The diplomatic "sherpas" who arrange summits between world leaders may only have had a few days notice to arrange last night's encounter in the Azores, but they ensured that it was packed with symbolism, writes Nicholas Watt
To remind the world of the dangers posed by President Saddam Hussein, Britain and the US chose the 15th anniversary of the chemical attack on the town of Halabja in which 5,000 Kurds were killed.
In an attempt to show that Europe and the United States can work together, the leaders met on the Portuguese islands which lie between the two continents.
All sides will have little difficulty in agreeing on the horrors of Halabja, but the 24-hour deadline laid down by Mr Bush will be seized on by opponents as a clear sign that Europe and the US are now facing the most damaging rift in centuries.
Britain and Spain may have signed up to Mr Bush's "coalition of the willing", but his strong attack on France will ensure that the gulf between "old" and "new" Europe will be wider than ever.
The blunt language used by Mr Bush, who used his best Texan drawl to say that he had "sat and visited this issue" for six months, was designed to send two clear messages to two audiences.
In the first place he issued a blunt message to Iraq to sign up to last November's United Nations Security Council resolution 1441, which called for Iraq's full and immediate compliance with weapons inspectors.
Believing that there is little chance of Saddam complying with his demands, Mr Bush also issued what the White House regards as a "wake-up" call to the UN and to France in particular: after 12 years of words condemning Iraq it is time to put them into action.
"Tomorrow is the day that we will determine whether or not diplomacy can work," he said. "We have sat and visited this issue for years. When the UN says something it should mean it, for the sake of peace and for the capacity to win the first war of the 21st century which is a war against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction against dictators."
Mr Bush's denunciation of France for pledging to veto a fresh resolution is likely to ring alarm bells in "old" Europe at least, but Downing Street will be encouraged that Mr Bush held out a future for the UN even if it fails to offer a second resolution to support the use of force.
"The UN is a very important organisation," he said, in remarks which will offer some comfort to people who feared that the UN would go the way of the League of Nations if it refused to bow to the will of Washington.
"I understand that the wars of the 21st century are going to require incredible international co- operation . . . The UN must mean something." Echoing the language of the toughest hawks in Washington, who would love to see the UN consigned to the history books, Mr Bush had harsh words over its failures in the 1990s. "Remember Rwanda or Kosovo," he said. "The UN didn't do its job."
But Mr Bush then answered one of the main criticisms voiced by the British international development secretary, Ms Clare Short, who warned that the UN must be involved in the reconstruction of Iraq.
"We hope tomorrow the UN will do its job," Mr Bush said. "If not, all of us need to sit back and try to figure out how to make the UN work better. Perhaps one way will be if we use military force.
"In a post-Saddam Iraq the UN will definitely need to have a role. That way it can begin to get its legs of responsibility back. It is important for the UN to be able to function well."
Such remarks are likely to be seized on by Downing Street as an example of the merits of standing by Mr Bush in public, while attempting in private to persuade him to adopt a multilateral approach. Until now the Bush administration has rarely shown any interest in "nation-building" and left most of the peace-keeping tasks after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan to Britain and Turkey.
Mr Blair though will use the president's remarks to declare that Washington has embarked on a multilateral route, even if Britain and the US take military action without the cover of the UN.
The contrasting demeanours of Mr Blair and Mr Bush will also be exploited by the rebels within Mr Blair's Labour Party.
The US president looked confident and was, for once, reasonably articulate, despite his tendency to speak in his adopted Texan drawl. The British prime minister, on the other hand, looked nervous and his voice broke. The contrast reflects the differing pressures faced by the two leaders.
Mr Bush, exasperated that "going down the UN route" has failed to produce full disarmament by Iraq, is impatient to enforce his will. Mr Blair shares his impatience. Saddam's game-playing, he declared, meant that "disarmament never happens" while the world "is drawn into some perpetual negotiation".
Despite such tough language, Mr Blair knows that the Azores will mark the greatest gamble of his career. - (Guardian Service)