(MEXICO CITY) Latin Americans instinctively know their economic future is tied to the United States, but now they must decide if Americans are also their preferred diplomatic bedfellows.

With the exception of a few small, weaker countries, public opinion from Mexico to the tip of financially-jostled Argentina tends to mirror Western European sentiment against President Bush's attempts to rally global support for a war on Iraq.

But most important in Latin America, as the clock ticks toward a possible attack, are Mexico and Chile, two non-permanent members of the U.N. Security Council whose citizens are also, varying polls show, between 70 to 85 percent opposed to war.

Mexico and Chile are in the spotlight because they could hold two key votes out of nine needed in the Security Council to pass a new U.N. resolution the United States would use as an endorsement to invade Iraq.

Both Mexico and Chile are steadfast in their insistence, like the French, that more weapons inspections should proceed in Iraq. But on Tuesday, following a weekend phone conversation with President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox appeared to toughen his stance toward Iraq.

"What we are demanding, and what should be the central theme at this moment, is the disarming of Saddam Hussein, to disarm Iraq," Fox said Tuesday. His comments omitted reference to "a peaceful disarmament," words he has long used to describe his preference.

The Bush administration is heavily pressuring Mexico to support the resolution sponsored by the United States, Britain and Spain. Mexico has issued a directive to its diplomats that moves its position closer to the U.S. posture, the Associated Press reported Wednesday from the United Nations.

At a news conference in Mexico City Wednesday, Fox Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez denied that Mexico was under pressure or had been offered special deals from Bush in exchange for a yes vote.

He also said his government has not changed its preference that a solution to the Iraq crisis come from a consensus within the United Nations.

"Mexico is contemplating all possibilities," Derbez said when asked if Mexico would consider abstaining in a vote.

Although they have no veto power, Chile and Mexico are among at least six nations on the 15-member Security Council that are still undecided on whether to push for more inspections or back the U.S. proposal.

In Mexico, the public at large is heavily anti-war. But some prominent business groups have warned against alienating the Bush administration.

Last Friday, in his first official speech, new U.S. ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza displayed a sign of public pressure.

"Mexico's posture with respect to Saddam Hussein will have an impact that is of great and lasting reach," Garza said. "We're not asking Mexico to do the United States a favor. We're asking Mexico to act on the basis of its own interests and responsibilities to the international community."

Garza appeared to dangle a carrot by touching on Fox's quest for a U.S.-Mexico migration accord, which is viewed as a dead issue for now.

Chile is also in a bind, especially because it is seeking U.S. congressional approval for a free trade agreement with the United States. Chilean diplomats admit the pressure is intense.

"There is an incessant action by the United States with all the countries that are members of the Security Council," Chilean Deputy Foreign Minister Cristian Barrios told Reuters news agency. "Every time the United States calls, it's to discuss the situation from their point of view. We couldn't pretend neutrality."

Japan, a major trading partner of Chile, has also been pressuring President Ricardo Lagos to fall into line with the United States.

Chileans lived under a U.S.-backed military dictatorship for years after a 1973 coup supported by the Nixon administration, so U.S. intervention abroad strikes a chord.

But in the end, trade may trump public opinion and force Lagos to support Bush.

Chile has an "overwhelming desire for their free trade agreement" and Lagos can soften dissent at home by arguing that a war with Iraq is a distant U.S. battle, said Peter Hakim, president of the Washington-based Inter-American Dialogue group.

Nonetheless, Hakim added, "The Latin Americans just don't like the United States acting on its own so much."

Chilean pollster Marta Lagos, no relation to the country's president, said, "For Latin Americans, terrorism is not a new thing. It is one problem among many. So they can't understand why all other policies have turned the corner and nothing else matters now."

Security specialist Richard Feinberg, who served on the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, said if Mexico votes against the pending resolution it risks U.S. wrath, especially in trade disputes.

Feinberg also said Bush could have "handled the diplomacy better" to solicit support for his position from the beginning.

"That in-your-face Texas swagger doesn't go over well in other countries," said Feinberg, a professor at the University of California at San Diego.

Source: Cox News Service