US: The US wants a second resolution and the arm-twisting has begun. Conor O'Clery reports from New York
The endgame has begun. American diplomats have been despatched to world capitals, especially those of countries serving on the UN Security Council, with the instruction: use "all diplomatic means necessary" to get support for a new resolution on Iraq that would authorise the use of force.
For the smaller, more vulnerable countries on the 15-member UN body that clearly means - vote with the United States, or risk paying a heavy price.
The US needs a majority of nine council members - eight plus itself - to pass its new resolution, while at the same time dissuading France, Russia or China from using their vetoes. The US and Britain hold the two other vetoes.
So far there are only four votes in the bag: the US, Britain, Spain and Bulgaria (known in the White House as the "Quiet American"). Assuming that Syria and Germany vote against or abstain, and that France, China and Russia decline to exercise their veto, the US needs to get the votes of five of the "middle six" on the council.
Between now and the crucial vote on March 7th, diplomats at the UN expect the US will engage in intensive arm-twisting in world capitals. It will be tough going. All six, Angola, Guinea, Cameroon, Mexico, Chile and Pakistan, are opposed to war with Iraq.
The US insists it is not pressurising these countries. But they need only look to recent history to find out what happens to those that cross the US. In 1990 Yemen voted along with Cuba against the UN resolution authorising force to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. Almost immediately a $70-million aid programme for Yemen was cancelled.
The case of Angola illustrates the dilemma facing a small, deeply indebted nation serving a two-year term on the Security Council. Angola has vital economic ties with the US. It ships half of its "sweet" oil to America, and expects Western oil companies to invest a further $18 billion in developing Angola's oil and gas reserves over the next three years. It needs the support of the IMF, which is heavily influenced by Washington.
The pressure on it started last week with separate telephone calls to President Jose Eduardo dos Santos from President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. On Thursday the US Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, Mr Walter Kansteiner, arrived in Luanda to do some personal lobbying.
Mr Kansteiner put the US's case in private but a diplomat was quoted as saying: "In Africa, the message is simple: time is running out and we think they should support us."
The irony of the close attention was not lost on the Angolan ambassador at the United Nations, Mr Ismael Gaspar Martins: "For a long time now we have been asking for help to rebuild our country after years of war. No one is tying the request to support on Iraq but it is all happening at the same time."
Mr Kansteiner is also visiting the two other African council members, Cameroon and Guinea, which with Angola cast their lot with France last week at an African summit in Paris. At the urging of President Jacques Chirac all three issued a special statement asking for inspections to be given more time. Cameroon and Guinea have closer historical ties to France and will be less easy to pry away from the French camp.
The US and Mexico, where a big majority opposes war, had a good relationship until recently. This month two senior State Department officials, Marc Grossman and Kim Holmes, reportedly lobbied the Mexican government so vigorously that Mexican diplomats described the tone as hostile. The message was that opposition on the resolution would carry a "very heavy price." A State Department spokesman said: "We've expressed our opinion to Mexico on how important this issue is and we hope for their support. Certainly there has been no arm-twisting."
The Spanish Prime Minister, Mr Jose Maria Aznar, also paid a visit to Mexico last week but he failed to secure its support. Mexico and Chile made a pact last week to abstain if the five permanent members fail to reach a compromise.
Pakistan has already benefited from a closer relationship with the US on Afghanistan. US sanctions over its nuclear programme were lifted and aid increased. It now has to balance the prospect of more financial rewards with a severe backlash from its hostile Muslim population.
The pressure for Security Council votes will not just come from Washington. Australia, Britain and Spain are also committed to lobbying for support.
The stakes are high for both the US and its small group of allies. For Washington a new resolution will mean international legitimacy and a greater prospect of the UN sharing the cost of rebuilding Iraq. A vote against the resolution would be a domestic political disaster for the British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair.
Mr Bush made clear yesterday that if he did not get the votes the US would not be stopped - making any opposition not only perilous for bilateral relations with the world's super-power, but ineffective.
The text of the new resolution and Resolution 1441 may be read at The Irish Times website, ireland.com