Since a series of compromises last week, the United States hardened its draft U.N. resolution but France, Russia and China on Tuesday still found the proposals difficult to accept. The Bush administration had dropped an earlier demand for explicit U.N. authorization for military action against Iraq. But in insisting on intrusive U.N. weapons inspections, the new U.S. draft recalled that Iraq had been warned of "serious consequences" and said Baghdad was in "material breach" of U.N. resolutions, according to the text obtained by Reuters.

Russia and France, backed by China, fear this is a hidden trigger to attack Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, while diplomats said Washington considered it a warning for Baghdad to take U.N. Security Council demands seriously.

"After headlines in French and American papers last week saying the United States had backed down, it wants to squeeze a bit more out of the resolution," said a diplomat close to the negotiations, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Little progress was reported at two meetings the United States called on Tuesday among the four other U.N. Security Council members with veto power -- Russia, France, China and Britain. But the tempo of the talks among the five, which had been stalled for two weeks, seemed back on track.

One envoy said the ambassadors ended the day by discussing the less controversial preambular parts of the text.

U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte told reporters after the talks, "We want to be sure that we have a sufficient level of understanding between us -- first of all to ensure that there is no veto in the offing, and to the extent possible we would like to put this forward as a consensus document."

He said no date was set yet for the next meeting. "We've got to take stock of what we've discussed," Negroponte said.

In Moscow, Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov was quoted as telling Russian journalists after he met chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, "The American draft resolution ... does not, for the moment, meet the criteria which the Russian side had previously outlined and stands by now."

And in Luxembourg, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "Some progress is still needed and so we have much work to do."

France had advocated two resolutions, one to make demands and another to authorize force. But Villepin said Paris was focusing on "two stages," which is now part of the U.S. draft.

The American proposals call for a Security Council meeting if U.N. weapons inspectors report violations by Iraq. But Washington will not commit itself to a second vote.

"In practice somebody will put down a (second) resolution at that point," British Ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock told Charlie Rose's U.S. public television program on the weekend.

"The U.S. is saying it will not be committed to wait for the result... because the U.N. may not get it right," he said.

The Bush administration also dropped a provision granting the five permanent council members a right to participate in U.N. inspections. But it has kept in, albeit provisionally, a demand for inspectors to be accompanied by troops if Iraq blocks their route.

TIMELINES

Under the latest version of the U.S. draft, Iraq would be required to file a "full, final and complete declaration" of its banned weapons programs within 30 days after adoption of the resolution and has to allow access to any site, including Saddam's eight president compounds.

Under a loose timeline, the U.S. text gives U.N. arms inspectors a maximum of 45 days to begin work after the resolution is adopted and another 60 days to report to the council. But they could report any serious violation to the 15-member body before then.

Asked if this timeline changed any military plans, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the U.S. military Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a news conference he knew of no major delays.

"The short answer is that the U.S. military remains capable of responding to the president whenever he asks that it respond," Myers said.

Expressing impatience, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters: "It is coming down to the end. The United Nations does not have forever, and we'll continue to work it and see when we get an agreement."

While no one doubts the United States can move militarily against Iraq without any U.N. resolution, political support before, during and after any invasion would be difficult.

Even close ally Britain would have trouble from its Parliament joining a military action without U.N. cover.

"We need international consensus more than the United States only to the degree that we are not a superpower so world opposition to what we are doing hurts us more than it hurts the United States," Greenstock said.

PHOTO CAPTION

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte talks with reporters after a private meeting at the British Mission to the U.N. in New York, Tuesday October 22, 2002. He said still more time was needed for members of the Security Council to work out an agreement on a resolution on Iraq. (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews)