Here is an interesting commentary by Mark Leonard (similar name, not the Star Trek actor) on the aftereffects of the UN Resolution 1440:

The truth is that Iraq, despite the noisy domestics, has actually been good for Europe and has considerably strengthened Britain's hand. Though the continent was divided on their tactics for handling the US, all countries shared three fundamental goals: firstly, to preserve the transatlantic alliance; secondly, to restore the authority of the UN; and thirdly, to prevent "pre-emption" from being established as a norm. Through an unplanned good-cop/bad-cop routine Europe has somehow met all these objectives. ...

... The UN was sidelined and mocked during the 1990s - powerless in the face of civilian massacres in Rwanda and Somalia; ignored over Kosovo, and perpetually starved of dues by big donors. But during the run-up to war, it became the crucible in which the arguments were aired and decisions on the basis for war were made. ...

... Most importantly, the doctrine of "pre-emption" has disappeared into the desert sands. At their most hubristic, the neo-cons argued that the US could take advantage of their success in Iraq by unleashing a "democratic domino effect" in Iran and Syria. A year later no-one is listening. The political and economic costs of invading Iraq rule make another intervention impossible for several years. The "bad cops" of France and Germany have made any future action harder by refusing to pick up the tab this time around.

I do not share the optimism of the commentator. The problem is not that the Europeans were disunited and that they have now found common cause. The problem is that America will continue to act outside the bounds of international norms. The possible impending capture of bin Laden will reinforce Neocon notions of diplomacy even if pre-emption clearly played no role in the capture. Furthermore, I would say that Britain is still on the shit list of France and Germany. The recent meeting between the leaders of the three reveals good intentions and genuine desire for unity, but also injuries that will smart for some time. The question that should be posed is what will happen if the Bush administration undertakes another major military operation? Furthermore, what alternative vision to current UN diplomacy will emerge that will make the unity between the three European nations permanent and useful? (Perhaps more urgently, what evidence of cooperation is there between French and British operations in West Africa?)