Battle for the vital votes

Battle for the vital votes

By Paul Reynolds BBC News Online world affairs correspondent

The latest UN report said there had been limited progress

The climax is approaching in the Security Council as supporters and opponents of a second resolution vie for the vital votes

This coming Friday, 7 March, the chief weapons inspector Dr Hans Blix is expected to deliver another report to the Council and on that may hinge the outcome of a vote, which is likely to be held between Monday, 10 March and Friday, 14 March.

In an effort to deny the United States and Britain a further reason to attack, Iraq has started to destroy its al-Samoud II missiles, declared by the UN to be capable of going beyond the range of 150 kilometres (93 miles) permitted by the Gulf War ceasefire resolution.

It is also trying to show that it did indeed destroy stocks of chemical and biological weapons after the Gulf War.

Rejected

Such evidence of Iraqi co-operation helps the case against early or any military action.

But even this is rejected by President Bush who says that the rockets are but "the tip of an iceberg".

The White House has also said that "pieces of disarmament" are not enough.

France and Russia say inspections are working

More helpful to the Americans and British was a written report by Mr Blix delivered over the weekend which says that that "the results in terms of disarmament have been very limited so far".

Does this close the case for the US and UK?

Not at all, say France, Germany and Russia.

Mr Blix also listed areas where there had been progress and this, they say, is a sign that, given time, the inspections process could work.

The French Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, has been on the diplomatic offensive, giving interviews to British and American television.

He told Sir David Frost on the BBC that the moment to stop the inspections had not arrived.

"It is for the inspectors to write a report saying: 'We can't work anymore.' Are we in such a situation? No."

He said that France would oppose the second resolution but did not say if it would use its veto stop it.

France hopes that the US and UK will not get enough votes for a veto to be necessary. Nine of the 15 votes on the council are needed to get a resolution approved.

A huge effort is being made by all sides to lobby the undecided.

The British despatched the Minister for Africa Baroness Amos to the three African states last week - Guinea, Angola and Cameroon.

Senior American figures have been lobbying by phone.

The Observer newspaper in London says that the US National Security Agency has been ordered to intercept phone calls involving the swing states.

But the Russians - supporters of the French position - have also been doing their own lobbying with telephone calls placed to the countries whose votes will make the difference.

Rough times ahead

British diplomats say that there is "still a lot of hard diplomacy" ahead.

"We do not overestimate our chances or underestimate the difficulties," said one official.

The UK's UN Ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, told the council in a closed session on Thursday that Britain had evidence that Iraq continued to make poison gases.

After the meeting he refused to elaborate but simply said that "the claim by Iraq that there is a zero in terms of its weapons of mass destruction is a lie".

Americans officials are said to be reasonably confident that they can get three African votes on the council.

These votes, added to those of the US, UK, Spain and Bulgaria, would give seven to the supporters of the resolution.

Mexico and Chile, the two Latin Americans, are more uncertain.

They are both suggesting that a Canadian plan to set Iraq a deadline of the end of March is worth considering.

Pakistan's decision also remains in doubt.

Washington is also trying to detach Russia from the French and Germans.

The tactic seems to be to get the Russians to abstain at least.

That would leave the French with a possible dilemma if it was the only one of the permanent five members ready to wield the veto.

And it would be easier for Britain at least to join military action without a new resolution if the single veto came from the French.

It is getting rough in the Security Council and it could get rougher.