On the face of it their positions seem to have hardened. "In an open world, no one can isolate themselves, no one can act alone in the name of all, and no one can accept the anarchy of a society without rules," said the French president, Jacques Chirac, in one of his most explicit attacks to date. "There is no alternative to the United Nations."

Meanwhile the US president, George Bush, insisted it had been right to fight the war, even raising the issue of weapons of mass of destruction and linking the former Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, to terrorism.

"The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. It used those weapons in acts of mass murder, and refused to account for them when confronted by the world," he said.

But behind the rhetoric the battle lines were being drawn. The French were making it clear who was to blame for the mayhem in Iraq. The Americans wanted everyone to know that while they had returned to the UN for help, this was not an admission of guilt.

America has clearly lost the sympathy of an important mediator, the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan. Abandoning his usual bridge-building and fence-sitting language, he delivered a clear critique of preventive action as outlined and practised by the Bush administration, warning that it could lead to "lawlessness" and threaten "stability".

Mr Annan said the UN charter allows military action for the purpose of self-defence, but "until now it has been understood that when states go beyond that and decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, they need the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.

"Now some say this understanding is no longer tenable since an 'armed attack' with weapons of mass destruction could be launched at any time.

"This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years."

The French have made it clear they have no intention of vetoing the forthcoming resolution. But along with many other security council members, they have argued that if there is to be a multilateral force there must be shared responsibility for decision-making and a greater role for the United Nations.

Mr Bush gave a nod in that direction, insisting America was keen to "expand the UN's role in Iraq. As in the aftermath of other conflicts, the United Nations should assist in developing a constitution, training civil servants and conducting free and fair elections."

At this stage, this does not appear to be enough for most members of the security council. And central to the debate is the issue of a timetable for the handover of power from the occupation forces to a sovereign Iraqi government.

"This process must unfold according to the needs of Iraqis, neither hurried nor delayed by the voices of other parties," Mr Bush said, giving a diplomatic jab to both the French and the Germans.

Both Mr Chirac and his German counterpart, Gerhard Schröder, believe that the move to Iraqi sovereignty is crucial to restoring security in the country.

"In Iraq, the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis, who must have sole responsibility for their future, is essential for stability and reconstruction," Mr Chirac said. Both he and Mr Schröder have said they would like to see the transition take place within months.

In all this there is little doubt about who has most to lose. Since Mr Bush's televised address in which he announced that the bill for rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan would be $87bn, his approval ratings have been in freefall. So long as the number of casualties in Iraq keeps rising and the economy remains stagnant there is little of hope of him rebounding.

More contrition before the international community might have eased the way to a favourable resolution. It would also have amounted to an admission of failure for the foreign policy decision most likely to define his presidency.

Bush: 'Iraq needs the help of friends'

· "The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. It used those weapons in acts of mass murder, and refused to account for them when confronted.

The security council was right to vow serious consequences if Iraq refused to comply. And because there were consequences, because a coalition acted to defend the peace, and the credibility of the UN, Iraq is free, and today we are joined by representatives of a liberated country ...

I recognise that some of the sovereign nations of this assembly disagreed with our actions. Yet there was, and there remains, unity among us on the fundamental principles and objectives of the UN.

We are dedicated to the defence of our collective security, and to the advance of human rights. These commitments call us to great work in the world, work we must do together.

The primary goal of our coalition in Iraq is self-government, reached by orderly and democratic means. This process must unfold according to the needs of Iraqis, neither hurried nor delayed by the wishes of other parties. And the UN can contribute greatly to Iraqi self-government.

America is working with friends and allies on a new security council resolution, which will expand the UN's role in Iraq. The UN should assist in developing a constitution, training civil servants, and conducting free and fair elections.

Iraq's new leaders are showing the openness and tolerance that democracy requires, and the courage. Yet every young democracy needs the help of friends. Now Iraq needs and deserves our aid, and all nations of goodwill should step forward."

Annan: 'This is a decisive moment'

"We have come to a fork in the road. This may be a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the United Nations was founded.

At that time, a group of far-sighted leaders, led and inspired by President Franklin Roosevelt ... drew up rules to govern international behaviour and founded a network of institutions with the United Nations at its centre, in which the peoples of the world could work together for the common good.

Now we must decide whether it is possible to continue on the basis agreed then or whether radical changes are needed.

Until now it has been understood that when states decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, they need the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.

Now, some say this understanding is no longer ten able, since an armed attack with weapons of mass destruction could be launched at any time, without warning, or by a clandestine group. Rather than wait for that to happen, they argue, states have the obligation to use force pre-emptively, even on the territory of other states.

This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years.

But it is not enough to denounce unilateralism, unless we also face up squarely to the concerns that make some states feel uniquely vulnerable, and thus drive them to take unilateral action. We must show that those concerns can, and will, be addressed effectively through collective action.

History is a harsh judge - it will not forgive us if we let this moment pass."

Chirac: 'There is no alternative to the UN'

"The United Nations has just weathered one of its most serious trials in its history ... The war, which was started without the authorisation of the security council, has shaken the multilateral system ...

There is no alternative to the United Nations. But in order to meet today's challenges, this funda mental choice expressed by the charter requires a far-reaching reform of our organisation ... Multilateralism is crucial because it ensures the participation by all in managing the affairs of the world ...

In Iraq, the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis, who must have sole responsibility for their destiny, is essential for stability and reconstruction ...

It is up to the United Nations to lend its legitimacy to that process ... It is also up to the UN to assist with the gradual transfer of administrative and economic responsibilities to the Iraqi institutions ...

We are using force to combat terrorism, but that is not enough. It will re-emerge again and again if we allow extremism and fanaticism to flourish, if we fail to realise that it seeks justification in unresolved conflicts and economic and social imbalances in the world ...

Given the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, we reject the policy of fait accompli.

The United Nations suffers from the current weakness of the general assembly and yet it is here a debate should be organised and where a consensus should be crafted regarding solutions to major problems. A culture of confrontation must give way to a culture of action, aimed at achieving our common goals."