What began as a sure thing for British Prime Minister Tony Blair is now an extremely dicey proposition. Having decided to stand fast on his decision to support President George W. Bush on the matter concerning Iraq, Mr. Blair is today being obliged to face the prospect of defeat at the hands of his colleagues.
Our colleague Fawn Vrazo reports from London that, "British Prime Minister Tony Blair got the supreme insult this week when he faced, on television, a group women who oppose war. They gave him the "slow hand clap" – an infuriatingly deliberate clapping that shows extreme unhappiness with a leader.
"It was one of many bad moments in a tough week for president Bush's closest ally.
"Blair's so-far unflagging determination to back the United States in a military action against Iraq is causing not only public unhappiness but also deep fissures within his own Labour Party government. If he joins the United States in a war without a U.N. resolution backing it, Blair faces widespread revolt in his party's ranks. If he stands by the United States, as expected, a war that goes badly could cost him his job. U.S. efforts to push through a U.N. resolution, and any show of flexibility on the language, largely reflect U.S. efforts to protect his political backside. On Tuesday, Blair – and his country – tensely awaited the outcome of negotiations for a newly tailored resolution being debated by U.N. Security Council members.
"Behind the scenes, the British government is pushing a reengineered resolution that would give Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein a series of disarmament "tests" to pass within a fairly tight deadline to avoid war. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the British ambassador to the U.N., indicated that the March 17 deadline in an earlier resolution might slip. But "don't look beyond March," he told CNN. "Those British efforts are seen as an all-out, perhaps last-ditched effort by the British government to win passage of the second resolution Blair desperately needs to shore up his political support.
"Several members of Parliament who serve in his government are threatening to quit without a new resolution. And on Sunday one of Blair's cabinet members – International Development Secretary Claire Short – called her leader "extraordinarily reckless" for appearing ready to go to war without U.N. backing.
"She too threatened to resign without a second resolution, and news reports speculate that without it, as many as 200 Labour MPs – about half of the Labour seats in Parliament – might take a symbolic antiwar vote against their prime minister if war is again debated in the House of Commons. Embarrassingly, Blair's strongest support comes from his political adversary – the Conservative Party – which supports the war effort.
"Worse for Blair is new talk – among left-wing Labour activists and union leaders – of calls for an emergency meeting of the Labour Party's executive board to vote on Blair's continued leadership of his party (which automatically gives him the prime minister's job).
"Despite the increasingly loud rumbling, it still appeared unlikely that his disgruntled colleagues would remove Blair from office before a war began.
If he stands by the U.S. during military action, with or without U.N. backing, it is the war itself that will determine Blair's fate."
This turn of events underscores the fact that life is shaped by both calculation and chance. Tony Blair might yet understand the power he can wield, if only he would speak truth to unbridled power.
Editorial, The Bahama Journal
