Bush takes powers to launch war on Saddam

US president and UN remain in dispute as Blair refuses to talk of troop deployment and army prepares tanks for desert conditions

President George Bush urged a wavering world yesterday "to face up to our global responsibility" to defend the peace and deal with the threat of Saddam Hussein. But even as he made his appeal, diplomats from a wide range of countries lined up at the United Nations to denounce plans for military strikes against Iraq.

Mr Bush was speaking at an elaborately staged White House ceremony where he signed the resolution overwhelmingly approved by Congress last week, granting him the power to use force if necessary to disarm Iraq. He insisted no decision had been taken to go to war, and that military action would be the last resort. But nothing the President said removed the impression that as far as Washington is concerned, war is all but inevitable.

"I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary. Yet confronting the threat posed by Iraq is necessary by whatever means that requires," Mr Bush told an audience of 100 Senators and Congressmen of both parties. He was flanked by the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

The occasion was heavily and deliberately symbolic. The presence of the more cautious General Powell alongside the two leading Iraq hawks was meant to send the message to the United Nations that the administration was united in its determination to resolve the Iraq problem, once and for all.

Iraq, said Mr Bush, had been in violation of UN resolutions for 11 and a half years. "Those who choose to live in denial may eventually be forced to live in fear."

But his words had scant impact at the UN, where a public debate at the Security Council turned into a series of speeches insisting the arms inspectors had to be given a chance to complete their work.

According to South Africa's UN ambassador, Dumisani Kumalo, whose country leads the Non-Aligned Movement, Baghdad's agreement to re-admit the inspectors meant unilateral action against Iraq was illegal. It would be "inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the United Nations Charter if the Security Council were to authorise the use of military force against Iraq at a time when Iraq has indicated its willingness to abide by the Security Council's resolution".

More than 50 ambassadors were due to address the 15-nation council. Although the US has not formally introduced its draft resolution sanctioning the use of force, it is clear that the proposal would not even secure the required nine supporting Security Council votes, let alone overcome the resistance of the veto-wielding permanent members, France and Russia.

Although Moscow opposes any resolution authorising military action, the position of France has become crucial. France is insisting on two resolutions – a version that allows the inspectors to return, and report any difficulties. At that point the Security Council – and not just Washington – would decide whether to use military force. But Mr Bush shows no sign of relenting, even though America's closest ally, Britain, has indicated it could go along with two resolutions.

Iraq was expected to dominate talks in Washington yesterday between Mr Bush and Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. Mr Bush is leaning on Mr Sharon to stay out of any conflict, as Israel did in 1991 when Iraq fired Scud missiles at its territory. Restraint is essential this time too, the White House says, to reduce the risk of a generalised Arab-Israeli conflict.