Bush phones around for support in war on Iraq

President Bush turned to the leaders of France, China and Russia yesterday to press his case for military action to topple Saddam Hussein. But he made scant visible progress in changing the minds of the three veto-holders on the United Nations Security Council who are sceptical of a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

The phone calls, a combined 30 minutes, were placed from the Oval Office, a day before Mr Bush's war council at Camp David with his staunchest European ally, Tony Blair.

Their aim was to pave the way for some sort of security council blessing for an attack, an effort a reluctant White House agreed it has no choice but to make, even if it fails. But the public reactions from Paris, Moscow and Beijing afterwards ranged from the lukewarm to the downright chilly.

An Elysée Palace spokes-woman reiterated that Mr Bush had not persuaded President Jacques Chirac to alter his long-standing view that any military action against Baghdad required a formal go-ahead from the Security Council. And while the Chinese government gave no details of Mr Bush's conversation with President Jiang Zemin, who will meet the US President at his Texas ranch on 25 October, President Putin made clear his objections to Mr Blair and Mr Bush.

Russia, which has signed economic agreements with Baghdad, was opposed to military action to achieve regime change in Iraq. There was real potential for a political solution to the crisis, a Kremlin statement said.

President Bush's latest foray into private diplomacy prefaces his 12 September address to the UN General Assembly, at which he will lay out the case for removing President Saddam, but there was no sign he would be presenting fresh evidence of the Iraqi leader's alleged build-up of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, which critics at home and abroad are demanding.

Convinced he must at least go through the motions of seeking UN approval, Mr Bush is expected to demand a resolution setting a deadline for weapons inspectors to be given unfettered access, with the plain implication that if President Saddam does not comply, force will be used against him.

This has already been broadly accepted by the European Union. With such ambiguous wording, the White House would hope to avoid the veto that a resolution containing an explicit warning of military action would probably incur from Russia and/or China.

Even so, given Mr Bush's apparent resolve to go ahead, Washington could find itself launching a campaign with the support of Britain alone among its main allies, and in the teeth of unanimous opposition through the Arab world.

Bush administration officials again said yesterday no decisions had been taken, and the phone calls to the three permanent members of the Security Council were just "the beginning of the process" of consulting allies on how to remove the threat posed by President Saddam, and his "relentless acquisition of weapons of mass destruction".

Mr Bush, they added, valued the opinions of America's friends, a formulation that entirely leaves open the question of his readiness to ignore those opinions as he sees fit, as happened already over issues such as global warming and the International Criminal Court.

At home, too, the doubts continue, from those of former president Bill Clinton who believes the UN inspectors must be given a last chance, and that America cannot act unilaterally, to those who believe that, whatever the circumstances, an unprovoked attack is unjustified, and a betrayal of the country's most basic principles.

Mr Bush has tried to soften the ground for a resolution by Congress authorising military strikes, by sending Vice- President Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, to Capitol Hill for classified briefings with leading politicians. But whether the President will achieve his goal of a Senate and House blessing by the time Congress adjourns for the mid-term election campaign early next month is still unclear.

Tom Daschle, leader of the Senate's Democratic majority, told NBC's Today programme that his meeting with Mr Rumsfeld was only a start. There were still "a lot more questions out there", he added.

How the secutiry council is divided

The five permanent members

BRITAIN: A guaranteed vote backing the United States and acting as recruiting sergeant for Washington, despite the opposition Tony Blair faces at home.

RUSSIA: Broad economic links with Iraq, but also owed billions by Baghdad. A need for US economic help is likely to ensure it will endorse action despite opposition now from President Vladimir Putin.

CHINA: Against military action now, but habitually abstains. A US precedent of taking "pre-emptive" military action will intrigue Beijing – ever conscious of bringing Taiwan back under its wing.

FRANCE: Sceptical of war and has, like Russia, forged economic links with Baghdad. But very unlikely to use its veto, especially if promised a slice of commercial contracts in a post-Saddam Iraq.

US: International clamour against the US going it alone seems to have persuaded President Bush to seek Security Council approval – of some sort. The coming weeks will tell if this is so.

The ten elected members

SYRIA: Vocally opposed to military action, as is the rest of the Arab world, and likely to vote against war.

IRELAND: Representing Western Europe, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Ireland, like Germany, opposes unilateral military action but in the end will stay onside with US and Britain.

MEXICO: Strongly dependent economically on the US, and expected to back Washington.

COLOMBIA: New government is reliant on the US in its civil war – likely to be another vote for Washington.

SINGAPORE: At present against war, but its economic and geopolitical interests are not served by opposing America.

NORWAY: Despite a conservative government in power, public opinion is vehemently against military action; unlikely to vote for war.

BULGARIA: Wants Western economic aid as well as membership of Nato and EU – another vote for America.

CAMEROON: Offers of aid should secure a vote for the United States.

GUINEA: Will vote the same way as Cameroon.

MAURITIUS: Will follow Cameroon and Guinea.