What's in play for the other Security Council members?

Divining how each member of the United Nations Security Council will come down when a vote is finally called on the new resolution on Iraq – assuming it happens – is not easy because each of them faces so many different political and financial calculations in deciding what to do.

Some countries face massive domestic pressure to vote one way, while their trade and financial needs push them in the other direction. "If you are not confused," one diplomat at the UN said, "you don't know anything about this story".

RUSSIA

London and Washington want to know whether Russia is serious about using its veto to kill the new resolution on Iraq. But Moscow may not have made up its mind. While Igor Ivanov, the Foreign Minister, has said more than once that his government was ready to veto the text, President Vladimir Putin has been coy. Certainly, Russia would instinctively oppose anything authorising war. For the past 12 years, it has been the Security Council member most responsible for giving Iraq the benefit of the doubt on disarmament. It has a stake in maintaining good ties with Baghdad, not least because Iraq owes it billions of dollars. And Russia is alarmed at the notion of unrestrained American power.

At the same time, Russia is under no illusion about the damage that could be done to relations with Washington, a relationship that has otherwise blossomed since Mr Putin came to power. American officials have been privately and publicly warning Moscow about the negative consequences of a veto. An assertion by the US ambassador to Russia, Alexander Vershbow, that a veto would damage ties, published in the daily newspaper Izvestia on Wednesday, was widely quoted on Russian TV and radio.

CHINA

Beijing is a permanent member of the Council and, by most standards, a leading world power. Yet on this subject as on most UN matters, it has kept a fairly low profile. In recent weeks, it issued statements offering support to the joint position of France, Germany and Russia in opposing war and bolstering inspections but stopped short of formally signing on to it.

The Chinese are traditionally uneasy about any action in the UN context that entails intrusion into the sovereignty of nations, in large part because of its claims on Tibet. But it is expected to abstain in an Iraq vote rather than risk any damage to ties with the US. The last time it used its veto was in 1999 over extending a peace-keeping mission for Macedonia, but only because Macedonia at the time had formal relations with Taiwan, which Beijing still considers part of Chinese territory.

GUINEA, ANGOLA, CAMEROON

The three African countries on the Council may be impoverished but now they have hit the diplomatic jackpot. Angola has not had so much attention since the Cold War when both superpowers were vying for its loyalty.

President George Bush telephoned the Angolan President, Jose Eduardo dos Santos, this week. He is thought to have dangled financial rewards in return for Angolan support. All three countries have been visited in recent days by the French Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, and the British Foreign minister for Africa, Baroness Amos. Washington has tried to woo Cameroon and Guinea by designating them for new trade preferences.

MEXICO, CHILE

The two Latin American members are in a fix over what to do. Both governments depend on the US for trade and risk serious damage to their ties with Washington if they fail to support the resolution. Yet, both are staunchly Catholic countries with populations overwhelmingly opposed to war.

Chile is fearful, however, that withholding its support may derail a free trade agreement that is now before the US Congress. The Mexican President, Vicente Fox, meanwhile, risks a backlash in important mid-term congressional elections this summer if he is seen to "cave in" to Mr Bush. But Mexico may be hoping to revive talks with Washington on giving legal status to millions of Mexican nationals living illegally in the US if it backs war against Iraq.

SPAIN

Ask most Spaniards why their Prime Minister, Jose Maria Aznar, has tied himself so slavishly to the American and British positions and they will be hard pressed to answer.

Like Tony Blair, Mr Aznar is getting a drubbing in public opinion polls. While he does not plan to run for re-election when his term is over, he was thought to have had ambitions for a high European Union position. Those hopes have surely been dashed, given the damage inflicted on his relations with Germany and France over the Iraq crisis.

The official explanation from Madrid is that Spain is committed to American policy on fighting terrorism – and therefore displacing President Saddam – because of the help it expects from Washington in fighting its own domestic terrorism war. But critics of Mr Aznar complain he is driven by an obsession with the White House.

SYRIA

Syria took most of the Council by surprise last November when it voted in favour of resolution 1441 which gave Iraq one "final opportunity" to disarm. But nobody has any illusions that Syria might do the same this time round. As a neighbour of Iraq and a country with mutually antagonistic relations with the US, it is widely expected to vote "no".

GERMANY

Gerhard Schröder, the Chancellor, used his opposition to any military action against Iraq as a principal plank of his campaign in last year's general election. His stance led to frayed relations with the US, which worsened when Herta Daeubler-Gmelin, his justice minister at the time, compared Mr Bush's political tactics with those of Hitler. Mr Schröder has been obliged to stick by his election promises and since joining the Security Council in January, Germany has consistently resisted the Anglo-American push to authorise war.

BULGARIA

Bulgaria is the one Council member not co-sponsoring the resolution for war that has consistently, though quietly, supported it. Sofia is clearly hoping for more direct financial aid from Washington. It also wants US support for its aspirations to join Nato and the European Union. The government is none the less cagey about publicly promoting the resolution because of simmering socialist opposition at home.