It seemed a triumph for Tony Blair when George Bush agreed to pursue his campaign against Iraq through the United Nations last September. However, it has not turned out like that. The problem of multilateralism from the Blair-Bush point of view is that it allows differing opinions to be aired.
Nowthat the case for war on Iraq has been debated at the highest level, culminating in Friday's drama at the UN Security Council, Mr Blair finds himself firmly attached to the losing side of the argument.
Now that the case has been exposed to the scrutiny of world opinion, the peoples of England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, Italy and Australia have taken to the streets to say what they think of it. Even in New York there were 200,000 marchers opposed to this war.
What was unprecedented was not simply the numbers involved but the undemonstrative tone of voice in which the people demonstrated. There was no violence, despite the received wisdom about large crowds and disorder.
To his credit, Mr Blair showed some courage in response. His speech to the Labour Party in Glasgow was serious, direct and powerfully argued. He made the moral case for war about as well as it could be made. But Mr Blair has not answered the fundamental objection to this war: how can the world be a safer place when the US is perceived to be and indeed is a power untrammelled by international law, world opinion or global institutions? So long as Mr Blair is Mr Bush's unconditional ally, the price of leadership and the cost of conviction of which he spoke at the weekend could be high.
