The United States of America should have sent a strong delegation to the United Nations Conference on Racism held in South Africa last month, led by Secretary of State Colin Powell. Its failure to do so because of efforts by some countries to label Israel racist was both unfair to Mr Powell and an indication of shallow strategic thinking.

America is clearly vulnerable at such a conference. It was guilty of genocide against the original indigenous inhabitants. It had a long history of slavery. There is still racism in America. But as the Reverend Jesse Jackson put it in a column it also has a tale to tell. It is an open, democratic society which has sought to come to terms with its history. There have been major improvements in civil rights for Afro-American and other minorities, in every area and at every level. Who better to tell this tale than Mr Powell, himself a living embodiment of the opportunities now available in America to talented and energetic people of all races.

America is a flawed but vibrant multi-ethnic society, capable of continuing change. It should not be afraid to attend conferences where it may be in a minority for one reason or another. It should not only participate in organisations where its views can dominate. As a leading democracy it should be willing to engage in open debate abroad, as it does at home, and to take a stand in such fora on the democratic values it believes in and that are embodied in its constitution. Indeed there are many other countries that attended that conference whose historical record is also deeply flawed and who are less open to change.

Withdrawing from conferences is a sign of weakness. It is also based on a strategic misconception that as the remaining superpower America can or should try to dominate the world. Indeed, properly perceived, it is in its own best interest to encourage other independent centres of power and influence like the European Union, China, Japan and India. A unipolar world will be inherently unstable and will expose America to endless criticism and resentment.

America withdrew primarily because of the perhaps unfair isolation of Israel as a target. Through the recent terrorist attacks in New York may not spring only or even directly from the Palestinian problem (Mr bin Laden's obsessive concern seems to be the presence of American troops in his former homeland,Saudi Arabia) it is surely clear that a fair settlement between the Israeli government and Mr Arafat must be an essential step in lessening tension in the region and creating a better atmosphere for some level of peace and stability. Blind and unswerving support of Israel is no longer a viable option, the price to be paid will be too high. The United States must lean heavily on Israel to return to the bargaining table.

Finally, the negative approach to the conference, first sending a low level delegation and then withdrawing, can have the effect, unfairly, of damaging Mr Powell's credibility. One suspects that his own instinctive decision would have been to attend and thrash things out in the debating and drafting sessions. It could have been a wonderful stage for him to have dealt openly with some difficult and sensitive topics. His performance in interviews since September ll has shown he has both the wit and intelligence to have done this. It would have done America enormous credit in so many ways.

America should be less ready to act alone or in a dominant manner. The coalition it is now seeking to build against terrorism could be a precursor to other useful and long term democratic initiatives. There could indeed be a new world order though somewhat different to the one conceived by the first President Bush.