Billions of dollars in old debts and billions of gallons of untapped Iraqi oil seem to be critical to the stalemate. Russia and France are anxious to make sure that their long-established energy interests in Baghdad are respected in a post-Saddam world, and that U.S. and British companies are not given economic preference in the region. While both countries seem to be generally concerned about America’s military plans, experts say those concerns could be greatly allayed in the form of upfront White House concessions.

“First and foremost this is about money, not principle,” says Russian specialist Michael McFaul, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment. “Russian President [Vladimir] Putin and his administration believe the United States will go ahead with or without them so they’re trying — and not very successfully for now — to extract what they can from America.”

Negotiations remain fluid and a deal could be struck at any moment. But why is the dance so important? After all, administration hawks dismiss the need for U.N. cooperation, insisting America will fight Iraq with or without official international backing. But for the Bush administration, there’s a catch: Most public opinion polls show that a clear majority of Americans want an international blessing before bombs start falling on Baghdad. If the White House doesn’t win U.N. support, it could pay a high price domestically for acting without it.

The Security Council will have a final say in authorizing any internationally sponsored military action in Iraq; having won in Congress, the White House will now turn its lobbying to the council’s four other permanent members: Britain, China, France, and Russia.

The single, strong resolution Bush wants would not only send U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq, but would give the U.S. authorization to use military force in the event of a “material breach” of the U.N. inspection resolution. The breach would be defined by Washington.

Britain and Prime Minister Tony Blair have strongly backed the U.S. But France, Russia and to a lesser degree China remain obstacles in the United States’ way, with France standing out as the least predictable of dissenters. All three have expressed opposition and want chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix and his team to return to Iraq immediately to begin their work. The U.S. wants the team to wait until a new, tougher U.N. resolution has been passed.

Negotiations on the resolution have intensified in recent days, with some sources saying that the U.S. is already making headway. But experts remain split over how the final document may look. “Eventually, the final resolution will be tilted substantially in America’s direction,” says U.N. expert Kenneth Rodman, professor of government at Colby College in Maine.

“I don’t think we’ll see from the U.N. the kind of resolution Bush wants,” counters Jean-Robert Leguey-Feilleux, professor of diplomacy and international law at St. Louis University.

Despite a month of intense back-and-forth negotiations, spearheaded by Secretary of State Colin Powell, no breakthrough has been reached.

For now, China, France and Russia refuse to sign off on the resolution being pushed behind the scenes by the White House. The three countries, concerned about writing the U.S. a blank check, prefer a two-step approach: One resolution would set out tough conditions for Iraqi cooperation with weapons inspectors and, if necessary, a second Security Council resolution would authorize the use of force if those conditions are not met. Bush has opposed a two-resolution process, fearing that it would limit his ability to retaliate quickly if Saddam restricts the inspectors.

“From their perspective, the U.N. is really the last line of defense from a world in which the United States does whatever it wants, wherever it wants,” says Paul Saunders, director of the Nixon Center, a nonpartisan foreign-policy think tank based in Washington. “That kind of world is very frightening to them.”

The Russians, Saunders says, have no real affinity for Hussein. In fact, a recently published poll there shows just 4 percent of Russians think the country should back Iraq in a war with America. “But,” he explains, “they want to see their interests protected, which is how they would put it.”

Specifically, Russia wants to protect the 30-year-old, $8 billion debt Iraq owes for military equipment purchased in the Soviet era. Moscow also wants to protect multibillion-dollar Iraqi oil-drilling contracts recently signed by Russian energy companies. The forward-looking contracts, valued on paper at $40 billion, were approved with the hope of opening up Iraq’s vast oil reserves once U.N. sanctions were lifted. Those sanctions have made it illegal for oil companies to do business with Iraq.

“The oil is the main thing,” says Saunders. “There is widespread nervousness in Russia that if the U.S changes regimes in Iraq, then all the oil contracts will come to the United States and Russia will be left out. That could be a real problem for Putin. He has to demonstrate that Russia is getting something out of it [a vote in support of Bush], other than good will.”

In other words, “nobody in Russia wants to be answering the question, ‘Who lost Iraq?’” says George Lopez, director of policy studies at the Krock Institute for Peace at the University of Notre Dame.

