As the world woke up to a new day on Sept. 12, 2001, still beginning to grapple with the horror and implications of the terror attacks on the United States, we at The Globe and Mail tried to make some sense of what had happened.

"This much we can say, as inadequate as it is. Our hearts and thoughts and prayers are with the victims, for their families and for the United States. We mourn also for a world profoundly changed."

We made a number of points that morning: That state power hardly was absolute when confronted by fanatics, that America's vulnerability was the world's vulnerability and that the international community had to unite against terrorism, that blind retribution would be unacceptable and that a careful balance would have to be found between security and the right to live freely.

A year later, what has changed? And what has been the impact?

In significant ways, the events of the past 12 months have gone well.

President George W. Bush quickly displayed qualities of leadership that many didn't think he had. He proved himself, as he said, to be a patient man. He built an international coalition, including Canadian troops, which routed the Taliban regime. Osama bin Laden's whereabouts, even whether he is still alive, remain unknown. The job of helping build a new Afghanistan has barely begun. But Afghanistan didn't live up to its history as a graveyard for empires.

The international economy was barely shaken by Sept. 11. Trade and investment don't appear to have been permanently damaged. The year 1914 is considered the end of the world's first globalized age; there is no evidence 2001 will be the end of the second.

Mr. bin Laden was also unsuccessful in his prime objective, which was to spark radical movements across the Islamic world. The pro-Western government in Pakistan was the crux of international concern last fall, but it was never seriously threatened. Fundamentalism, in fact, is in retreat throughout much of the Arab region. It is hardly dead -- it benefits from anger at American policies (especially support for Israel) and from the lack of democracy in so many Islamic countries (including Pakistan). But Mr. bin Laden's goal was to bring forth an earthquake after shaking America. One year later, there have been only some tremors.

Another terrorist attack could come at any time; new intelligence information yesterday put the United States on high alert. International security has been tightened over the past year, but that is no guarantee. The civilized world does know much better, though, what it faces.

The United States is once again engaged in world affairs. The great fear internationally when Mr. Bush took office was that his administration would retreat. He had spoken disparagingly of "nation-building." Now, the complaint is that Washington acts unilaterally. As the world's dominant power, it creates tremors whatever it does. But it is hardly surprising that it acts with its own best interests in mind. American soldiers are the ones usually on the line.

Still, there is no questioning that the disquiet about Washington's "go-it-alone" approach is often legitimate. With power comes responsibility; one doesn't lead through coercion or by ignoring others; one does it by building consensus.

The Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the International Criminal Court, the land mines treaty -- they all are imperfect. But the Bush administration did itself no credit by absenting the United States from each. If a country such as Slovakia does that, it does some damage. If the United States does that, it virtually washes away the process. It is no different when the United States protects its companies from international competition, as it has done lately in what amounts to an economic expression of Fortress America.

One wonders whether things might be different under a President Gore. America is not a monolith; unilateralism is not the country's sole sentiment. But President Bush it is, for better or worse, and lately he has tended to act alone. As Newsweek's commemorative edition put it this week, Mr. Bush is a remarkably isolated fellow for the former head of a fraternity.

Nowhere is this more true than on Iraq. Countries were willing to stand with the United States to fight terror. But the developing Bush Doctrine is something more: a self-imposed right to act pre-emptively against any country developing weapons of mass destruction that could be turned on Americans. Mr. Bush's description of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil" was the first step. And that is where support started to diminish.

There are signs the White House recognizes the seriousness of this. Mr. Bush gives a speech tomorrow at the United Nations, aimed at convincing the world decisive action against Iraq is needed.

Americans too are regaining their voice. The upsurge in nationalism in the wake of the terrorist attacks remains, but there is a real debate over the wisdom of trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein. This might yet evolve into a deeper questioning of the United States' motivation and impact internationally. Mr. bin Laden is a criminal, nothing more, and his actions have no possible justification. But the grievances held against the United States don't deserve simply to be ignored.

The acts of megaterror one year ago stunned Americans because they believed their country was a place apart -- not just a beacon of freedom but a new land where history didn't apply. Nothing less, as Ronald Reagan said, than a shining city on a hill. Safe and sound, and special.

The deaths of 3,025 people, killed in attacks on some of America's core institutions, transformed that.

Sept. 11 likely marked the real end of the 1990s, an optimistic decade that began with the demise of the Cold War. Just as 9/11 has entered the lexicon, so has 9/10, denoting a blithe, unsuspecting nature. But no one is naive any longer. And the aftermath of Sept. 11 has barely begun.