For constancy in a confused world, look north. The Canadians are still awfully nice neighbors.

They give us adorable ice skaters who smile through adversity and a joy for winter revelry that shows the season can be more than a slog through rush-hour slush. They are never rude or condescending toward American tourists. They provide exceedingly thorough yet entirely friendly airport security, shaming us for the dour sloppiness still so common at home.

A recent visit confirmed these charms. And it brought deeper the realization that the United States is alone - completely, utterly, frighteningly - in the world.

Not one word of support for President George W. Bush's plans to invade Iraq and force "regime change" appears in the Canadian media. The emphasis is on each utterance by every world leader who voices alarm about the American government's bluster on Iraq, its obstinance on global warming, its refusal to heed the concerns of the rest of the world.

"When it comes to Iraq, father knew best," chided the Globe and Mail of Toronto in an editorial Saturday, praising the elder Bush's consensus-building before he acted to push back the Iraqi conquest of Kuwait.

We are awash in a tide of remembrance for Sept. 11, enveloped by a rising din about what has happened to America in the year that has passed. Are we a better, stronger, nation? Are we more secure than we were on Sept. 10 - at home and abroad? More respected? Or do we need to ask again that annoying talk-TV question: Why do they hate us?

A year ago, we knew who "they" were. They were so different. They dressed differently, worshiped differently. They had a profoundly different culture and view of world history. "They" were the fanatics, those who believe America is at the root of every grievance. And that we should be punished.

Now it is not so easy to figure out who "they" are. "They" seems to have expanded.

A whopping majority of the British public opposes going to war unilaterally against Iraq, despite Prime Minister Tony Blair's singular effort to convince them otherwise. In one recent poll, the Independent of London reported, more than half the British peoople named the current President Bush as the third biggest threat to world peace - after Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

In Germany, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder invigorated his sagging re-election effort in part with sharp attacks on American war plans. Even his conservative rival flip-flopped. "The monopoly on the decision and action in this question lies with the United Nations," Edmund Stoiber said.

Nelson Mandela, hero and moral exemplar to most of the democratic world, cannot get his phone call taken by George W. Bush. He settled for a talk with the father, and with Secretary of State Colin Powell. The current American president, Mandela complains, is "introducing chaos in international affairs." The word from Tokyo, from Beijing, from Moscow, is much the same.

Whatever solidarity the rest of the world felt toward the United States after the terror attacks has vaporized. Now the consensus is that we've lived up to our stereotype. Americans are viewed as arrogant, self-absorbed, hypocritical. And this is what our friends say.

It turns out the American people and the European people are much closer to one another on the details than the stereotypes suggest. A new poll shows broad agreement on both continents that the United States should invade Iraq only with United Nations approval and allied support.

But the hawkish clique in Washington believes the UN produces nothing but gaseous waste. Bush has reluctantly conceded he should seek sanction from the U.S. Congress before going to war. He's never hinted he would stoop to the messy compromise required for UN approval. He is a commander, not a cajoler.

Next week in New York, Bush will start trying to convince the world body there is no choice but to topple Iraq's frightening leader. It is a tough argument to win. More so now that the world sees this American president as pretty scary, too.

Copyright © 2002, Newsday, Inc.

###