The pathetic mythology of British influence

In a very real sense it no longer matters what happens in the United Nation over the Iraqi resolution. The damage has already been done.

What is happening there now is really a circus for each participant's domestic consumption. President Bush has eyes for the next month's mid-term elections. Having decided to put the issue in the hands of the UN (largely because domestic opinion polls don't support the US going it alone), he now wants to resolve the issue quickly. What he wants is a resolution he can claim gives backing to America's hardline approach to Iraq and leaves the country free to take military action should it wish to.

At this stage it doesn't really matter if Washington wants to go to war. What matters is looking tough. Hence the US administration's decision to play hardball with its draft resolution to the Security Council, threatening to go it alone if the council fails to fall into line. My guess is that Bush has no wish to go it alone (Britain's support is taken for granted), not before the elections on 5 November. After then, well it all depends on what the shape of Congress is and where the opinion polls lie.

But then it could equally be said that France and Russia, with China in the background, are being disingenuous in threatening to veto the US proposal. France has played a clever hand with Russia, taking the lead in opposing the more bellicose pronouncements of the Americans while always sure that Russia would back it up in the last lap.

For domestic reasons, President Chirac wants to play the high moral ground of internationalism against America's brute solo superpowerism. And for good reason. You only have to look at the results of the German elections to see that European opinion is profoundly opposed to US-induced military ventures in Iraq.

Yet it is still far from clear that France is prepared for the nuclear option of exercising its veto in the Security Council, or that Russia is. President Putin has been largely bought off by promises that oil concessions and, equally important, Iraq's debts to Russia will be honoured whoever takes over from Saddam Hussein. With the latest Chechen act of terrorism uppermost in his mind, he has no wish to break from America's war on terrorism ­ or on Islam, should it come to that.

France is also reluctant to take the conflict over the brink. To do so would be to risk a fracture with America that could bring heavy repercussions to a French President who is actually anxious to make use of his right-wing credentials to get on with Washington. To look as if you have held the ground as long as possible, ­ and against the odds ­ would bring the French President sufficient credit with voters.

As for Tony Blair, he must be longing for the resolution to pass. If it does, he will claim the credit for turning Washington back from unilateral action. If it doesn't, and Britain is forced to go along with US military action, then Blair could be in real trouble at home and perilously dependent on the action going well. He is ready to brave it out. Talk of a Labour Party revolt leading to an overthrow is much exaggerated. The party is too pusillanimous for that. And there is always the patriotic factor once British troops are in battle. But the popular vote would not forgive him nearly so easily.

Which is why, in a sense, the damage can be said to have been already done, whatever the outcome in New York. On the whole I take the view that the longer military action is postponed, the less likely it is to happen. The practical problems of military logistics and follow-through become clearer, the politics in terms of a successor regime and the alliance become less focused.

But the images are already set in stone. The world at large has decided that America prefers military might to co-operative reconstruction. Washington sees itself as wielding the sword of justice to bring on a new, safer world. Most of the rest of that world sees it reverting to a past in which superpower status is being used to force national interests.

Fairly or unfairly, Blair is now firmly cast as America's poodle. The argument of Number 10 is that most other governments recognise that he has played a useful role as America's friend in moderating US views and that, far from being on opposite lines, Blair and Chirac have been pursuing parallel courses. That may be true. But where it matters, in the court of public opinion, the British Prime Minister is seen as surrendering his country's independence for a mythical influence.

Public opinion ­ as strong in this country as on the Continent ­ is right. It's of no importance whether Blair would prefer a French-style resolution or an American one. The simple fact is that he has committed British troops to support American actions, whether he believes in them or not. And those actions are based not on America's view of what is right for the world, or even for its allies, but on America's perceived security imperative and what is in President Bush's domestic political advantage.

The impact on Tony Blair's prestige, and his effective position, in Europe and in the wider world is incalculable. Does even he believe that Washington recognises his sacrifice, still less that it is going to reward it?

a.hamilton@independent.co.uk