The US, aided and abetted by the Coalition of Easily Bought Countries most Willing to ignore Public Opinion (that's Britain, Spain and Bulgaria), are working round the clock to weasel the five remaining 'yes' votes needed from fellow UN Security Council members to pass their second resolution.

With the Security Council split down the middle, the heat is being turned up on Mexico, Cameroon, Guinea, Angola, Chile and Pakistan, as the US steps up its Texas-style 'persuasion' techniques with economic aid carrots and big stick trade threats in order to swing the votes their way.

A leaked US National Security Agency memo urged the gathering of information as to the 'negotiating positions', 'alliances' and 'dependencies' of these countries in order to give 'US policy makers an edge in obtaining results favourable to US goals.' The leaders of the six fence-sitting member states have been bombarded with personal phone calls and visits from Bush, Cheney, Blair and their cronies, eager to impress upon them the importance of a 'yes' vote.

The US has already pledged to punish Germany for its 'treachery' by possibly withdrawing troops and military bases and ending all military and industrial co-operation with the country. From here it doesn't sound much like punishment, but such moves would cost the German economy billions of euros. There's talk in the US of punishing the French by renaming french fries Freedom Fries, while Turkey will no longer receive $15 billion in economic aid after its parliament refused to allow the use of Turkish soil as a US base for war. "We don't like the way we were pushed around by the Americans," one Turkish MP said.

COUGH UP

So, which way will the six go? And what is on offer to help them decide?

Mexican president Vicente Fox, facing an election next year and aware of massive public anti-war support, has already been visited by the Spanish PM Aznar, US officials Marc Grossman and Kim Holmes, and the Godfather himself, George Bush Snr. Mexico depends on the US to buy 85% of its exports and is desperate to resuscitate agreements surrounding immigration issues. Mexican diplomats have been warned they will 'pay a very heavy price' for non-compliance with US policy on Iraq.

Cameroon and Guinea have no doubt been reminded of the bit in the African Growth and Opportunity Act, under the terms of which both countries receive US aid, that prevents them from engaging "in activities contrary to US national security or foreign policy interests." The Guinean Ambassador to the UN, however, is reported to have said, "We are not going to sell our dignity because we need money or material. Not my country."

Meanwhile, Angolan Ambassador Ismael Gaspar Martins is underplaying the significance of sudden US promises to assist his war-ravaged country: "For a long time now, we have been asking for help to rebuild our country after [27] years of [civil] war. No one is tying the request for support [to the issue of] Iraq, but it is all happening at the same time." Yes, an amazing co-incidence.

While we await the report-back from our undercover SchNEWS operative in Santiago, all we can reveal about Chile is that the country's leaders are gagging for the US Senate to give the 'go-ahead' to a free trade agreement between Chile and the US, who knows a gagging country when they see one.

And finally we come to Pakistan, which already has billions of dollars in the hole, mainly thanks to their support of the US dropping an orgasm of bombs on Afghanistan. Pakistan is being rewarded in other ways too, such as being allowed to hold on to their nuclear arsenal without signing the non-proliferation treaty, and probably being allowed to abstain from voting on the second resolution. In the face of growing public anti-war sentiment, Pakistani PM Jamali has said that decisions about Iraq should be left to the Iraqi people and asked his parliament to instead focus on 'domestic interests'. Jamali is scheduled to visit the US later this month, during which time he has been invited to Houston to meet 'businessmen' interested in investing in Pakistan.

Still, at the end of the day, whichever way the vote goes, the US are unlikely to back down from attacking Iraq. British Home Secretary Jack Straw's justification for war is that we must all do what America says because otherwise, in the future, we'll er...have to do what America says. Not that he should worry, as White House spokesman Ari Fleischer pointed out, "The vote is desirable. It is not necessary."