But after a long day of back-to-back meetings between Secretary of State Colin L. Powell with foreign ministers of 23 European countries, it was apparent that many of the differences that divided the allies over going to war against Iraq would remain as they faced the issue of Iraq's future.

Mr. Powell said that at least initially, the military coalition led by the United States and Britain "has to play the leading role in determining the way forward" but that "this is not to say that we have to shut others out and not say that we will not work in partnership with the international community and especially with the United Nations."

Sounding a somewhat different note, several European leaders said that the United Nations should play more of an organizing role as quickly as possible. The European Union has said that only some kind of an international imprimateur on the occupation can avoid continuing bitterness against the war in the Middle East.

The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, who led the successful drive to thwart United Nations authorization of the war last month, said that "when the time is ready, we believe that the United Nations should have a central role to play." He did say, however, that as a practical matter, its role could be phased in.

Despite these differences, American and European officials proclaimed themselves extremely pleased with the relatively harmonious atmosphere they had managed to establish, only a few weeks after the United Nations discussions on Iraq had dissolved in acrimonious accusations on the eve of President Bush's decision to go to war.

Mr. Powell said he "sensed a coming together of the trans-Atlantic community to work on the rebuilding" of Iraq. And Mr. de Villepin also stressed that France would look past his previous battles with Mr. Powell. "I think we should be very pragmatic," he said.

With news from the battles in Iraq spreading through NATO headquarters, there was an unusual atmosphere of drama and expectation running through what amounted to the first major international meeting to discuss the war since it beginning two weeks ago.

Perhaps because the news of the last day or two suggested that the tide on the battlefield was turning against Saddam Hussein, there was less talk of Europeans warning the United States about the futility of war and more focus on what should happen in the future.

The session today had not been scheduled until the weekend. In testimony to Secretary Powell's continuing influence in Europe, virtually the entire leadership of the foreign ministries of Europe, including Russia, came to Brussels with only a day or two of notice.

Mr. Powell then kept to a nearly frantic pace here, holding more than 20 events, including one-on-one meetings and broadcast interviews, all intended to demonstrate that the United States still cared about European leaders' opinions, even though it was ignoring the overwhelming antipathy toward the war by Europe's peoples.

In news conferences throughout the afternoon, various envoys all sounded the same themes and even the same words. "Pragmatic" was the main one, referring to the arrangements that would have to be made for postwar Iraq. Many officials spoke of a "phased" or "sequenced" transition from an American occupation to an eventual internationally supervised authority working in tandem with an Iraqi government.

Few denied that the divisions of the past several months over Iraq continued to be painfully felt. But they sought to emphasize the urgency of getting past them.

The secretary General of NATO, Lord Robertson, was asked whether his optimism about the future meant that all the past divisions had gone.

"I'm always optimistic, but I'm not stupid," he said. "Of course it's been a difficult period to go through but I believe that after today's meeting we have been through the worst."

Many Europeans expressed gratitude to Mr. Powell for arranging the meeting, which they said showed that the United States would listen to them in the future on Iraq and also on the need for accelerating the Middle East peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

Many also cited the need for a postwar Iraq to involve Iraqis in the government as quickly as possible. Chris Patten, commissioner for external relations at the European Union, said that it was imperative not only to have a major United Nations role, but also to involve Iraqis from inside the current regime and Muslim neighbors of Iraq to be involved in its reconstruction.

"All those things are blindingly obvious," he said. "What is less obvious is exactly how you sequence all these arrangements. I think that even if he didn't know before, the Secretary of State is now very well aware of the importance which the European Union attaches to a UN role."

One extraordinary aspect of the atmosphere here was the extent to which the widely reported differences within the Bush administration over the role of the United Nations, in the past and in the future, had become a global political fact of life.

Mr. Powell is perceived privately by many of the envoys here as a diplomat committed to international institutions and indeed to diplomacy who is sometimes undercut by his colleagues at the Defense Department.

"United States diplomacy is alive and well," Mr. Powell said sharply to one questioner at a news conference asking whether the United States was committed to political solutions to avoid war. "That's why I'm here today."

A senior European diplomat, speaking without attribution, said it was useless for outsiders to dwell on such matters as Bush administration infighting. "We can't base European policy on criticizing America," he added. "We can't base European policy on persuading the Pentagon."

In fact, administration officials say that internal differences will have to be resolved before the United States can work on a deal on the United Nations. Another issue relates to whether NATO will play any kind of role in the future of Iraq.

Many of the more conservative members of the Bush administration say they want only a minimal United Nations role, perhaps coordinating relief but not in governing. Others say they want no organized role for NATO.

The reasons for the opposition to these organizations' becoming involved relate to more than a simple belief that it should be up to those willing to go to war to decide what sorts of arrangements should be made for the country's future.

Haunted by the experience of joint peacekeeping and other kinds of operations in the Balkans in the 1990's, many in the administration say that they do not want to be hampered by NATO or the United Nations, especially if, as seems likely, the security situation in Iraq remains extremely unstable after the country is occupied.

British and American military authorities are adamant about wanting full latitude to deal with truck bombings, guerrilla attacks or other likely disturbances in a postwar Iraq without having to get permission from an outside body that was unsympathetic or split over the war in the first place.

Mr. Powell and others in the administration, on the other hand, say that while sympathizing with this need, the Europeans are right to believe that a full United Nations role might help lend legitimacy to a postwar Iraq occupation and reduce hostility toward it in the region and around the world.

The secretary of state has begun speaking of the United Nations as serving as a "chapeau" for the Iraqi government -- employing a diplomatic expression borrowed from the French word for hat -- in that it would provide cover and legitimacy.

He has also said that the United Nations would serve as a "vessel" for receiving international assistance and perhaps reconstruction aid that might not otherwise be channeled to an interim Iraqi regime set up by conquerors.

Lord Robertson of NATO said there was an "emerging consensus" about the importance of the United Nations. But there was less of a consensus, others said, about whether NATO would be involved in peacekeeping. Lord Robertson said "some nations" favored a NATO role but "none excluded it."

What distinguished the session here, he said, was "a complete lack of acrimony" from the discussions of the last several months. He praised Mr. Powell for coming to consult, listen and to report on the American view of the war. On that score, Mr. Powell was upbeat, as he has been in recent days, spreading the word that he had full confidence in the war effort despite criticism being heard about tactics from officers in the field.

It was "a very successful day from my perspective," he said, adding that the "serious" and "heated" disagreements of the past should now be placed by a new alignment in order "to serve the Iraqi people."

As for the postwar government of Iraqis, Mr. Powell said they would consist of "a combination of those who struggled on the outside as well as those on the inside." The balance of which Iraqis are to serve with some from the anti-Saddam opposition having allies in the administration may well serve as a major point of contention in the future, administration officials say.

Mr. Powell was also asked by a skeptical European journalist why American and British armed forces had not yet found any evidence of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, which Mr. Bush made a reason for the war.

"We will continue to search for weapons of mass destruction, and I'm quite confident they will be found," he said.

(China Daily April 4, 2003)