Fear's Empire: War, Terrorism, and Democracy [Hardcover]

Benjamin R. Barber (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: September 29, 2003

Benjamin R. Barber lambasts the Bush administration's attempt to fight fear with fear in the age of terrorism and argues against the tendency to confuse the spread of "McWorld" - the seductive blend of free-market ideology and American brands - with the spread of democracy. Barber examines the controversial issues that underlie the Cold War theory of containment and deterrence, and the dilemmas faced by America today. He rails against unilateralism, nuclear deterrence and reliance on military solutions, advocating instead an America that promotes co-operation, multilateralism, international law and pooled sovereignty.

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

The attacks of September 11, 2001 struck fear into the hearts of Americans. Despite being the world's lone superpower and despite being possessed of an unprecedented share of the world's wealth, Americans learned they were vulnerable to terrorists who operated with neither country nor army. In response, the Bush administration began a "war on terrorism," invading countries which it suspected of harboring terrorists or having the desire to harm American interests in the future. But America asserting itself by preemptively waging war is both wrongheaded and dangerous, according to Benjamin R. Barber. In Fear's Empire, he suggests that unilateral military action perpetuates an image of America as an aggressive force that operates outside the accepted precepts of international law and policy. This could lead to less support from other countries in fighting a shadowy enemy and, because it perpetuates the image of America as self-righteous aggressor, could lead to generations of increased terrorism while contributing to a bunker mentality of fear back at home. But Barber does more than say what's wrong; he offers a detailed plan for a more conscientious foreign policy alternative. He draws a distinction between Pax Americana the strategy of preventive war which the United States used in Afghanistan and Iraq and Lex Humana or "preventive democracy," a strategy in which democracy is developed as a means of establishing a lasting peace around the world by encouraging a practical self-determination. Barber draws important distinctions: simply demanding that other countries adopt America's laws and processes will not work and exporting America's consumer driven economic lifestyle would be nothing short of disastrous. But by extending the notion of the social contract to the world, helping countries establish their own democratic societies, and using democracy as a model for nations to work together, Barber argues, peace could be established and fear's empire finally defeated. Barber's writing is intellectual without being pedantic and passionate without being unnecessarily shrill or partisan. Such an approach is welcome in a political climate where the loudest shouters tend to get the most notice. --John Moe

From Booklist

The logic of preventative war, argues this assertive critique of the Bush administration's supposedly new foreign policy, isn't so fundamentally different from the cold war doctrine of deterrence: both amount to fighting fear with fear. What is different, however, is the world. In an increasingly interdependent world with no check on American power, where destruction is assuredly unilateral, friends and enemies alike read displays of power not as deterrence but as dominance--an ultimately counterproductive strategy since resentment further fuels terrorism. Barber's thesis is a tightly presented, if essentially familiar, pragmatic argument in favor of "preventative democracy" and multilateralism, backed up by his previous book Jihad vs. McWorld (1995) on exporting democracy versus exporting capitalism; a host of New York Times editorials; and Bob Woodward's Bush at War [BKL D 15 02]. It's embellished and made unique, however, by its examination of the myths of moral confidence presented in, for example, Melville's thoroughly American characters Billy Budd and Amasa Delano. Fresh-faced innocence, argues Barber, doesn't look convincing when worn by an angry, frightened giant. Brendan Driscoll
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 192 pages
• Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company; 1 edition (September 29, 2003)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0393058360
• ISBN-13: 978-0393058369
• Product Dimensions: 8.7 x 5.9 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 13.9 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (13 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,261,717 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

35 of 37 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The right prescription, January 14, 2004

By 

Alessandro Bruno (Toronto, Canada) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Fear's Empire: War, Terrorism, and Democracy (Hardcover)

This book was welcome follow-up to Benjamin Barber's famous book Jihad vs. McWorld and in it he expands on the themes of already established in that book. In many ways the first book foretold the present foreign policy challenges faced by the 'North'and the 'Sout'h'. However, unlike harsher dialectics proposed by Samuel Huntington and more recently Richard perle in his draconian solution to world problems featured in the lamentable but unequivocably harsh "An End To Evil", Barber does not speak in terms of black or white. His approach is well reasoned, and differs in tone even from other alternative, or so called 'liberal' texts that criticize America's current foreign policy approach. Barber writes with reason and suggests that rather than exporting democracy and markets, the more priviliged world under America's leadership should be engaged in the building of citizens and civil society first, for it is on that basis that lasting democracies are built. I found the book became more interesting and engaging in the second half where the argument against the idea of a preventive war, turns into an argument against the éxport'of democracy for the creation of the right structures and circumstances that help to build and sustain democracy in the developing world. This is an important work that should be read by all those who wish to understand - reasonably and without hyperbole - the dangers of America's current foreign policy

37 of 40 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Review of Gaetan Lion's Review, January 7, 2004

By 

Kip Leitner "Kip Leitner" (Philadelphia, PA USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Fear's Empire: War, Terrorism, and Democracy (Hardcover)

I've been thinking of reading this book; Reading Gaetan Lion's negative review convinced me to go ahead, since in my view Lion's polemic overreaches. This is one way I decide whether or not to read or not read books -- by profiling the reviewers and analyzing their polemics.

