A nation hooked on reality TV needs to click over to the UN Security Council for some real drama.

The wrangling over the upcoming vote on war in Iraq has a lot in common with shows like "Survivor" and "Marry a Millionaire" - the scheming, the shedding of old alliances like used tissue, the catty name-calling and vows of revenge, even the constant viewer scrutiny.

A U.S. official memo leaked to the London-based Observer revealed a plan hatched last month to conduct surveillance on the homes and offices of ambassadors from countries elected to the Security Council. American spies are listening in to the ambassadors' private conversations, hoping they'll hear something that might help manipulate votes on a UN resolution authorizing war in Iraq. The prime targets of the bugging offensive are ambassadors from six countries that hold elected seats on the Council (Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria, Guinea, and Pakistan).

Although Mexico, another Security Council member, was not highlighted on the bugging list, it has suffered a more public humiliation. The days when President Bush bonded over cowboy boots with Mexican President Vicente Fox are a distant memory. In a Survivor-esque twist, Bush turned on his friend, unleashing an envoy last week to issue thinly-veiled threats in reaction to Fox's outspoken opposition to war. According to the Washington Post, Ambassador Tony Garza said that Mexico could expect real trouble over U.S. legislation on issues like immigration and trade if it voted against the U.S. resolution authorizing war.

If you've wondered if "Bachelor" Bush would choose war over free trade, you need to surf no further than Security Council member Chile. Last December, U.S. and Chilean negotiators finally completed a trade deal that had been promised to Chile nearly 10 years ago. Unfortunately for the Chilean government, it joined the Security Council that same month. President Bush has not submitted the trade deal for Congressional approval, with Chile's support for war likely the price for doing so.

The intensity and sliminess of the U.S. pressure campaign has stoked outrage around the globe. Here at home, the reaction is amusement. Witness the sarcastic thrashing of Bush's so-called "Coalition of the Willing" - we've got Coalition of the Billing, Coalition of the Shilling, COW (cuz we're getting milked), and Rent-a-Coalition. Cartoonists have depicted Bush buying coalition members on eBay and upping his numbers by renaming his advisers the "Republic of Don" and "Cheneystan."

But this get-out-the-vote rampage should be more than an entertaining game to Americans. The Administration's goal is to create the illusion that the war effort would represent genuine multilateralism. This is important to Bush, since almost every poll indicates that most Americans don't want to go to war alone. Americans should be outraged that they are being courted by a "consensus" as phony as Joe Millionaire's millions.

If people do indeed care about the UN, then they should care about the integrity of UN actions, especially when so many lives hang in the balance. President Bush has warned that the UN is "on the road to irrelevance" if it does not authorize war in Iraq. But how relevant will this body be if decisions are not based on international law, but instead result from bribing, bullying, and bugging? Even if the Administration wins passage of a second resolution, their clumsy arm-twisting campaign has guaranteed that the result will be seen as a joke.

One thing that the networks love about reality shows is that they are inexpensive to produce. Not so for Bush's war - the arm-twisters are offering boatloads of taxpayer money to buy support for the war. The Turkish government, for instance, was offered $6 billion in grants in exchange for its support of the war and approval of U.S. use of its bases. If Turkey's final answer remains "no," the Administration ought to consider using the money to buy support from cash-strapped communities here at home, more than 120 of which have passed resolutions opposing preemptive war.

As of the latest episode, the UN Ambassadors and national leaders of the Security Council countries were standing up amazingly well to the U.S. onslaught. Their strength lies in the overwhelming opposition to war of the people, not only in their own countries, but around the world as well. As the drama heads towards the grand finale vote, Americans need to make it clear that they want more from their President than the wily victors on "Survivor." They want a commitment to real multilateralism and real democracy. If the United States hopes to be a real global leader, there is no other choice.

Sarah Anderson is a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and a co-author of the report "Coalition of the Willing or Coalition of the Coerced" (www.ips-dc.org/coalition.htm) Email: saraha@igc.org

###