Feeds:
Entradas
Comentarios

Posts Tagged ‘George G. W. Bush’

 The Cold War and the Origins of US Democracy Promotion

Robert Pee

U.S. Studies Online   Forum for New Writing

May 8, 2014

Soft power is the power to influence foreign governments, foreign publics, and world public opinion through the non-forcible projection of culture, ideology and political value systems. Soft power, in short, as its foremost scholar Joseph Nye explains, is “attractive power”. It has been a key facet of US foreign policy since the outbreak of the Cold War and its significance has continued to grow through the expansion of global communication networks and the ideological conflicts of the post-9/11 era.

This Featured Blog Series interrogates US soft power in terms of its historical and contemporary deployment, investigating the strategies, organisational frameworks and tactics which have shaped the US deployment of soft power, how this deployment has interacted with other foreign policy tools, and how overseas populations and elites have received US soft power and negotiated its meaning.


NEDDuring its time in office the Bush administration channelled over $1 billion to Arab democrats through the US Agency for International Development, the State Department and the Middle East Partnership Initiative,[1] with much of this funding going to democratic groups in previously-favoured dictatorships, such as Egypt. The Bush administration argued that the shift was necessary to safeguard US security by containing Islamist movements.[2] This equation between support for democratic groups overseas and US national security was not new, however; instead, the idea originated during the final stages of the Cold War, when a loose network of American intellectuals persuaded the Reagan administration to support the foundation of the National Endowment for Democracy. According to this network, strengthening pro-US parties and civil society groups in the Third World could be used to shore up the Washington’s geopolitical position vis-à-vis the Soviet Union by blocking Marxist movements from seizing power in allied dictatorships.

Democracy promotion was conceptualised by actors outside the national security bureaucracy from 1972 onwards to resolve the strategic and organisational tensions which had marked US attempts to export democracy as a tool of national power in the Cold War. Strategically, policy-makers had disagreed over whether to support authoritarian regimes in the Third World or democratising economic and social reforms. Those who advocated support for right-wing dictatorships argued that attempts to create democratic governments would destabilise friendly states and possibly result in Communist takeovers; supporters of the democratic option claimed that it was the repression and inequality which characterised dictatorships that drove Third World populations to support Communist movements.[3] This division in the foreign policy elite led to an incoherent and disjointed strategic approach, in which democratising reforms were supported in some cases but not in others, and were often soft-pedalled or abandoned if they began to threaten existing US interests. Organisationally, the state had struggled to direct a covertly-funded state-private network of US civil society groups, deployed to co-opt key foreign demographic groups to the US cause, in a way that both preserved the credibility of US groups as private actors and was effective in achieving national security goals.[4]

Democracy promotion was proposed after these modes of intervention had declined. The exposure of the state-private network’s covert state funding in 1967[5] destroyed the credibility of the groups involved as private actors, and thus their operational effectiveness, while the Nixon administration implemented an overall strategy of supporting authoritarian regimes to contain Communist/radical movements. The basic blueprint for democracy promotion was outlined shortly after by William Douglas, a development theorist.

The new democratisation strategy outlined by Douglas strove to avoid the strategic dilemma which had led the state apparatus to implement inconsistent policies, and the credibility issues caused by the exposure of covert funding of private groups. Strategically, Douglas called for a democracy campaign embracing the whole Third World arguing that the creation of democratic states would produce governments less vulnerable to Communist subversion and prevent the West from being cut off from important raw materials.[6] To achieve this, socioeconomic reforms and the projection of democratic ideology should be replaced by direct aid to democratic parties overseas delivered by a non-state League for Democracy composed of Western and Third World democratic parties. This organisational arrangement would ease disagreements over whether the US should support dictatorships or democratic reform as the best guarantee of stability in the Third World, as the US government could maintain its support for dictatorships in the short-term while handing over diplomatically sensitive reform programs to a non-state actor, meaning that both strategies could be pursued simultaneously. The credibility problems caused by the exposure of the state-private network’s covert funding in 1967 could be solved by making government contributions to the League overt and transparent, or by turning to foundation grants or private donations as sources of funding. However, neither the Executive nor US civil society were interested in the idea initially. The Nixon administration believed efforts to democratise friendly dictatorships to be destabilising, while many US liberals linked democratisation and modernisation to the failure of US policy in Vietnam.

