The patience of the White House with the latest manoeuvrings at the United Nations is nearly exhausted, writes Conor O'Clery
How long is the last mile? How long is a piece of string? The White House yesterday declined to define the duration or length of the "last mile" of the diplomatic road that it said President Bush is now travelling.
But his spokesman, Ari Fleischer, reaching for another metaphor, said that when the resolution put before the 15-member UN Security Council by the US, Britain and Spain was either voted through or defeated, "at that point the diplomatic window would be closed".
The prospect of the resolution passing when it is put to a vote today or tomorrow is still remote, given the French threat of a veto for any measure which could be taken as an ultimatum for war.
However, as dipolomats at the UN tried to second-guess the length of the last mile yesterday, it became apparent that defeat for the resolution, whether through a French veto or a failure to get the nine votes needed under UN rules, could in fact advance the date of war. The resolution, as it stands, states that Saddam Hussein will have missed his last chance to disarm if he has not fully complied by March 17th.
Several tasks were set for him yesterday by the British to prove compliance. These will not be included in the resolution, but in a separate statement. Only the March 17th date is open to change in consultations before the vote, and it might not be put back further than the 21st, according to a well-informed diplomatic source.
If the resolution should pass, then war cannot start until after the 17th, or whatever new date is inserted. But if it is vetoed, then the diplomatic window will slam shut immediately and, as one observer put it, "there would be no point in the Americans or the British hanging around".
The British initiative began on Sunday when its ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, met the envoys from the six undecided countries - Angola, Cameroon, Guinea, Chile, Mexico and Pakistan - in his UN office. He asked them to detail their problems with the resolution. The result of intensive discussion arising from this was the list of tasks for Saddam Hussein. These benchmarks, said a British source, were worked out in consultation with the chief UN weapons inspector, Dr Hans Blix, an important inducement to wavering nations. The Russian ambassador, Sergei Lavrov, for example, said that Moscow could not support any motion which did not have tasks and a timetable set by Dr Blix.
The US administration, its patience nearly exhausted, did not take much part in this exercise. Relations have been strained between London and Washington over British complaints that the harsh White House rhetoric made compromise - so vital to Tony Blair - more difficult. Yesterday, Ari Fleischer distanced the White House from the British scheme, saying merely that the president was "very much appreciative of the UK's benchmarks".
Mr Bush has always regarded any such conditions as a distraction and delaying mechanism for Saddam Hussein, but he recognises the value of a moral victory at the UN and cover for Tony Blair in getting the "moral majority" of nine votes. In fact, the White House was yesterday claiming that a simple majority of eight would be a "victory", an admission that the nine might be out of reach.
The US President has been telephoning heads of government, including yesterday Russia, Mexico, Chile and Pakistan, to say how "disappointed" he would be if they contributed to a failure by America to get UN approval.
The American people and Congress would reach their own conclusions as to what to do about this disappointment, said Mr Fleischer - a veiled warning that countries would pay for any defiance of American pleading.