in his Sedgefield constituency on Tuesday.

There is a growing feeling among Labour MPs, party activists and even ministers that the time has come for the Prime Minister to expand on his holding line that no decision to attack Iraq has been taken. That line has become increasingly untenable in recent days as the hawks in Washington have given the strong impression that they rule the roost.

Aware that public and Labour Party opinions are hostile to a war without firm evidence against Saddam Hussein, the Government has changed its tone --subtly but significantly -- by stressing that a conflict can be avoided if Iraq allows weapons inspectors to return.

Other simmering differences between Britain and the US have surfaced: the Blair Government does not see "regime change" in Baghdad as a goal of policy and is more sympathetic than the Bush administration to securing a new United Nations resolution in the hope of forging a much-needed international coalition.

London is also warming to the idea of setting a short-term, final deadline by which Saddam must allow in inspectors. But Washington is sceptical, fearing that whatever deadline is set, the Iraqi leader will make an eleventh-hour offer which falls just short of the UN's demands.

The change of tone from the Blair Government is too subtle for his growing band of critics in the Labour Party. "He is caught between a rock and a hard place," one Blairite Labour MP said yesterday. "He is determined to support Bush to maintain influence in Washington, but it's difficult to take people in the party or the country with him."

Labour's private polls are believed to reveal a deep distrust of the US president, making Mr Blair vulnerable to the charge of being "Bush's poodle." As one Labour insider put it: "Bush is even more unpopular than the euro and the Tories."

The Prime Minister faces a difficult month. The anniversary of September 11 will keep the media spotlight on the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The TUC and Labour conferences look certain to pass resolutions which will challenge the Blair line. Although he can ignore such votes, they would make his task of turning round public opinion all the harder.

There is still no sign of the long-awaited dossier about Iraq's weapons which Mr Blair has promised to publish "at the appropriate time." The suspicion among Labour MPs is that the evidence is pretty thin.

Although 160 Labour backbenchers have signed a Commons motion opposing a war with Iraq, opinion could change if Mr Blair started to make the case more effectively. One Labour source said: "A lot of people are in the middle ground, and could be won over if we had evidence about the weapons and a new UN resolution. It's even possible then that a majority of Labour MPs and even party activists could support action."

In the meantime, there are growing doubts about just how much influence Mr Blair really enjoys in Washington, a development which threatens to deepen the revolt inside the Labour Party. One Blair adviser admitted yesterday: "The worry is that he can row in behind Colin Powell [the US Secretary of State] when there is a real debate in the administration, but is pretty powerless when the hawks are calling the shots, which appears to be the case now."

Ministers close to Blair dismiss such a picture, arguing that the strategy is still buying influence. They also reject the claim by Richard Holbrooke, the former US diplomat, who said Blair advisers had told him Washington was "giving Blair nothing" in return for his solid support.

One Blair loyalist said: "The bottom line is: do you keep your fingers crossed and let Saddam get nuclear weapons? We are not finger-crossers. It is fine to go down the route of inspectors, but you have to work out what you do if that doesn't happen."

- INDEPENDENT