Some nations fear being frozen out in the building of a new Iraq, writes Conor O'Clery in Belfast.
The concept of a future Iraq outlined by the British and American leaders at their press conference in Hillsborough Castle yesterday was revolutionary in the true sense. They want to change the government of a nation in the heart of the Arab world. They didn't talk about democracy - that may or may not have been an oversight - but of an Iraq governed by Iraqi people, a "truly representative government", as Tony Blair put it.
It would be, he said, a government that spends its wealth not on palaces and weapons of mass destruction but on the well-being and prosperity of its people. The key, the British Prime Minister said, is for Iraq to be governed by the Iraqi people. George Bush didn't have much more to say about the details.
As in Afghanistan, they would replace a terrorist regime with a government "committed to justice and peace", he stated. He became quite impassioned about his promise that Iraq would be "free". The position of the United States was that "Iraqis are perfectly able to run Iraq and that is what is going to happen," and added it was a "cynical world" that said it was impossible for Iraqis to rule themselves.
Under Saddam Hussein Iraqis did run Iraq, but it was clear what Mr Bush meant - that a future Iraq would not be a dictatorship and would not be a threat to the world. How to get there and who would make the key decisions apparently exercised the minds of Mr Blair and Mr Bush for most of their discussions at Hillsborough.
A three-stage process has been broadly agreed. Mr Bush said the coalition of the US and Britain would work to restore water, electricity and other services; then, as quickly as possible, install an interim Iraqi authority; until a permanent government can be chosen by the Iraqi people.
The first stage is still in embryonic form, but its outlines are clear. Retired general Jay Garner will lead a large Pentagon-run team of American military and diplomatic personnel to take over the work of the 23 government ministries in Baghdad. In practice it is being set up in an ad-hoc way. Gen Garner starts today with about 20 US officials arriving in the town of Umm Qasr next door to Kuwait.
The British have given responsibility for running Basra's affairs to a local sheikh, and the Americans have flown a controversial Iraqi opposition figure, Ahmed Chalabi, into southern Iraq, boosting his position in the scramble for leadership in the interim authority.
The British want the responsibilities to be handed over completely to the Iraqi authority in as short a time as possible, perhaps three months. The Americans talk about a six-month period of coalition control. It won't be a full handover in any event. The US Defence Secretary, Mr Donald Rumsfeld, told a Pentagon briefing on Sunday that British and American officers would retain control of military and intelligence matters after restoring utilities to the Iraqis, and this could last for the full term of the American-British occupation, which US officials predict could be anything up to two years. The coalition partners will also have a political police role.
US Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell, said in Belfast that the coalition would "purge" the Baath party leadership in Iraqi cities and towns.
Then there is the vexed question of who should be on the Iraqi authority and who will have the power of appointment to what will be in effect a temporary government. "The Iraqi people will decide who is on the interim authority," said Mr Bush, but he didn't say how, and there was no chance to press him on this in what passed for a press conference yesterday, with only four questions allowed.
So where does this leave the United Nations? The British, eager to act as a bridge between the US and "old Europe", have been emphasising the importance of the role of the UN, and both occupying powers are committed to getting the UN involved in humanitarian work and reconstruction. But the moral dimension is crucial. In the eyes of a majority of countries in the UN, Iraq has been illegally occupied. For an interim Iraqi authority to work effectively, it must have international recognition. This means getting another resolution passed at the Security Council, which would, as the US President put it, "stand up" the Iraqi authority. Mr Bush also said that the UN had a role in "suggesting people" for the interim Iraqi authority and "being a party to the progress being made in Iraq".
Anyone can suggest anything: the UN will not be given a central role in deciding the composition of the quasi-government that will rule Iraq until the different groups in the country agree on a "representative" form of government.
At the UN, Kofi Annan is trying to broker a deal with the two governments which would help avoid another Security Council shambles that would strengthen the isolationists in Washington. Mr Blair made an indirect appeal to the Security Council yesterday, saying there was no need for the wrangling that marked the failed US-British efforts to find a second resolution authorising force against Saddam Hussein.
It may be wishful thinking, but success in the war will create a new situation and other Security Council members will not want to be frozen out in building a new Iraq.