This changed in the second half of the 1970s as the US faced a growing wave of Third World revolutions,[7] re-opening the question of how political intervention could best be implemented to block the emergence of radical governments. The Carter administration attempted to steer a middle course between support for authoritarianism or democratisation by pressuring existing dictatorships to liberalise in order to defuse popular anger while leaving the structures of the regimes essentially unchanged – the essence of Carter’s Human Rights policy in the Third World.[8]However, the administration proved unable to implement the competing policies of preserving relations with allied authoritarian regimes and fostering reform through the US national security bureaucracy. Pressure for reform was often blunted or blocked by bureaucratic struggles between the Bureau of Human Rights and other agencies such as the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, the State Department’s Bureau for Security Assistance, and the Department’s regional bureaux, which sought to preserve relations with friendly authoritarian regimes such as the Philippines and Pakistan.[9]

Politicians in the Democratic Party offered a solution to this problem by founding a non-state organisation which could act as a channel for such initiatives outside the state apparatus – the American Political Foundation – in 1979. The APF was inspired by the West German Party Foundations: political training institutes, each linked to a West German political party, which implemented political assistance programs overseas with West German government funds.[10] The APF was established by George Agree, a former Congressional aide to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, to follow this example by forging transnational party links to defend and extend democracy.[11] However, the organisation was small and lacked a clear strategy, adequate funding from business or foundations[12] and support from the Carter White House.

The decisive shift which opened up the possibility of convergence between non-state democracy promoters and the national security bureaucracy was the failure of Carter’s policies to prevent revolution in Nicaragua. The administration had failed to manage the competing imperatives of pressuring the Somoza dictatorship to liberalise so as to draw popular support away from the Marxist FSLN insurgency, while maintaining a regime strong enough to combat the insurgents militarily. The administration’s last-ditch attempt to remove Somoza in favour of a government of pro-US democrats to ward off the final FSLN victory failed because its chosen proxies within Nicaragua lacked the political skills and organisational strength to block a revolutionary takeover.[13]

A solution to this problem was conceived by Michael Samuels of the CSIS, who contacted the APF in early 1980. Samuels proposed that political aid programs to strengthen democrats in friendly authoritarian states threatened with revolution should be begun before these revolutions materialised. These programs would create strong pro-US political movements which could take power after the breakdown of a dictatorship and block revolutionary takeovers, preserving the target country’s geopolitical alliance with the US. They would be carried out through the “American Political Development Foundation”, a semi-private organisation receiving US government money overtly[14] — a further development of Douglas’ League for Democracy and Agree’s APF, but one which was wholly American rather than transnational, and tied to a current and specific US foreign policy problem, which made it more likely to gain the support of policy-makers.

Samuels’ proposal led to the coalescence of a loose network of non-state democracy promoters, including Douglas and the APF, which successfully lobbied the Reagan administration to support the initiative.[15] This led to the foundation of the legally private but government-funded National Endowment for Democracy, headed by Carl Gershman, a neoconservative and former Reagan administration official, in 1983 to channel funding to democratic groups overseas.[16] Under Reagan and George H.W. Bush the organisation aided the democratic forces which succeeded pro-US dictatorships in the Philippines and Chile, and those which replaced Marxist governments in Nicaragua and Poland,[17] thus safeguarding US national security interests in the final phase of the Cold War. The NED’s programs were also precursors of the later governmental initiatives in USAID and the State Department deployed by George W. Bush and Barack Obama in the Middle East. The NED itself is still active and counts among its board members former George W. Bush administration figures, such as previous NSC official Elliott Abrams, responsible for policy towards the Near East and Global Democracy Strategy, and Zalmay Khalilzad, former ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq.[18]

The origins of US democracy promotion were bound up with the search for an effective method of preventing the emergence of revolutionary governments in the Third World, which could damage Washington’s geopolitical position vis-à-vis the Soviet Union. The democracy promoters’ solution to the strategic dilemma of whether to support dictatorships to achieve short-term stability or democratic reform to create long-term stability was to lodge democracy programs in a non-state organisation. This would make democracy programs credible to Third World democrats and plausibly deniable to dictatorships, allowing the US to support dictatorships and strengthen democratic successor movements simultaneously. The strategic considerations which originally drove Cold War democracy promotion reappeared in US foreign policy towards the Middle East after the 9/11 attacks,  with the growth of democracy being expected to contain a disparate collection of Islamist groups, rather than Marxist rebels supposedly acting at the behest of Moscow.

