BRITAIN: With Iraq casting a shadow over next week's Labour conference in Blackpool,London Editor Frank Millar talks to Dr John Reid about seeminglyinevitable war and cabinet splits"I'm satisfied of one thing: that \ has used these weapons in thepast and may well use them in the future."
WATCH this man John Reid. If Tony Blair goes to war and the going gets rough inside the British Labour Party, we can expect to hear a lot from him. Not for nothing is he well regarded by Number 10, a tried and tested "safe pair of hands", one of the chosen few to field for any crisis which might befall his Prime Minister.
This in part explains his easy confidence. Dr Reid is no Mo Mowlam, as some Ulster Unionists discovered last summer when word got round that David Trimble was finding him equally difficult to deal with. Nor will you find this former Defence Secretary spouting Mowlamesque simplicities about fighting the war on terror by legalising drugs.
It is not his natural instinct to duck a fight. If the drum beats insistently for war in Iraq, you won't find him running for cover with the doubters. And having listened to Mr Blair in the Commons this week war seems pretty inevitable, doesn't it?
Dr Reid knows his lines to take: "The debates we've had in parliament and cabinet were not about war or the inevitability of war. They were about whether there is a significant, active and unique threat from Saddam Hussein which has to be dealt with."
He rehearses the "unique" nature of the threat by reference to past experience and presently available information, concluding that Saddam has both intention and capability to use his weapons of mass destruction (WMD). "That's the first step: to decide whether there is a threat that has to be dealt with. Then you decide how to deal with it, and we've made our preferences on that known."
Have they? Obviously Mr Blair has a tricky task keeping his cabinet united and persuading a doubtful party. So he places great emphasis on "disarmament" being the goal. At the same he disclosed to MPs intelligence suggesting Saddam considers retention of these weapons indispensable to maintaining his regime and his influence in the region. So while they talk the business of disarmament, the truth is they don't expect him to comply - isn't it?
The Secretary of State is surprisingly forthcoming. "The history - both general and particular to Saddam - teaches us a couple of things," he says. "The first is that he will use the weaponry of mass destruction. The second is that he will be deflected from its use only if it is clear to him that those opposed to him, in this case the world community, are prepared to use force. And I suppose if you were making balanced judgments you would say that his perception - that people will never use force - actually makes it much more likely that eventually force will have to be used."
In other words: "The threat of force backing diplomacy means that it is more likely, although any sceptical person would say highly improbable, that he will voluntarily do what is necessary to meet the will of the United Nations."
So, on the balance of probabilities, war is more likely than not? "Well, certainly our intention is to get rid of the WMD. That is the whole of our intent . . . This is now a choice for Saddam."
Some 50-odd Labour MPs voted against the government on Tuesday night. Dr Reid admits neither surprise nor undue concern. "Let's get the scale of the rebellion into perspective," he insists, noting that Monday night's predicted cabinet split failed to materialise. "That didn't happen. No one ruled out the potential use of force. No one spoke against that in cabinet". Of Tuesday's Commons revolt, he says: "Out of 650 MPs around 50 expressed their opposition to the way things are going. I think that's about par for the course.
"My memory is that of those 50 who were in parliament at the time, a large number of them would have voted against the last Gulf War."
Yes, but isn't it true that some cabinet ministers are only committed to the project as currently defined - namely the quest for UN authority? And that the real danger of a split comes when either the UN fails to oblige, or the United States runs out of patience with the UN process?
All this is "sheer speculation", he says. What is clear is that the cabinet shares a common perception of the threat and its unique nature, that nobody is ruling out force. True: but aren't some saying it has to be expressly authorised by the UN? "Who?" he asks. Well, apparently Robin Cook for one. "You say apparently," counters the safe pair of hands. Oh, come on. Downing Street knows that a number of ministers, or people speaking authoritatively on their behalf, have put their doubts in the public domain.
Tony Blair likes to dismiss media "froth". Dr Reid's term for it is "newspaper prattle". The position is as has been told: "No-one in the cabinet has ruled out the use of force. Everyone in the cabinet perceives a common threat. Everyone in the cabinet wants this dealt with. Everyone in the cabinet would like it dealt with short of force. There's no member of the cabinet who wants to see war."
Key players in Washington seem determined upon it. Is Dr Reid comfortable with their commitment to "regime change" in Baghdad? "Well, I'm personally uncomfortable with the threat of the use of WMD, and one of the things we always look at is the concept of a just war - that any action you take has to be proportionate to the threat."
The UK and US are now pushing their agreed text for a new Security Council resolution. But does he believe existing UN resolutions would justify military action? "I'm not a lawyer. But the threat from Saddam Hussein is not just to his neighbours and his own people. It is inconceivable to me that there could be a war with his neighbours in that region which would not inevitably suck in other people. Therefore there is a threat not only to his neighbours but to us. That is a threat that has to be dealt with."
In the past that threat has been countered by the UN resolutions ignored by Saddam: "Those resolutions on their own, I would believe, should ultimately be resolutions that have to be enforced by the UN. But I recognise people would much rather have that enshrined in a resolution with the full backing of the Security Council."
Well, they might rather. But if it came to it? If the UN declines to play and the US decides action must be taken? The existing authority would do, would it?
"Well, I would rather put it like this. There is a threat that has to be dealt with. Everyone knows that now. I think the vast majority of people in Britain recognise that that has to be done. We want to do that, as is proper, through the UN. Because what is at stake is not only the lives of the people of Iraq and the region, and the possibility of conflict dragging in all sorts of powers throughout the world, but the authority of the UN itself. That is why we say the UN has got to act."
And if the UN won't act - America, with British support, will? "No one is even at that stage", intones the minister. Well, he would say that, and it's easy to see why. Mr Blair has a huge management problem with his party. But Dr Reid has almost called it a just war. He insists Saddam represents a unique and growing threat. There can be no walking away from that threat, can there?
"No." Dr Reid confirms: "The threat has to be dealt with but what is not sensible at this stage is to try and imagine the complexity of scenarios that could arise."
That may prove a forlorn hope. Some think next week's conference might turn into a long night of agonising over possible and probable scenarios, not all of which will strike Labour delegates as remotely complex.
And beyond the complexities, for many of them a question of frightening simplicity. Can Britain and America be satisfied military action won't trigger the very thing it's intended to prevent - the deployment of weapons of mass destruction by an Iraqi leader concluding he has nothing to lose?
Like Mr Blair, Dr Reid exudes the certainty of a man who has considered every possibility and firmly made up his mind: "I'm satisfied of one thing: that this is a man who has used these weapons in the past and may well use them in the future. And that by delaying the need to get rid of these weapons, with every passing year he will have an even greater arsenal, and it then becomes impossible to tackle the dictator because he's in possession, not only of bigger stocks of biological and chemical weapons, but potentially of a nuclear weapon as well."