³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

New York - Speaking to the United Nations General Assembly, President Bush finished with a repetitive use of the word 'together'.

The world could fight terrorism together, struggle for freedom together develop its economy together and so on.

The gap between rhetoric and actions is far older than the UN itself - and every leader's speech to the General Assembly tends to be peppered with lofty phrases about the edification of mankind - but one really wonders at the end of the Bush Administration how far people are still interested in doing things together here.

The unilateralist trend in politics is strong. The president's invasion of Iraq undermined the UN enormously. But of course he has not been the only one who had behaved in that way.

President Clinton launched the war in Kosovo without a UN mandate, and recently Russia's actions in the Caucasus have cast further doubt on the major powers' willingness to work collectively to improve world security.

Unilateralism has in fact become the hand maiden of nationalism. Pursuing national agendas - whether they be in the use of force or in responding to climate change - has become essential for politicians wishing to remain n power.

China is very suspicious of those who would blunt its economic development in the cause of stopping global warming.

Russia resents those who would tie its hands within what it regards as its natural sphere of influence, the former Soviet republics.

As for the USA, it wanted to choose its own response to the trauma of 9/11.

These nationalistic or unilateralist stances derive in the most part from deep seated popular attitudes in the countries concerned, not from the caprices of politicians.

Even the United Kingdom, with its acute sense of a diminished role around the world cannot resist sometimes adopting nationalistic positions - for example in relation to France during the wrangling to agree a new European Union budget a couple of years ago.

The weakness, or growing irrelevance even, of the UN derives quite directly therefore from the assertiveness or pride of its principal members.

Those who retain the key rights on the body's most important body, the Security Council, also regard the defence of their position at the UN as a matter of national pride.

This has been an important factor in recent years in blocking the reform of the Security Council which in turn has led to questions about the organisation's future relevance or importance.

There are of course some regional organisations which are doing quite well despite these unhealthy trends.

But if you want a global response to a problem, the UN is the only real forum.

I used to think that countries might re-discover the habit of sacrificing a little national interest for the global good if some Sword of Damocles was held over their heads.

But if the spectre of climate change and the recent financial crash have not had the desired effect, it's hard to know what would.