Blair needs to be a bit more candid over Iraq

By ROBERT G. PATMAN*

With the prospect of a high-risk United States-led military assault against Iraq now threatening to derail the war against terrorism, the Bush Administration urgently needs the advice of true friends. But true friends need to communicate clearly.

Unfortunately, the US' closest ally, the Blair Government in Britain, seems to think otherwise. Lately it has been sending Washington some rather mixed messages over Iraq.

Last week, for example, the Blair Government suddenly began to emphasise that as long as the UN weapons inspectors were working in Iraq, there was little chance that Baghdad could build any secret weapons.

But within days the Blair Government toughened its rhetoric and seemed to fall into line with the Bush Administration by announcing the deployment of 26,000 British troops to join the 95,000 American troops already deployed in the Gulf region.

Such inconsistency reflects British diplomatic efforts to mask serious differences with the US over Iraq.

First, Mr Blair's Government believes that a multilateral initiative - involving the European Union, the United Nations, Russia and the US - to advance an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is essential to winning support in the Middle East for the drive to disarm Saddam Hussein.

In contrast, the Bush Administration remains skeptical of such a linkage. It has given only a muted reaction to Ariel Sharon's public rubbishing of this initiative and seems to be in no hurry to restart the peace talks until after the forthcoming Israeli elections.

Second, Mr Blair does not share the semi-detached attitude of the Bush people towards the UN. True, the British Prime Minister, like President Bush, maintains that Saddam's regime must be disarmed, even if the UN Security Council fails to authorise force for that purpose.

But unlike the Bush Government, the Blair leadership does not view this week's reporting requirement for the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq as some sort of deadline for a decision on war against Baghdad. Here, the British position appears closer to that of the French President, Jacques Chirac. He has argued that the weapons inspectors should be given more time to detect weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Third, Britain is a firm supporter of the newly established International Criminal Court (ICC). Hailed as the missing link in the international legal system, the ICC is designed to close the loophole whereby individual terrorists or war criminals can evade justice by hiding behind the sovereign protection of sympathetic Governments.

However, despite US threats to bring Saddam's entourage to justice for war crimes, the Bush Administration adamantly opposes the ICC. Among other things, it fears that the court could seriously limit American military and political options, including the use of pre-emptive force against suspected terrorist targets.

So the Blair Government finds itself in the odd position of publicly supporting Mr Bush's policy towards Iraq while having reservations about it.

This contradictory stance reflects Mr Blair's conviction that it is in Britain's self-interest to stand by Washington to preserve the possibility of quietly influencing Mr Bush's Iraq policy behind the scenes.

But Mr Blair has misread the situation in the US. To date, he does not have much to show for his dual-track policy. In fact, he could exert more influence if he stopped tip-toeing around Mr Bush's policy towards Iraq.

While this would not stop the Bush Administration from pursuing the military option on its own, it would dispel some of the illusions in the US about the nature of British support on Iraq.

It should be remembered that Bush officials are not exactly united over the policy towards Iraq. It cannot be readily assumed that the hawkish views of Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, and Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, are shared by all members of the Bush team.

It is no secret, for example, that Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, has considerably less enthusiasm for the use of force in Iraq.

At the same time, senior figures in Republican ranks such as General Brent Scowcroft, the former National Security Adviser to President Bush's father, and Chuck Hagar, a member of the Senate foreign relations committee, fear that an American attack on Iraq could be an expensive distraction from the war against al Qaeda. In addition, recent polling suggests that despite high personal approval ratings for Mr Bush, American public support for a war with Iraq is lukewarm, especially for one that is conducted unilaterally.

One poll said that only 39 per cent of Americans supported war if the US does not have UN backing.

Moreover, nationwide demonstrations within the US against war in Iraq suggest the Bush Administration has yet to advance a clinching argument for using force in Iraq.

If Mr Blair wants to be a loyal ally of the US, he should spell out to Mr Bush and the American people exactly where he stands in relation to the Iraq situation. The time for diplomatic ambiguity is over.

A politically disastrous war is looming and Mr Blair will do the US no favours if he is less than candid during the crucial period before his meeting with President Bush on Friday.

* Robert G. Patman is an associate professor in the department of political studies at the University of Otago.

Herald feature: Iraq