President Bush makes his first address to the United Nations on Saturday, hoping to rally international support against terrorism. And if this week's previews are any indicator of what he's planning to say, he may need to do a little work on his message.

The object of Bush's U.N. speech is, presumably, to enlist active, enthusiastic support from allies whose help will be vital to destroy al Qaeda. This puts the U.S. in the unusual position of actually needing not just the passive consent, but the active assistance from Arab and Muslim countries, and the developing world in general. The Europeans, Japan, Canada and Australia may be able to help shoulder most of the military needs of a protracted campaign in Afghanistan, but combating bin Laden's own counterattacks requires the total engagement of the law enforcement and intelligence communities of the countries in which al Qaeda operates — many of them in the developing world. Indeed, it's a safe bet that as U.S. military action renders the terrorists' Afghan nests increasingly inhospitable, bin Laden's men will be on the lookout for new sanctuaries in countries where the state is weak and local conflicts offer opportunities to grow a terror infrastructure.

President Bush is certainly emphasizing the need for more active engagement by many of those who have professed support for his coalition. "A coalition-builder must do more than just express sympathy," he said Tuesday. "A coalition-builder must perform. All nations, if they want to fight terrorism, must do something. It's time for action." And just in case anybody missed the message, he added, "It's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity. You're either with us or you're against us in the fight against terror."

A history lesson

404 Not Found

---

nginx/1.14.0 (Ubuntu) Somebody ought to tell the President that the phrase "those who are not with us are against us" was the signature slogan of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union under Stalin in the 1930s. But it's not simply the unfortunate historical associations that pose the problem; it's the very idea that countries either fall into lockstep with the U.S. or else they're with the bad guys. The typical response in the developing world to the U.S. war on terror has run along these lines: harsh condemnation of bin Laden and unreserved solidarity with the U.S. as the victim of a terror outrage; strong intelligence cooperation with the U.S. in an effort to uproot al Qaeda global network; and misgivings over whether bombing Afghanistan will have any positive effect in combating terrorism. Even European governments who are sending troops are facing similar qualms among their own electorates.

Talk about extending the anti-terror war to Iraq (as Bush administration officials have been doing in recent weeks) and skepticism turns quickly to alarm, not only among the usual suspects of the Non-Aligned Movement, but even among America's most gung-ho allies. Even Britain has insisted all along that Iraq will not be attacked unless there is evidence linking it to terrorism — and the Brits have been careful to add that they've seen no evidence yet of any such link.

President Bush's "with us or against us" slogan demands a political blank check from the rest of the world. And that's something that many governments who are willing to fight terrorism are unlikely to give. Bush may imagine the United States as a flawless force for good in the world, but most of the world's governments invariably keep a decades-long laundry list of grievances over American acts and omissions. And regardless of how seriously it takes those grievances, Washington right now needs a lot of help.

What Bush can learn from Blair

Britain's Tony Blair appears more apprised of the danger than the U.S. President on whose behalf he's doing plenty of diplomatic heavy lifting. The British prime minister visited Washington Wednesday to urge Bush to engage more forcefully in pursuing Israeli-Palestinian peace. Blair knows that just as America seeks to judge other countries by the extent of their participation in the campaign against al Qaeda, so will many of those countries judge America, and the extent to which they are prepared to take political risks for it, on the basis of Washington's conduct on matters important to them — such as Middle East peace. Blair reportedly warned Bush that Middle East peace is important to the long-term victory over terrorism, but President Bush is reluctant to publicly link the issues. He insists that while Washington will press for progress in the peace process, Bin Laden would be defeated "peace or no peace in the Middle East."

Blair has been trying these past few weeks to propagate a vision for the anti-terror coalition, a worldview that incorporates the concerns and interests of important partners in the developing world. And that's something President Bush ought to learn from. Bush's traditional "freedom under attack" and "good vs. evil" themes may play well at home, but they have little resonance in the wider world. And just as President Bush expects more action against terrorism from other countries, so do many of those countries expect more active and responsible global citizenship on the part of the U.S.

Simply reading the international community the riot act over what Washington expects is unlikely to build a very solid alliance against terrorism. The strength of a long-term coalition will depend on opening a dialogue among its members to make them stakeholders in a new consensus over global priorities.

Answering Osama

Osama bin Laden devoted much of his own speech last weekend to denouncing international dialogue through the United Nations: "Those who claim to be Arab leaders and remain in the United Nations, they have become unbelievers of the revelation that was given to Mohammed," he said. "Those who refer matters to international legitimacy have become unbelievers in the legitimacy of the Koran."

Bin Laden's tirade is hardly surprising: He can't survive outside of a polarized world. And that's as good a reason as any for President Bush to take very seriously the challenge of forging an international consensus.