LONDON, 10 March 2003 — British Prime Minister Tony Blair was staring at the biggest crisis of his six-year premiership yesterday as he put in a series of frantic calls to international leaders in a last-ditch effort to drum up support for a fresh UN resolution authorizing war in Iraq.
As Blair struggles to convince a skeptical British public of the merits of disarming Baghdad of the weapons of mass destruction it claims it harbors without a fresh mandate, divisions within his ruling Labour Party threatened to turn into open warfare with news of the resignation of a government aide.
Andrew Reed, a Labour member of Parliament, confirmed he was quitting as parliamentary private secretary to Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett.
In a statement on his website, Reed said: “I will set out my full reasons for resigning (on Monday), but I fully support the prime minister in his efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Iraqi crisis through the UN route and I do not want to do anything that undermines that effort at this stage.”
Earlier Blair received the backing of Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott who tried to play down talk of deepening divisions within the government’s own ranks.
Speaking on BBC television Prescott said the majority of Labour members of Parliament would continue to support the prime minister’s stance.
“I would say so, but that’s a matter for the party. I don’t think there’s any doubt about it whatsoever,” Prescott said when asked if Blair’s position was secure.
But with The Sunday Times reporting that another nine aides were expected to follow Reed’s lead if Blair went to war without a fresh mandate, the prime minister was left under no illusion as to the importance of securing wider international approval for any military action.
However, with key UN members France and Russia having already threatened to veto any second resolution and fellow Security Council permanent member China warning him the problem would “not be solved by relying exclusively on armed force”, Blair appeared to be facing an uphill battle.
As Washington and London vie with the other three veto-wielding members to secure backing from the 10 non-permanent Security Council members, former Armed Forces Minister Doug Henderson warned that “upwards of 150” Labour MPs could rebel if a second resolution was not secured. Henderson said the party faced one of the most grave moments in its history. “My instinct is that this is one of the most critical periods I can remember in the Labour Party and I have been in it a long, long time,” he told GMTV.
Last month the government suffered its biggest revolt since coming to power six years ago, when in a show of anti-war dissent, 121 Labour MPs backed a rebel motion declaring the case for military action “as yet unproven”.
The motion itself was soundly defeated by a 393-199 parliamentary vote, thanks in good part to solidarity within Blair’s Cabinet and support from the opposition Conservatives.
But the fact that 121 out of 412 Labour MPs were among the 199 who voted for the motion was a sign of how deeply the party is divided on the crisis.
Prescott conceded that the government was facing a testing period.
“This is a very serious issue. Lots of MPs are concerned about it. Nobody denies that for one moment. Tony Blair and the rest of us are very, very concerned about it,” Prescott said.
Henderson, who estimated about 95 percent of local Labour members opposed a conflict without explicit UN authorization, said Blair had failed to persuade the British population, key members of the UN, and many parliamentary colleagues.
And he suggested that even some members of Blair’s own Cabinet were not convinced of the case for military action. “I suspect there are some in the cabinet (Blair) has not been able to persuade as well. Though time will tell about that,” Henderson said.
