www.dailytimes.com.pk Ishtiaq Ahmed It is quite possible that a nuclear war will break out in South Asia. If some people survive the massive devastation, perhaps then a lasting peace may emerge. Western Europe could extricate itself from the grip of pathological politics only after two world wars and the holocaust At dusk everyday the flag-lowering ceremony at the Wagah-Attari Border, situated between Lahore on the Pakistani side and Amritsar on the Indian side, is a perverse spectacle. The soldiers symbolically seal the border by ramming the iron-gates with a fierce bang. Such a gesture is undoubtedly meant to emphasise that an impassable barrier exists between the two countries and their peoples. There are always large crowds on both sides who watch this charade. They nervously clap and shout slogans and the more vulgar ones employ course Punjabi abuse and bodily gesticulations to manifestly loathe and denounce the other side. It is not uncommon to see foreigners present on both sides. A look of utter disbelief and wonderment can easily be discerned on their faces and some are visibly awe-stricken by the perversity and depravity of the scene. Perhaps similar public expressions of dislike and hatred can be witnessed at the border crossing between Israel and its Arab neighbours. It is doubtful if elsewhere such grotesque rituals are enacted on such a regular and steadfast basis. Before the partition of Punjab some people daily travelled by the early bus or train from either of these cities, did their job or business in the other, and returned. The distance between them is some 30 miles. Now for more than 55 years there has hardly been any contact between people of the two cities. It was not a problem for smugglers and terrorists to cross the border till recently. They could easily cross over to the other side, but now a barbed wire has been erected by India and such traffic has come down significantly. We need to ponder if such mutual repugnance and hostility is in the interest of these two neighbours. Both states have been raising their defence expenditures over time. Although China should worry the Indian defence planners more than Pakistan, most of India’s actual armed encounters and wars have taken place with the latter. Pakistan’s defence planning has always been based on the assumption that the main threat to its security comes from India. During 1948, India and Pakistan fought an undeclared small-scale war in Kashmir. The United Nations-based cease-fire came into operation in January 1949. A Line of Control (LoC) constitutes an unrecognised border between them. There is enough evidence to suggest that India did not give Pakistan its proper share of the common military assets inherited from the colonial state and generally adopted an unfriendly posture towards the latter, exacerbating its sense of weakness and vulnerability vis-à-vis the bigger and more powerful neighbour. Pakistan began already in 1948 to seek closer relations with the West, while India adopted a neutralist foreign policy posture. In the 1950s, India became an important player in the non-aligned movement while Pakistan sought membership in the western defence pacts of the Southeast Asian Treaty Organisation and Central Treaty Organisation. India cultivated closer ties with the Soviet Union in the 1960s; Pakistan reached an accommodation with the People’s Republic of China during the same period. In 1962, China inflicted a humiliating defeat on India in a border conflagration. India requested American military intervention, but was provided arms instead. Britain and France also rushed arms to India. The West in general increased its military and economic aid. During September 1965, India and Pakistan fought a major border war for 17 days over Kashmir. In December 1971 India and Pakistan fought their third war, when the Indian army intervened in behalf of the East Pakistani Bengalis fighting the Pakistani army. It resulted in a crushing military defeat for Pakistan and the loss of East Pakistan, which became the independent state of Bangladesh. In 1974 India exploded a nuclear device. In Pakistan Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto vowed that Pakistanis would acquire their own bomb even if it meant eating grass. During the 1980s and into the 1990s both states spent huge sums of money to brace their military capabilities. Both sides have provided military training and bases to secessionists on the other side. On May 11 and 13 1998 India detonated altogether five nuclear devices. Pakistan followed suit a few days later with its own series of six test explosions on 28 and 30 May. The most alarming aspect of this hostility is that large numbers of people on both sides were jubilant when their governments conducted the tests. Since then, the governments in the two countries have vastly expanded their expenditure on armaments, intensified cross-border terrorism, connived, some would say, patronised the ultra-nationalist extremists parties and movements in their own societies. In addition, they have fought a limited war at prohibitive heights in the Kargil region of Kashmir in May 1999, which many feared could end in a nuclear confrontation. After the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13, 2001 both countries deployed hundreds of thousands of their soldiers along the international border and the LoC; only international mediation, and thanks mainly to the pressure from the USA and Britain, things did not get worse and thus no war broke out. How far the ruling elites and the hawks in the two establishments will pursue confrontational politics is difficult to say. The recent diplomatic row accompanied by expulsions is indicative of a continuing dangerous and hopeless situation. The leadership in both countries seems to believe that because both sides are armed with such weapons, no major war can take place between them. It has been noted that small-scale military showdowns along the Line of Control in Kashmir have increased, maybe as an alternative to major confrontation. It is quite possible that a nuclear war will break out in the region, perhaps accidentally. If some people survive the massive devastation it is likely to inflict, perhaps then an atmosphere conducive to building a lasting peace may finally emerge. Western Europe could extricate itself from the grip of pathological politics only after two world wars and the holocaust had demonstrated the utter futility of pursuing ethno-nationalism, colonialism and racism. Perhaps societies do not learn to forgo the path of war unless they are forced to pay a heavy price in blood for their lack of foresight. The only hope seems to be greater effort by Indian and Pakistani intellectuals to campaign and lobby for peace. The author is an associate professor of Political Science at Stockholm University. He is the author of two books

