European Allies Aim to Show U.S. Who’s Boss : Diplomacy: Longtime allies want to push around the new kid on the block, the Clinton Administration. But Clinton must stand his ground.

Every new U.S. President goes through trial by fire in foreign affairs. In the bad old days, this testing was performed by our enemies in Moscow. Now that the Cold War is over, our allies are doing the job.

And are they ever. The last two weeks have seen a concerted effort by America’s Cold War allies to wrest control of the international agenda from the Clinton Administration. On Bosnia and on trade, the two hottest items on the international scene, we are seeing a sustained offensive against the United States--led by, of all people, the British.

So much for the “special relationship.” On Bosnia, the British have built an international consensus behind the Owen-Vance plan. It’s the kind of deal Neville Chamberlain offered Adolf Hitler: Take the Sudentenland, but please leave us the rest of Czechoslovakia, kind sir. Candidate Clinton campaigned against this, but President Clinton has had to go along. With Russia, Britain and France joining in a diplomatic coalition that goes back to World War I, and with China piling on to spite the United States, Bill Clinton faces not one but four U.N. vetoes if he tries to turn up the heat on the Serbs.

On trade the pressure is equally unremitting, as Britain and others seek to railroad the Clinton Administration into approving a complex 2,000-page agreement for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that top Clinton appointees have not even had time to read, much less study. “Protectionism!” cries the Euro-chorus in the hopes of stampeding an untested Administration.

Hogwash. The Uruguay Round of GATT is already three years behind schedule; a few more weeks or months can’t hurt. The United States is the world’s largest exporter and the world’s largest importer; there is nothing unreasonable about a new Administration taking its time to review an enormously complicated, not-quite-finished trade agreement that will establish the framework for international trade with more than 100 countries for decades to come.

The Administration may decide in the end that the current GATT text represents the best bargain possible, but there is nothing--repeat, nothing--unreasonable about the Administration taking a long, hard look at the agreement, consulting with Congress and approaching other countries to seek improvements. The Administration’s “fast-track authority”--its ability to submit trade agreements to Congress on an accelerated legislative schedule with no possibility for congressional amendments--essentially runs out in March, but with Democratic majorities in both Houses and a Republican minority committed in theory to free trade, there are no serious obstacles to winning an extension of six months to a year.

Clinton should pay no more attention to British and Japanese charges of protectionism than Presidents John F. Kennedy and Dwight D. Eisenhower used to pay to Kremlin charges of imperialism. In the GATT negotiations, the United States holds a strong hand, and the Administration can stick to its own timetable without serious repercussions.

Meanwhile, it is worth stepping back from the frenzied pace of events to ask why all this is happening. Why are some of America’s oldest and supposedly closest allies choosing this time of transition to launch an attack on U.S. policy? How has the United States gone from a 5-0 consensus among the permanent members of the Security Council to isolation?

Many factors--greed, pique, fear and, above all, stupidity--influence international diplomacy, but the basic reason for the problem is that both the Bush and the Clinton Administrations overplayed the American hand. Ever since the end of the Cold War, Washington has been full of talk about “the lone superpower.” Other countries resent this kind of talk; it makes them want to put us in our place.

Meanwhile, the United States has not been treating its partners well. France is furious about the hard-nosed American effort last fall to drive a wedge between it and Germany in the long-running controversy between the United States and Europe over agricultural trade. Germany and Japan are still angry about U.S. pressure during the Gulf War. Russia is smarting from the loss of its superpower status, and China does not like U.S. plans for the United Nations to interfere in the affairs of unpopular countries.

The last straw may have come when U.S. officials hinted about supporting German and Japanese claims for permanent seats on the Security Council. France and Britain are petrified by any talk of Security Council reform; it is obvious that if new members come on, the poorest and weakest old members perhaps must drop out. This is no way to repay America’s closest allies for their support in the Gulf War. British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd went as ballistic as British foreign ministers ever go.

At the same time, the British are eager to prove their European credentials by showing that they are not American puppets--something not always easy for them to do. Ambushing the United States over Bosnia was a golden opportunity to polish Britain’s European credentials while winning political points at home with a public that does not want its troops involved in a Balkan War. It also helps distract public opinion from the slow but relentless collapse of everything British, from the monarchy to the pound.

Having annoyed all its allies and angered its enemies, the United States now finds itself in a sticky diplomatic situation. The next flash point may be the coming G-7 meeting of the finance ministers and Treasury secretaries of the world’s leading industrial nations. There are already signs that the United States has been designated official scapegoat: The other countries will take turns making pious speeches about the U.S. budget deficits and blaming the United States for their own slow economies.

The Europeans hope to put the new Administration on the defensive for good. The last American President they did this to was Jimmy Carter. His Administration was never able to get its allies on board, and both its economic policies and its domestic political standing were undermined by constant sniping from abroad.

To avoid this fate, the Clinton foreign-policy team will have to circle the wagons and work out a plan. There will need to be much less talk about U.S. supremacy, and much more careful planning about how to achieve important U.S. goals. A new government is like the new kid on the block. It has to decide, quickly, when to fight and when to make friends. Missteps now can cause months and even years of trouble.

No bragging about how great things were in the old neighborhood. The Clinton Administration needs to work with Germany, Russia and Japan--the three most important countries today--to develop an economic strategy for global recovery and trade. Britain and France can aggravate, but if the United States develops and pursues realistic policies in conjunction with its major economic and political partners, London and Paris will have to do once again what they have done best since World War II--grumble under their breath and follow along.