The United States and Britain offered conflicting predictions in the second week of March about the chances of winning a majority in the United Nations Security Council for a new resolution on Iraq.
After a day of chaotic negotiations at the UN, the US State Department predicted that support for the US-British-Spanish resolution setting an ultimatum for Saddam Hussein and a series of disarmament tests was firming up.
The State Department insisted it had four votes in the bag: the three African countries and Pakistan.
Despite earlier statements from Islamabad that Pakistan would abstain in a Security Council vote, the State Department was apparently confident of a last-minute yes vote from Pakistan after a conversation between President George W Bush and President Pervez Musharraf.
It added that it remained hopeful of securing the votes of either Mexico or Chile or both.
The British Foreign Office assessment was much more pessimistic, and indicated surprise that the State Department was being so upbeat.
The Foreign Office said that there was no sign of either Mexico or Chile voting for the resolution, and none of the African countries or Pakistan was aboard. Compromises offered by Britain, such as more time for Iraq to disarm and a series of six tests for Saddam, had failed to win them over.
A British official blamed French President Jacques Chirac. The British position is that Mexico and Chile both face hostile domestic opinion and they feel there is no point in incurring public wrath in order to support a resolution that will be lost because of France’s veto.
The timing of a vote on the resolution has been thrown into disarray and Spain even indicated it might not take place at all because of the threatened French veto.
The US and Britain said on Wednesday the vote would have to be held before the end of the week.
At a press conference in London Foreign Secretary Straw said the process was ”now coming to a conclusion which will have to happen before the end of this week. We have been working flat out for agreement on a second resolution.”
Despite the disparity between the optimistic view taken by the US and the pessimistic Foreign Office picture, both sides are agreed on one thing: Chile and Mexico are proving the hardest to persuade.
Chile’s President Ricardo Lagos has described his country’s position as being ”equidistant” from the US and French positions, arguing that Iraq’s disarmament would take several months.
However, Chile is counting economically on a free trade agreement that is currently before Congress for ratification, which Chilean commentators have warned could be in doubt if it defies Washington.
Meanwhile, the US ambassador to Mexico has warned that legislation to further liberalise trade or to legalise millions of undocumented Mexican workers in the US might be hindered in Congress if Mexico does not support Washington on Iraq.
But President Vicente Fox reportedly feels let down by Bush who had agreed to support amnesties for illegal Mexican immigrants, but dropped the plan after the September 11 attacks. — Â