"It's absolutely fascinating to see the speed with which the political map is being redefined," says Mr Franτois Heisbourg, head of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris. A remarkable week of US and world diplomacy following the atrocities in the US has begun to clarify this redefinition - but only to throw up fresh and very difficult political choices.
US isolationism has been the first casualty of this activist whirlwind. Citizens of more than 60 nations are known to have died in the attacks, a striking confirmation of their inherently international character. The terrorist networks responsible cannot be tackled, whether politically or militarily, without an international coalition directed against states suspected of harbouring them. Thus the crisis has drawn the US back into full international engagement and has begun to redefine the world's political maps. US pressure on Mr Ariel Sharon's government to respond to the ceasefire called by the Palestinian leadership was the most telling example. If that conflict is not scaled down it will be impossible to assemble a coalition against Afghanistan including the moderate and reactionary Muslim states which are the primary enemies of Islamic fundamentalist groups.
European states are urging a US rethink on Iran and Libya, which have different motives to oppose the Taliban regime. Russia and China are being drawn in. And the UN assumes a greater importance.
In sharp contrast, the first nine months of the Bush administration were described as an α la carte multilateralism by Mr Richard Haass of the State Department, but were seen by many Europeans as increasingly unilateralist, following disengagement from a string of international treaties.
This echoed the divisions within the Bush administration between the more multilateralist Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell, and the military/unilateral Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Donald Rumsfeld, which have surfaced again in recent days over whether to attack Iraq.
Unilateralism and isolationism are different responses, though they have some similarities and overlaps in US history. In summary, isolationism suspects and tries to avoid foreign entanglements. Unilateralism tries to optimise the US capacity to act around the world in its own interests without being tied down by international law or treaty commitments.
Multilateralism became the buzz word to describe an alternative European response, better expressing the growing equalisation of EU-US relations in many spheres - including, gradually, policies towards the Middle East.
This crisis has restored multilateralism and opened up the opportunity for a global campaign against terrorism under US leadership. Mr Bush has had to balance domestic demands for immediate military action against the need to build a broad-based international coalition to get Afghanistan to hand over Osama bin Laden.
States have been told they are either with the US-led coalition or with the terrorists. That makes for a hegemonic multilateralism intolerant of alternative approaches to resolve the crisis using international law or UN procedures. Although it has been hard to gain a hearing for these alternatives between the imperatives of military preparation and graphic accounts of Manhattan's agony, they are there and will grow in importance. So far Mr Bush's team has effectively managed these pressures by combining military mobilisation and psychological preparation for war with whirlwind diplomacy. President Chirac of France put it well in Paris on his return from Washington and after meeting Mr Tony Blair: "Neither England nor France could fail to be present if the response is appropriate and efficient."
This assumes there will be a military response. The Guardian yesterday reported the US is canvassing support for an invasion of Afghanistan to topple the Taliban regime and set up a UN interim administration in co-operation with Afghan rebels and the exiled king. Such an inclusive approach might convince the Europeans, Russia and China to support an imminent military campaign. It is certainly a major change of US policy, as one diplomat observed.
Resolution 1368, passed by the Security Council last week, describes the attacks on New York and Washington as a "threat to international peace and security". Combined with article 51 of the UN Charter, which confers a right to self-defence, this could give the US legal cover to mount an operation without seeking specific sanctions from the Security Council.
That may not accord with the Government's approach as set out by Mr Ahern in the Dβil this week, but given the solidarity expressed with the American people, the Government will be exceedingly reluctant to get in the way of the US, either legally or by refusing military facilities at Shannon airport for example.
Mrs Mary Robinson spoke out during the week in favour of using Chapter VII of the UN Charter to declare the atrocities a crime against humanity and a threat to world peace and to refer their perpetrators to the International Criminal Court or The Hague tribunal.
This would deal with the issue under the heading of justice and international law rather than revenge and the military. That may sound utopian in the face of the hostility shown the UN by many members of the Bush administration and its determination to respond militarily. But it accords with the opinion poll in 31 countries showing all but the US and Israeli publics opposed to massive military retaliation. Such terrorism normally leads to more violence, strengthens states' arbitrary powers and weakens popular movements opposed to repressive states, in addition to the killing of innocent people. That is why multilateral political action against it remains so vitally important.
