After the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes, U.S. President George W. Bush outlined a new guiding principle for his country's foreign policy: You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists -- no ifs, ands or buts, and certainly no quid pro quos. Yet the application of this principle has often been difficult. Many nations, such as Iran, China, Syria and Egypt, have embraced the war on terrorism in principle, but insist they will join the United States unreservedly only if certain conditions are fulfilled -- that the UN be given a leading role, for instance -- or that the United States rethink its policy of supporting Israel. The United States should take a hard line on such bargain hunters. The war against terrorism is an opportunity for nations to face a common challenge and affirm their allegiance to civilized principles. Nations should join the United States not because it is an opportunity to shake down Washington but because it is consistent with their practical and ideological interests.

The first large-scale test of America's new principle came earlier this month, at a meeting in Qatar of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, when foreign ministers of Muslim nations refused to directly condemn the American bombing campaign in Afghanistan. A second test will take place in Shanghai this weekend, as Mr. Bush rallies world leaders at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) summit. The meeting, which is the first major gathering of world leaders since Sept. 11, is a good opportunity to get key players, such as China, Malaysia and Indonesia, onside. The key question: At what price?

Putting its relationship with the United States to one side, China would like to see Islamist militants put in their place. Bin Laden's men and the terrorists they train are a threat to stability inside China's southwestern province of Xinjiang. Since China also has an active and well-informed network of informants in the region, it would seem Washington and Beijing have a good deal to talk about. But China is reported to seek various concessions. It wants an end to trade sanctions imposed earlier this year, after one of its jets accidentally smashed into a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft patrolling international waters near China. It also wants spare parts for military equipment the United States sold China in the 1980s. And, above all, it wants an end to a proposed U.S. weapons sale to Taiwan, which China considers a renegade province.

Russia has offered surprisingly robust pledges to assist the United States in routing terrorists. And, thanks to its ongoing conflict with Islamist rebels in Chechnya, Moscow too has a bulging Rolodex of informants. But Russia, of course, covets membership in NATO and a scaling down of U.S. plans for a national missile defence shield. Vladimir Putin, the Russian President, also warned Friday that he "can't allow" President Bush to widen the anti-terror war to Iraq or Iran. Russia is friendly with the regime in Tehran and has large economic interests in Iraq.

Such conditions are unacceptable. As recently as last April, the U.S. State department declared Iran to be "the primary state source of terrorism." And there is an increasing amount of evidence that Saddam Hussein is at least indirectly connected -- if not with the terror attacks of Sept. 11, then with the anthrax attacks of the past two weeks. Would Mr. Bush give up the right to attack Iraq and stamp out terrorism just to keep the Russians on the team?

Pakistan is another politically marginal (if geographically strategic) player. The quickest way to bring down the Taliban regime would be to bombard Taliban fortifications near Kabul. Yet Pakistan has consistently warned against that -- for such a strategy would usher the Northern Alliance, which has been fighting the Taliban since 1996, into the Afghan capital. Pakistan sees the Northern Alliance as an enemy of Pakistani interests. Since the United States relies on Pakistan as a base for some of its forces in the Afghanistan theatre, it has sought to meet Islamabad halfway.

As for the APEC conference itself, one of Mr. Bush's main objectives will be securing Indonesian and Malaysian support. Though the two countries are far from Afghanistan and the Middle East, both Muslim nations are key to the fight against terrorism. (There is evidence, for instance, that planning for the 2000 attack on the USS Cole took place in Kuala Lampur). Although Indonesia's President, Megawati Sukarnoputri, initially expressed sympathy for the United States and vowed to back the war on terrorism, she recently condemned U.S. strikes against Afghanistan following a series of violent anti-U.S. protests.

The leaders of the 21 APEC countries will likely sign a declaration that condemns the strikes against the United States and calls on member countries to adopt measures to combat terrorism, including a crackdown on money laundering. Behind the scenes, however, many government officials have grumbled that terrorism has hijacked what was supposed to be an important trade conference at a time when many countries in the region are experiencing sharp economic downturns. But today, terrorism is the biggest economic destabilizer. As the APEC draft declaration on terrorism makes clear, the Sept. 11 attacks were a "direct attack on APEC's vision of free, open and prosperous economies."

As always, though, such talk is cheap. It remains to be seen whether nations such as China, Indonesia and Malaysia make good on their fine words -- or quibble with Washington over the price of their co-operation.