UNITED NATIONS: The United States is flexing its economic muscle to round up political support and generate UN votes — both of which it desperately needs for its impending war on Iraq, according to political experts and diplomats here.

“It is widely known that the United States makes promises to get votes — whether those are foreign aid or access to Iraq’s oil,” says Michael Ratner, president of the New York-based Centre for Constitutional Rights. The hefty 26-billion-dollar US aid package to Turkey, which is now the subject of a tug-of-war between the two military allies, is an example of US chequebook diplomacy, he pointed out.

“Certainly in the 1991 Gulf War with Iraq, money played a large role in getting approval for Egypt and other countries” (to support the US-led attack on Iraq), Ratner told IPS.

Within the 15-member UN Security Council, the United States needs nine positive votes — and no vetoes — to pass an expected resolution that would authorise a military attack on Iraq.

The British-US resolution, which is expected to be introduced next week, will have four sure-fire ‘yes’ votes: the United States and Britain (both with veto powers), along with Spain and Bulgaria.

Syria and Germany are expected to nix military action against Iraq; France has threatened to veto the resolution, while China and Russia, which are also veto-wielding members, may possibly abstain or even use their vetoes.

The remaining six countries in the Security Council — non- permanent members Chile, Mexico, Pakistan, Angola, Cameroon and Guinea — have not made any public commitments or openly indicated how they would vote.

The political lobbying, according to one Third World diplomat, is not taking place at the United Nations, but at various capitals where Washington is applying pressure for votes in its favour.

US President George W. Bush has already phoned two heads of state: Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Angolan President Jose Eduardo dos Santos seeking their support for the resolution.

According to Angop, the Angolan news agency, dos Santos has also received phone calls from US Vice President Dick Cheney and French President Jacques Chirac, who is lobbying the six nations to vote against the resolution.

Angop said the United States has asked Portugal’s Prime Minister Durao Barroso to intervene because of his close friendship with dos Santos.

“If the United States gets the required nine votes — and the resolution also gets vetoed by France — Washington may still claim it has a moral majority on its side,” the diplomat said.

The argument, he pointed out, may appease warmongers. But it is an argument the United States will not accept when it vetoes any future resolution against Israel, he added.

The last Security Council resolution against Israel — condemning the country for the killings of UN humanitarian workers — had 14 votes in favour but was vetoed by the United States, said the diplomat. “The US argument about a moral majority may come back to haunt it one fine day,” he added.

US officials regularly assure US citizens that they have widespread support from numerous partners for an attack on Iraq, says Natalie Goldring, director of the programme on global security and disarmament at the University of Maryland.

“But they don’t tell us how much that support is going to cost us,” she told IPS. Goldring said that potential partners such as Turkey are “strong-arming” Washington. “They know we’ve had a difficult time putting together a coalition to fight Saddam Hussein.”

“They have leverage over us, and they are using it effectively. As war approaches, the packages seem to be getting larger,” she said. “This is political blackmail.”

On Wednesday, the Turkish government rejected the 26-billion-dollar US aid package — 20 billion dollars in loans and six billion dollars in outright grants — as inadequate.

Turkey says it wants 10 billion dollars in grants, but the United States has refused to sweeten the “take-it-or-leave-it” deal. In return for the aid package, Turkey was expected to permit US forces to operate out of its airbases in the event of a war on Iraq.

But if Turkey, which is not a member of the Security Council, refuses to cooperate with the United States, Washington has threatened to penalise its long-time ally, which currently receives about 17.5 million dollars in military grants and 2.7 million dollars annually for military education and training of Turkish troops. The country stands to lose all of it, as did Yemen when it voted against a US-sponsored UN resolution to invade Iraq in 1991.

In the Security Council line-up, most of the 10 non- permanent members already receive substantial US economic or military aid and are in danger of losing it if they stand up to the United States.

The largest benefactor is Bulgaria, which has received about 31.5 million in US military grants during 2001-2003, according to the latest ‘Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations 2003’. Under a programme called Support for East European Democracy (SEED), the United States has provided an additional 97.1 million dollars in aid during that period.

After its decision to cooperate with Washington in the global war against terrorism, Pakistan is receiving 50 million dollars in outright US military grants in 2003, compared to zero dollars over the last decade. Washington has also waived long- time restrictions on arms and military assistance to Pakistan.

Angola now receives about 100,000 dollars annually from the United States for military education and training, and about 19 million dollars in development assistance, including funds for anti-terrorism activities and de-mining.

Cameroon receives about 200,000 dollars yearly for military training and education and is also eligible to receive surplus US arms cost-free under the Excess Defence Articles (EDA) programme. It also receives US trade benefits under the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).

Washington provides with about 26 million dollars in economic aid annually, including 250,000 dollars for military education and training. The country also received about three million dollars in outright military grants for arms purchases in 2001 and is also eligible for trade benefits under AGOA.

The only two Latin American countries in the Security Council are Mexico and Chile. The United States provides about 500,000 dollars annually for military training of Chilean soldiers and awarded the country about 1.5 million dollars in outright military grants in 2002-2003.

Mexico, which the State Department describes as “the most important US foreign policy priority in Latin America”, will take in over 44 million dollars in development assistance this year, including grants for military training.

In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) on Thursday, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said Washington has no plans to “strong arm” members of the Security Council.

“We present our case. We don’t threaten. We don’t suggest that blackmail is in order. And hopefully, the power of our argument will persuade them to vote with us.” —Dawn/InterPress News Service.