On the eve of the Forum, President Bush raised the curtain on this drama with a "State of the Union" speech that suggested to many participants a more unilateral "go-it-alone" approach by the U.S., particularly in waging the current and future "war on terrorism." He linked North Korea, Iran and Iraq, for instance, in an "axis of evil" he said might threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction.

When Secretary of State Colin Powell seemed to emphasize the President's message at a Forum panel discussion, the NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson, bluntly warned him that NATO might not take part in a US attack on Iraq without "compelling evidence" of that nation's participation in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the US.

On another stage, a global security conference in Munich, US representatives again insisted that the US would pursue the war on terrorism with or without allied cooperation. Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, added:

"Our approach has to aim at prevention and not merely at punishment."

Taken together with Bush's "axis of evil" remark and the Administration's huge, planned military buildup over the next five years, Wolfowitz seemed to be suggesting the possibility of a "preventive war" or military strike against Iraq, Iran or North Korea, or all three, with the aim of destroying those nations' capacity to build nuclear or chemical weapons of mass destruction.

This possibility gained added force when Senator John McCain - seen in the U. S. as a potential Republican opponent for the President in 2004 - appeared at the Munich meeting to support the Bush approach. Senator McCain specifically cited Iraq as the next front in the war and declared:

"We should not shrink from acknowledging it."

The incipient division in Western ranks thus revealed could even influence the embryonic good relations between the U. S. and Russia - though Presidents Bush and Putin have been in at least tenuous agreement on the need to curb terrorism and halt the spread of nuclear and chemical weapons.

Russia, nevertheless, has maintained relatively friendly relations with Iraq in hopes of being able ultimately to cash in on its contract to develop Iraq's rich West Qurna oilfield. Development is now being prevented by United Nations sanctions on Iraqi oil. A US strike at Iraq's weapons development facilities obviously would complicate both Russian-Iraq and Bush-Putin relations - not to mention the growing hostility between the US and most of the Islamic world.

Bush's inclusion of Iran in the so-called "axis of evil" was particularly surprising to those who have seen a possibly improving U. S.-Iranian relationship, owing to what they believe is a "moderate" movement in Iran, headed by President Mohammed Khameini.

The State of the Union speech appeared to downgrade this possibility. But Britain's Foreign Minister, Jack Straw, pointedly said in Washington this week that his nation - usually the staunchest US ally - would continue to deal with the Khameini faction.

European spokesmen at the Munich security conference seemed to be particularly worried that a new unilateralist approach by the U. S. would make Europe and NATO less relevant in world affairs. Would Washington strike Iraq without the political support of Europe and Russia, a British member of Parliament asked, and if it did "would it matter?"

An estimated 7,000 mostly peaceful protesters engaged in various demonstrations against the World Economic Forum in New York yesterday, but none seemed to be directing their voices and placards against a unilateralist American policy. And inside the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, where the Forum is being held, most of the panel discussions continued to be about the pros and cons of globalization.

In the corridors and in private conversations, however, Bush's speech continued to reverberate, as did his apparent determination to follow a more forceful policy, particularly against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

No wonder; a gathering of world economic, political and even religious leaders can hardly be unconcerned with the sudden emergence of what many have feared for years, at least since the collapse of the old Soviet Union - the metamorphosis of the United States from a relatively quiescent superpower, a sort of sleeping giant, into an active, virtually unrestricted colossus.

In the nearly half-century of the Cold War, the world trembled at the idea that two superpowers, each with enormous powers of destruction, might come into conflict with consequences disastrous for civilization. Then came a period of almost unlimited optimism, when multinational businesses and expanding trade seemed to hold out the possibility of peace and prosperity for all.

The attacks of Sept. 11, signaling a new threat to international security and striking severe blows to public and business confidence, at first suggested a new era of international cooperation. The Bush Administration built an effective coalition against terrorism, even including some Islamic governments, quickly defeated the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and replaced it with a new compromise government as well as an international peace-keeping force.

Bush's speech touched off the fear that this interim period now is coming to an end, to be followed by an era in which the sole remaining giant, with its unparalleled military and economic power, may come to dominate the world - or at least try to.

The President proclaimed, along with his intent to pursue the war on terrorism where it might lead, that the US would never seek to impose its own culture on other nations and always would stand for "human dignity, the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, private property, free speech, equal justice and religious tolerance."

Not all nations or peoples take such fine words at face value, however, and many believe that they are not finally compatible with the extensive military, economic and political power the United States can wield if it chooses