Among the permanent members of the Security Council -- the US, France, Russia, China and the UK -- only the British, at least those who agree with their prime minister, Tony Blair, have demonstrated the stomach to engage Saddam.

For his loyalty to the American ally, Blair has taken his political lumps domestically. Some critics called him a poodle, a lapdog of the only superpower. But at his recent outing before a conference of labor unions, his reasons for going to war apparently were spelled out compellingly enough to silence the hecklers who had been expected to make life dificult for him but in the end just shut up.

Britain, whose extended period of superpowerdom -- when, as they used to say, the sun never set on its farflung empire -- faded long ago and a diminished nation still is trying to define its place in the world among other middle rank states. Like France, the British have the advantage of that permanent Security Council seat, which enables them to some extent to box above their weight, and Blair evidently feels that being America's closest friend and ally adds further to its stature.

Some folks back home, where Washington-bashing has always had its adherents, beg to differ. These critics would prefer that Blair forget his pal George W. Bush for a bit and stand closer to Paris and Berlin while working harder to build the 15-nation European Union into a countervailing force against perceived American hegemony.

While the focus in the UN remains for the time being on the Security Council, a new session of the General Assembly just got under way and it will be a surprise if an overwhelming majority of the 190 participating members -- traditionally neutral Switzerland is the latest entrant -- don't give Bush and Blair a real earful on Iraq, when this war or peace issue comes up there, as seems likely.

Bush was scheduled to make his case for cleaning Saddam's clocks in a General Assembly address Thursday.

It's become a tradition for the first citizen of the host country to come to New York to talk to the members early in each new session. Regardless of the content of the presidential address, the personal popularity or otherwise of the man delivering it often determined the degree of enthusiasm or lack thereof evinced by his remarks among the UN audience. Most members liked Bill Clinton as a person, forgave his manifest faults and exhibited their approval in the customary manner.

The terrorist attacks of 9/11/01 and the UN's robust rallying of sympathy and support for the stricken US -- feelings, by the way, that even Iraq failed to repudiate -- were thought at the time to have set Washington on a new, friendlier course, away from the initial unilateralism espoused by Bush administration conservatives toward an acceptance of the organization's significant role in world affairs and of the merits of multilateralism in general. Subsequent political trends indicate that this was an overly optimistic expectation.

Many in the UN say it now seems that nothing changed fundamentally after all and that Washington still believes in US uber alles. It's not yet a case of "those-not-with-us-are-against-us," critics are entirely unwelcome, including the noisy rabble sometimes heard in UN halls alongside the East River.

The hyperactivity of the UN Security Council in recent years, with members meeting virtually daily (usually behind closed doors despite lip service paid to "transparency"), has diminished the public image of the General Assembly, even if this is the body that was designed to be a kind of permanent parliament of nations. Except for brief debates on subjects like the US embargo against Cuba and Taiwan's exclusion from UN membership, Western media in recent years seldom paid much attention to what happened in the Assembly hall. Talk, talk; who cared?

The Iraq question may make a difference this year.

As always, the agenda is huge -- the 56th General Assembly that adjourned Monday plowed through 177 items, some of which have been around it seems forever and many of which were just bucked over to the new session.

Many items are considered by committees of the whole, which adopt resolutions for ratification by the plenary body. This is a somewhat cumbersome, time-consuming system, but the UN throughout history has not been economical where the clock is concerned. Time costs money, but you wouldn't think so, folks who watch UN finances complain.

Because of security concerns -- the headquarters is a declared target of terrorist groups -- the UN was closed to the public 9/9 and will remain closed except to pass-holders through 9/20. So much for the first words of the UN Charter "We, the peoples of the United Nations."

City authorities are in control in the vicinity of the UN precinct, which in law is considered international territory (a status that UN officials sidestep when confronted by unexpected problems they are ill-equipped to cope with). As before, citizens of Manhattan will rail against the UN over traffic disruptions and other inconveniences that occur at times like this, but the responsibility is that of the city administration. Many people now believe it was a dumb idea to locate the UN in New York City in the first place. This is a legacy of the Truman administration and of New York's Mayor William O'Dwyer, who almost lost out to Philadelphia, which also bid for the headquarters.

An even dumber idea would be to build a new headquarters where the World Trade Center used to be, as some have proposed. It's a good bet this will not happen.