www.dailytimes.com.pk It was expected that the UN Security Council session that heard the chief UN weapons inspector Dr Hans Blix on Friday would be divided over what to do next about Iraq. For the first time in the Security Council, members opposed to the American point of view actually clapped long and hard after listening to a hard-hitting French rebuttal of the pro-attack view. Out of the veto-wielding permanent members, only the United States and the United Kingdom thought that the chief weapons inspector’s report meant that Iraq was in “material breach” of the resolution 1441 and thus attracted the “serious consequences” (read attack) pledged in the resolution. Three permanent members, France, Russia and China differed with it and wanted to give more time to the inspectors to disarm Iraq and avoid war, the eight non-permanent members more or less following the cue. Pakistan was in a bit of the cleft stick, being opposed to war but not in a position to take on the United States frontally. It was not present in the Council earlier when a tough unanimous resolution was passed against Iraq asking it to disarm on its own and show proof thereof. At the earlier session, hearing US Secretary of State Colin Powell presenting proof of Iraq’s wilful non-compliance, Pakistan had cautiously attached conditions to the decision to invade Iraq, taking into account the situation in the region, including the Palestine crisis that would certainly be exacerbated by it. The good fortune was that Pakistan’s position was no more strident than the one taken by the other members. Thus it was able to hedge itself against any adverse reaction back home where the public mind is understandably inflamed by the prospect of an invasion that is bound to inflict the long-suffering Iraqi population. On Friday, Pakistan was once again afforded the opportunity to retain its “safe” posture when disagreement on war was expressed by a majority of the members, including those who are, like Pakistan, partners of the US in the international coalition against terrorism. The conjecture in Pakistan was that if it came to casting votes for or against a war resolution, Pakistan might have to abstain in order not to offend the United States. But an abstention might give an opportunity to the country’s strong opposition forces, especially the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, to accuse Islamabad of having betrayed an “Islamic cause”. Equally, a negative vote in a largely pro-US house would certainly sour US-Pak relations at a time when its contradictions with India are at their peak and US support is critical to keep India at bay. But now that the Security Council has clearly expressed itself against the Anglo-American position, Pakistan can relax and assume its normal “pro-UN” posture. Pakistan has carefully crafted its position within the UN framework. It says that a resolution of the Iraq crisis should be affected through the UN Security Council. It supported resolution 1441, which was interpreted as the triumph of the Anglo-US position last year, and expressed itself strongly in favour of Iraqi disarmament. Now Pakistan, along with the other members opposed to the invasion, has been given enough leeway by the chief inspector’s report to oppose the American plan. Since the UN is now seen as an obstacle to the invasion, it is safe to recommend that it may be made the only channel of collective action. Does Pakistan still run the risk of offending the United States? This will depend on what course President George Bush takes. Given the current state of opinion in the Security Council, he might have to go it alone, invading Iraq without a resolution from the Council. Pakistan’s position will then be comparable to all the Islamic states, including Turkey and the Gulf states, from where the Americans will launch their assault on Iraq. Yet, the prospect of unilateral action outside the UN is fraught with difficulties for the United States, unlike when the US and NATO bombed Yugoslavia to stop the Muslim genocide in Kosovo, ignoring the UN because of the threat of a certain Chinese veto and a possible Russian veto. The world “official” opinion then was overwhelmingly in favour of the US attack although the UN itself decried the trend of taking action against the spirit of the UN charter. It has to be understood that President Bush and American public in general look at the developing UN scenario from the point of view of a traumatised nation that the rest of the world no longer feels at one with. The 9/11 tragedy has changed the world but it has also changed the thinking of the United States to such a degree that it now stands alone. President Bush faces a moment of decision. If he backs off, he faces a backlash within the US that will damage his prospects for a second term in office. If he invades Iraq, he will have to do a lot of arm-twisting at the level of individual states, putting to test his country’s superpower status as never before. In that case, Pakistan will have to tread even more carefully to protect its self-interests than some of the US’s other allies. *