However, previous strategic tensions re-emerged as the George W. Bush and Obama administrations both soft-pedalled democracy promotion in friendly Middle Eastern states such as Egypt when it clashed with immediate geopolitical objectives,[19] and were able to do so because the US government funds the NED and now implements the bulk of US democracy promotion programs.[20] Due to this back-tracking the fall of the authoritarian Mubarak regime was followed by a power struggle between the Muslim Brotherhood and the military rather than a pro-US democratic successor elite. Thus, the tension between the pursuit of democracy and short-term US national security interests, which democracy promotion was originally generated to resolve, continues to operate as a basic feature of US foreign policy.


Footnotes

[1] Eric Patterson, “Obama and Sustainable Democracy Promotion”, International Studies Perspectives, 13 (2012): 29.

[2] Bush argued in 2003 that “As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export.” George W. Bush, “Remarks at the 20thanniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy,” 6th November 2003, available from http://www.ned.org/george-w-bush/remarks-by-president-george-w-bush-at-the-20th-anniversary, accessed 2nd May 2014.

[3] Compare the assertion of George Humphrey, Eisenhower’s Treasury Secretary that “whenever a dictator was replaced, communists gained” with Kennedy’s argument that “Dictatorships are the seedbed from which communism ultimately springs up.” Quoted from Tony Smith, America’s Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1993), 192 and David F. Schmitz, The United States and Right-wing Dictatorships, 1965-1989 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 261.

[4] For further details on the state-private network see Hugh Wilford, The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2008).

[5] Tity de Vries, “The 1967 Central Intelligence Agency Scandal: Catalyst in a Transforming Relationship between State and People,” Journal of American History 98, no. 4 (2012).

[6]William A. Douglas, Developing Democracy (Washington DC: Heldref Publications, 1972).

[7] Richard Saull, The Cold War and After: Capitalism, Revolution and Superpower Politics (London: Pluto Press, 2007), 139.

[8] James Earl Carter, Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President (Fayetteville, Arkansas: University of Arkansas Press, 1982), 143; and also Anonymous, “Presidential Review Memorandum 28: Human Rights”, Jimmy Carter Library, 8th July 1977, accessed 20th March 2009, http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/pddirectives4.

[9] Victor Kaufman, “The Bureau of Human Rights during the Carter Administration,” The Historian 61, no. 1 (1998).

[10] Donald M. Fraser, “A Proposal that the Democratic National Committee employ at least one staff member assigned to follow and work with political movements abroad”, 1977, Folder 6: Reports and Proposals, Box 1, George E. Agree Papers, Library of Congress, hereafter LOC.

[11] George Agree, “Proposal for a pilot study of international cooperation between democratic political parties,” 9thMay 1977, Box 1, Folder 6: Reports and Proposals, Box 1, George E. Agree Papers, LOC.

[12] Difficulties with securing funding were mentioned in the minutes of organisation’s annual board meetings in 1980 and 1981. See APF, “Minutes of 1980 Annual Meeting, Board of Directors of American Political Foundation”, 19thMarch 1980 and “APF, Minutes of 1981 Annual Meeting, Board of Directors of American Political Foundation”, 7th July 1981, Folder 3: APF Minutes, Box 1, George E. Agree Papers, LOC.

[13] See Robert A. Pastor, Not Condemned to Repetition: the United States and Nicaragua, (Boulder, Colorado: Westview, 2002), 82-99 and Morris H. Morley, Washington, Somoza and the Sandinistas: State and Regime in US Policy towards Nicaragua 1969-1981 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994), 174-181.

