One of the less remarked consequences of the US terrorist attacks has been to halt in its tracks the mass movement against globalisation. As its leaders have been quick to realise, the atrocity's nature has made unsustainable the anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism that pervade their protests. But have last month's events - as some claim - also dealt a terminal blow to globalisation?

A case can be made that, insofar as globalisation is about constraints on the role of governments and the propagation of US-inspired free market values, there has been a turning of the tide. The clearest evidence is the lurch by President George W. Bush's administration away from a laisser-faire economic stance, in favour of fiscal activism, aggressive regulatory intervention and corporate bail-outs. These developments suggest a diminished faith in free markets and a return to bigger government.

But such swings in US policy are not new and this one is much more limited so far than that engineered by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s. Furthermore, it has not been accompanied by any US relapse into isolationism. On the contrary, the US is engaged internationally on a scale unimaginable even last summer. Unilateralism has been banished from its agenda.

Whether or not Mr Bush can keep Islamic countries allied with his coalition against terrorism, the crisis has improved US relations with China. It has also spurred Russia to mend fences with Nato and the European Union and to seek faster entry into the World Trade Organisation. Meanwhile, the drive to launch a trade round this year has received increased impetus from Washington and other capitals. These are not signs of a retreat from globalisation.

That said, the attacks will clearly have some effect on global economic integration. Tighter border controls, air travel restrictions, intensified surveillance of electronic communications and other security measures will all add costs and complexity to the international movement of people, goods and services. Stricter US immigration curbs also risk closing off a source of economic dynamism.

Multinationals

However, these constraints look more like potholes than roadblocks. Fears that multi-national companies, whose expansion is a mainspring of globalisation, will wind down their operations appear overdone. Short-term, the economic downturn will undoubtedly depress volumes of foreign direct investment and trade. Corporate investors may also be more wary of unstable countries. But relatively few companies above a certain size can any longer survive only on their home markets. In addition, tougher economic conditions may even cause them to locate more activities in low-cost countries, particularly China.

Immediate priority

Barring a prolonged economic depression, further large-scale terrorist attacks or all-out war, neither globalisation nor the power of the market underlying it has been fatally or permanently weakened. Nor, in contrast to the 1930s, is any remotely plausible alternative model on offer. In most countries that are committed to improving the welfare of their people, the conviction remains strong that the way forward lies through free trade, open markets and integration with the global economy.

The real questions now concern how this process can be accelerated and its benefits more widely shared. The immediate priority should be to launch a world trade round that will lay the basis for renewed economic growth. It must aim, above all, to promote liberalisation, not to create unnecessary and potentially trade-restrictive rules, as the European Union and some in the US Congress want.

Second, the plight of the poorest countries, which will suffer most from an economic downturn, needs to be addressed. That, admittedly, is a vast challenge, not least because their problems are so often the product of their own policy failures. But, at the least, rich countries must do more to assist those committed to reform by making available the resources and export markets they need to succeed.

The ills of the world's poor result from too little globalisation, not too much. Their continued marginalisation can only perpetuate deprivation and a sense of injustice. But the extraordinary spirit of international co-operation engendered by last month's atrocities may just offer a gleam of hope. It has created new possibilities for binding the world closer together, economically as well as diplomatically. The last such opportunity was after the second world war, when enlightened US economic leadership laid the foundations for enduring prosperity and stability in Europe and Japan. Much has changed in the world since then. But there is a moment to be seized now, all the same.