Iraq and the Bush "Democracy Agenda"

As this article by Bill Fisher notes, Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (bio) has a new report out (34 pages, .pdf) entitled “Democracy Promotion During and After Bush”, and it is absolutely a must-read. Carothers is, bar none, the leading expert on just how far removed the Bush administration’s lip service to “spreading freedom and democracy” throughout the world (and especially in the Middle East!) is from its real-world track record.

For just one example of Carothers’ history of providing spot-on critiques of the Bushies’ failure to fulfill its “Democracy Agenda”, (but stopping short of offering readers with some much-needed critical assessment of just how hypocritical and intellectually bankrupt formulating such a agenda is for these clowns), see this article in the CFR-published journal Foreign Affairs from January/February 2003, “Promoting Democracy and Fighting Terror.”

In his new report, which I’ve printed out in order to be able to read it closely, Carothers argues that the “future of democracy promotion as part of US foreign policy” is uncertain because under the current administration, democracy promotion has been widely discredited through its close association with the Iraq war. Specifically, he points out that “only a minority of the US public now supports democracy promotion as a US policy goal,” while both political parties remain “internally divided on the subject.”

He argues:

The actual extent of the Bush commitment to democracy promotion is much less than the president’s sweeping rhetoric would suggest. Although the administration insists that the Iraq intervention was a democratizing mission from day one, this proposition remains intensely debated at home and abroad. Bush policy in the rest of the Middle East temporarily diverted from the traditional line of supporting autocratic Arab allies but has returned to it during the past year.

Beyond the Middle East, Bush policy is semi-realist. It includes some low-key, pro-democracy diplomacy and assistance but is primarily driven by economic and security interests that often clash with support for democracy, such as in China, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, and many other places.

The positive effects of Bush policy on global democracy have been sparse. Despite hope in 2004–5 that the Middle East was experiencing a “Baghdad Spring,” the region remains stuck in authoritarian rule. The spread of democracy has stagnated in the rest of the world, with democratic reversals or backsliding outweighing gains. The Bush combination of idealism in words and semi-realism in deeds is not in itself a significant departure from recent predecessors. The foreign policies of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton all combined in various proportions an emphasis on democracy with substantial realist elements.

Yet to the extent the Bush approach to democracy promotion is distinctive, its distinguishing features—the centrality of military intervention, the focus on the Middle East, and the tie-in with the war on terrorism—have all been highly problematic.

According to Carothers, the next administration will have a “significant opportunity” to put U.S. democracy promotion on a better track, which translated into layman’s terms means that hopefully the next president will be more willing to take a serious, principled stand in foreign affairs than the Bush administration has. According to Carothers, there are three core requirements for the successful transition a workable approach. First, he argues “democracy promotion must be decontaminated from the negative taint it acquired under Bush.” He thinks this can be accomplished by little thinks like “improving US compliance with the rule of law in the war on terrorism, ending the close association of democracy promotion with military intervention and regime change, and reducing the inconsistency of U.S. democracy policy by exerting real pressure for change on some key autocratic partners, such as Pakistan and Egypt.” Because in life, small adjustments can often yield a disproportionately large impact.

Second, “democracy promotion must be repositioned in the war on terrorism. The idea that democratization will undercut the roots of terrorism is appealing but easily overstated. Promoting democratic change may in some countries help encourage moderates over radicals, but it is far from an antiterrorist elixir.” He argues that the next administration should strive to “deescalate rhetorical emphasis on democracy promotion as the centerpiece of the war on terrorism” and instead “escalate actual commitment to the issue” in high-profile situations where supporting democratic change can in fact help diminish growing radicalization. This will require our next president to hire competent foreign policy advisors who understand how democracy promotion works – and doesn’t work – and aren’t hellbent on using democracy promition as a reed-thin justification for invading and occupying nations in the volatile Middle East to further US geopolitical interests.

Finally, “US democracy promotion must be recalibrated to account for larger changes in the international context. A host of ongoing developments, such as the rise of alternative political models, new trends in globalization, and the high price of oil and gas, have eroded the validity of a whole set of assumptions on which U.S. democracy promotion was built in the 1980s and 1990s. The next administration will need to respond in large and small ways, such as by drawing an explicit tie between energy policy and democracy policy, reengaging internationally at the level of basic political ideas, reducing the America-centrism of U.S. democracy building efforts, and strengthening the core institutional sources of democracy assistance. ” In other words, the US ought to seperate out its agenda for controlling access to the world’s largest sources of oil with its committment to foreign economic/military/political aid so as to be a beacon of light and a shining example to Third World countries throughout the world. Because Bush has been particularly bad at disguising his military operations and continued military occupation of Iraq on humanitarian grounds.

Here are the key conclusions and recommendations:

• Democracy promotion must be decontaminated from the negative taint it has acquired under President Bush by improving U.S. compliance with the rule of law in the war on terrorism, ending the close association of democracy promotion with military intervention and regime change, and reducing the inconsistency of U.S. democracy policy by exerting real pressure for change on some key autocratic partners, such as Pakistan and Egypt.

• Democracy promotion must be repositioned in the war on terrorism. The idea that democratization will undercut the roots of terrorism is appealing but easily overstated. The next administration should deescalate rhetorical emphasis on democracy promotion as the centerpiece of the war on terrorism while escalating actual commitment to the issue in pivotal cases where supporting democratic change can help diminish growing radicalization.

• U.S. democracy promotion must be recalibrated to account for larger changes in the international context. A host of ongoing developments, such as the rise of authoritarian capitalism, new trends in globalization, and the high price of oil and gas, have eroded the validity of a whole set of assumptions on which U.S. democracy promotion was built in the 1980s and 1990s. The next administration will need to respond in large and small ways, such as by drawing an explicit tie between energy policy and democracy policy, re-engaging internationally at the level of basic political ideas, reducing the America-centrism of U.S. democracy building efforts, and strengthening the core institutional sources of democracy assistance.

According to Carothers: “US democracy promotion must square a daunting circle—it must embody strong elements of modesty, subtlety, and the awareness of limitations without losing the vitality, decisiveness, and creativity necessary for success.”