An oil exporter, Russia is concerned that if America’s regime-change action in Iraq is pulled off flawlessly, that could translate into lower oil prices over the long term. “That would torpedo Russia’s economy,” notes McFaul. He also thinks the oil contracts are a non-starter with the Bush administration, and that Russia should focus its energy on getting Iraq — or someone — to repay the debt.

Putin has staked his entire foreign policy on trying to move Russia, diplomatically, into the community of Western nations. “This is precisely when you say whether you’re in or you’re out,” says McFaul. “I’d be surprised if Russia votes no.”

Of the three permanent members of the Security Council in play, China appears to pose the least threat to the U.S. policy. Although it has voiced reservations about the proposed U.S. resolution, experts doubt China would torpedo any proposal. “Under their broader strategic thinking, China’s best interest is to have good relations with America and to keep quiet about the U.N. resolution,” says Cheng Li, a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center and professor of political science at Hamilton College in upstate New York. For political consideration though, he thinks China would abstain, rather than vote in favor of a U.S.-sponsored resolution. “Being pro-United States looks silly at home,” Li explains.

Ideally, foreign policy analysts say, the U.S. would like to peel Russia away from the dissenters in hopes that France would not want to cast the lone veto. Conversely, if France gives in to the U.S., either by voting yes or agreeing to abstain, it’s unlikely that Russia, with too much to lose from fractured relations with the U.S., would stand in America’s way at the U.N.

“It’s clear Moscow is not prepared to let this issue stand in the way of the rest of U.S.-Russia relations,” says Saunders.

As for the possibility of France casting a lone veto, “it’s touch and go,” says Lopez at the Krock Institute for Peace, which has been in regular contact with French diplomats. “At this point I’d say yes [to a French veto], but next week it might be no.”

That’s why, at least temporarily, France has emerged as the most important diplomatic player in the pending war with Iraq. In late August, French diplomats signaled that they were willing to work with the U.S., perhaps even to provide troops as they did during the Gulf War. But things cooled in September when the U.S. rejected Saddam’s initial offer to allow inspectors back in the country. Then came France’s suggestion of a two-step resolution, followed more recently by dismissive comments from the French prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, eschewing a “simplistic vision of the war of good against evil.” The jab seemed clearly directed at the White House.

In recent weeks, France has become a sharp thorn in the side of the administration. “It’s a position the French like to be in,” notes Craig Parsons, director of the European Center at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Public Affairs. “They have been making sure they take distinctive positions from the United States all through the postwar period.”

Yet there are reasons why France’s stance at the U.N. is not being dismissed out of hand as Gallic pride or quixotic obstructionism. For instance, despite often clashing with the U.S., French leaders recently backed U.S. military action in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo, which shows they are not allergic to all U.S. use of force. Also, led by newly elected President Jacques Chirac, France today is governed by moderate-to-conservative politicians, not left-wingers with a knee-jerk opposition to America’s foreign policies.

“What could induce France to back America’s campaign? I don’t see it,” says Leguey-Feilleux. “The concern for France is that the consequences of this war would be drastic. Then she could say: ‘Look, listen to us next time.’”

Adding backbone to France’s resolve is the fact that its position is immensely popular among French voters. Also, minus Britain, most of the European community stands behind France at the U.N., an uncommon occurrence. Especially comforting is the fact that Germany, in a rare move, has out-flanked France in its opposition to America’s policy, thanks to the strident antiwar rhetoric from Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder during his successful reelection campaign.

Meanwhile, experts say, France would not pay that big of a political penalty for challenging the White House at the U.N., in part because it’s not as dependent on the U.S. as Russia is. “There’s not that much of a downside, given that current French leadership is already lukewarm to the United States’ transatlantic agenda,” says Parsons.

But can France openly oppose a war and still protect its significant economic interest in a post-Saddam Iraq? France is Iraq’s biggest trade and investment partner in the West, with French commercial interests in Iraq now worth $4 billion. And Iraq reportedly owes France $4.5 billion.

They can be protected, Parsons says, thanks to France’s historical ties with Iraq. Also, France could gain economic entry when America inevitably calls on its European allies to help rebuild the nation after the war. “I think French will have a reentry strategy no matter what happens,” he says.

No doubt as negotiations intensify this week at the U.N., that reentry strategy will be a topic of much private debate.

