Moscow and Paris show their hand

Moscow and Paris show their hand

By Angus Roxburgh BBC News Online

Russia and France have indicated they will veto the resolution

The UN Security Council's deliberations over Iraq have come to resemble an artful game of poker.

Each of the 15 players keeps his hand close to his chest, for fear of giving away his game-plan, while occasionally revealing a card in order to influence the others.

So why was it that France and Russia suddenly revealed their entire hand?

No more subtle messages about "not supporting" the forthcoming "second" resolution sponsored by Britain, America and Spain: instead, an outright declaration that they will use their veto to block it.

Remember: neither France nor Russia actually wants to use its veto, since this would precipitate possibly the worst crisis in the UN's history.

But both know they will only need to veto the resolution if it attracts the support of at least nine Security Council members.

Preventative action

So their diplomacy has been directed at preventing the "yes" side from reaching that magic number of nine.

The French look as though they are playing a clever game of bluff or even double-bluff.

On his tour of Angola, Cameroon and Guinea, the foreign minister Dominique de Villepin, it is reported, has been telling these current members of the Security Council: look, what is the point of you voting for the resolution when it won't pass anyway, because (as we are telling you) we will veto it?

Why get your hands dirty by voting for war, the argument goes, when world opinion is set against it?

Thus, by cunningly playing on the smaller countries' fears of stepping out of line, France hopes to persuade them to abstain or vote against the resolution, so that it falls anyway - thus making the French veto unnecessary.

War could start within days

Put crudely, France is trying to get the smaller countries to do its dirty work for it.

In this light, it might even be conjectured that all of France's recent overtures towards Francophone Africa, and the continent in general, have been gearing up to this moment, when three African votes will be crucial.

Earlier this month, it will be recalled, President Jacques Chirac patched up relations with Algeria, with the first visit there by a French head of state since the country's independence.

He was hailed as a hero.

He also ingratiated himself with African countries by holding a summit for them in Paris last month - and making sure that Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe was allowed to attend, despite an EU travel ban.

The Russians have also come clean about their intention to veto the resolution.

Resolution worries

For them (and presumably for the French) their opposition to it is fuelled by their perception that it is not intended as a means to avert war but as a means to justify war.

The Russian foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, speaking to students in Moscow, said it contained "demands which cannot be met, in the form of an ultimatum".

Moscow has, it is true, left the door slightly ajar, saying it objects to "the resolution currently introduced for consideration" - allowing for the possibility that it could be further amended to the Russians' liking.

Both France and Russia feel they are in the right.

If there is a UN crisis, they believe, it will not be their fault for failing to back war.

Bush may be held responsible for a UN crisis

They say there is an alternative - to support a motion allowing the weapons inspectors to continue their work for the "months" which Dr Hans Blix says could produce results.

So by the French and Russian logic, rejected in Washington and London, the looming crisis will be entirely President Bush's fault, if he presses ahead with war despite the lack of a second resolution.

The British prime minister Tony Blair has said that "if countries talk about using a veto in all sets of circumstances, the message that sends to Saddam is: you're off the hook".

But President Chirac and President Putin may feel that their announcement will force Britain and the US to drop the resolution.

They might even succeed in this, for Mr Bush and Mr Blair could conclude that the inevitable crisis will be slightly less severe (that is, their actions may be slightly easier to justify) if they base their decision to attack Iraq on the existing resolution, 1441, rather than having a new one rejected and then openly going against the will of the Security Council.

There remains much to play for - but not much time - before all the cards have to be laid out on the table.