[14] Michael A Samuels, Project Proposal: A Comprehensive Policy Response to Expanding U.S. Interests in the Third World, 1980, 1, attached to George Agree, Letter to Mr Michael A. Samuels, 15th February 1980, Folder 1: APF Correspondence, Box 1, George E. Agree Papers, LOC.

[15] See General Accounting Office, Events Leading to the Establishment of the National Endowment for Democracy, 6th July 1984, accessed 27th December 2006, http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-84-121, 1, for meetings between democracy promoters and officials and Alexander Haig, memo to the President, 8th March 1982, DDRS, accessed 11thDecember 2006, for the proposal of a semiprivate democracy institute to Reagan in the wake of these meetings.

[16] Nicholas Guilhot, The Democracy Makers: Human Rights and International Order (New York, Chichester: Columbia University Press, 2005), 90.

[17]William I. Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention and Hegemony (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 129-137, 175-193 and 221-239; Thomas Carothers, In the Name of Democracy: US Policy Toward Latin America in the Reagan Years (Berkeley & Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, 1991), 94-95 and 158-160; and Gregory Domber “Supporting the Revolution: America, Democracy and the End of the Cold War in Poland, 1981-1989” (PhD thesis, George Washington University, 2008),  accessed 15th July 2013, http://transatlantic.sais-jhu.edu/ACES/ACES_Working_Papers/Gregory_Domber

_Supporting_the_Revolution.pdf, 209-216, 335-350 and 410-411

[18] See http://ned.org/about/board, accessed 3rd May 2014.

[19] Fawaz Gerges, Obama and the Middle East: The End of America’s Moment (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 162-164.

[20] The Obama administration cut US government funding for democracy promotion in Egypt and restored the Egyptian government’s ability to veto the transfer of US funds to Egyptian groups, thus limiting the freedom of USAID and of NDI and IRI, NED’s Republican and Democratic Party Institutes, which provide aid to foreign democratic political parties. Richard S. Williamson, “Turning a Blind Eye to Egypt”, September 30th 2010, available from http://www.iri.org/news-events-press-center/news/iri-board-member-richard-williamson-urges-support-egypts-democratic-ac, accessed 26th April 2014

blog snapshotRobert Pee has recently graduated the University of Birmingham with a PhD. His thesis, titled “Democracy Promotion, National Security and Strategy under the Reagan Administration: 1981-1986”, examines the relationship of democracy promotion to national security in US strategy, with a particular focus on the origins of the National Endowment for Democracy and on democracy promotion during the Reagan administration. His research interests include US Democracy Promotion during the Cold War and the War on Terror, national security strategy, the role of non-state actors in the formation and execution of US foreign policy, and US policy towards the Arab Spring

Read Full Post »

En un artículo publicado recientemente en la revista The American Conservative titulado “How we became Israel”, el historiador norteamericano Andrew Bacevich examina la israelificación de la política de seguridad nacional de los Estados Unidos. El término no es mío, sino del propio Bacevich, y hace referencia al alegado creciente uso por Estados Unidos de tácticas y estrategias practicadas por el estado de Israel. Bacevich no es un autor ajeno a este blog, ya  que he reseñado varios de sus escritos porque le considero uno de los analistas más honestos y, por ende, valientes de la política exterior de su país. En el contexto de un posible ataque israelí contra Irán –que arrastraría a los Estados Unidos a una guerra innecesaria y muy peligrosa– me parece necesario reseñar este artículo, ya que analiza elementos muy importantes de las actuales relaciones israelíes-norteamericanas.

Bacevich comienza su artículo  con una reflexión sobre la paz y la violencia. Según éste,  la paz tiene significados que varían de acuerdo con el país o gobierno que los defina. Para unos, la paz es sinónimo de armonía basada en la tolerancia y el respeto. Para otros, no es más que un eufemismo para dominar. Un país comprometido con la paz recurre a la violencia como último recurso y esa había sido, según Bacevich, la actitud histórica de los Estados Unidos. Por el contrario, si un país ve la paz como sinónimo de dominio, hará un uso menos limitado de la violencia Ese es el caso de Israel desde hace mucho tiempo y lo que le preocupa al autor es que, según él,  desde fines de la guerra fría también ha sido la actitud de los Estados Unidos.  De acuerdo con Bacevich:

“As a consequence, U.S. national-security policy increasingly conforms to patterns of behavior pioneered by the Jewish state. This “Israelification” of U.S. policy may prove beneficial for Israel. Based on the available evidence, it’s not likely to be good for the United States.”

