Defiant Blair still on course for war

PM sets six tests for Saddam; Doubts over new UN vote; Shares slump to seven-year low

Bloodied but unbowed, a defiant Tony Blair vowed yesterday to "hold firm" to his strategy in Iraq and made clear that British troops would fight alongside the United States even if he failed to win a new United Nations mandate.

In a final attempt to win over the six wavering countries on the UN Security Council, the Prime Minister announced six tests to measure whether Saddam Hussein would disarm – including making a pledge on Iraqi television to surrender his weapons of mass destruction.

But at the United Nations in New York, there was considerable uncertainty over the viability of the Blair plan. The tests sparked off furious new debate between countries, with disagreements surfacing over their precise legal status.

During a tense closed-door three-hour meeting of the bitterly divided council last night, Britain offered to abandon the 17 March ultimatum if members approved its list of disarmament tests for Saddam. The resolution would then implicitly threaten Iraq with "serious consequences" if it failed to comply.

"This is a trial balloon, if you like, to see whether this is a way out of our current difficulties ... to see if we can keep the council together," said Britain's UN Ambassador, Jeremy Greenstock.

Particular scepticism was voiced over the call for President Saddam publicly to capitulate on Iraqi television. One important ambassador was sardonic in his response. "I think the British want Saddam to go on television and swallow a litre of anthrax to prove he is getting rid of it."

At home Mr Blair dismayed anti-war MPs by refusing to take the exit route inadvertently offered by Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, who said on Tuesday that America could launch military action without Britain.

There were conflicting signals on whether Britain would gather the nine votes necessary to win a "moral majority" on the Security Council – a move that would reassure some Labour MPs even if France then vetoed the resolution. American officials expressed optimism that nine votes could be mustered. But the British Government disclosed that a new motion, including the six tests, might not be put to a vote if it looked likely to be defeated. That would fuel the Labour rebellion.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, refused to guarantee that there would be a vote at the UN before military action. "What I guarantee is that we are working as hard as we possibly can to secure a second resolution," he said. "We are having to do so in circumstances in which one of the permanent members [France] has said that whatever the circumstances, they will veto a resolution, so that is not easy."

British ministers prepared the ground for the possible collapse of the UN process by criticising France's announcement as unreasonable. This could provide a get-out clause for Mr Blair, who has repeatedly said he might ignore an unreasonable veto.

There was anger in the Blair inner-circle that both America and France had made it harder to woo the Security Council's undecided six – Cameroon, Angola, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan. One Blair ally told The Independent: "Some of these countries are asking, 'Why should we put our heads above the parapet?' We have unilateralism on both sides of the Atlantic, which doesn't make it easier to win support for multilateralism."

The Security Council is due to vote tomorrow on the new resolution. If Britain fails to win the nine votes, war could start as early as next week. Some Labour MPs predicted the first bombing of Iraq could even begin over the weekend – before being formally authorised by the Commons. MPs are on stand-by for a crucial Commons vote on Iraq on Monday. If the UN process has ended by then, the Prime Minister could be forced to rely on support from Tory MPs to avoid a humiliating defeat.

Mr Blair told the Commons yesterday that he would act in Britain's national interest but left MPs with the clear impression that he was ready to go to war whatever the outcome of the frantic last-minute negotiations at the UN. Significantly, the Prime Minister argued that resolution 1441, passed by the Security Council in November, provided a "legal base" for military action.

Questioned on Mr Rumsfeld's remarks, Mr Blair said: "The reason why it is important that we hold firm to the course we have set is because what is at stake is not whether the US goes it alone or not, it is whether the international community is prepared to back up the clear instruction it gave Saddam Hussein with the necessary action. That is why I am determined to hold to the course we have set out."

The crisis was causing turmoil on the markets yesterday. The FTSE ended down 4.8 per cent at its lowest point for seven and a half years.

The benchmarks Iraq must meet

* A television appearance by Saddam Hussein in which he renounces "in Arabic" his possession of weapons of mass destruction.

* President Saddam must agree to allow at least 30 key weapons scientists to travel to Cyprus "with their families" where they will be interviewed by UN weapons inspectors.

* All anthrax and similar items to be handed over. Iraq must prove destruction of 10,000 litres of anthrax and other chemical and biological weapons allegedly held. Iraq to explain drone aircraft found by inspectors.

* Iraq must destroy all its al-Samoud 2 missiles and all warheads and launchers.

* Iraq must account for all unmanned planes that might attack its neighbours with biological weapons.

* Iraq must hand over mobile chemical and biological production facilities for destruction.