The Year in Review - the World: Crises in Iraq, the Middle East and elsewhere have not gone away, writes Deaglán de Bréadún.
The terrible events and ever-rising death-toll in the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster are a reminder that politics, power-struggles and even wars are not the sole determining factors in world affairs.
Hidden forces of nature can erupt without warning and shatter communities throughout a vast region in seconds.
Thankfully no man-made disaster generated the chaos and tragedy we have seen in recent days in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India and Thailand. But the first great challenge for world leaders in 2005 is to meet the pressing humanitarian needs of the distraught victims of this catastrophe as quickly as possible.
Such is the scale and impact of the earthquake and subsequent flooding that it will take some time before the international community can again focus its attention properly on the other critical issues that make up the world agenda. But in the meantime, these issues won't go away.
Strife-ridden Iraq remains top of the list. The appointed day for elections is January 30th and President Bush has declared his determination to ensure the vote goes ahead. But in the words of the late Harold Macmillan, "Events, dear boy, events" could put a spanner in the works. If the Iraqi resistance proves, for example, that it has the capacity to mount a widespread assault along the lines of the Tet Offensive in Vietnam in January 1968, the elections might have to be postponed.
Media coverage and comment on the Iraq situation resound with echoes from the Vietnam era. Compared to that conflict, this is a war done on the cheap and world support for the endeavour is even lower.
The benign scenario for the Bush administration is a successful electoral process along the lines of Afghanistan which leads to a reasonably stable administration in Iraq. The malign outcome from a US viewpoint is an election with minimal international monitoring and low participation by the Sunni minority. A process that lacked national or international credibility would only fuel a further upsurge in rebel activity that could make the country ungovernable.
It is always a mistake to underestimate George W. Bush, but if the worst should befall, can the US continue to expend blood and treasure in a lost cause? In that event, the temptation would be for the Americans to start thinking the unthinkable, pull out their troops and leave the Iraqis to fight it out among themselves. That, in turn, would have implications for the stability of the Middle East region as a whole, particularly Israel.
But at least in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, we can see glimmers of hope. The demise of Yasser Arafat, who was apparently paralysed by indecision, means Bush and the Israelis must now put up or shut up.
Elections for a new Palestinian president on January 9th seem likely to produce a moderate and conciliatory leader in Mahmoud Abbas. He may not have anything like Arafat's popular support and appeal but seems much more willing and eager to resolve the conflict. Mr Bush said on a visit to Hillsborough, Co Antrim, in April 2003 that he intended to give the same amount of energy on the Middle East as Mr Blair was devoting to Northern Ireland.
The truth is he sat on his hands, some would say for understandable diplomatic and electoral reasons, while Arafat was still alive, and did little to implement the Road Map towards the establishment of a Palestinian state. With Arafat gone, there are no more excuses. For his part, the much-reviled Ariel Sharon is taking a brave step in terms of Israeli domestic politics with his plan to close the settlements in Gaza.
At this stage, the power of the extremist Hamas in Gaza is such that the Palestinian Authority will be put to the pin of its collar, even with Egyptian help, to keep the situation on the strip under control.
But there is another country in the region whose differences with the US could lead to a crisis that would dwarf the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and even the conflagration in Iraq. Iran is allegedly developing a nuclear weapons capacity and, since the US apparently cannot live with Iran having the bomb, the worry must be that we will find ourselves caught in a stand-off along the lines of the Cuban missile crisis. Alternatively, there could be a crisis involving North Korea which allegedly has six to 10 nuclear weapons or the capacity to make them.
Many in Europe and elsewhere would be concerned about the capacity of Mr Bush and advisers such as Condoleezza Rice to bring about the peaceful resolution of such a crisis that John F. Kennedy managed in 1962. A second presidential term is always different from the first and, since he will not have to face the electorate again, Mr Bush should be under less pressure from hardline neo-conservatives who might favour an extreme solution.
The relationship between Europe and the US will continue to be fraught in 2005. The collapse of the Berlin Wall and removal of the Soviet threat has meant that Europe no longer relies on US military might for its survival as a democratic entity. It is a more assertive Europe that gazes across the Atlantic at its American brothers and sisters.
The differences over Iraq which surfaced between the US and core EU states such as France and Germany reflected a more general jockeying for position and influence in the world that is bound to continue. Europe has a long and, perhaps, excessively comfortable relationship with the Middle East, for example, and looks askance at the bright-eyed American vision of transforming Arab autocracies into shiny new democratic states. A test for European assertiveness is whether it can carve out a true political role for itself in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or remain content with the role of paymaster and aid donor.
On the European scene, the major political test will be to ensure the ratification of the EU Constitution. Tiny Lithuania has already approved the document by parliamentary vote, as has Hungary: two down, 23 to go. Spain is due to hold the first referendum in February, probably followed by the Netherlands, but those two member-states will be less problematic than Poland and France. Ireland is expected to vote next autumn but the real worry for constitutional proponents is the UK, likely to hold its referendum in early 2006. At this stage it is hard to find anyone to forecast that the British will vote Yes.
In the interim, the British general election is expected in early May. Michael Howard has failed to make his mark as opposition leader and a third Blair term must be seen as an odds-on probability.
On the global stage, the continuing expansion of China remains the most impressive development in economic terms. The new workshop of the world, China has emerged as a major player that may eventually put it on a par in terms of political and military clout with the old Soviet Union. But there is little sign of an early move towards a multi-party state with a free press, parliamentary democracy and proper observance of human rights norms.
India has all of these things and has also succeeded in making enormous strides economically, although its achievements are less spectacular than those of its neighbour to the north. The general election result in India brought about a change of government that was attributed to dissatisfaction about inadequate distribution of the fruits of economic progress, a phenomenon that may yet be in evidence in other countries including our own. Tensions over the disputed region of Kashmir between the two nuclear powers of India and Pakistan eased somewhat but this continues to be a major potential threat to world peace.
The booming success of China and India left Africa in even greater shadows than before. Although there were positive signs like the decline in the number of wars and fewer authoritarian regimes, the scourge of HIV/AIDS was a blight on the political and economic life of the continent. Elections due for Zimbabwe in March seem unlikely to lift the gloom and, all the time, the humanitarian crisis in Sudancontinues to fester.
The shadow of terrorism continued to hang over everyone, rich and poor. While there have been horrific outrages in such places as Madrid and Bali, there is some consolation that nothing on the scale of September 11th has recurred.
But the continuing fear throughout the next 12 months will be the nightmare scenario whereby suicidal terrorists attack a major city with a "dirty bomb" obtained on the nuclear black market.
For many, the UN remains the last, best hope for resolving or at least easing world tensions in a peaceful manner. A major report on UN reform is under consideration and will form the basis for proposals to world leaders next September. Progress towards the Millennium Development Goals, such as the halving of extreme poverty in the world by 2015, will also be reviewed.
Until this week's disaster, one could have said that, despite the Madrid bombing and the war in Iraq, the outcome in 2004 could have been far worse. The tsunami disaster makes it difficult to maintain that perspective. But when normal political business resumes, the international community will still face the challenge of dealing with and resolving the festering crises that continue to threaten world peace. The first indication of whether our political leaders are up to the job will be seen in Mr Bush's visit to Europe in February. Unless Europe and the US are singing from the same hymn-sheet, it will be hard for the rest of the world to act in concert.
Deaglán de Bréadún is Foreign Affairs Correspondent of The Irish Times