As Britain sought desperately to broker agreement on a US-backed Security Council resolution on Iraq yesterday, differences between London and Washington have been forced into the open, with the US publicly acknowledging that the outcome could affect the British military role in any US-led invasion, writes Conor O'Clery, North America Editor, at the United Nations
Asked at a Pentagon briefing if the US would go to war without Great Britain, the Defence Secretary, Mr Donald Rumsfeld, said that the British role was "unclear" in the event that a decision was made to use force.
Mr Rumsfeld, who said he had just talked with the British Defence Ministry, added that "until we know what the resolution is, we don't know to what extent their role will be".
However, the British government expressed surprise at his comments. A spokesman at 10 Downing Street said nothing had changed in terms of the British government's commitment to seek a second UN resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq, or the continuing British contribution to the military build-up and preparation in the Gulf.
Downing Street's short and simple response seemed designed to dispel any hopes Mr Rumsfeld's comments may have encouraged among Labour anti-war rebels about the possibility of a rift in the British/US alliance.
The British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, is facing a domestic crisis at the prospect of British forces taking part in an invasion of Iraq without the backing of the UN Security Council.
Some 26,000 British troops are in the Gulf region, backing up a US force which has now reached 225,000.
The US and British are expected to call for a vote tomorrow or Friday on their amended resolution finding that Iraq will have failed to disarm if it does not fulfil a list of disarmament tasks set out in an appendix.
White House spokesman Mr Ari Fleischer said: "The vote will take place this week...There's room for a little more diplomacy here, but not much room and not much time."
The US, at the urging of Britain, is considering a compromise deadline of 10 days for Iraq to make a strategic decision to disarm and provide evidence of the destruction of banned weapons.
The British ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, said: "The UK is in a negotiation and is prepared to look at timelines and tests together, but I'm pretty sure we're talking about action in March. We are busting a gut to see if we can get greater consensus in the council."
French diplomats said the amended resolution would still mean authorising war, which France is unwilling to do, but the French Foreign Ministry in Paris indicated it was open to new ideas.
Mr Blair said yesterday he was working "flat out" for a new Security Council resolution. His efforts are directed to the six undecided members, Angola, Guinea, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico and Pakistan.
The search for the necessary nine votes was set back when a spokesman for Pakistan's ruling party said the country would abstain on the resolution.
Pakistani Prime Minister Mr Zafarullah Khan Jamali said: "We do not want to see the destruction of the Iraqi people; the destruction of the country." In Baghdad, UNMOVIC spokesman Mr Hiro Ueki said the Iraqis had destroyed three more al-Samoud 2 missiles, bringing the total destroyed to 55.