For quite some time it's been a case of three steps forward, two steps back as states that professed a deep attachment to the urgent need for change argued the pros and cons of extra membership, getting no place in the process. There have been doubts all along whether the British and French had their hearts in the effort to add Germany to the elite group occupying permanent seats. With their country's own global status much diminished, British diplomats have been heard to acknowledge that the UK has been "punching above its weight" thanks to the extra prestige conferred by that Council seat.

The chauvinist French would never make such a frank admission for their country, but the same thought has occurred to others in thei case too.

Now the schism that opened between the US and Germany during the recent German election campaign and has been confirmed by Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's victory is widely expected to result in a fast reevaluation of Washington's former support for Berlin's claim to a Council seat. This is good news for Italy, which argued all along that its arguments for entry into the UN's holy of holies were just as powerful as the Gerrmans' claim.

Unlike the centrist Schroeder, Italy's conservative leader Silvio Berlusconi has followed closely the US line as stated by George W. Bush on Iraq. Schroeder opposes making war against Saddam Hussein and talked even of denying the Americans use of their bases on German soil in order to wage the campaign -- which now appears increasingly likely as soon as favorable weather conditions in the Iraqi desert permit.

Unless there's a post-election thaw in relations between the US and Germany, which many Germans are said to hope for most fervently, officials in Berlin and some UN diplomats who keep an eye on such matters fear that there'll be squealing brakes in the Bush administration as an effort is made to turn aside Schroeder's longtime effort to gain a permanent slot in an expanded Security Council. Who needs an "unreliable" Germany with the power of veto -- not that the addition of veto rights is an ironbound certainty? This is what Washington had in mind when the matter was first floated all those years ago.

Meanwhile, expect to hear more about Italy's claim. The Italians already have moved ahead of the UK among the major contributors to the UN budget. Like Bush best friend Tony Blair, Berlusconi has been invited to partake of the informality of Camp David, a sure sign of presidential approval. Where does this leave Japan, which also seeks a permanent seat in the Security Council? At this writing, Tokyo's claim appears unchanged by any German-style political rumblings.

But as mentioned earlier, don't look for the deadlock to be broken soon. With Colin Powell struggling to rebuild an anti-Saddam coalition, it's difficult enough to work with the cards in hand let alone consider adding a few new ones.

The Iraqis excepted, folks around the UN agreed by and large that Bush set out his case quite skillfully in his speech to the General Assembly Sept. 12. The atmosphere was helped, of course, by the fact that everyone had just experienced the wrenching emotional impactevent of the commemoration of the anniversary of the fiendish terrorist attacks on America. While a scrutiny of the text of the presidential address did produce a few second thoughts, on the whole most people felt Bush did a pretty good job, presenting his arguments calmly and without histrionics an audience that included a lot of died-in-the-wool doubters.

Since then, there have been a few snide comments that raised questions about the administration's real attitude toward the UN. For example, that "debating society" remark of Bush's was especially wounding as were implied suggestions that the organization is chicken at heart and reluctant to step up to the plate when needed. (OK, the UN is a debating society. So is the Congress and so is the parliament in every truly representative democracy. Also, didn't Bush debate Al Gore and by many people's reckoning prove himself not bad at it?)

Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, is not given to foolhardy behavior, but on such an explosive question as how to deal with Iraq, he's going to have to watch every step he takes. In the current environment, his immediate staff, too. His announcement that Iraq agreed, after all that shillyshallying, to allow UN weapons inspectors back in was not what the Bush administration hoped for when momentum was building for a tough UN resolution. Still, officials should have been prepared for it, since it was being rumored around the UN several hours before Annan confirmed the news. The Bush speech and an assist from Arab foreign ministers visiting the UN contributed to Saddam Hussein's change of heart, the secretary general indicated with typical generosity.

But in the carefully controlled White House, Annan's grabbing the spotlight up there in New York was not appreciated. The Times printed this quote from an irked administration official: "Clearly the hope of the secretary general was to get out in front of the story before anyone else could." The letter was addressed to Annan, so who but he had the prior right to make it public?

Fred Eckhard, an American who is the principal UN media spokesman and has been since Annan became secretary general, took some flak from US officials for ensuring that his boss got star treatment in this major news development. That's what this top communicator is paid to do, but that's not how the White House wanted it played this time around.

Subsequent developments have aroused suspicions that Saddam may be up to his old old cat and mouse games that Bush warned everybody against. Annan, too, has had personal experience of the Iraqi leader's duplicity -- after a visit to Baghdad. Given that, it would have been wise for him to restrain any glee over that letter from Baghdad about inspections, even though the text conformed in parts to a draft he offered to the Iraqis.