To: David Howe who wrote (221898 ) 1/25/2002 12:00:29 PM From: E. T. Respond to of 769670 "A lot of the European reaction to Guantánamo is not because people care about the feelings of the prisoners there," said Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform, based in London. "It's touched a neuralgic point, which is the European concern that America doesn't believe in international law, doesn't believe in submitting itself to rules, organizations or norms that limit its freedom of action, whether the question is the Kyoto agreement, the International Criminal Court or even, apparently, the Geneva Convention, which many experts outside the United States believe has been breached." The Bush Administration has withdrawn from the Kyoto treaty on the environment, arguing that it will not solve the problem of greenhouse gases. And Washington has said it will not participate in any International Criminal Court set up by the United Nations because American officials and soldiers could be tried there. These trans-Atlantic arguments about the nature of multilateralism and international obligation were vivid before Sept. 11, but have been repressed since then. But the war has brought them forward in a new way, Mr. Grant agreed. European voters and governments are asking, "How can we argue the case that the moral thing to do is to fight terrorism if we're not prepared to apply basic human rights and international law to the detainees?" Mr. Grant said. Another senior European diplomat said that the war against terrorism was fundamentally a defense of civilized values. "A part of civilization versus terrorism is the defense of international law and values to the highest degree," he said. "The problem with these photos and the American contention that these are not really prisoners of war is that the argument is untenable. It's hard to explain this to our own citizens, let alone to our Muslim allies. Guantánamo seems to many to exemplify the pick-and-choose American approach to international law."