"While the U.S. and Britain now - finally - accept their obligations under international law, what this (U.N.) resolution boils down to is legitimisation of an illegal war and of an open-ended occupation," read the Guardian editorial Saturday, May 10.

"It gives them a free hand in Iraq. What it will give Iraqis is much less clear," the article entitled "The new caliphs", added.

The resolution would immediately lift United Nations sanctions against Iraq and put its oil revenues into a new Iraqi Assistance Fund to be spent "at the direction" of the U.S.-led occupying powers.

But the document only allows the U.N. an essentially supervisory role and relegates the international body to providing humanitarian relief and support in the country's reconstruction. The United States also firmly opposes the return of U.N. weapons inspectors.

Blair Still Has Role

Condemning the resolution as "deeply unsatisfactory", the Guardian criticized British Prime Minister Tony Blair for failing to push harder for a bigger U.N. role.

"Blair still has a lot of explaining to do. Where is the 'vital role' for the U.N. that he promised?"

Blair had earlier touted that the threat thought to be posed by Iraq’s weapons are the principal reason for launching war.

Stressing the importance of the immediate return of U.N. weapons inspectors, the British newspaper said that without an independent, international verification of Iraq’s weapons capability, any future U.S. and British evidence showing their action to be justified “may not be believed,"

"Suspicions gain ground that Washington and London exaggerated the weapons of mass destruction threat for political purposes, that their intelligence was either faulty or used selectively, and that they now have something to hide," read the editorial.

"What an irony, and what a disgrace, that after years of complaining about Saddam's obstruction of inspections, the U.S. is now itself obstructing them."

“Vociferous Opposition”

As the U.S. and Britain sees no role for the U.N. inspectors in the foreseeable future, other veto-wielding countries are still standing on the opposite sides.

The draft resolution will probably face amendments from France and Russia, who have favored suspending the sanctions but advocate some control being vested in the U.N. until an Iraqi government is established.

Russia wants to see a strong role for the U.N. to give any U.S.-chosen Iraqi authority international legitimacy. While French president Jacques Chirac intimated that there was room for negotiation, saying "I can confirm to you that France's will [is] to undertake discussions on the future of this country in an open and constructive spirit."

Russia and France also want the U.N. to follow procedures - opposed by Washington - which would require U.N. arms inspectors to declare Iraq free of weapons of mass destruction.

But no ground is given to Russia's demand by Washington or London. The U.S. own search teams are now working for weeks in Iraq, but they have “found nothing of any great significance.”

In a further sign of the confusion over the U.S. role in Iraq, the defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Friday, May 9, that a one-year timeline attached to the presence of U.S. and British forces in Iraq was probably "just a review period" in the overall postwar plan.

"Anyone who thinks they know how long it's going to take is fooling themselves," Rumsfeld said. It's not knowable," he added

“Appropriate”

The U.S. draft resolution envisages a similarly tight U.S.-British grip, also for at least one year, on exploitation of and revenue from Iraq's oil once U.N. controls, specifically the oil-for-food program, are phased out.

“Common sense again suggests that the U.N. should be afforded a leading role, as in Afghanistan, in facilitating the creation of a post-Saddam system of governance,” said the Guardian editorial.

Outside the U.N., the proposals provoked a vociferous response from the European Union's commissioner for aid and development, Poul Nielsen, who accused America of seeking to seize control of Iraq's vast oil wealth.

Nielson, a Dane who has just returned from a three-day fact-finding mission to Iraq said the U.S. was "on its way to becoming a member of Opec", the Middle Eastern oil cartel.

"They will appropriate the oil," he told the Danish public service DR radio station. "It is very difficult to see how this would make sense in any other way.”

"The unwillingness to give the U.N. a genuine, legal well-defined role, also in the broader context of rebuilding Iraq after Saddam ... speaks a language that is quite clear."

Eager to avoid another bitter transatlantic diplomatic row, the commission headquarters issued a swift rebuttal, saying Nielson's views did not "reflect the opinion of the commission as a whole".