A year later, although al-Qaeda has hit soft targets elsewhere, its threats to attack the United States and Britain have not materialised. India and Pakistan are restoring air and land links, and war is no longer imminent though a solution to the Kashmir problem is unlikely. The defining event was the removal of Saddam�s regime in Iraq after only 21 days of fighting with few casualties.

Earlier in February, Germany, America�s most loyal and steadfast European ally for 50 years since the end of the Second World War, joined Russia and France in opposing the US in a public stand-off in the UNSC; it marked the end of an era. When a German Chancellor is closer to a Russian President and at odds with an American President, this is a different world. The French and German leaders would probably have persuaded Chinese President Jiang Zemin to join them if Jiang had not been so focussed on China�s economic restructuring that requires stable relations with the United States to encourage more trade and investments. China is as strongly against United States unilateralism as France, Germany or Russia. The Chinese describe it as hegemony. But for a long while China needs equable relations with the United States so that it can grow its economy.

Is this a one-off breach, an accident that both sides can put behind them? Or is it something deeper, more basic? NATO now lacks a common enemy in place of the former Soviet Union. The war in Iraq highlighted this problem. It may have profound geopolitical consequences whose full impact may not be evident for many years. The war shattered the definition of �the West� that for so long was the foundation of global stability during the Cold War. On 23 May, France and Germany supported a new UNSC resolution giving the US the lead role in administering Iraq. But can TransAtlantic relations ever return to the previous level of intimacy? This is not just an abstract question because terrorism by Islamic fanatics, the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the shape of the Middle East after Iraq may sharpen TransAtlantic differences.

For Americans after 9/11 the number one enemy is terrorism by Islamic extremists. Many American policy makers believe that the radical Islam of the extremists and the tyranny of Saddam are symptoms of a deeper malaise infecting the Arab world. Some compare the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption of terror to the Truman Doctrine of containment of communism half a century earlier. A recent NY Times editorial said: "The end goal is a transformed region in which autocratic governments open the windows to democracy while their moribund societies join the global economy." To achieve this goal, the US has marshalled its enormous power and influence to bear on the Middle East.

Europeans agree that terrorism is a problem, but it�s one that Europe has learned to live with, ETA the Basque separatists, the Red Brigade in Germany and the IRA in Britain. They have not suffered a shock like 9/11 and do not feel so vulnerable, in part because since 9/11 Al Qaeda has concentrated its threats on America and Britain. With their long experience in the Middle East, Europeans are also more sceptical about changing the region�s basic dynamics.

Europeans regard the primary cause of terrorism as the unending Israeli-Palestinian conflict and America�s unqualified support for Israel. They believe that to solve terrorism this cause must be removed. They find it difficult to refute the Arab view that without unqualified American support and the use of its veto in the UNSC, Israel�s policies towards the Palestinians would soon become untenable. Europe is much closer geographically to the Middle East and will suffer directly from any fallout if a war with WMD breaks out across the Mediterranean between Arabs and Israelis. Europeans are also mindful of their own substantial Muslim minorities, (13/14 million Muslims in the European Union of whom 4/5 million North Africans are in France alone, and 1.5 million in Britain). They believe that a just and enduring settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is possible if America not only wills it, but also works in close partnership with a Europe that is seen by the Arabs as more even-handed than the US. Such a settlement will allow Islamic anger to subside and Europe�s Muslim problems to become less difficult to manage.

The United States does not agree that the Arab-Israeli conflict is the primary cause of terrorism. It believes that terrorism by Islamic militants has to be considered in the context of the wider problems of the Middle East and the Arab/Muslim world. It sees the need to change the geo-political balance in the Middle East and reshape the political structures of Arab countries to make them more democratic and focussed on development and progress.

Washington believes this will allow an Israeli-Palestinian settlement in which all Israel�s neighbours, including Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Iraq, will accept Israel�s right to exist in something more than the cold peace that now exists between Egypt and Israel. Furthermore placing the power of the United States right in the heart of the Middle East, in Iraq and the Gulf States, will result in Iran and Syria being flanked by American-friendly states - Iran by Afghanistan to its east and Iraq to its west, and Syria by Israel, Turkey and Iraq. As Colin Powell told Syrian President Bashir Asad the power equation in the region has changed, and governments in the region have to adjust to the new strategic situation.

Also Saudi Arabia will no longer be so indispensable to America�s strategic interests. America will be in a better position to persuade the Saudis that it would be in their interest to stop the funding and export of Wahhabism. For years many Saudis and others in the oil-rich Gulf States have bought off their extremists by funding their activities in the world beyond the Arabian Peninsula. The Saudis paid for the building of mosques and madrasahs world wide and sent ulemas to preach Wahhabism, a severe, fanatical and anti-Western version of Islam. The resulting heightened religiosity has made it easier for Islamic extremists to recruit many Muslims for their jihad of terror. The May 13 suicide bombing in Riyadh and another on May 16 in Casablanca were recent reminders of the dangers of this Saudi policy.

