The United Nations was designed to deal with disputes among states. It wasn't meant to grapple either with intra-state situations-which it has nevertheless done with a fair measure of success in the form of peacekeeping operations-or with disputes between the UN and a member state, which the Iraq crisis essentially sxxxxxxxx was. The UN-Iraq crisis was potentially capable of resolution without the use of force, unilateral or otherwise. The states concerned did try to obtain the endorsement of the Security Council for the war, but the Council did not oblige them. They then decided to bypass the UN for reasons of their own. The UN was thus treated with scorn by the unilateralists. On the other hand, had the Security Council favoured the US with the resolution of its choice, would it not have been criticised for being a puppet or an instrument of American foreign policy? Would the UN's image have been enhanced if it had provided a fig leaf of legality for the war?

In the coming months, America will realise that it needs the UN more than any other country. The interim administration that it might set up in Iraq will desperately seek legitimacy. The US-UK combine may prevail upon a few nations in the region and beyond to recognise the regime, but the UN alone can accord the kind of legitimacy that would make the post-Saddam Iraq a respectable member of the comity of nations.

Iraq also continues to be subject to the sanctions imposed by the Security Council. Neither the occupying powers nor the transitional authority can undertake any meaningful economic activity in the country except what may be permitted under the sanctions regime. This means the reconstruction of the war-ravaged infrastructure cannot even begin since, in terms of sanctions, it could contribute to Iraq's war-making capacity. Iraq's oil can be sold only under the oil-for-food formula and the proceeds used only for purposes defined by the Security Council. So, as of now, Iraqi oil cannot be sold for financing reconstruction projects. The sanctions will have to be scrapped by a Security Council resolution to enable that to happen.

The UN's role in the humanitarian field has been acknowledged even by the Bush Administration. This is a vital role whose importance must not be minimised. The IMF, the World Bank and many potential donors have said they will contribute funds for humanitarian needs only via the UN.

People everywhere have an idealised view of the UN. They invest the UN of their vision with powers and capability that the real UN simply does not and will never have. It was to that

"ideal" UN that India had taken the Kashmir question in the early days of its independence. But even the imperfect UN that we have is worth preserving and strengthening.

(The author is former ambassador of India and UN under secretary-general)