The end of diplomacy came not so much with a bang as a whimper, not in a dramatic showdown in the Security Council chamber but in a draughty second-floor corridor of the UN building, writes Conor O'Clery in New York
Shortly after 10 a.m., as diplomats were arriving for consultations in conference room no 7, the British ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Grenstock, made his way to the microphones where journalists were just getting organised. With his glasses perched on his nose, he read from a sheet of paper a statement by the three sponsors of the resolution authorising war.
The United Kingdom had proposed an ultimatum to challenge Iraq to make the decision to disarm, he said. It had set out tough but realistic tests and a timetable, but further discussions overnight had led to the conclusion that a consensus was not possible on the 15-member Security Council.
"One country in particular underlined its intention to veto no matter what the circumstances," he said, looking up meaningfully, and now the US, Britain and Spain reserved the right to take its own steps to disarm Iraq.
The "one country in particular" was France and it soon became clear that the threat of a French veto would be seized upon and used to explain the failure of US and British diplomacy.
The US ambassador, Mr John Negroponte, said the resolution was withdrawn "in light of the threat of a veto by one of the countries, even though we think the vote would have been close."
How close?
Mr Negroponte wouldn't say, but "the atmosphere and the context of our entire discussions was affected by the fact that one particular member was intent on frustrating the entire process".
Diplomats from the undecided countries refused to say how they would have voted - why make enemies now? - and France insisted that the nine votes needed to give a "moral" victory to Washington and London were simply not there.
The French ambassador, Mr Jean-March de la Sabliere, stepped up to the microphone bristling with outrage at the suggestion that they alone were responsible for the diplomatic debacle.
The sponsors had withdrawn the resolution because "they had realised that the majority of the council is against the resolution authorising the use of force, that this is the position of the huge majority of the council".
The majority had repeatedly stated in one-on-one consultations that "it would not be legitimate to authorise the use of force now" because the inspections were producing results, he added.
Mr Negroponte insisted that they had ample authority to use force on the basis of 1441 and previous resolutions requiring disarmament.
In Washington, the US Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell, said they had all along insisted a second resolution was not required. He disclosed he had called the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Russia, Greece, Britain, Spain and several other world figures after the Azores summit on Sunday of US, British and Spanish leaders.
The news from Washington that President Bush would address the nation and that war was imminent gave a surreal air to the subsequent dealing of council members yesterday.
The UN Secretary General, Mr Kofi Annan, announced the recall of UN inspectors from Iraq, but France, with the agreement of ambassadors from China, Russia, Pakistan and Germany, insisted that foreign ministers meet at the UN tomorrow to consider the inspections process.
Meanwhile the Security Council planned to gather in the afternoon to hear a scheduled progress report from the chief weapons inspector, Dr Hans Blix.
Are you living in dreamland? asked a reporter of the German ambassador, Mr Pleuger Gunter. "If there is a 1 per cent chance of keeping the peace you should make a 100 per cent effort," he said.