Es claro que para Bacevich la llamada israelificación de la política de seguridad nacional de los Estados Unidos no es buen negocio para su nación. El autor le dedica el resto de su artículo a analizar este fenómeno.

Como parte de su análisis, el autor hace una serie de observaciones muy críticas y pertinentes sobre Israel. Comienza  examinando la visión sobre la paz del actual primer ministro israelí, partiendo de unas expresiones hechas por Benjamin Netanyahu en 2009, reclamando la total desmilitarización de la franja de Gaza y de la margen occidental del río Jordán como requisitos para un acuerdo de paz con los palestinos. Para Bacevich, estas exigencias no tienen sentido alguno porque los palestinos pueden ser una molestia para Israel, pero no constituyen una amenaza dada la enorme superioridad militar de los israelíes, cosa que se suele olvidar, añadiría yo, con demasiada facilidad y frecuencia. Bacevich concluye que para los israelíes la paz se deriva de la seguridad absoluta, basada no en la ventaja sino en la supremacía militar.

La insistencia en esa supremacía ha hecho necesario que Israel lleve a cabo lo que el autor denomina como “anticipatory action”, es decir, acciones preventivas contra lo que los israelíes han percibido como amenazas (“perceived threats”). Uno de los ejemplos que hace referencia el autor es el ataque israelí contra las facilidades nucleares iraquíes en 1981.  Sin embargo, con estas acciones los israelíes no se han limitado a defenderse, sino que  convirtieron la percepción de amenaza en oportunidad de expansión territorial. Bacevich da como ejemplos los ataques israelíes contra Egipto en 1956 y 1967 que, según él, no ocurrieron porque los egipcios tuvieran la capacidad de destruir a Israel. Tales ataques se dieron porque abrían la oportunidad de la ganancia territorial por vía de la conquista. Ganancia que en el caso de la guerra de 1967 ha tenido serias consecuencias estratégicas para Israel.

Bacevich examina otro elemento clave de la política de seguridad israelí: los asesinatos selectivos (“targeted assassinations”).  Los israelíes  han convertido la eliminación física de sus adversarios ­­–a través del uso del terrorismo, añadiría yo– en el sello distintivo del arte de la guerra israelí, eclipsando así métodos militares convencionales y dañando la imagen internacional de Israel.

Lo que  Bacevich no entiende y le preocupa, es por qué Estados Unidos han optado por seguir los pasos de Israel. Según éste, desde la administración del primer Bush, su país ha oscilado hacia la búsqueda del dominio militar global, hacia el uso de acciones militares preventivas y hacia a los asesinatos selectivos (en referencia al uso de vehículos aéreos no tripulados ­­–los llamados “drones”-  como arma antiterrorista creciente). Todo ello justificado, como en el caso de Israel,  como medida defensiva y como herramienta de seguridad nacional. Al autor se la hace difícil entender esta israelificación porque contrario a Israel, Estados Unidos es un país grande, con una gran población y sin enemigos  cercanos. En otras palabras, los norteamericanos tienen opciones y ventajas que los israelíes no poseen. A pesar de ello, Estados Unidos ha sucumbido “into an Israeli-like condition of perpetual war, with peace increasingly tied to unrealistic expectations of adversaries and would-be adversaries acquiescing in Washington’s will.”

