No more time for Saddam, insists Washington

WASHINGTON - The United States is rejecting out of hand any long extension for Iraq to disarm, and there are signs that President George W. Bush is running out of patience with diplomatic manoeuvring.

Senior White House aides now appear to accept that a United Nations Security Council resolution setting a deadline for war with Iraq faces defeat.

The Bush Administration had hoped to win a council majority even if the draft resolution giving President Saddam Hussein until Monday to give up banned weapons or face military action was then vetoed by France or Russia. A suggestion by the six undecided, non-permanent council members - which have been the target of intense lobbying - that the deadline be extended into next month or beyond was described as a non-starter by the US.

"There's room for a little more diplomacy here but not much room and not much time," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.

He insisted that a vote on a new resolution would take place this week.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice made clear US impatience: "The Security Council needs to stand up, give him [Saddam] a very clear message that he needs to disarm - that he has days, not weeks, to disarm.

"We've lost ground in trying to find a diplomatic solution because the world has not spoken with one voice," she told National Public Radio.

For the first time, the US has suggested that Britain may have to reduce its role in a war - or not take part at all - because of political difficulties facing Prime Minister Tony Blair.

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said: "To the extent they are able to participate, in the event that the President decides to use force, that would obviously be welcomed.

"To the extent they're not, there are work-arounds and they would not be involved, at least in that phase."

But Mr Rumsfeld later issued a statement backing away from his suggestion that Britain might not fight alongside the United States.

"In the event that a decision to use force is made, we have every reason to believe there will be a significant military contribution from the UK," he said.

His remarks were meant to point out that obtaining a Security Council resolution was "important to the UK", and the US supported this aim.

British officials played down the significance of Mr Rumsfeld's remarks, professing optimism that Britain and the US were on track to obtain the nine Security Council votes needed to secure at least a "moral majority".

Mr Blair's spokesman said Britain's focus remained on a second UN resolution, and stressed "there has been total co-operation in military planning".

But Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's outgoing Ambassador to Washington, suggested that the US could go ahead without Britain if necessary.

AGENCIES, INDEPENDENT