Here's a look at the views held by the 15 Security Council members regarding potential military action in Iraq:
The five permanent members with veto power:
United States: Maintains Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction, is failing to cooperate with weapons inspectors, and is violating its obligations under U.N. resolutions. Washington says it already has authorization to use force to disarm Iraq but is co-sponsoring a resolution that would give military action explicit U.N. backing.
Russia: Is co-sponsoring a proposal to continue U.N. inspections at least into July. Says there is no evidence Iraq is rearming. Wants a diplomatic solution, but says it could change positions if Iraq doesn't increase cooperation with inspectors. Has joined the United States in trying to develop "a plan of action that would guarantee the interests of the entire world community."
China: Has said it believes inspections are starting to work and Iraq can be disarmed peacefully. Supports proposal to give inspectors at least four more months to do their jobs. Would like a compromise to maintain Security Council unity.
Britain: Is co-sponsoring the resolution that would give U.N. approval for military action. Prime Minister Tony Blair needs the resolution because of strong antiwar opposition, but he would almost certainly join a U.S.-led attack without one. Says Iraq is not cooperating or disarming and that time is running out for it to do so through weapons inspections.
France: The main opponent of war now, it is co-sponsoring the proposal to continue weapons inspections. Says inspections are starting to work and sees no justification for military action or a new resolution now. Paris has hinted it could use its veto to block council authorization for military action at this stage.
The 10 elected members without veto power:
Angola: Wants to hear from weapons inspectors to see whether all possibilities for Iraq's peaceful disarmament are exhausted or whether inspections should continue.
Bulgaria: Backs a peaceful solution to the conflict in Iraq, but might support a short deadline for Saddam Hussein to comply with outstanding disarmament issues. Considered to be in the U.S. camp and could support a U.S.-led military intervention without Security Council authorization.
Cameroon: Hopes for a compromise between supporters and opponents of military authorization. Would like the U.S.-backed resolution changed to say that Iraq has not yet taken the final opportunity to disarm peacefully, instead of saying it has failed to use its last chance.
Chile: Wants the five permanent members to agree on how to disarm Iraq. Would prefer a peaceful solution. Likes the idea of a short deadline for Iraq to meet key disarmament demands.
Guinea: Supports continued inspections and would like to see council agreement.
Germany: Insists Iraq must be disarmed peacefully. Is co-sponsoring a proposal to continue inspections. Has said it will not participate in any military intervention, even if the Security Council authorizes such action.
Mexico: Calls for the urgent disarmament of Iraq and could support the U.S.-backed resolution. But also joins with Chile in wanting the permanent members to compromise and explore a short deadline for Iraqi compliance.
Pakistan: Wants a peaceful solution but could support the U.S.-backed resolution.
Syria: Insists Iraq is cooperating with its obligations under U.N. resolutions, opposes any new resolution and has said that sanctions against Baghdad should be lifted.
Spain: Supports the Bush administration's stance on Iraq and is co-sponsoring the resolution to authorize military action. Believes military intervention could proceed without Security Council authorization.