www.newsday.com By Zubin Jelveh Staff Writer

The soft, golden-brown teddy bear sitting on the shelf brought a warm smile to Maria Clarkson's face last week at FAO Schwarz on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. The Westchester grandmother of three wanted to buy a birthday gift for her 6-year-old grandson.

"I had a whole room full of stuffed animals when I was a child,” Clarkson said.

Like many parents and grandparents nationwide, Clarkson buys into her memories of the toys of yesteryear. And as the Toy Fair celebrates its 100th anniversary this week, the Toy Industry Association is commemorating the 20th century's most memorable toys -- from Mr. Potato Head to Beanie Babies.

Despite the industry's fascination with the next big technology toys, a surprising number of 100-year-old playthings are still selling and sometimes well. Some experts say that with all the worries about terrorism and war, parents and grandparents may keep buying into nostalgia and buying Ouija boards, Chutes and Ladders, tiddlywinks and other old-time toys.

"There are certain categories that will last forever,” said Jim Silver, co-publisher at The Toy Book, a trade journal based in Manhattan. "Great board games are very simple, and yet every time you play them the outcome is different.”

Parcheesi, based on Pachisi, the ancient game of India dating from at least the fourth century, was introduced in the United States in 1867 and eventually went onto become Bay Shore-based Selchow & Righter Co.'s best seller for decades.

"Sales have been very steady every year. That in itself is an accomplishment,” said Mark Morris, spokesman for Hasbro, which owns the Parcheesi trademark. He declined to provide specifics on sales.

And like the little engine that could, Lionel trains also have been a mainstay. At the end of the 1890s, Lionel LLC founder Joshua Lionel Cohen invented a miniature engine and decided to use it to move merchandise in his store's window to attract customers. But shoppers found the little trains more amusing than the products carried, and in 1901 Lionel made his first train, the Electric Express.

While Lionel trains often are purchased by hobbyists, they experienced a spike in sales after, and some experts say because of, Sept.11, 2001, said Maria Weiskott, editor in chief of Playthings, a Manhattan-based trade journal. "They are reminiscent of the past and better times.”

Lionel spokeswoman Cara Orchard said sales have grown 40 percent since the terrorist attacks on the United States.

Crayola Crayons, celebrating its 100th anniversary this year, "brought affordable color to children and allowed them to enhanced their creativity,” Weiskott said. .Binney & Smith rang up $500 million in sales last year, with crayons its main product, spokeswoman Stacy Gabrielle said.

Generic games such as tiddlywinks have also stuck around, said Chris Byrne, an independent toy consultant. First popularized in English pubs, tiddlywinks made its way across the ocean and became a children's game in the United States by the dawn of the 20th century. It achieved another heyday in the 1950s and '60s, especially in academic centers such as Cornell and Harvard. Today, a dedicated core of players competes in tiddlywinks associations in the United States and the United Kingdom.

"It's a combination of chess and billiards. The strategy is comparably complex,” said Larry Kahn of Washington, D.C., the world's top ranked tiddlywinks player.

Probably the most famous of all old toys, the teddy bear, was introduced in the United States in 1902. Attesting to Clarkson's memories, Byrne said grownups recall the comfort and the emotional bond to their teddy bears and help companies such as Gund and Steiff stay in business.

"What makes a toy a classic, not exclusively, is that parents have fond memories of some toys and want their children to have the same good experience,” said Patricia Hogan, curator of toys and dolls at the Strong Museum in Rochester, which houses the Toy Hall of Fame.

