Happy ending to a day of drama and farce at the United Nations

The absence of the South African delegation was the final hiccup on the road to resolution.

When the Security Council convenes for a vote such as Thursday night's institution of a no-fly zone over Libya there are always a few minutes of ritual chatter before members take their seats at the famous horseshoe table. Finally, at 10 minutes past six, China's ambassador dropped the gavel to open a historic session. But wait. Where was South Africa? No one from its delegation was in the chamber.

"It was a heart-stopping moment," says one source who was present and who had been party to the days of roller-coaster negotiations that had finally brought the Council to this point of reckoning with Muammar Gaddafi. Could it be that this one country that had indeed been expressing misgivings throughout the process was pulling the rug out at the last moment? Would the Colonel be let off the hook after all?

Exactly one week earlier, the lights at two UN missions in New York had begun burning later into the nights than usual. Watching as the balance of military advantage tipped in favour of Gaddafi's forces in Libya, France and Britain had become convinced a no-fly zone was needed and it had to be authorised by the UN. But they were worried. Would enough members of the Council agree with them?

Just as diplomats of both countries finished cobbling together a contingency draft resolution that they hoped might one day get traction, the African Union agreed to send a delegation to Tripoli to seek peace and it seemed that in the region itself support for a no-fly zone was dimming. "Things turned very pessimistic," another of those involved said. Then on Saturday came one of two true tipping-points.

At an emergency summit in Cairo, the Arab League unanimously supported the imposition of a no-fly zone. Gaddafi was apoplectic; the League, he said, was "finished". The French and the British were ecstatic. With the region now supporting their idea it seemed implausible that anyone, not even the Chinese or Russians, would exercise their right of veto to block the resolution.

To capitalise on the new Arab momentum, a triumvirate of nations was formed to finalise a draft text, France, Britain and Lebanon, the only Arab nation on the Council and now the de facto representative for the Arab League. On Tuesday, they shared it with two other key states, Germany and the United States. Both were cool. "Things were looking messy again," the source said.

Tipping-point two came the same evening, in Washington where President Barack Obama was being told by top national security advisers that a no-fly zone would not be enough. So he asked, "What else will we have to do then?" And the reply was swift: no-fly plus. We will have to bomb tanks, ships, perhaps troop columns too. Mr Obama nodded. And so it must be, he said.

Shortly before midnight, the French and British got a tip-off about what had transpired. They were back in the game. The jaws of the other delegations on the Council dropped on Wednesday morning when Susan Rice, the US ambassador, revealed how far America had shifted its position.

So shocking was the change – for days, Mr Obama had seemed almost disengaged on the issue – that the reaction of some was scepticism. As many as five countries were already likely to abstain in a vote, Russia, China, Germany, India and Brazil. Was Ms Rice trying to scare others into the same camp, perhaps the three African members, South Africa, Gabon and Nigeria? A minimum of nine votes is needed for a resolution to pass in the 15-member council. If one African country were to change sides now, the other two were likely to follow suit. Especially if it was South Africa.

So nothing was certain when Thursday dawned and the world, and Tripoli, was told to expect a vote in New York before the day's end. Alain Juppe, the newly installed Foreign Minister of France, flew to New York. In London, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, and David Cameron became glued to their phones. The lobbying of their counterparts in the African states went on all day. And what of Russia and China, which are instinctively opposed to outside intervention in the domestic affairs of sovereign nations? As predicted, neither seemed tempted to use their power of veto. China, as the holder of the rotating Council presidency, seemed to get the urgency of moving quickly to a vote, and was even greasing the cogs. Russia, on the other hand, was still throwing in sand.

Under what new arrangement was Lebanon taking it on itself to represent the Arab League, the Russians asked. And had no one noticed the odd wording in the Cairo statement? The Arab leaders had said yes to a no-fly zone but no to outside military intervention. How could anyone square that? The pressure on Lebanon's ambassador lifted on Thursday afternoon with a phone call from League chief Amr Moussa. Lebanon does represent us, he said. And the resolution does have our support.

And so to the empty South African chair. Puzzlement spread across the faces of ambassadors. Britain's Sir Mark Lyall Grant began to straighten his tie nervously. Ten more minutes passed and there, all of a sudden, was the South African delegation. The gavel was dropped again. Mr Juppe said a few words and a vote was taken. All three African nations voted in favour. The resolution passed with five abstentions. The South Africans? They had been running a bit late, that's all.