These are dangerous times for British diplomacy, warns Gavin Bowd On the back of a successful Labour Party conference, and a dismal one for the Conservative Opposition, Tony Blair and his new Labour servants re-embarked on a campaign to strengthen international support for the United States position on Iraq. London could, it seemed, re-play the persuading role that preceded the Afghan crusade, even cement a coalition reminiscent of Desert Storm. However, this nation, which primly boasts of its financial and moral rectitude to the European continent and beyond, may be biting off more than it can decorously chew. On his recent visit to the region, Foreign Minister Jack Straw was listened to courteously but not supinely. The biggest blow to the diplomatic offensive came in Moscow. If Blair and Putin could tuck into venison stew together, the latter shows little stomach for war against Iraq -- unless seductive sweeteners can be sold at the Oriental bazaar that is Russian politics since Gorbachev. There was, claimed Putin, no evidence that Saddam Hussein was near possession of biological and chemical weapons, let alone a nuclear capacity. And, for the time being, existing UN resolutions sufficed for the inspectorate. All music to the ears of Labour MPs, 90 per cent of whom, according to a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) survey, remain to be convinced about the immediate necessity of a military campaign against Baghdad. These days, the Kremlin is fomenting a split in the British Labour Party that Vladimir Iliich Lenin could only dream of British diplomacy has suffered a considerable defeat at the hands of its European partners. The big powers of the Eurozone have played a canny game. Germany's unequivocal stance on military action gave credence to a pacifist approach which other governments fought shy of publicly embracing. In tandem, the French government denounced the "simplistic" view of the Pentagon hawks and proposed a two-phase approach -- inspections then the possible recourse to military force -- that chimed not only with European opinion, but also the self- interest of Security Council members and even the feelings of many in the remaining Anglo-Saxon enclaves of the globe. But still the drive for war against Iraq continues. US Congress's support for the Commander-in-Chief complements concrete developments on the ground. US and UK planes have changed tactics: no longer reacting to Iraqi radar in the no-fly zones, they are pre-emptively striking the vital nodes of Iraqi military communications. Baghdad is being "softened up" in preparation for a killer punch which, it is hoped, will be dealt without the West's delicate fist being scratched. In November, General Tommy Franks and 600 senior members of the Central Command will be transferred from Florida to Qatar. War is planned for the opening months of 2003. On paper, the prospect of armed conflict should not deter Tony Blair. In his world, "tough choices" always have to be made, from bombardment of urban centres to rebuilding the railways, demolishing Wembley stadium and marking A-level examinations. In life, one should do what is right: you only have one, and, to prove it, this will become evident to thousands of human beings in the very near future. But such moral clarity is muddied by the dirty reality of geopolitics. The United Kingdom, a prosperous society, albeit benighted by rampant individualism, seems strangely in denial of the imperial ambitions and economic interests that made her what she is. Perhaps the riches of the North Sea prevent her from seeing what is currently at stake in the Iraq issue, that is to say oil: the US and China's increasing need for it, the ambitions of the Bush oligarchy, Russia's interest in Iraqi production and Baghdad's bad debts. This sordid reality already takes some shine off the moral imperialist rhetoric. But other, arguably more fundamental, things should make London pause and ponder. The last week has seen the collapse of the peace process in Northern Ireland. On its blood-spattered doorstep, the UK government braces itself for a resumption of nearly 500 years of religious "terrorism". No police raids, let alone air strikes, can wash this briskly away. And, on the other side of the world, events have temporarily wiped Iraq from the news screens. The outrage in Bali was sickeningly predictable. It fed off a perceived clash of civilisations, and aimed at discouraging the islamic world from servicing the West. Its perpetrators will not have acted at the direct behest of Saddam -- unlike, it could be argued, Palestinian suicide bombers -- but their struggle is linked to the stand-off between Iraq and the US and UK. This fragile situation should concentrate minds on the consequences of military escalation. The victims of the night-club attack were disproportionately from Australia and Britain, the two nations most vociferous in their support for a US- led war. The leaders of these nations, both objects of significant internal criticism, must contemplate the consequences of their choices. Is it wise to pour oil on a fire? But then, oil is the issue.