But beyond the business headlines, what’s really fascinating about “The Intouchables” is the way it exposes the gulf in racial attitudes between France and the United States, along with another gulf that’s just as wide, the one that has film critics and cinephiles on one side and popular audiences on the other. Viewers in numerous countries have eagerly devoured this feel-good fable about two men of different races and classes who forge an improbable friendship (dubbed by some wags “Driving Monsieur Daisy”). While the audience for foreign-language film is inherently limited in America, there’s no reason to believe it won’t do well here also. At the same time, heated transatlantic debate has erupted over whether “The Intouchables” traffics in offensive racial stereotypes, with Variety critic Jay Weissberg writing an uncharacteristically angry review that accused the film of “Uncle Tom racism” and compared the Senegalese caretaker character to a “performing monkey.”

When Harvey Weinstein first acquired “The Intouchables” in the wake of its smash success in France, he clearly imagined another dark-horse Oscar contender, in the wake of “The Artist.” The film has racked up audience awards at film festival after film festival, and currently stands at No. 93 on IMDb’s user-generated “Top 250″ list. Omar Sy, the charismatic Afro-French actor who plays Driss, the caretaker, won this year’s César award (the French Oscar equivalent) for best actor, beating out actual Oscar winner Jean Dujardin. But with the looming possibility that “The Intouchables” could spark a divisive, soul-searching racial debate — which was precisely what squelched the Oscar hopes of “The Help” — those expectations have been downplayed. (That isn’t why “The Intouchables” is being released this week, with Weinstein and most of the film-biz aristocracy in Cannes, but the coincidence is oddly useful.)

Let me come clean right now and tell you that I enjoyed “The Intouchables” quite a bit. If you’re looking for a lightweight summer change of pace, with just a smidgen of Continental flair, here it is. Both Sy and co-star François Cluzet (of the hit thriller “Tell No One”) are marvelous, the former playing a guy who’s constantly in motion, both physically and psychologically, and the latter playing a depressed and repressed guy who literally can’t move, but whose real imprisonment has more to do with his spirit than his spinal cord. Don’t go expecting serious French art cinema, please; those who have described this movie as something like a mid-’80s Eddie Murphy comedy dressed up with classy Parisian settings are correct. But here’s the question, and I can’t answer it for you: Is that such a bad thing, in itself?

Once is not enough for a movie that’s made this much money, of course, and Weinstein already has an American remake in the works, possibly to star Colin Firth as stick-up-butt wheelchair dude. The real Eddie Murphy has gotten too old to play the loosey-goosey, pot-smoking sidekick, but there’s no shortage of guys who could do it: Jamie Foxx is the default setting these days, but I’d go for the suddenly hot Kevin Hart from “Think Like a Man.” I’m not claiming it’s aesthetically or sociologically valid to remake a French movie that already feels like a reheated Hollywood throwback, by the way. I’m saying it’s a cruel reality, like Dutch elm disease or Adam Sandler, and there’s no way to stop it.

To get back to the case at hand, I do understand what the haters find so offensive about “The Intouchables.” (The infelicitous English title, by the way, reflects the fact that they couldn’t really get away with calling it “The Untouchables,” could they?) I was pretty taken aback by Weissberg’s vituperative review, and I tend to believe that “Uncle Tom” is one of those expressions that white people should pretty much never use. On the other hand, I can only applaud him for abandoning the balanced, analytical mode of trade-magazine criticism and saying exactly what he damn well thinks. (As for comparing a black man to a monkey — well, I understand what Weissberg was getting at, but it’s an error of rhetoric, the sort of comment that makes nuance and context disappear.) And I know for sure, from hearing friends and acquaintances in and around the movie business complain about this film, that Weissberg is not alone.

I believe that Olivier Nakache and Eric Toledano, the writing-directing duo who made “The Intouchables,” are innocent of any bad intentions. In fact, “innocent” isn’t a bad word overall, for this movie and the worldview it represents. The French may pride themselves on being the most worldly and sophisticated of all people, but the debate in France about race and immigration and multiculturalism — which ramped up sharply after the suburban riots of 2005 — can sometimes sound strikingly naive to American ears. Until very recently, mainstream French opinion has resisted thinking about the nation in anything except homogeneous terms, despite growing Arab and black minorities (both immigrant and native-born) and evident social problems with segregation and discrimination. (The French census, for instance, is prohibited from collecting data on race or religion, so no one really knows how many French people are black or Islamic.)

