Terrorism provokes a universal reaction among individuals, but distinctly different responses among nations. Horror and fear are instinctive; concerted international policy on tackling terrorism is a matter for debate.

So it was at last week's Paris summit of the foreign and security ministers of the G-7 industrial nations, plus Russia. They agreed on 25 measures to confront terrorism, and host foreign minister Herve de Charette accentuated the positive, citing "a tremendous spirit of cooperation" and a discussion of "concrete and practical actions" against those who use indiscriminate murder in lieu of argument. But while terror from Sri Lanka to Spain, Algeria to Pakistan, Atlanta to Manchester has built enormous pressure for a tangible response by governments, the Paris meeting showed that Europe and the U.S. differ fundamentally on how to fight terrorism, and that joint action has been painfully slow. French terrorism expert Xavier Raufer panned the conference as "a lot of declarations intended to make people feel better, but they mean nothing." Political commentators were equally acid: Simon Jenkins, former editor of The Times of London, wrote that a conference on traffic accidents would have made more sense and saved more lives.

Britain's Home Secretary Michael Howard, however, argued that the measures "will make life more difficult for the terrorists." The steps include three proposals sponsored by his government: new centers to share information on terrorist groups and individuals; moves to deny terrorists the right of asylum; and the stiffening by all countries of their own counterterrorism legislation. Among other proposals: uniform codes for extradition of terrorists; a crackdown on cash laundering to, as German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel put it, "dry up the financial sources of terrorism"; common security standards at airports; more vigilance of explosives, including chemical "tagging" to make them traceable; and pursuit of terrorists who communicate via the Internet.

That few such measures are in place internationally gives a clue to the problem. Says Roland Jacquard, president of the Paris-based International Observatory on Terrorism: "Apart from crises, governments tend to forget about solidarity and return to the philosophy that an autonomous state has to safeguard its particular ways of handling things, and retain its margin of maneuver."

In the case of terrorism, maneuver often means doing deals. France, for example, in 1993 deported two suspects to Iran, in breach of both French and international law, and knowing full well they were wanted by the Swiss on murder charges; in June, Bonn quietly released from jail Palestinian terrorist Hafez Kasem Dalkamoni, who was sentenced to 15 years in 1988 for planning attacks on U.S. military facilities in Germany. What is received in return for such gestures is never revealed, but terrorism experts question whether it is coincidence, for example, that last summer's bombings in France by the Armed Islamic Group stopped as abruptly as they had begun. Deals are typically bilateral, based on national rather than international interest.

This bilateral approach--plus the European theory of "critical dialogue," the idea that it is better to try to deal with a terrorism-backing country than to isolate it--conflicts with the American position. The U.S. wanted the Paris meeting to approve an international commission to coordinate the fight against terrorism, plus political and economic sanctions against countries that foster it, specifically Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Libya. The U.S. did not push for these measures in the face of European rejection, but State Department officials were privately angry, particularly with France and Germany. There was also skepticism in the U.S. about the effectiveness of some agreed-on measures. Says Larry Johnson, a former counterterrorism official with the State Department, "When was the last time a terrorist was caught spending too much time on the Internet?"

Germans, in turn, are less than flattering about the American stance, and ask, as do other countries, why America would leave both Syria and Saudi Arabia off its proposed sanctions list. Erich Schmidt-Eenboom, chairman of Germany's Research Institue for Peace Policy, describes Saudi Arabia as a major financial supporter of terrorism, a view shared by the German Foreign Ministry: "The Americans are demanding, rightly, sanctions against Iran, but they will have to answer why they don't bring their favorite among the terrorist supporters--Saudi Arabia--under control." Schmidt-Eenboom maintains that the two pillars of terrorism are Iran, for operations, and Saudi Arabia, as money supplier, and describes Saudi Arabia as "the absolute top among financiers" of terrorism.

The test of the Paris meeting will come in November, the deadline for various groups of experts to report back on implementation of the measures approved. One of these, a crackdown on so-called charitable and cultural organizations that feed vital cash to terrorists--for example, the Irish Republican Army--raises the civil liberties-vs.-surveillance conflict. Controlling terrorism does require a Big Brother to be watching, but even in Spain's Basque country, where the separatist group E.T.A. has killed hundreds of people in bombings and shootings, there is argument over a government proposal to mount police video cameras in the streets.

The "tagging" of explosives is opposed in America by conservative Republicans, the National Rifle Association and also manufacturers--the latter, claim U.S. Administration officials, for fear of lawsuits from terrorists' victims if explosives can be traced back to makers. Some experts argue that, even if approved, tagging would do little. Says France's Raufer: "Three-quarters of all people who are blowing things up today are using agricultural compounds that can be bought in just about any community or nation."

With all the disagreement, Britain's Michael Howard contends, "We cannot offer our citizens total protection, but we should do everything we can." Paris-based American economist Paul Horne also argues the value of a U.S. big-stick policy,"I think this turns up the heat all round. Reagan proved this works when he decided to bomb Gaddafi in his tent. It caused a lot of activity elsewhere and ended up creating an environment where people were more prepared to make life tougher on Libya, but in a more consensual manner."

What worries politicians in both Europe and America is that terrorism doesn't pitch tents. U.S. Senator John Glenn, a man who knows about unexplored territory, made the point last week that none of his European counterparts would dispute: "I believe we're into a different type of warfare internationally than we've ever known before. I don't think we've learned yet how to deal with this."

--Reported by Bruce Crumley and William Rademaekers/Paris, Rhea Schoenthal/Bonn, Helen Gibson/London and Douglas Waller/Washington