Dr Patrick Dixon's as insightful as he often is about the situation in Iraq. He makes the point that by historical standards the degree of international agreement about Iraq was in fact awesome. He says we already live in a one-world market that is moving closer to political unity not further away....

The truth about the Iraq war: "During the Cold War, any threat of military invasion of a country by Russia or America would have produced in most cases immediate counter-threats by the other. As a result most wars were waged by proxy in far away places, between small nations funded and armed by both superpowers.
But in March 2003, despite all the hot air, not one nation in the world offered to fight for Sadam and protect Iraq from American invasion, least of all Russia or China. Not one other national army offered soldiers or weapons to protect Iraq national sovereignty, to liberate the people of Bagdad from foreign US-dominated forces, to underpin survival of the Sadam regime.
Sure, some nations held back, abstaining, remaining neutral, to keep their own hands clean. Some national leaders were even sniping from the sidelines � but only with words, not for a single moment proposing to do so with bullets. Where were the countries lining up to sell hundreds of high-tech missiles or tanks or planes to Iraq?
So the strange reality is that while it appears at first sight that the new fragile world order is crumbling into the dust, the opposite is the case. The current tensions and conflicts may well fuel terrorism, especially if the US fails to take a powerful lead to help impose a �just� Middle East peace on both Palestinians and Israelis. It may also lead to destabilising regime changes in other Arab nations, replacing family dynasties with anti-American Islamic fundamentalism in countries like Saudi Arabia. But the current spats are unlikely to lead to destruction of the UN, nor the break up of the EU, nor the rapid neutering of American power - quite the opposite"