Opinion Oderint dum metuant By Tony Laszlo	フレームで見る  英文をプリントする  脚注をプリントする
彼らが恐れる間は、彼らが憎むもよきことなり 米キャリア外交官、キースリング参事官が、 イラク攻撃計画に抗議して2月末に辞任した。 参事官が辞表につづった言葉とは _ 。

John Brady Kiesling, political counselor at the U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece, quit his job with the U.S. Foreign Service in protest over recent U.S. policy. In his letter of resignation he proposed that his government ponder a critical question: why had it failed to convince more of the world that military force against Iraq was necessary?

"Our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the United States to drift into complete solipsism," he writes. "When our friends are afraid of us, rather than for us, it is time to worry."

Kiesling further asks whether "oderint dum metuant" has become the motto of the United States? An interesting choice of words, and one that probably sent the U.S. secretary of state's assistants scampering off in search of a good Latin dictionary. "Oderint dum metuant" may be translated roughly as "they may hate us, so long as they fear us." The 2000- year-old expression, coined by Roman tragic poet Lucius, is a maxim that was favored by the Roman emperor Caligula and other ruling figures over the years.

By invoking this phrase, Kiesling is essentially saying that the United States, though immensely powerful, should strive to maintain friendships with other nations based on shared ideals, rather than on the other party's dread of forced isolation or even harsher consequences. In schoolyard terms, he is criticizing the bully for surrounding himself with "friends" who do as they are told simply because they are too afraid of what might happen otherwise. In this sense, Kiesling's letter is a rebuttal to U.S. President George W. Bush's strong-arm proclamation that the nations of the world must choose to be "either with us or against us."

How the U.S. government reacts to this criticism is very much up to the U.S. government. However, Kiesling's sentiments are directed at the broader public, as well. Those opposed to a unilateral strike against Baghdad are likely to agree with the notion that the United States should have worked harder to convince other nations of the merits of its position.

But these people must also answer the question that Kiesling indirectly raises: Is it possible for a power like the United States to forge friendships based on something other than fear? If so, what would that something be? The friendship might be based on love, you say? Machiavelli, the ever-popular 16th-century pundit, begs to differ. He insists that, from the perspective of those in power, it is better to be feared than loved. People have a way of setting love by the wayside when times become dire; they will never lose their fear of incurring the wrath of those in power.

How about a world order based on neither fear nor love, but on shared values and mutual respect. Could such a model emerge? I certainly hope it does, but as some wise man once said, "I cannot predict the future." As the basic mechanisms that govern human society remain relatively constant - while emperors come and go - one must look to humanity itself for the final answer.

Shukan ST: March 28, 2003

(C) All rights reserved