Toy companies see them as a classic way to make a profit, since the old toys need little advertising or research and development. The Toy Book's Silver said, "It's like printing money.”

newsobserver.com Saturday, February 15, 2003 6:11PM EST By MIKE MEYERS, MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL STAR TRIBUNE

(SH) - Same desert. Same armies. Same threat of battles to come. Don't count on history repeating itself, however. Especially when it comes to investing money against a backdrop of war.

In the months before Operation Desert Storm in January 1991, U.S. stock prices sank. But once victory seemed assured, the markets turned around. It was the start of the longest bull market in history - and the most enduring period of economic prosperity on record.

related

Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune But just as generals sometimes make the mistake of fighting the last war, investment advisers today warn against thinking the market will behave the same way in a 2003 confrontation with Iraq as it did in 1991.

"Normally the market goes down, then rallies during war, and a year later it's higher," said Phil Dow, market strategist at RBC Dain Rauscher, who has studied stock market trends in war and peace dating back to 1926.

"This time I don't know," Dow said, cautioning against expecting a repeat of the past, in which market euphoria followed wars. A return to normality in the stock market cannot be considered a fait accompli if there is a protracted war in the Middle East.

The paradox behind his worry: "Uncertainty has bred the certainty that only bad things can happen," Dow said.

Others agree.

"If it looks like we're going to win quickly with few casualties, maybe history will repeat itself," and good times will roll again, said Matt Norris, portfolio manager at Advantus Capital Management.

However, if the United States gets sucked into a military quagmire, the stock market could sag even more than it already has. The 1970s were dreary years for investors as inflation rates soared and the nation pursued a "guns and butter" plan that essentially deferred paying the financial costs of the Vietnam War.

"The historical parallel may be Vietnam, (only) much more costly in terms of lives and money and no clear resolution," Norris said.

Patrick Hagan, senior financial adviser at American Express Financial Advisors, said the run-up to a possible war in 2003 has been longer than the suspense before the 1991 conflict. Hesitation has a price for investors, he said.

"We all dislike indecision," Hagan said. "When we're left up in the air, we always think of the worst possible outcome."

Even if all goes well in the Persian Gulf, Hagan doubts stock prices will recover from three years of back-to-back losses any time soon.

"I don't think we'll all of a sudden be back where we were in 1999," he said.

Said Bruce Bittles, at the Milwaukee-based brokerage firm Robert W. Baird & Co., "What we're telling our people is that though this looks much like 1990-1991, that the market rarely reacts the same way under the same circumstances."

The lesson of the Persian Gulf War was that once the shooting starts, the stock market can soar as investors shake off fears.

That may happen again. But what are the risks that it won't?

Stock market watchers cite many differences between then and now:

• A cornered Saddam may be more likely to inflict large casualties with chemical or biological weapons, and a protracted war with many casualties heightens uncertainties and makes the markets quake.

• Fears of domestic terrorism in the wake of a Mideast conflict were nonexistent in the early 1990s. Today, such fears are rampant and have a chilling effect on investor confidence.

• The U.S. probably would garrison Iraq for years to come after an armistice, raising the cost of the military conflict long after the battlefield is quiet. The peacekeeping phase of war is risky, and that could continue to rock investor confidence.

"It sounds like we're making some kind of commitment to provide freedom for Iraq," Dow said. The reaction in peacetime Iraq may be gratitude - or hostility from cliques competing for power: "A receptive crowd or a minefield of ethnicity," he said.

Many investment advisers are telling clients to stick to investments in well-run consumer products companies such as Procter & Gamble, General Mills or Coca-Cola on the theory that people still will eat, drink and use Kleenex in times of war or peace.

But investors willing to take more risk, market watchers say, are betting on the stocks of oil companies, which will benefit if oil prices spike in a drawn-out war, or hotel and other travel-related firms, which could rise if the war ends quickly.

"Our clients are just suffering," said Dow, at RBC Dain Rauscher. "They're between a state of denial and absolutely considering staying out of the market forever."

www.dailytelegraph.co.uk (Filed: 16/02/2003)

For Britain and the US, war without UN backing has suddenly become a real prospect report by Julian Coman in New York and David Wastell in Brussels.

Once a week, Olivier Goulot, a diplomat at the French mission to the United Nations, takes his lunch at the Manchester Pub near his New York office. Recently he has become a little suspicious of Anglo-Saxon strangers.  

