By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 13 2003 (IPS)

In a desperate attempt to garner nine votes for a U.N. resolution justifying a military attack on Iraq, the United States and Britain have tried every trick in the political cook book: bribe, cajole, arm-twist and even threaten some members of the Security Council with economic reprisals.

But the situation is so fluid, says a Third World diplomat, ”that despite all the American pressure, the political balance in voting seems to be changing between two editions of the same newspaper”.

”I don’t think we have experienced a more confusing situation in living memory,” he told IPS.

This helps to explain why a vote on the latest Iraq resolution that was scheduled to be held Tuesday, got delayed until Thursday and is now slated for some time next week.

The diplomat pointed out that news reports saying that the United States has nine votes are contradicted the next morning by the same newspaper.

”One paper says that Guinea has agreed to vote for the resolution while a second paper says that the Guinean president has changed his mind,” he said. ”The same holds for Pakistan. If true, this must be driving the Americans crazy because nobody knows where the whole process stands.”

On Wednesday, Britain circulated a compromise proposal containing six ”benchmarks” – including interviews with Iraqi scientists outside Iraq, explanations about missing anthrax, and destruction of long-range missiles – which Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had to comply with in order to avoid war.

But by Thursday morning, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw withdrew one of the conditions: a public statement by the Iraqi president – for broadcast in Arabic – in which he would tell the world that he would neither produce nor retain weapons of mass destruction in the future.

Straw said Britain was willing to drop the ”humiliating” demand, which Saddam had already rejected even before the British decision to kill it.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told reporters that France would reject the British proposal because the benchmarks were ”within the logic of war”. The Germans also rebuffed the British.

Last week, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan took the wisest course possible by refusing to predict the outcome of the upcoming vote.

”Until there is an actual vote, one cannot tell what will happen,” Annan told reporters, prompting speculation that there may be eleventh hour surprises at voting time.

The vote on the original British-U.S.-Spanish resolution, which was scheduled for Tuesday, was postponed for Thursday. But the United States and Britain now say they are willing to wait until next week.

The divisive resolution, which will give legitimacy for a military attack on Iraq, needs nine votes and no vetoes to be adopted by the 15-member Security Council.

The only publicly declared ”yes” votes are: the United States, Britain, Spain and Bulgaria. The ”no” votes or abstentions will come from France, China, Russia, Syria and Germany. The six fence sitters are: Angola, Guinea, Mexico, Chile, Pakistan and Cameroon.

The five Security Council members with veto powers are the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia. French President Jacques Chirac has publicly stated he will veto the resolution. If he does as promised, even the nine votes the United States is seeking will not save the resolution from rejection.

In an unprecedented move Thursday, Annan met one-on-one with all 15 ambassadors of the Council countries.

”I know that strenuous efforts are being made by Council members to compromise and break the deadlock,” said Annan. ”I think these efforts should be taken seriously, and I would urge all Council members to cooperate and to work in search of that compromise.”

Asked if a visit by Annan to Baghdad could help break the deadlock, U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said, ”He is not ready to engage in unilateral diplomacy with a U.N. member state. But he remains a defender of the U.N. charter and the rule of law.”

Annan did meet Saddam in 1998, when U.N. arms inspectors were forced to withdraw from Iraq and when they were not permitted to visit presidential sites in Baghdad in search of weapons of mass destruction.

”He had a role to play then,” Eckhard said, pointing out that U.N. arms inspections are now in full swing in Iraq. ”So there is no room for personal diplomacy.”

Meanwhile, the United States, under increasing pressure from right-wing hawks in the Bush administration, may even decide to withdraw the resolution if it is not assured of the nine votes.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told a House Appropriations subcommittee in Washington: ”We are still talking to members of the Security Council to see what is possible.”

The process, he said, could continue until next week.

But in a pointed reference to the administration’s frustration over the U.N. vote, Powell said that Washington has several options at the Council. ”Our options include to go for a vote, or not to go for a vote.”

Excerpt: