Precedent

[concre+e]

I'll just comment on some selected parts of your post, especially wher you cover Germany and the perils of being semi-informed really show! So...

The immigration of Slavs into nice European neighborhoods was a security concern, as was the concern for either human rights, or the appearance that defending human rights was a good enough fig leaf to cover the real reasons behind the action!

German had >1 million Yugoslavian refugees before that, had many more then and still has >1 million people from Yugoslavia. It has the highest rate of refugees of all western countries (per head), which is a good thing. Refugees, no matter from where don't stay in "nice neighborhoods". It's far from nice where their camps were/are. The reason the German governement had agreed to join the campaign despite this causing problems regarding the German constitution. Germany had not taken part in any non-UNO military actions since 1945. The main point was "nie wieder Auschwitz" as being the stronger argument than "nie wieder Krieg". That was what the discussion was about - not any possible number of refugees that Germany had before during and after that time.

As well the Germans and Chinese, all of whom exercise their sovreign power to do what they think is right, to act or not to act.

It's .. um.. interesting that everything that is not war is "not acting" to you. What a poor mankind this would be if all options that ever existed for anything were "do nothing" or "war". OTOH, it does tell quite a bit about you, I guess.

So I am not surprised that French, German, Russian, and other businesses are voicing their concerns,  powerfully, to their governments

Hm, just because it's that way in USA doesn't mean it's that way everywhere else. German companies don't talk to the German governement very much anymore... they want it gone, nothing more nothing less. They're not happy with the German governement's decicion about Iraq/USA, they fear negative consequences, ie losing business with US companies, which has already occured by the way "Sorry, but due to your governement's position on Iraq, we have to cancel ...bla").

There may be the fear among German, Dutch, French, and maybe even a few American,  businesses

Especially the "maybe even a few American" part is cute - let's not forget who made Iraq the probably third strongest Army worldwide before the second Golf war in 1991 for the good old "my enemy's enemy is my friend" reason. Or that it was Donald Rumsfeld personally that brought his good friend Saddam everything he needed in the first Gulf war during the 1980ies- like material for building chemical weapons, plus the satellite pictures on where to use those weapons on Iran's soldiers etc.

Is it only acceptable to act collectively if local European security is the issue, and when there is little risk? That is the cynical message I am getting from Paris and Berlin.

As explained above, local European security was not the real issue in this decision, at least not in Germany. The message that you would be getting from Berlin, if you listen that is, is: as long as not all peaceful means have been tried to achieve a goal, it is not right to kill people. Especially when the reasons to to so are changed on an amost daily basis. And when the goal is very close. However, what is cynical, if not sickening, is to call not killing people "inactivity".

he who will not risk cannot change that which needs changing.

Yes, alot of things need changing, one of the most important things in the world is that US goverments should stop supporting dictators and fundamentalists like Taliban and Saddam Hussein because it seems to support US interests for a while.