Small fry at UN feel the heat from US

On the brink of war: The small nations who will determine the path to conflict

Facing an uphill battle to win approval for their new UN resolution on war with Iraq, the US and Britain were this weekend applying every form of diplomatic and economic pressure on the remaining key players – the smaller, more malleable temporary members of the Security Council whose votes have suddenly taken on terrible significance.

It's all now down to basic arithmetic. Spain and Bulgaria have committed themselves to the US and British side – with, in Bulgaria's case, a few sweeteners thrown in, including a key trade concession and the possibility of hosting US troops currently stationed in Germany. France, Russia and China, meanwhile, are opposing military action and any resolution that would open the door to it, and they have the support of Germany and Syria.

That leaves six countries still up for grabs – Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan. The US-British resolution would need nine of the Council's 15 votes to pass, which means persuading at least five of the six swing states.

Given a free choice, probably none of the six would opt for war against Iraq. Mexico, Chile and Pakistan, in particular, have populations vehemently opposed to military action, and in Pakistan's case that opposition is heavily coloured by militant anti-Americanism that risks exploding in the government's face.

All, though, are susceptible to diplomatic pressure. Chile and Mexico have economies heavily dependent on US trade. Pakistan's military dictator, Pervez Musharraf, has staked much of his credibility on his post-11 September alliance with Washington, and probably cannot afford to see that slip away now. Of the African countries, Angola is most dependent on the US for trade and aid. That leaves Cameroon and Guinea, which as former French colonies are under the heaviest pressure from both sides.

The proposed new resolution declares that Saddam Hussein has failed to disarm but shies away from a specific timetable for military action. Nonetheless, it is being interpreted by all sides as a green light for war.

Any one of the Security Council's permanent members – the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China – can also exercise its veto power and strangle the resolution on the spot. France, Russia and China would clearly prefer not to take that drastic step, but as the diplomatic battle heats up they are not yet ruling that option out.