The Guardian has talked to a majority of cabinet ministers over the past three days and established that most are clear in their stance on military action: they insist there has to be an overt UN mandate substantiated by credible evidence that President Saddam has hidden weapons of mass destruction.

"The government's policy can be summed up in two words, 'United Nations'. Stick to the UN and there will be infinitely less trouble or even no trouble at all," one senior minister said.

"There will have to be justification, and discussion of a second UN resolution. We will not go in and zap them on Bush's say-so," another minister said.

Mr Blair faces a series of tough hurdles as he seeks to win over public and party opinion - and hold on to cabinet unity - in relation to his Iraq strategy. The latest hurdle comes today when he speaks at a private meeting of Labour MPs, some of them angered that he staged a TV press conference on Monday rather than go before parliament.

The Guardian survey of the cabinet found that some ministers have been shown intelligence pointing to Baghdad's active biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programmes, and found the material convincing. However, many doubted that the necessary evidence to justify a UN war would be uncovered soon.

As one cabinet minister put it: "What everyone should be concentrating on is the evidence, and whether we and the US can agree on what constitutes evidence."

Mr Blair's colleagues are sympathetic to the prime minister's high-wire act in supporting President George Bush without appearing to be his "poodle", as many Labour MPs protest. However, with Washington's intentions still unclear on whether it is prepared to wait for the UN inspectors to complete their task, the prime minister's strategy remains precarious.

"We will not take any action not consistent with international law," one member of the cabinet emphasised, implying that UN resolution 1441 alone would be insufficient to justify military action. "We need to go further," the minister said.

The Guardian survey suggests determination among senior ministers to uphold Labour's commitment to international law - and to the Middle East peace process - as far as possible. But there is no evidence that any minister, even Clare Short, the international development secretary, is currently prepared to resign.

"There is no one round the cabinet table who is a pacifist," observed one colleague. Robin Cook, leader of the Commons, may yet surprise colleagues by the strength of his suspected reservations. But Gordon Brown, also the object of speculation, yesterday broke a three-month silence to say that "a dictator who persistently defies the international community" must be "punished".

While the cabinet and wider party continue to debate the Iraq dilemma, privately the government has made a significant policy change by adopting the toppling of President Saddam as an objective. Until now, the British government's position has been that it will only go to war in order to disarm Saddam. It will not admit that it has fallen in line behind the US in its official policy of regime change because, unlike the Bush administration, the British government does not want to be seen to infringe international law which upholds state sovereignty.

Downing Street and the Foreign Office agree that an outcome that would leave President Saddam in power is no longer tenable. A cabinet minister echoed this: "If Saddam is still in place at the end of this, that is equally unacceptable."

The Foreign Office has gone so far down this road that it has sounded out diplomats about becoming the first British ambassador to Baghdad since the first Gulf war.

Cabinet ministers appear willing to give the prime minister leeway to find some lesser form of UN authority than a fresh resolution, should that prove difficult to secure. That pragmatic view was expressed by Jack Straw on BBC Radio 4 yesterday when he again threatened military action if President Saddam does not disarm voluntarily. "There are two preferences. One is to have a second security council resolution, which we want, though we have had to reserve our rights if we can't achieve that. The second preference is, if military action is required, that we have a substantive vote in the House of Commons before the action takes place, not afterwards."

Ministers have repeatedly refused to guarantee a vote before any action starts, even though 130 Labour backbenchers have publicly voiced concerns. With Liberal Democrats also opposed to unauthorised military action Mr Blair might even come to depend on Tory votes for his Commons majority. (the Guardian, UK)

(China Daily January 15, 2003)