Fear Itself

Over the next twenty years, the United States underwent a series of generally peaceful revolutions, some of which astounded the world. The Civil Rights movement succeeded because the majority of Americans did not believe that it was a subversive plot, but recognized it as a movement to right an injustice against other Americans, whose only crime was being born with the "wrong" skin color. The Vietnam protests ended Lyndon Johnson's political career, and - through the Pentagon Papers and other reports - opened millions of Americans' eyes to the brutal corruption and expediency that defined so much of American foreign policy after the Second World War. Finally, Richard Nixon was driven from the White House for his illegal actions during the Watergate scandal. Forcing President Nixon to resign had amazed the world because, as one diplomat observed, "the tanks did not roll down Constitution Avenue."

I believe that if McCarthy and his ilk had succeeded in their attempt to frighten the American People into surrendering some or all of their liberties over the threat of Communism; and if these demagogues had been successful in branding everyone who disagreed with them a Communist, pinko, or just plain unpatriotic; then one or more of those peaceful revolutions would have been violent, and the Soviet Union would have succeeded in taking control of Western Europe. And the wealth of Western Europe would have been sufficient to delay the fall of the Soviet Empire by years, if not decades.

The United States has now arrived at a similar point in the war on terrorism. I believe, as Benjamin Franklin once observed, that if our nation continues to try and trade safety for freedom, we shall soon have neither.

Indeed, the most worrisome new factor, in my view, is the aggressive ideological approach of the current administration, which seems determined to use fear as a political tool to consolidate its power and to escape any accountability for its use. Just as unilateralism and dominance are the guiding principles of their disastrous approach to international relations, they are also the guiding impulses of the administration's approach to domestic politics. They are impatient with any constraints on the exercise of power overseas -- whether from our allies, the UN, or international law. And in the same way, they are impatient with any obstacles to their use of power at home - whether from Congress, the Courts, the press, or the rule of law.

The White House has retreated from its doctrine of regime change and pre-emptive military action and is returning to traditional diplomacy in an effort to repackage George Bush as a president for peace.
Signs of the new strategy that have emerged in the past few weeks include:

· North Korea, where authorities yesterday agreed to allow US inspectors to visit its nuclear complex next week.

· Iran, where the US proposed, through UN channels, sending a high-level humanitarian mission after last week's earthquake - although Tehran last night asked for any visit to be delayed.

· Libya, where the US welcomed Muammar Gadafy's surprise decision to give up weapons of mass destruction.

· Iraq, where the Bush administration is pressing for greater involvement from the international community.

· Palestine, where US peace envoy John Wolf may be sent to try to restart talks.

* * *

"There is a definite shift in US policy in everything but words," said Joseph Cirincione, an arms control expert. "The official doctrine has not changed but all our actions have, and the result is a shift away from military action towards diplomatic engagement. First with Iran, then with Libya and now with North Korea, we see a much greater effort to affect changes in regime behaviour rather than changes of regime."

Analysts in Washington say the Bush administration has little choice if it is to fulfil a highly ambitious election year agenda that seeks to disarm "rogue states" such as North Korea while advancing towards a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, encouraging conflict resolution in Sudan, and achieving credible transformations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

All these objectives are complicated and to some degree hindered by the "war on terror" against a resurgent al-Qaida, and by America's failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.