UNITED NATIONS (REUTERS) — The United States, Britain and Spain submitted Monday a draft resolution to a polarized U.N. Security Council that said Baghdad had missed a “final opportunity” to disarm peacefully and avoid war.

The move opened an intensive period of diplomacy. France and Germany came out strongly against the draft and a shift to a “logic of war,” circulating a rival proposal that would extend U.N. inspections for at least four months. Russia and China backed the French proposal.

No vote was expected on the new resolution, introduced formally by Britain, for another two weeks. Members are expected to wait until after chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix speaks to the council around March 7.

Fears of war pushed stock prices sharply lower in most of the world’s major financial markets after the resolution was circulated. The dollar fell against Europe’s single currency, the euro, and crude oil and gold futures jumped in New York.

The draft resolution sets no explicit deadline, although its adoption would give the green light for war. Its operative paragraph says simply that the Security Council “decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441.”

Getting approval for the U.S.-British resolution is an uphill battle in obtaining the minimum nine positive votes and no veto from France, Russia and China. So far only Bulgaria, in addition to Spain, is a sure vote with other members, like Germany and Syria, either supporting France or undecided.

The swing votes are considered to be Angola, Cameroon and Guinea in Africa as well as Pakistan and Chile and Mexico in Latin America.

Resolution 1441, adopted Nov. 8, 2002, gave Iraq a last chance to disclose any weapons of mass destruction programs or be in “further material breach” of its obligations.

The new resolution has a preamble of 11 paragraphs quoting liberally from Resolution 1441, which threatened “serious consequences” if Iraq did not disclose all its weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq denies it has any such weapons and says it is cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors.

U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte called on the council to support the “prompt adoption of this very straightforward resolution. He said “Iraq itself must bear the consequences of its continued disregard for the council’s decisions” and declared that “the time is short.”

British Ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock told reporters, after a closed-door council session, “Yes, we are asking hard decisions of the council. Yes, members of the council would much rather not be put in that position at this time, and I can understand that. Iraq has a final chance to disarm.”

French plan

France, which has led the anti-war opposition that has strong support throughout the world, floated a “memorandum” which would lengthen U.N. weapons inspections by about four months.

It would bring in additional inspectors, give them more sophisticated equipment and require them to report on their progress to the council every three weeks.

In Berlin, French President Jacques Chirac said after talks with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder: “We see no reason in this context to change our logic, which is a logic of peace, and to switch to a logic of war.”

Asked about the French memorandum, Greenstock said, “Inspections reinforced, without full cooperation, are like a ship without fuel. It’s been tossed around on the waves, and it’s not getting to port.”

China’s ambassador, Wang Yingfan, said although he supported the French proposals, which he called the “majority view,” Beijing would study carefully the new draft resolution in hopes for a unified council. “I still hope we could work together,” Wang said.

President Bush said the U.N.’s future was at stake. “It’s a moment to determine, for this body that we hope continues, to determine whether or not it is going to be relevant as the world confronts the threats of the 21st century,” he said at the White House.”

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer appeared to stiffen the rhetoric against Iraq, reviving the U.S. goal of “regime change” in Baghdad, meaning ousting President Saddam Hussein. That goal has not been and would not be mentioned in any U.N. resolution.

“The only issue the president is concerned with is the total and complete disarmament of Iraq and regime change in Iraq,” Fleischer told reporters.

‘Northern front’

The United States has reserved the right to wage war on Iraq, regardless of whether the United Nations supports it. But Security Council backing would give any war international legitimacy, which Britain and others seek and Washington may need to get financial support for rebuilding Iraq.

In a related development, Turkey’s government agreed Monday to host U.S. combat troops for a “northern front” against Iraq, but it is referring the issue to its Cabinet.

Before the resolution is adopted or rejected, Saddam faces a test on whether or not he will destroy dozens of missiles and their component parts by March 1 as ordered Friday by Blix.

Destruction of the Al-Samoud 2 missiles, which have a range that exceeds U.N. limits, would be a blow to Iraq as it prepares for a possible invasion by U.S. forces.

If it does not destroy them, the United States and Britain could use this as proof Iraq is not cooperating with the United Nations, showing that war is justified.

Blix knocked down Iraqi hopes for a continuing dialogue with the United Nations on the missiles. “We have set a date for the commencement of the destruction of these missiles, and we expect that to be respected,” he said Monday.

In an interview with Saddam, CBS News anchorman Dan Rather indicated the Iraqi leader did not intend to destroy his Al-Samoud 2 missiles.