There can be no question that the characters in “The Intouchables” are stereotypes, in the broad sense. Cluzet’s character, Philippe, is an aristocratic zillionaire who lives in an astonishingly luxurious flat in central Paris. Since being injured in a paragliding accident, he’s lived inside a cocoon of money and privilege, surrounded by antiques and modern art and a bevy of assistants. Sy’s character, Driss, is easygoing, good-hearted, lustful and uncultured, and his passions run toward pretty girls, getting high and vintage American R&B. Philippe hires Driss specifically because Driss doesn’t particularly want the job — he only shows up to get a signature for his benefits card — and feels no pity for Philippe.

Which is actually a pretty good reason. You get where this is going, most likely: Driss is a pretty inept caretaker, at least at first, but is the only person Philippe knows who will relate to him man to man. There’s a bit of borderline-homophobic humor about their enforced intimacy; there are interludes with hookers and fast cars and late-night conversations fueled by booze and marijuana. Driss learns to like Mozart and modern art; Philippe learns to get down with Earth Wind & Fire and gets some valuable tips about chicks. It’s probably fair to summarize this movie as being the story of a paralyzed white man who needs the help of a younger, stronger, more virile black man to reconnect with his own masculinity, and if you want to say that narrative reflects an underlying latticework of racist attitudes, I won’t argue with you. Then there’s the complicating factor that in the real-life story on which “The Intouchables” is based, the caretaker was of Algerian origin, and hence Arab rather than black. (The filmmakers have said they wanted to cast Sy, and built the story around him, but it’s certainly possible to render other interpretations.)

But one can concede all of that while still agreeing with French historian and multicultural activist François Durpaire, who has responded to Weissberg by arguing that the huge success of “The Intouchables” is likely to have positive effects in Europe’s emerging discussion of race and culture, even if the movie relies on crude generalizations. (Durpaire adds that if “The Intouchables” is offensive, so were the “Beverly Hills Cop” movies.) Movies are not meant to be seminars in sociology, after all, and most viewers will receive “The Intouchables” as an upbeat story about two guys from vastly different circumstances who turn out to have a lot in common and help each other, etc., rather than a lesson in racial semiotics.

Perhaps the strongest endorsement for “The Intouchables” has come from aging French ultra-nationalist Jean-Marie Le Pen, who has described it as an allegory about how the future of his nation depends on disenfranchised young immigrants from the suburbs. He thinks that’s a “dreadful” vision, mind you — but, seriously, who knew that guy was so smart?

“The Intouchables” opens this week in New York and Los Angeles, with wider national release to follow.

Now the two have finally met face-to-face and the encounter seemed cordial if hardly warm. Following the ceremonial reviewing of the guard of honor – during which Merkel had to gently nudge Hollande in the right direction on the red carpet – the two held an hour -long meeting. They then addressed the throng of international journalists in a joint press conference during which Merkel remained stony-faced during much of Hollande’s comments, interspersed with the odd smile.

The pair did seek to downplay their differences and strike a friendly tone with Merkel even joking that the lightning that had struck Hollande’s plane on his way to Berlin was perhaps a “good omen.”

“I’m not sure whether there is sometimes more divergence perceived in the public realm than there really is,” the chancellor told the press conference. “We are aware of our responsibility, as Germany and France, for a positive development in Europe. Carried by this spirit I believe we will of course find solutions for the different problems.”

Both tried to show a united front on Greece, which risks ejection from the euro zone if it backs anti-austerity parties in the fresh elections likely after the parties failed to form a government. “Just like Frau Merkel,” Hollande said, he wanted Greece to remain in the euro zone while insisting that Athens meet the terms of the bailout agreement.

Yet when it came to the crux of the differences between the two, on austerity versus growth, it was obvious that the only thing that had been agreed so far was that they disagree.

After all, it remains to be seen how Merkel’s strict stance on rapidly reducing budget deficits can be married with Hollande’s plea for some kind of stimulus package to boost growth.

Hollande reiterated his promise to reopen talks about the fiscal pact, the agreement on strict budget discipline which he has said France will not ratify unless a growth element is also adopted.

