THE reputation of the United Nations has not fared well in the build-up to the war against Iraq. The lack of unequivocal support for action by America and Britain has undermined the UN's position and set a dangerous precedent for the world.

But despite those divisions, it remains vital for world security that the UN is given a chance to rebuild its credibility as a unifying force.

What is the alternative? The most powerful countries going it alone against regimes they don't like has frightening implications.

That rebuilding process must start today at the crucial Belfast summit at which George Bush and Tony Blair will thrash out a plan for post-Saddam Iraq.

Washington is believed to be proposing that the UN is only given a subsidiary role in running the new Iraq, with the power held by a US-run administration.

This must be fiercely resisted by Britain. There is already great cynicism around the world about the justification for this war, evil though Saddam undoubtedly is.

The potential for those doubts to grow into seething international bitterness is clear if, once the fighting is over, America's arrogance makes it believe it has the right to place itself in charge.

The aim of this war is to overthrow a tyrannical regime and give the country back to the Iraqi people so that they can build a more peaceful and democratic future.

That must be done under the auspices of the UN, not George Bush's hawks.

Tony Blair has backed the American President all the way, risking his own political future in the process.

But his friendship and support must find its limits today. Just because Mr Blair has been Mr Bush's unswerving supporter in the bloody battle to oust Saddam, it does not mean he should agree to America holding on to the reins of power once the job is done.

The UN, for all its faults, must be seen to be playing a leading role in what happens next in a war-ravaged country in the world's most volatile region.

07/04/2003