Chaos and confusion as key UN vote approaches

Diplomatic chaos reigned at the United Nations yesterday as Britain struggled to persuade Security Council delegates to agree to six specific tests for President Saddam Hussein to prove his willingness to disarm.

Countries acknowledged the latest British variation on a new resolution might provide the last possible chance for a broad agreement on a resolution, or at least a continuing UN negotiation, even if a French and Russian veto is certain. Once the diplomacy stops, the United States is expected to push willy nilly towards war in days.

At the same time, initial reactions to the six tests seemed cautious at best. Chile, among six wavering countries that Britain and the US need for the resolution to pass, was said to be unhappy with the tests. It particularly disliked the requirement that President Saddam appear on television essentially to admit he has been lying for 12 years and expose his supposed weapons programmes. Mexico took a similar position.

And two of the six demands by Britain cannot be met, senior Iraqi officials warned last night. The Foreign Office minister Mike O'Brien said President Saddam must make the televised address and send 30 Iraqi scientists, and their families, abroad to be questioned.

An Iraqi Foreign Ministry source said: "We cannot order our scientists to leave the country; it is for them to decide. As for the televised address, that is laughable. They are asking us to admit something we have always denied."

Adding to the confusion were remarks from the Spanish Foreign Minister, Ana Palacio, that there may not be a vote on the resolution, and that it could be withdrawn for lack of support. "Clearly, not putting it to a vote is a possibility which is being considered," she said.

Russia's UN Ambassador, Sergei Lavrov, angrily complained that Britain was keeping council members in the dark. "It is for Mr Blix to indicate the benchmarks he thinks is necessary for Iraq to implement," he said, reiterating Russia's position that the inspection process is working and should continue.

Suggestions that even the French might be prepared to negotiate on British text were played down in Paris yesterday. French sources said they were prepared to discuss a timetable and specific disarmament targets for the Iraqis but would veto any resolution which took the form of an ultimatum and threat of war. But unless such an ultimatum is in the text, it would be rejected by the Americans. Britain's room for diplomatic manoeuvre – and time – seems hopelessly limited.

Distaste for some of the British ideas was being offset by fear of what will happen if the resolution goes down in defeat. A vote is likely tomorrow. If it ends in a debacle, diplomats say the Americans could trigger hostility within days. But taking on the British ideas would at least keep the UN process working for a week or so.

The other unanswered question was what date would be set for President Saddam to meet the six tests. The wavering six clearly continued to favour a fairly extended timetable, perhaps for even as long as 45 days.

Britain may privately see sense in a fairly wide window for President Saddam, but may be unable to accept anything more than a week because of pressure from the US. But there was quiet scorn for the UK plan from the Iraqi envoy to the UN, Mohammed al-Douri. "I don't know whether this is a way out for Iraq, a way from war, whether it is for peace, or whether it is meant to find a way out of the crisis, the British crisis."

Britain was expected to table its ideas formally to the Security Council members behind closed doors in the course of the day with the hope of a vote on the resolution tomorrow. But it was not prepared to integrate the tests fully into the resolution, in case that would lead to an endless new negotiation on the substance of every benchmark.

Nor could even British sources convincingly explain how a judgement would be reached on the extent to which President Saddam has met each of the tests when the deadline is reached. London believes it should be left to the national governments – to London and to Washington, specifically – but other countries were expected to insist that it should be Mr Blix who makes such a determination.

And suspicion loomed last night that even if President Saddam does capitulate and fulfill each of the six tests, that would not be enough to divert the United States from its course of war.