Jack Straw shares a light moment with Dominique de Villepin before Colin Powell's presentation on Iraq

"We have all got direct orders from the ambassador to keep quiet about Iraq," says Mr Goulot. "Although it's not an easy task. The French are being called 'weasels' in the American press and people are even thinking about a boycott of Perrier."

Nevertheless, after a traumatic week opposing war at the United Nations Security Council and suffering the abuse of the New York Post, Mr Goulot was willing to offer a word of pity for Tony Blair and Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, who have had an even worse few days: "Your Government thought that there was a middle ground that could allow it to be with both Europe and America in dealing with Saddam. He [Tony Blair] thought he could rein us in and rein the Americans in. But the middle ground is giving way beneath your feet. Now we all have to choose - Mr Blair included. War with the US or inspections with the UN?"  

Click to enlarge

On Friday, at one of the most tumultuous United Nations Security Council meetings since the Cuban missile crisis, the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, put a similar choice before the council's 15 member states after the second report on Iraqi disarmament by the UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix.

"Do we consider in good conscience that disarmament via inspections is now leading us to a dead end?" said Mr de Villepin. "Or do we consider that the possibilities regarding inspections have not been fully explored?"

One by one, as the US Secretary of State Colin Powell and Mr Straw exchanged tight-lipped smiles across the chamber, 12 of the 15 delegates expressed a desire to continue with inspections. Mr Powell threw away most of his notes and ad-libbed to no avail. He talked of "tricks" by Saddam. He told fellow Security Council members to "hold their nerve" when dealing with "a tyrant".

The German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, and Mr de Villepin listened with folded arms. Igor Ivanov, the Russian foreign minister, invoked the spirit of St Valentine's Day as an inspiration for peace and received a round of applause. Mr Powell looked both tired and furious.

A successful second resolution, unleashing the "serious consequences" foretold by November's Resolution 1441 if Iraq fails to disarm, suddenly looks an extremely tall order. To pass a new resolution the US would require nine council votes.

On Friday, it could count on Mr Straw and Ana di Palacio of Spain. Even Bulgaria, previously a staunch ally on the council, expressed strong support for ongoing inspections. Angola, Guinea, Cameroon and Chile all said more or less the same. Russia, China and France established a 3-2 lead for continued inspections among veto-holding council members.

Outside the Security Council Chamber, in corridors where US officials have briefed and cajoled delegates for months as they urged them to get tough on Iraq, recriminations and inquests were already beginning among State Department officials.

Hans Blix had "ducked the hard language on non-compliance", according to one Bush administration official. Another said: "The news that Iraq had an illegal ballistic missile programme, confirmed by the UN, came out a day too early. It had no impact when Mr Blix said it because it was already in the papers. The way that happened was a mess."

Mr Straw failed to appear at all during the course of the day, although he made time for an urgent private meeting with Mr Powell. British officials talked confidently of a second resolution to be circulated by the middle of next week. But among both American and British diplomats, the dramatic prospect of a war with Iraq without United Nations backing had suddenly become real.

"Patience has gone and time's up," said a State Department official, "the UN has to decide whether it's coming along because a coalition of the willing, led by America and Britain, are going anyway."

In London, there is also a concerted attempt not to blanch at the prospect of war without a second resolution. "The Prime Minister is absolutely adamant that there would be no legal problem in going to war with Iraq without a second resolution," said a senior Downing Street official. "The second resolution is desirable for political and diplomatic reasons, not to give a legal back-up. Everything Britain needs to go to war is already contained in Resolution 1441, which authorises 'serious consequences' in the case of Iraqi non-compliance."

A delay in going to war can be countenanced and may even be advantageous. The American military insists that its equipment allows a war to be fought as efficiently in the spring or early summer as it could be now. Crucially, the 101st Airborne Division has only just set sail from the US and will not arrive in Kuwait for three weeks, at the end of the first week in March, at which point the complete invasion force will have been assembled.

The logistics of battle are unaffected. But it is the possible collapse of the fabled "UN route" to disarming Saddam that has darkened the mood in Washington and London. On Friday, no one in the State Department was looking forward to going back to Washington, where Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, and Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, who were loath to let the entire inspection process begin, are no doubt waiting to say 'I told you so'.

