The festering sore of Iraq - its disintegration into civil war, its growing impact on the whole Middle East region and from there on the rest of the world - was the dominant international news story in 2006.
Dangerous escalations of conflict in Afghanistan, between Israel and the Palestinians, and in Lebanon are linked more and more to the Iraqi events.
By the end of the year there was a growing realisation that these conflicts must be contained and could be resolved by recognising their interlinkages. But as yet there is no indication that the United States as the dominant power responsible for this sore is ready to take the action required to cure it.
President Bush seems set to reject the key recommendations of the cross-party congressional Iraq Study Group that US combat troops be disengaged and withdrawn and talks held with all the regional players. If he does so, the region will be even more dangerous in 2007.
This matters profoundly for the rest of the world. The wider Middle East region is distinctive not for its international power or hegemony but for its strategic position, its plentiful natural resources, its vulnerability to radical political change and the potential for extremist groups and ideologies with worldwide reach to take advantage of these facts.
The region is undergoing major political and social change accompanied by deep-seated conflict and external intervention. This should have given those determined to influence that change pause for reflection on how best to do so before they became involved. That did not happen with the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
In 2006 this accumulated shortsightedness came catastrophically home to roost as a civil war took root in Iraq involving vicious sectarian attacks between Sunnis and Shias, heavy loss of life, massive flights of people and a collapse of civil and economic infrastructure. If this continues it will draw in surrounding states directly, possibly in a regional war. Iran is the principal beneficiary of this catastrophe; but Mr Bush steadfastly refuses to deal directly with that state, just as he refuses to contemplate anything less than victory in Iraq.
His administration has diminished credibility at home and abroad and therefore reduced political leverage, after his party lost both houses of congress in November's elections. But US power still makes a difference and it remains possible - if increasingly unlikely - that Mr Bush can turn his foreign policy around so as to reassert US international leadership and influence. To be effective this would have to involve a decisive and committed return to a multilateral foreign policy.
Whether or not he does so, other states must engage with the Middle East region and its problems by linking them in a co-ordinated way. This should involve tackling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by helping to initiate a new round of negotiations; involving Iran, Syria and the Arab states in that endeavour and in Lebanon; and having the confidence to believe that such an initiative, as it succeeds, will generate the political good will needed to counter the dangerous radicals who so preoccupy Mr Bush, but who actually thrive on his obduracy.
Primarily, these initiatives will fall to individual European states, working together in the European Union and through the United Nations. In their different ways Britain, France, Germany, Spain and Italy have helped prepare the ground for this in recent months, with some co-ordination through the other members of the EU, including Ireland. In the new year these efforts should be redoubled. They should not be deterred by the potential tension with the US, if Mr Bush refuses to go along with this. Too much is at stake for the Middle East region and its neighbours, including in Europe, to let this opportunity pass. It would be irresponsible to remain as quiescent as European states have been this year, while they awaited clarification of US policy.
The Middle East crisis is a good example of how external events affect the development of the EU and of the pressing need for it to resolve the political impasse around the constitutional treaty. Germany is about to assume the EU presidency and hopes to make progress on the issue, aiming to facilitate a final decision next year. Other international issues requiring more effective action at EU level are climate change, energy security, migration, international development and macroeconomic co-ordination. It is to be hoped they can frame a new agenda for the EU to fill out its constitutional debate.
This year saw several further steps in the emergence of Asia as the third major pole of power and influence in international affairs, alongside the US and Europe. China's spectacular economic performance affects the whole international system and now needs to be accompanied by more political and human rights progress. It is increasingly matched by India, rapidly coming out of a long period of introspection and self-containment. Japan is also finding a new, more independent role.
Latin America, too, experienced an extensive shift of values in 2006, moving towards social democratic or more radical policies after many years of dependence on the US. These changes can reinvigorate the international debate on economic, social and political development. Unfortunately most African states, where such progress is most needed, still have a long way to go to attain them. The world's conscience remains stained by the failure to do anything effective about the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. Tackling that should be a major priority in 2007.