“I said in the campaign, and I repeat today, that I want to renegotiate what was established at a certain moment,” Hollande told reporters. “Everything that can contribute to growth must be put on the table. I don’t want growth to be just a word, but tangible measures.”

He mentioned boosting competitiveness, as well as Euro bonds – essentially pooling the debt of euro zone members – something Merkel has so far flatly rejected.

He did not, however, mention tinkering with the European Central Bank’s mandate, surely a red line if ever there was one in Berlin.

For all the inauspicious beginnings, observers predict that the two will eventually hit it off. Both play on their modest, down- to-earth style and exude an air of pragmatism rather than charisma. Hollande depicts himself as “Mr Normal” in contrast to the Bling Bling of his predecessor Sarkozy, while the unassuming Merkel is often seen doing her own grocery shopping. And both are said to have a wry sense of humor in private.

Furthermore, Hollande’s gesture of appointing Germanophile Jean-Marc Ayrault as his prime minister will have gone down well in Berlin.

Yet, it is hardly a meeting of equals. Merkel is an old hand in European politics now, in her seventh year in office, while Hollande’s previous executive experience has been confined to serving as mayor of the small town of Tulle.

Furthermore Germany is the EU’s economic powerhouse, with its export-driven economy keeping the rest of the euro zone out of recession, according to figures released on Tuesday. And Berlin has long been calling the political shots in Europe, with the fiscal compact being dreamed up by Merkel, as a way of preventing EU states from getting into deeper debt in the future.

At the same time Merkel is increasingly isolated in Europe, as there is a growing realization that austerity is choking off growth. Hollande knows that other leaders, including conservatives like Italy’s Mario Monti, also want Berlin to budge on its debt reduction fixation.

Hollande came to Berlin straight from his inauguration ceremony in Paris. After beating Sarkozy on May 6 he will feel he has a mandate from the French people to push for a change of direction in Europe. Yet he also faces a tough economic situation back home, with just 0.1 percent growth in the first quarter and growing unemployment, now at a 13-year high of 10 percent. If the economy were to contract even further, it could make it very difficult to fulfill many of his campaign pledges, such as reversing Sarkozy’s pension reforms.

Merkel has her own problems, despite the strong economy. Her party, the conservative CDU, has just suffered a bruising defeat in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia. Her coalition is increasingly fractious, with Bavaria’s CSU leader Horst Seehofer publicly slamming the CDU candidate in North Rhine-Westphalia Norbert Roettgen on TV for his campaign, while the FDP is unpredictable due to an ongoing leadership crisis.

The fact that she needs a two-thirds majority in the Bundestag to ratify the fiscal compact means she is dependent on the opposition SPD. And while the party has broadly backed her euro policy, it has been emboldened by Hollande’s victory and the strong showing in NRW. On Tuesday the party’s leaders said that they would delay the vote on the fiscal pact, originally scheduled for late May, saying it wanted to see concrete growth measures as well as austerity.

That would leave time for Merkel and Hollande to agree to some sort of compromise solution.

The pair said they will seek an agreement ahead of the next big summit of EU leaders in June. “It will be very important that Germany and France present their ideas together at this summit, and we have talked about the preparation,” Merkel said.

They will see each other before that, meeting at an informal dinner of EU leaders on May 23, as well as at the forthcoming NATO and G8 summits.

However, Hollande is unlikely to show much willingness for compromise with Berlin just yet. After all his party is facing legislative elections in mid June and he will want to make sure he is not seen to be backsliding on campaign pledges.

Hollande wants his five-year term to start with his Socialist Party securing control of the National Assembly so that he can push through his agenda. Otherwise he faces a frustrating period of “cohabitation” with a prime minister from the opposing camp, such as occurred when conservative Jacques Chirac’s presidency coincided with the premiership of Socialist Lionel Jospin from 1997 to 2002.

As such Merkel cannot expect Hollande to veer from his insistence on growth measures. And for all his unassuming manner, he could well prove to be a more difficult partner than Sarkozy in the long run.

Nevertheless Merkel is also likely to stand firm on many issues. Asked on Tuesday night if she feared Hollande’s campaign promises she replied coolly: “I am seldom afraid, as fear is not a good counselor in politics.”