"This was a very bad day for us," said one senior aide, "We're at the turning point here. The Secretary of State has to go back to DC and a decision is going to be made as to whether we table a second resolution on Iraq, endorsing force, or we go another route. That's where we are now. Minds have failed to gel here."

The bad day followed a terrible week for those who wanted to sign up multinational bodies to the war effort. Warning signs of confrontation to come, and a climactic showdown with France, had been visible earlier in the week, in the drab Brussels offices of another venerable international institution - Nato.

At Nato headquarters, a converted hospital on the outskirts of Brussels, a request was made earlier this month on behalf of Turkey, a Nato member, for Patriot missiles, Acwas surveillance planes and defensive equipment against nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. It was explained that as a base for US troops during a future war with Iraq, Turkey would be vulnerable to attack during a conflict.

To the astonishment of their 16 fellow Nato members, France, Belgium and Germany said no. To say yes, said Jacques Chirac, the French president, would amount to accepting that the war with Iraq was inevitable before the UN had decided that was the case. The UN "trap" - interminable diplomatic wrangling - so feared by Washington's hawks, turned out to have been secretly laid in Nato headquarters as well.

Mr Rumsfeld said the decision not to come to the aid of a fellow member was "inexcusable" and placed the credibility of Nato on the line. In Brussels, the rows that ensued were among the most bitter in the organisation's history.

In Room 1 - the secure, windowless, beige-walled venue for gatherings of the North Atlantic Council - ambassadors from Canada, Britain, the Netherlands and Norway unleashed their anger at the "gang of three". The newly-founded "Brussels Resistance", a sister movement to the anti-war French diplomats in New York, were accused of "abject failure" to live up to their responsibilities under the Nato treaty.

Another said they were "reneging on their obligations". A third ambassador pointed to the trio and told them: "You are doing grave damage to the alliance."

Astonished eastern Europeans watched the organisation that they had fought so hard to join apparently on the verge of disintegration. "The scars will be lasting as this stand-off has gone too deep for too long," said Karel Kovada, the Czech ambassador to Nato. "We are getting dangerously near to the bone now. It will leave scars on the body of Nato, to the detriment of us all."

The French and the Germans appeared not to care. "You now have a split in Nato, not just in Europe, over Iraq," said Franois Heisberg, a former French Defence official and director of the Paris Foundation for Strategic Research. "It's being extended into the strategic realm. When the key players consider the alliance marginal, you know you have a real crisis. A crisis of indifference."

Nato argued itself to a standstill early in the week, satisfactorily delaying war preparations on the military front as far as Paris and Berlin were concerned. Franco-German attention switched to New York, where Mr Blix was due to deliver his report on progress in disarming Iraq at the end of the week.

The Bush administration was doing its utmost to ensure that the report would concentrate minds in the Security Council on continued Iraqi violations and defiance of inspectors. Drafts of a possible second resolution, authorising the use of force to disarm Iraq, flew all week between the United States and United Kingdom missions.

In response, the French circulated a so-called "non-paper" for discussion among Security Council members, advocating an expanded and strengthened inspections regime in Iraq. The battle for influence was waged daily.

According to an African diplomat the overwhelmed delegates of countries such as Guinea and Angola "just tried to keep their heads down until the big boys reached agreement".

There was no agreement to be had. On Tuesday, Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser, visited Mr Blix's compact offices in the UN building to urge him to "report the facts".

"She also told him that a certain kind of language might be a problem," said a US government official. "We wanted to make sure he wasn't going to be amazingly upbeat about aspects of compliance from the Iraqis such as the agreement over U2 surveillance flights."

Yet as Ms Rice grilled Mr Blix, the rules of the latest round of the contest between hawks and doves were being subtly but significantly altered. Ms Rice was under the impression that the Friday meeting would be a closed session involving permanent UN representatives. Mr de Villepin and his ally, the German foreign minister Joschka Fischer, had developed a rather more grandiose vision of the session. Friday was to be the setting for Mr de Villepin's finest hour.

Three weeks earlier, Mr Powell had been notoriously "ambushed" by Mr de Villepin at a UN counter-terrorism meeting. The meeting, apparently innocuous, was used to make the French case against war even before Mr Blix had made his first report.

Now, on the occasion of Mr Blix's second report, the United States and Britain were to receive another lesson in playing the politics of an international bureaucracy.

