FROM ROLAND WATSON IN WASHINGTON AND PHILIP WEBSTER IN LONDON· Pentagon backtracks as Rumsfeld suggests passive role for UK forces
Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, speaking shortly after a telephone conversation with Geoff Hoon, his British counterpart, said American officials were talking daily to the UK about the possibility that President Bush may lose the battlefield support of his closest ally.
His statement caused immediate confusion in Downing Street and later provoked a round of backtracking from the Pentagon, which hastily issued a “clarification” saying that Mr Rumsfeld continued to expect full military support from Britain.
”I have no doubt of the full support of the United Kingdom for the international community’s efforts to disarm Iraq. In the event that a decision to use force is made, we have every reason to believe there will be a significant military contribution from the United Kingdom,” it said.
Officials in Washington said Mr Rumsfeld had been trying to help the Government by demonstrating that the US was not taking Britain’s involvement for granted, and that he was aware of the political pressures Mr Blair was under. But he had gone too far. “He over-reached,” said one official.
Earlier, referring to Mr Blair’s constitutional obligations, which Mr Bush does not face, Mr Rumsfeld said: “Their situation is distinctive to their country. They have a government that deals with a parliament. What will ultimately be decided is unclear as to their role. Until we know the resolution we won’t know what their role will be.”
Mr Rumsfeld was speaking a day after President Chirac of France vowed to veto the UN war resolution that Mr Blair desperately needs to send troops into battle without splitting his party and the country.
The notoriously outspoken Defence Secretary said that if Mr Blair were unable to commit British troops to battle, there were “work-around” scenarios that would allow the US to proceed. Officials in Washington said a series of non-combat tasks was being drawn up that British Armed Forces could perform in Iraq after a war. Under such a “division of labour”, British troops could hold oil fields, take a lead in reconstruction and humanitarian work, and oversee areas that were too dangerous for aid agencies to enter. Such roles would be much harder for Labour MPs hostile to war to oppose. There are currently around 46,000 British troops in the Gulf region.
A leading anti-war MP, Graham Allen, described Mr Rumsfeld’s words as a “heaven-sent opportunity” to help Mr Blair. “He has been franker with the British people than the Government,” he said. “The cat is out of the bag. They can do it without us and given Tony Blair the chance to get out of the hole if he wishes.”
Downing Street last night insisted that Mr Rumsfeld’s comments “changed nothing” and denied that there had been any talks — “daily or otherwise” — about Britain not playing its full part in the war.
“Donald Rumsfeld has got that wrong, we will be actively engaged if we have to be,” said a spokesman. “We continue to work for a second resolution.”
Mr Rumsfeld also told a press conference at the Pentagon that America would not pay for the reconstruction of a post-Saddam Iraq — a statement that will do nothing to swing the UN Security Council behind a war resolution. He said the massive rebuilding programme would probably be funded by the “tens of billions” of dollars held under the UN’s oil-for-food programme, revenue from Iraq’s oil reserves and foreign donors.
Earlier, British officials prepared the ground for going to war without a UN mandate by threatening to ignore a promised French veto.
Downing Street seized on President Chirac’s pledge on Monday night to vote down a war resolution “in all circumstances” to suggest that such a veto would be unreasonable.
For months, Mr Blair has said that he would go to war only after a second UN resolution, or if that resolution was “unreasonably” blocked after Saddam Hussein was shown to be in clear breach of UN disarmament demands.
Diplomats have been working frantically on an amended resolution capable of securing at least nine of the Security Council’s 15 votes. That way the Prime Minister could at least claim a moral majority for war.
Officials were expected to finalise today a shopping list of “tough but deliverable” demands for Saddam to allow within days scientists out of Iraq for interviews and to account for missing stocks of anthrax, nerve gas and mustard gas.
But there were clear differences over how long he should be given to comply, with the US and Britain wanting a date as close as possible to the existing March 17 deadline and the waverers wanting longer. It was clear that Monday’s original deadline would now slip, though London and Washington were still hoping for a UN vote tomorrow.
A source close to Mr Blair said there were also differences of emphasis emerging between Britain and America. “We have always said that Saddam can avert war by disarming but if he was to comply with these new tests it would be fair to say such action would not be welcome in some parts of the US Administration.”
Mr Blair will also face another major problem if Russia fulfils its threat to join France in vetoing a war resolution. Two vetoes would be much harder to dismiss as “unreasonable”.