LONDON -- Despite the failure to gain backing from the United Nations, the war on Iraq has brought together a growing "coalition of the willing," as Washington dubs those who support the attack on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. It may have few active military members -- the United States, Britain plus smaller contingents from Australia and Poland. But it has gained in diplomatic numbers as Washington showed its power with its air attack on Baghdad, the impact of which was heightened by being broadcast live on television around the world.

The emergence of this coalition -- and of the opposing "coalition of the unwilling" led by France -- is a significant portent of the way international affairs are being reshaped, which is going to require significant rethinking on the part of governments. Instead of alliances, we are now entering a world of shifting coalitions, whether over Iraq, world trade or the development of major regions.

The way in which the Western alliance held together for so long after the end of World War II has tended to obscure the fact that, historically, major nations have preferred to form coalitions rather than commit themselves to long-term alliances. This is not surprising given the way that, however lofty the aspirations they proclaim, governments invariably are unwilling to bind themselves to agreements that may restrict their ability to pursue their own best interests.