EVEN though no one knows for certain when the war will end, thoughts have already turned to the nature of the eventual peace in Iraq.

Having resorted to military might to overrun the country, the United States and Britain will find it difficult to step into the role of peacemakers.

For all their claims to be liberators, in the eyes of much of the international community, much of the Arab world and much of Iraq itself, they are aggressors.

There remains a great deal of scepticism over George Bush and Tony Blair's motives for going to war. They face a monumental task to prove their credentials as genuine liberators.

The active support of the United Nations in peacekeeping and regeneration in post-war Iraq is vital.

Immediately, President Bush and Mr Blair must set about repairing the damage caused by their decision to go to war unilaterally.

But the UN must respond in kind. If the UN cannot come to the rescue of a once repressed population in desperate need of humanitarian aid and democracy, then its very existence has to be questioned.

France can be forgiven for resisting the US and Britain's call to war, but it will never be forgiven if it turns its back on the people of Iraq in their time of need.

The resumption of the oil-for-food programme in Iraq, under the auspices of the UN, is essential.

Not only will it provide vital resources to Iraqis, but it will help dispel accusations that the US went to war for control of Iraq's oilfields.

The UN must play a role in peacekeeping in the aftermath of the war. The image of an American occupation after Saddam Hussein is toppled will not further the aim to create security in the wider Middle East.

And the UN must also play a role in overseeing the establishment of a new and genuinely representative government in Iraq.

There must be conclusive proof that the aims of the war have been to make Iraq take control of its own destiny, and not at the mercy of a puppet regime having its strings pulled in Washington.

28/03/2003