On Wednesday, at a closed planning meeting for the Blix report, French and German representatives announced that Mr de Villepin and Mr Fischer wished to attend the Friday session. The American ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, groaned at the prospect of the third visit by Security Council ministers in three weeks: "Here we go," said Mr Negroponte, "the weekly ministerial meeting coming to town."

In Washington, Mr Powell belatedly decided that if Mr de Villepin and Mr Fischer were going to be there, he needed to be there, too. Mr Straw made the same decision.

The determined obstructionism of France was now becoming a concern to both Britain and the US. In Washington and London, there was a growing feeling that Mr Chirac and his foreign minister might be eyeing the possibility of a "Gaullist moment", which could even go as far as a Security Council veto.

"Blair said he was struck by how hard line Chirac was when they last met," said a former White House official close to the present administration. "If France was in that mood, and Germany could tag along behind, there was always a danger that Russia could swing against the use of force as well."

The French and German foreign ministers, having ensured a prestigious turn-out of ministers, then set about organising an audience. It was suggested that half the day be taken up with an open media session.

Russia and China, both of which had sided with the earlier French call to strengthen and prolong inspections, enthusiastically endorsed the idea. "This was very clever," said a senior Security Council diplomat. "Where there are ministers there is always going to be posturing. It's not going to be the same kind of serious, sober work. And when you put the ministers on public display, with the whole world watching, you get something of a circus."

US and British officials warned that the new format would allow little time for closed debate and little opportunity for proper candour in debate. It was, said officials privately, simply a delaying tactic.

There was however, another motive. "Of course we wanted to make it public," said a French government official. "It's the public that's against the war. In London you were about to have one of the biggest anti-war demonstrations in your history. Seventy-five per cent of Spaniards are against going to war with Iraq, and so on. We let the people into the debate."

In his eventual report, Mr Blix listed aspects of the progress in Iraqi co-operation with the inspectors. He also pointedly minimised the significance of evidence presented to the Council by Mr Powell on February 5. Following Mr Powell's presentation of secret US intelligence which he claimed demonstrated Iraqi defiance of the UN, there were rumours in New York that the chief weapons inspector had resented the eagerness of the Secretary of State to prove the futility of Mr Blix's inspections regime.

On Friday, back in the chair, Mr Blix confirmed his suspicions when he delivered a public and stinging rebuttal of one of Mr Powell's major "scoops" - satellite images of alleged decontamination trucks indicating the presence of a chemical weapons factory.

Mr Blix was polite but withering, commenting: "The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of imminent inspection." The packed hall murmured audibly. Mr Blix was not taking the game to Iraq. He was taking it to General Powell.

He appeared to end his presentation by calling for more time. The caustic tone of January 27, when Mr Blix had poured scorn on the idea of inspectors playing a game of "catch as catch can", had gone.

In the private afternoon session that followed, an exasperated Mr Straw challenged Mr Blix to explain why so few scientists would agree to private interviews without witnesses. He then answered his own question: "Because they are in fear of their lives!"

Mr Blix was also repeatedly asked: "Can you say that the Iraqis were showing full active compliance in accordance with 1441?". "He ducked that question," said a senior diplomat present, who added that the chief weapons inspector was simply "hoping against hope". But the damage to the Anglo-American case had already been done.

Mr de Villepin's carefully planned moment of oratory brought the house down. Calling for a further report by inspectors on March 14, he insisted that France would "never cease to stand upright in the face of history and pledged to give "priority to disarmament in peace". The audience and a sizeable section of the press corps, applauded. Mr Powell had been ambushed again.

Mr Blix is back before the UN Security Council again on March 1 at the latest, as part of a timetable linked to a previous Iraq resolution. In British and American eyes, this may well be the last chance for the UN route that began with President Bush's address to the UN on September 12.

If a second resolution is tabled at all, it will come well before the Blix meeting. If the foreign ministers are assembled yet again at that point, it will be to say yes or no to the use of force. But after a traumatic week, President Bush may not wish to wait any longer and Mr Blair may not feel that there is any point.

For now the Resistance is jubilant. Outside the Security Council meeting, a French diplomat joked: "Next we have an EU council meeting on Monday [tomorrow]. If we win the debate there, too, it will be a triple: Nato, the UN and the EU. It's a good week's work."