The speech struck me at the time as odd and rather disturbing. There were distant echoes of Bismarck's Kulturkampf against the Catholics, as though culture, even in its artistic forms, were a national, racial or religious competition, in which artists would do combat as gladiators. I wondered how great artists, such as Akira Kurosawa or Satyajit Ray, would take to the notion of being pressed into service as warriors for Asian power.

Still, it would not be the first rum idea to come from Singapore. But now it looks as if the US is embarking on a similar campaign. Prompted by 9/11, the US state department has recruited 15 prominent writers to serve American diplomatic interests by spreading "American values" throughout the world. A special anthology is to be published, containing essays about "What it means to be an American writer". Participants include such luminaries as Richard Ford, Billy Collins, Bharati Mukherjee and Sven Birkerts. The book will be handed out at US embassies, and the writers will tour.

Well, it's better than having Arnold Schwarzenegger as your cultural ambassador. One peculiarity of this venture is that the anthology is banned in the US itself, because the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 bars the domestic dissemination of official American information aimed at foreign audiences. One might well ask what the likes of Ford are doing writing "official American information".

Still, you might say, why is this venture any different from Sir David Hare, or Marina Warner going on a foreign roadshow, courtesy of the British Council? Aren't they being used as diplomats for British culture? Yes, in a way. But there is, I believe, a difference between promoting the arts of one's country by giving readings or attending conferences, and promoting "values" for political reasons.

Not that I'm necessarily opposed to the values of Ford or Birkerts, or American values in general. But I can't shake the feeling that this is not what serious writers ought to be doing. There are precedents for this kind of thing, to be sure. In the 50s, the likes of Arthur Koestler, Bertrand Russell, and Benedetto Croce took US government money to counter communist propaganda by mounting a campaign in favour of free speech and democracy. The Congress for Cultural Freedom, with its many offshoots, including some of the best intellectual journals, were funded directly or indirectly by the US government.

It is fashionable now to be scathing about this sort of thing, but the activities of Koestler and his friends were perhaps easier to justify than this new American scheme. Their mission was certainly more bracing than spreading American values. The enemy was Stalinism, at a time when many European intellectuals, such as Sartre, Merleau-Ponty and JD Bernal, were still in thrall to totalitarian propaganda. These "useful idiots" were happy to take part in all kinds of Soviet-sponsored events aimed at spreading "peace" according to Stalin.

The Kampf of the 50s, in other words, was not cultural but openly political. It was a real battle of ideas and the stakes were very high. Of course, the stakes are high now, too. Islamist revolutionaries are as totalitarian in their views as Stalinists once were, and we know they will use any means to achieve their ends. But apart from a disturbing number of deluded Muslims, few European, or even non-European intellectuals are paid-up defenders of their cause. Even John Pilger - although one can never be sure - is unlikely to speak at a conference of Islamists.

If there is a battle of ideas to be fought, it is in the Muslim world, where secularists and moderate Muslims deserve all the support they can get. But we should be careful about the nature of our support. A bunch of government-funded American writers coming to spread American values, however well-intentioned, is probably the very last thing they need. Loving America is not a necessary condition for leading a more civilised life.

                                                            Home