In more than 100 reviews on Amazon, Lion writes in a concise, informative way, giving generally balanced in-depth reviews. But something in this book peeves him. I wan't to find out what it is, since his overt criticims just don't seem justified to me.

In his review, Lion criticizes Barber for failing to recommend specific solutions to the Jihad vs. McWorld dilemma. Lion finds Barber's "preventative democracy" too unspecific.

I would suggest that the principles of preventative democracy are so simple that Barber felt no need to elaborate. Brainstorming a few as fast as I can type and think:

1) Pay for election monitoring processes (UN does this well)
2) Support micro-loans, a well known economic strategy
3) Do not send weapons systems to dictators, this just distracts
them from trying to become more democratic.
4) Give grants for internet infrastructure to increase the
power of free media in countries where there is little
5) Do not train military advisors from countries that do not
practice democracy.
6) Support religious freedom
7) Increase cultural exchanges with so-called "bad" countries
to allow democratic ideals to penetrate their insularity

I don't understand why Lion faults Barber for omitting specifics as a wide slate of democracy-enhancing programs is well-known.

Lion also writes, strangely that "[Barber] forgets that we have tried the "preventive democracy" route, supported by hundreds of $millions in foreign aid, in our dealings with the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire."

In my view, the historical reality in Iraq and Afghanistan, the current hot spots, is that most of US funding went into speculative military alliances, not democracy making or nation building. Specifically,

1) In Iraq, funding went to support a CIA coup and install and sustain Saddam Hussein for more than 20 years as tyrannical dictator of Iraq, complete with Stalinist purge (and execution) of parlimentary members. The US helped arm Hussein with chemical weapons (which he used with delight against the Kurds), fund his war against Iran in retaliation for the Islamic radicalism inspired there by US support of another dictator, The Shah. This aid was not, as Lion suggests, preemptive democracy, but preemptive dictatorship support.

"Check out the details:

http://208.39.216.125/news/2003/12/5936.php

The war cost is currently at 95 billion dollars. So when Barber suggests using multilateral democratic persusion, it seems obvious to me that he means spending that 95 billion not on war, but on democracy-making alternatives. After all, if we are going to spend 95 billion dollars, we should invest it in democracy. That's the point. Just from a pragmatic standpoint, it's so much more cost effective to support fledgeling democracies than fight failed dictatorships. Way more cost effective. It's like Head Start. Every dollar in up front pays itself off four times over in future costs.

2) In Afghanistan, the US funded the Taliban against the Soviet Union; At the time, the President's CIA men bragged at what a neat strategy they had cooked up, blending fanatical, fundamentalist Islam with militarism to create a guerilla army that defeated the USSR in the first Mother of All Battles. After the US defeated the Taliban though, they just migrated to Pakistan, where they continue today in huge numbers. We still have the Taliban, only they're in Pakistan. One wonders what would have happened if Afghanistan had simply waited out Soviet domination for a few more years and then gone independent when the rest of the Eastern Block of the USSR broke up.

In essense, both countries manipulated USA cold war paranoia. The pretended to be our friends just long enough to get enough aid and arms to take over their countries, though they disguised this as it was happenging. Once they had won their battles though, the psychological inertia of the shadow warrior state took over, along with a tyrannical facism (Iraq), and fundamentalism (Afghanistan).

One interesting futurism: Barber is an advisor on foreign affairs to democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, potentially the next president of the United States. If Dean is elected, we are going to be hearing alot more about Mr. Barber. He could potentially even be appointed Secretary of State.

Read the book, and see what you think.

Kip Leitner

20 of 24 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars One of the most reliable criticism of American unilateralism, January 15, 2004

By 

Masaki Tanaka "mtanaka7" (Tokyo, Japan) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Fear's Empire: War, Terrorism, and Democracy (Hardcover)

JIHAD vs. McWorld was good, but this is much better! Above all the author well understands the importance of what George Washington once emphasized as a maxim of American Foreign Policy: international coordination. What the Bush Administration has done so far is almost reversal of the heritage. Preventive war (means nothing but invasion) not Preemptive war, list of 'Rogue States,' democratization with missiles, etc. Only 10 out of about 200 countries reluctantly follow the U.S. The author excellently illuminates such endangering America. Really brilliant! I am convinced that Prof. Hoffmann also recommends.