Para Bacevich, este proceso de israelificación comenzó con la Operación Tormenta del Desierto, un conflicto tan rápido e impactante como la guerra de los siete días. Clinton contribuyó a este proceso con  intervenciones militares frecuentes (Haití, Bosnia, Serbia, Sudán, etc.). El segundo Bush –fiel creyente de la estrategia del “ Full Spectrum Dominance” (Dominación de espectro completo)– se embarcó en la liberación y transformación del mundo islámico. Bajo su liderato, Estados Unidos hizo, como Israel, uso de la guerra preventiva. De acuerdo con el autor, invadir Irak era visto por Bush y su gente como un acción preventiva contra lo que se percibía como una amenaza, pero también como  una oportunidad. Al atacar a Saddam Hussein, Bush no adoptó el concepto  de disuasión (“deterrence”) de la guerra fría, sino la versión israelí. La estrategia de “deterrence” de la guerra fría buscaba disuadir al oponente de llevar a cabo acciones bélicas mientras que la versión israelí está fundamentada en el uso desproporcionado de la fuerza. A los israelíes no les basta con amedrentar y han dejado atrás el bíblico ojo por ojo. Para ellos es necesario castigar desproporcionadamente para enviar una mensaje  de fuerza a sus enemigos. Basta recordar los 1,397 palestinos muertos en Gaza durante las tres semanas que duró la Operación Plomo Fundido a finales de 2008 y principios de 2009. De ellos, 345 eran menores de edad. [Según B’TSELEMThe Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories–, entre setiembre de 2000 y setiembre de 2012, las fuerzas de seguridad israelíes mataron a 6,500 palestinos en los territorios ocupados y a 69 en Israel. Durante ese mismo periodo, los palestinos asesinaron a 754 civiles y 343 miembros de las fuerzas de seguridad israelíes.]

De acuerdo con Bacevich, el objetivo de la administración Bush al invadir Irak era también enviar un mensaje: esto le puede pasar a quienes reten la voluntad de Estados Unidos. Desafortunadamente para Bush, la invasión y ocupación de Irak resultó un fracaso similar a la invasión israelí del Líbano en 1982.

El proceso de israelificación analizado por Bacevich tomó una nuevo giró bajo la presidencia de Obama, quien transformó el uso de los drones para asesinatos selectivos en la pieza clave de la política de seguridad nacional de Estados Unidos.

Bacevich concluye que, a pesar de que no favorece los intereses de Estados Unidos, el proceso de israelificación de la política de seguridad nacional estadounidense ya se ha completado, y que será muy difícil revertirlo dado el clima político reinante en la nación norteamericana.

Lo primero que debo señalar es que el uso del asesinato selectivo por el gobierno estadounidense como arma política no comenzó con los drones. Basta recordar los hallazgos del famoso Comité Church que en la década de 1970 investigó las actividades del aparato de inteligencia norteamericano en el Tercer Mundo. En un informe de catorce volúmenes, este comité legislativo documentó las actividades ilegales llevadas a cabo por la CIA, entre ellas, el asesinato e intento de asesinato de líderes del Tercer Mundo. ¿Cuántas veces ha intentado la CIA matar a Fidel Castro? ¿Cuántos miembros del Vietcong fueron capturados, torturados y asesinados por la CIA y sus asociados a través del Programa Phoenix en los años 1960? Lo que han hecho los drones es transformar la eliminación física de los enemigos  de Estados Unidos en un proceso a control remoto y, por ende, “seguro” para los estadounidenses.

A pesar estas críticas, considero que este ensayo es valioso por varias razones. Primero, porque refleja la creciente preocupación entre sectores académicos, militares y gubernamentales norteamericanos por la enorme influencia que ejerce Israel sobre la política exterior y doméstica de los Estados Unidos. Afortunadamente, no todos los estadounidenses creen que Estados Unidos debe apoyar a Israel incondicionalmente, especialmente, cuando es claro que tal apoyo tiene un gran costo político y económico para Estados Unidos. Segundo, porque desarrollar una discusión pública y abierta de este tema es extremadamente necesario para contrarrestar la influencia del “lobby” pro-israelí en los Estados Unidos (y a nivel mundial). En ese sentido, este ensayo cumple una función muy importante al criticar la política de seguridad de Israel desde una óptica  honesta. Bacevich no teme llamar las cosas por su nombre y no duda en describir la actual política de seguridad israelí como una basada en asesinatos selectivos y el uso desproporcionado de la fuerza, y que, además, no busca la paz, sino el dominio y la expansión territorial.

Norberto Barreto Velázquez, PhD

Lima, Perú, 11 de noviembre de 2012

Read Full Post »