The harder President Bush tries to sell his missile shield to NATO allies, the more skeptical European leaders become. Contrary to the spin offered by the White House, this is not the result of anti-American bias or of Old World cynicism, but of the administration’s failure to acknowledge the treaty as the foundation of international relations.

The specific treaty in question is the 1972 antiballistic missile treaty. By describing it as a “relic,” as the prime impediment to post-Cold War security that will be scrapped unilaterally if necessary, Mr. Bush inadvertently ensures the strengthening resistance in Europe.

This trash-talking strategy is wrong simply because it makes no sense. By any objective assessment, a treaty that has been in effect for nearly 30 years, that has not been violated and that did what it promised – in this case preventing an arms race from accelerating out of control – would be considered a roaring success. Such a treaty may, after nearly 30 years, need adjusting, amending or tinkering, but it should not be derided and cast aside.

Further, any adjusting, amending or tinkering must not be done unilaterally. Treaties work because they are the result of negotiation and compromise; they last because the signatories abide by them even when it is inconvenient to do so. As the new kid on the block of international relations, the Bush administration has erred by creating the first impression that it sees diplomacy as a nuisance.

By sending clear signals that the missile shield will be built with or without NATO support, Mr. Bush as reinforces an “isolated American” stereotype that cannot be sustained in the global economy of the 21st century. The concern in Washington might be with a rogue state such as North Korea, Libya or Iraq, lobbing a weapon of mass destruction across thousands of miles, Europe’s threat comes from its own neighborhood.

Europe’s virtually indefensible borders, the chemical, biological and nuclear technology still unaccounted for in the failed states of the former Soviet Union and the growing financial resources and sophistication of terrorist networks combine to make the American obsession with the an attack by one or two missiles out of Baghdad irrational. In any event, the larger risk for the United States, according to Sen. Sam Nunn, is from a Russian mistake based on its deteriorating nuclear arsenal than from rogue states, suggesting that an emphasis on both countries taking more missiles off high alert, as the president promised during his campaign, is of greatest importance.

What seems to escape the administration is that Europe exists and thrives because of treaties. President Bush may be right in saying that it is time to banish the last vestiges of the Cold War and to begin building a new framework for international security. He may even be right in saying that that framework includes ballistic missile defense. To suggest that any lasting framework can be built by trashing what is perhaps the most successful arms treaty ever devised, however, is not only wrong but dangerous.