Whether the changes in the Middle East after the fall of Saddam�s Iraq can lead to a stable balance in the longer term is not certain. Permanent peaceful co-existence between Arabs and Israelis will be difficult to achieve. A stop to this blood-letting may not dissipate Arab hatred and bitterness against Israelis and Jews. These deep visceral animosities have been socially institutionalised in Palestine and its neighbouring Arab countries. Ever since the founding of Israel, Arabs in the Middle East have been taught to hate Israelis and Jews in their schools, madrasahs and mosques, reinforced regularly by repeated media images of powerful Israeli military incursions into the occupied Palestinian territories. After 40 years of patchy economic development, many Arabs feel anger and humiliation that their once glorious Islamic civilisation has been diminished by the West, especially America, and corrupted by its licentious culture.

The source of Islamic militancy among Muslims in Southeast Asia has been the increasing fanaticism of extremist Muslims in the Arab world that has been exported by Arab extremists to previously moderate Muslims in Southeast Asia. This Islamic militancy has taken on a life and dynamic of its own. To halt this trend, a peace deal between Israelis and the Palestinians is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Ending the Palestinian conflict will deprive extremists of a convenient rallying point. But unless militant groups in the Arab countries and Islamic theocracies are seen to fail, JI and other militant groups in the non-Arab Muslim world will continue to recruit extremists. Even if there is an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, the US and its Western allies must ensure that Islamic militancy is defeated by economic, military and other means to clearly demonstrate to non-Arab Muslims that fanaticism and militancy have no future.

Since last year, Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), an affiliate of Al-Qaeda has committed many acts of terror in the Philippines, and Indonesia and one major terrorist act, the bombing in Bali on 12 October 2002 killing 200 Western and Australian tourists. They have paid a price for it. The Indonesian government that hitherto had been neutral vis-a-vis Muslim extremists, decided to act. With technical help from the FBI and the Australian Federal special unit, the Indonesian police have arrested the actual perpetrators and their accomplices, some 30 JI operators. But there are hundreds more JI operators still in the region who will regroup and in good time can execute more suicide attacks.

The terrorist jihad is against all non-believers, especially Christians and Jews whether in America, Europe, Pakistan, or even Indonesia. Al Qaeda�s leadership has been disrupted and dispersed and they do not appear so far to have restored their ability to execute a spectacular terror attack in the US or UK. So their regional affiliates have blown up Americans and Westerners in Riyadh on 13 May and in Casablanca on 16 May. Other affiliates will attempt similar attacks wherever they can. They will certainly try to attack soft targets in Southeast Asia.

It is in Europe�s interest to have America succeed in Iraq. The kind of government and society that emerges in Iraq will have a profound influence on all Arab nations and will have a spill-over effect on non-Arab Muslims. The present disorder delays the rebuilding of Iraq�s political structures. However the possibility of a more fundamentalist Iraq is real; Iraqi Shias form 60 percent of the population. They are well organised around their Imams in their respective mosques and the influence of the principal imams, or ayahtollahs, is considerable. Therefore free voting for a representative government can produce a more Islamic government in Iraq.

After the demonstration of American technological military wizardry in Iraq, is it more likely that there could be less blackmailing by the North Koreans in their talks with the Americans? I believe despite all the bluster the North knows that there are limits to brinksmanship when blackmailing a Bush Presidency.

Beijing wants North Korea intact. An imploded North Korea and re-unification will bring American troops up to the Yalu River. A nuclear North Korea is not in China�s interest because Japan would then have to go nuclear. So China will have to take a stand against a nuclear North Korea.

The South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun was elected at the end of last year on an anti-American platform. The South does not want an imploded North that would be a huge burden. Peaceful reunification in the very long term is the desired outcome. Should the North have nuclear bombs, the South would then inherit them. After President Roh�s meeting with President Bush, US and South Korean positions towards the North no longer seem to be so much at odds.

Japan does not want a North Korea that can threaten it with missiles and nuclear warheads. An imploded North Korea may land Japan with some refugees, but it will not be in the numbers that will flee into South Korea and China. A re-united Korea is not necessarily good for Japan.

For America, the simplest solution is an imploded North, and it does not matter if reunification is the result. If a peaceful resolution to the present impasse requires yielding to Pyongyang�s blackmail for aid and a promise of non-aggression, that will stick in the throats of the Americans. In any case the North is unlikely to give up its nuclear weapons whatever the deal.

Because the four parties most closely involved with North Korea � United States, South Korea, Japan, China � have different objectives, a neat solution is not obvious.

To conclude, British Prime Minister Tony Blair wants Europe to embrace the United States as a full partner and as such, influence the direction and policy of the United States. France on the other hand believes that Europe should be a counterweight to restrain American excessive unilateralism.

Throughout history, every force has generated a counter-force. For the present, Russia, China and many countries in the European Union want to maintain good or friendly relations with the United States. There is reason to hope that tending to these relations can prolong US pre-eminence. Not to do so may persuade more nations that the way to restrain American unilateralism is to join a group of all those opposed to it.

--------