POTENTIALLY damaging divisions between America and Europe over the UN’s role in postwar Iraq surfaced yesterday when Nato and European Foreign Ministers met Colin Powell for talks intended to mend strained relations.

After weeks of disagreement, punctuated by angry verbal exchanges between hawks in the Bush Administration and antiwar nations in Europe, the US Secretary of State and his counterparts from 22 nations said that they had succeeded in putting past differences behind them and focusing on the future.

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, the Nato Secretary- General who chaired the talks, said that they had been “frank and direct” but emphasised that they were “calm and without acrimony”. That impression was confirmed by the generally relaxed mood of the 21 separate bilateral sessions that General Powell had with his counterparts, most of whom regard him as the most acceptable senior figure in the Bush Administration. “Today’s meetings show that we are through the worst,” said Lord Robertson, who added that Nato members were even discussing sending alliance peacekeepers to Iraq in operations similar to those in Afghanistan.

But the upbeat assessment failed to reflect fundamental differences between Europe and America on the postwar plan for Iraq and the need to get the peace process moving in the Middle East.

General Powell said that Washington wanted the international community to play a role in Iraq after the war. He would be speaking to Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, about the appointment of a special representative to supervise humanitarian aid.

But he emphasised that America had not yet made up its mind about what the UN’s political contribution would be. “We all understand the UN must play a role, but the nature remains to be seen.”

The choices are many. The UN could be limited to purely humanitarian efforts or it could have a central role in shaping a future Iraqi government, the country’s new constitution and even helping run an interim administration.

General Powell made it clear that America and its coalition partners would be making the key decisions. He said that those countries who had paid the economic and political costs and had sacrificed the lives of their troops would “play the leading role to determine the way forward”.

After his bruising experience last month, when he failed to win the backing of the Security Council to authorise the war in Iraq, General Powell is clearly loath to allow the body any control over the shape of the post-Saddam government. Senior members of the Bush Administration are even less enthusiastic.

His comments could not have been more different than those of European states that have been most critical of US policy in Iraq.

Even before yesterday’s meeting Gerhard Schröder, the German Chancellor, said that Berlin would insist on a key role for the UN. “After this war, the United Nations must play the central role as far as the future of Iraq and the new political order is concerned.”

George Papandreou, the Greek Foreign Minister, whose country holds the European Union presidency, said: “I can say that a UN resolution will be a prerequisite for full involvement of the EU in post-conflict reconstruction.”

Dominique de Villepin, the French Foreign Minister, insisted that Paris was willing to be pragmatic. He even said that plans for a US administration for Iraq, under the command of the Pentagon, could be acceptable for the immediate period after the war.

He also added his voice to the chorus of calls from European countries that a serious diplomatic effort has to be made to halt the violence between Israelis and Palestinians and publish the “road map”, the peace initiative, which has been repeatedly delayed.

Times Recommends

• Henning Mankell: ‘If Wallander was alive, I wouldn’t be a friend of his’
• Secret society's skull and crossbones for sale
• Nigerian leader vanishes after medical treatment