No rush to war, says Blair

It is "plain" that Saddam Hussein remains in material breach of the demands made on him by the United Nations, Tony Blair said today.

The credibility of the UN would be at stake if it failed to enforce the requirement on Iraq to disarm, the Prime Minister said.

But he insisted there was "no rush to war" and repeated that weapons inspectors would be given at least until February 28 to hunt down and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction held by Saddam.

Despite his recent comments on the "moral case for removing Saddam", Mr Blair stressed that "regime change" was not Government policy, and that the argument for removing Saddam rested on the dangers of his weapons arsenals.

He called on anti–war protesters to listen to the testimony of Iraqi exiles about the horror of Saddam's regime and their wish for him to be removed from power.

Speaking at his monthly press conference at Downing Street, Mr Blair said: "It is plain in our judgment that Saddam continues to be in breach.

"Not a single country who spoke last night at the European summit disputed that his co–operation is neither unconditional nor complete."

Mr Blair said: "There is no rush to war.

"We waited 12 years and then went through the United Nations. It is now three months since we gave Saddam what we called a 'final opportunity'.

"There is a further report on February 28 but the truth is that without full co–operation by Saddam, the inspectors are never going to be able to search out the weapons."

Some 360 tons of chemical warfare agents, including 1.5 tons of VX and growth media for the production of three times as many anthrax spores as had previously been destroyed by inspectors were still unaccounted for, as were thousands of missiles for delivery of chemical and biological weapons, said Mr Blair.

And he stressed the dangers of these weapons falling into terrorist hands.

"We live today in a world beset by international terrorism, whose groups are desperate to acquire ever more dangerous weapons. They are already using chemical and biological poisons," he said.

"The stance the world takes now against Saddam is not just vital in its own right, it is a huge test of our seriousness in dealing with the twin threats of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism."

Mr Blair said that those who took part in Saturday's march should bear in mind the suffering of the Iraqi people under Saddam.

"Of course I understand the concerns of the thousands who marched on Saturday," he said. "Of course, I should and do listen to those concerns.

"They have a rightful hatred of the consequences of war.

"I simply ask them however also to listen to the voices of some of the four million Iraqi exiles.

"The reason for doing so is not because the nature of the regime can in itself provide justification for war, but it can at least show that if we do have to take military action, we do so in the sure knowledge that we are removing one of the most barbarous and detestable regimes in modern political history."

Mr Blair said he believed that the public would not finally make up their minds on war until British forces were on the point of military action.

Opinion poll evidence suggested that three–quarters would back military action if it was supported by the UN.

"Most of the people who are concerned who went on the march are not in the position of being against conflict in any circumstances, although some are," he said.

"What people are against is a war that they feel is either rushed or unnecessary."

He added: "There is not an inexorable decision to go to war. There is an inexorable decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. How that happens is up to Saddam."

Mr Blair insisted that he was not trying to shift the grounds for war by arguing the "moral case" for getting rid of Saddam.

He said that the basis for any military action remained the disarmament of Iraq but that opponents of war needed to understand that people in Iraq would also continue to suffer if military action was not taken.

"Surely if it is our worry about the consequences of war that deter us we should at least put on the other side of the balance sheet in this argument the fact that there are also horrendous consequences for the people of Iraq if we do not take action."

Mr Blair said that he still hoped to get a fresh UN Security Council resolution before any military action was launched.

"It still believe that we should have a second resolution. I still think there is a lot of debate to go on before we get to the point of decision in the UN."

He said that he hoped that democracy could be restored in Iraq if Saddam was overthrown.

"This something that has to be discussed not just with allies but with the UN and with people inside Iraq. But the more that we can at least set ourselves on a path towards on greater democracy the better," Mr Blair added.

He denied that military action would lead to a massive death toll, destabilise the Middle East and fuel terrorism.

"If I thought we were going to unleash something in which hundreds of thousands of people were going to die, we were going to have more bin Ladens, the Middle East was going to go up in flames – of course I don't believe that is the case," he said.

Mr Blair said: "It would be foolish to say war can be painless. War is never painless.

"But I think it is also important to recognise that we will take the greatest care we possibly can to limit humanitarian consequences, as we did in Kosovo and Afghanistan.

"In addition to that, there are of course humanitarian consequences of leaving Saddam in power."

Mr Blair refused to discuss the timing of any future resolution at the Security Council, beyond saying that Saddam had "weeks, not months" to comply with the will of the UN.

It was unhelpful to set a series of timetables and deadlines before decisions had been taken, he said.

Mr Blair added that eastern European states which plan to join the EU were right to speak out in support of the US in the current crisis. French President Jacques Chirac last night suggested that they should defer to the current EU members in establishing the European voice on the issue.

Mr Blair said: "I would have liked to have seen the accession countries there at our meeting, and I hope that no–one is suggesting that they should be anything other than full members of the EU and perfectly entitled to express their views.

"They have as much right to speak up as Britain or France or any other member of the EU today because they are coming in next year as full members of the EU."

Eastern Europe had recent experience of tyranny and of the value of close transatlantic relations in defeating it, said Mr Blair.

"Their views are interesting because they are countries with a real sense of history, for very obvious reasons. They know the value of Europe and America standing together.

"That doesn't mean to say that we have to do everything America wants or America has to do everything Europe wants."

Asked if Britain would support breakaway elements which wanted to create a Kurdish state in what is now northern Iraq or a Shi'ite Islamic state in the south, Mr Blair insisted that his commitment to Iraq's territorial integrity was "absolute".

Mr Blair added: "There was a huge emphasis by people on the march about the consequences of war, their fear about that. I think it is important we address that better."

He suggested that many of those marching did not fully understand the nature of Saddam's regime.

"A poll indicated that a large proportion of people disagreed with the statement 'Saddam is a cruel tyrant'," he said.

"There is a failure of communication, which I take responsibility for, if that is the case."

He said he accepted that the marchers were "sincerely motivated and convinced" in their opposition to the use of military force, but called on them to accept that it was possible to be equally sincere and convinced that it might be needed.

Mr Blair said that he believed it would be possible to secure a majority in the Security Council in favour of a second resolution.

He insisted that the differences between the western allies were not fundamental.

"The intellectual difference is between those who say the inspectors should go into Iraq and see what they can find, and that is enough, and those, like myself, who say they have to – as Kofi Annan said – proactively co–operate with the inspectors, he said.

"The truth of the matter is that people like myself are still of the position that if Saddam comes forward now and fully co–operates, that is the UN will implemented.

"People who appear to be against conflict will have a very different position if it becomes clear that he is not going to co–operate."

Mr Blair stressed that war was still not inevitable and the issue would be decided "over the next few weeks".

"That question will be resolved on the basis of things that are going to happen over the next few weeks," he said.

"I think there is still an awful lot there to happen and to come about. I don't think the position is quite as settled as people think."

Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrats, said: "The Prime Minister implies – in making his moral case for regime change – that anyone who is not yet persuaded of the need for war is somehow less moral than he is.

"A lot of people in this country will resent that implication."