Between 2003 and 2006, there were two types of news stories that were the delight of many newspapers and commentators: the attacks in Iraq and the opinion polls showing that the United States was the greatest threat to world peace. The news confirmed many of the ideas about North American “expansionism” and the “warmongering” of the Bush Administration.

In recent weeks, a different type of news has emerged, which was placed on the inside pages of the newspapers, and of course, ignored by those who know everything about the Middle East and North American foreign policy, when they report the number of deaths and refugees in Iraq. So what does the “non-news” say?

First of all, it tells us that the attacks are diminishing in Iraq. The last three months of 2007 was the period with the least amount of violence since 2004. The Sunnis that ruled Iraq during the dictatorship of Saddam and the most radical Shiite groups are starting to collaborate with the new regime. Its leaders are cooperating more and we've begun to hear less about dividing the country. The Iraqis are battling armed groups composed of Arab foreigners, which came to Iraq to foment civil war. Trust between the North American troops and the Iraqi population is on the rise. Also rising is optimism amongst Iraqis about the country’s future. To culminate the good news, refugees who fled to neighboring countries are returning WATCH .

This doesn’t mean that very serious problems don’t continue to exist in the country or that there are no longer cases of violence and attacks. The situation is still very fragile and there's still much that needs to be done. And an eventual success in Iraq will not justify similar military interventions in the future - we can all agree that this point is very clear. However, the “non-news” allows us to draw two positive conclusions.

First, the commitment and persistence of the Bush Administration should be highlighted and praised. The North American President resisted pressure from all sides, both domestic and foreign, to withdraw troops from Iraq. He would have been “popular,” and would even have helped Republicans get better results in the 2006 Congressional elections. But Bush endured and showed determination, and now he's beginning to get good news.

Secondly, we hope that in the future Iraq, will be an example of a domestically stable and externally responsible country. And it need not be a case of liberal democracy (a perspective that nobody sensible ever advocated). Now it can demonstrate that the alternative in the region doesn't necessarily have to be a brutal dictatorship or a regime supported by radical groups and that finances terrorist attacks. And I doubt that success in Iraq will translate into considerable political pressure on Saudi Arabia, which would culminate in changes of North American strategy in the region.

But the improvements in Iraq constitute a challenge for European countries. Contrary to Iraq, in Afghanistan the situation is getting worse. In 2004, the North Americans and Europeans made a strategic agreement. The first would focus on Iraq and the European allies would increase their efforts in Afghanistan. That is what happened. Basically, British forces are the only Europeans with military weight in Iraq, and since their withdrawal from the city of Basra to the barracks in October, we have begun to hear considerable criticism on the British from responsible Iraqi officials (who would have imagined that we would hear such praise so soon for Blair’s Iraq policy). If the situation continues to improve in Iraq and worsen in Afghanistan, how will the political power in Washington (the next president) look to the alliance with Europe? It's important to come up with an answer.

And the answer is even more important when one notes the most recent of the famous opinion polls, the results of which emerged last week. Now the Europeans believe that amongst the great powers, China is the one most threatening to European interests; that Russia could pose a threat to European security; that Europe must get closer to India; and that the United States is - amongst the great powers - the one that shares the most values with European countries.

In Europe one begins to see the other side of the multi-polar world: the one that advises maintaining and deepening the alliance with the United States. But they still haven’t realized something else: in a multi-polar world, the United States will be much more demanding with its allies. The time of alliances without great political and military cohesion is over and will not return.

*João Marques de Almeida is a doctor of International Relations