Pushing Obama on democracy assistance

I have been devoting a lot of attention to democrats who are pressuring the Obama administration to take a firmer stance on supporting democratic movements abroad.  Today’s installment comes from the New Republic’s Leon Wieseltier:

A few days before the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the wall in Berlin, there occurred the thirtieth anniversary of the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The dictators’ commemoration…was ruined by rallies of democrats and dissidents. Obama’s response was to intone wanly that ‘the world continues to bear witness to their powerful calls for justice.’…Was the Soviet Union brought down by “witness”? We did not, on our own, bring the Soviet Union down…but we assisted keenly in its collapse. Are we assisting in the mullahs’ collapse? I think not…American support for the democracy movement in Iran…is also a strategic duty. Such support might indeed be “destabilizing,” but there is no stability in Iran anymore, there is only a vicious tyranny fighting for its life against a popular uprising that explains itself with principles that we, too, espouse.

I predict that the Obama administration will eventually come around to supporting democratic movements abroad more forthrightly (perhaps not in Iran), although I am less certain than Michael Allen at Democracy Digest that such changes are imminent.

Democracy Assistance in the Combat Zone

Life used to be easy when implementing democracy and governance programs.  Help draft some laws in Ghana, train an electoral commission in Bolivia.  Today, not so much.  From USAID’s Transparency, Accountability, and Performance project proposal:

Weapons.

…subject to the approval of the Combatant Commander or the Chief of Mission…The Contracting Officer may authorize an approved Contractor to issue Contractor-owned weapons and ammunition…or may issue Government-furnished weapons and ammunition to the Contractor…

Guess I need to add my weapons training and “success stories” in surviving armed encounters to my resume.

Corruption and US D&G programs

Transparency International has just released it’s 2009 Corruption Perceptions Index.  When looking at the index, what immediately struck me was how much the US Government concentrates its democracy and governance funding in the most corrupt countries in the world.  The five most corrupt countries (starting with the most corrupt) are Somalia, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Sudan, and Iraq. According to Freedom House, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sudan had the three largest US D&G programs in 2009, accounting for approximately one-half of total US Government D&G programs.  I am not arguing that the US Government is funding corruption in these countries (although this recent New York Times article on Blackwater’s bribes to the Iraqi Government made me wince). Rather, my point is that worthwhile as these programs may be, they are unlikely to be effective as I described in a recent post.

The Pentagon and USAID

Michael Cohen at Democracy Arsenal observes the dangers in the Pentagon’s interest in strengthening USAID:

It’s not that the Pentagon doesn’t want to see a strong AID – it’s that they want to see a strong AID that helps the Pentagon carry out its responsibilities, i.e military operations. The idea of an independent AID that is focused on the long-term goal of development and democracy promotion in non-kinetic environments is perhaps a bit less pressing of an agenda item…

Part of the problem of what we’ve seen over the past 8 years – and continue to see today – is the subordination of all other foreign policy interests to “national security.” As a result, a disproportionate amount of AID’s budget is used in promoting democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan as opposed to helping civil society groups in fragile or emerging democracies where tens of thousands of US troops are not stationed. And it means US assistance is spent to train African armies (to fight the war on terror), instead of African police forces, which if you happen to be a African citizen would likely be much preferred.

This worries me as well.  Linking foreign aid to national security may be good for raising development budgets in the short-term, but raises a host of dangers.  For wonks, below the jump I discuss my thoughts on these dangers in more detail, especially for democracy and governance programs.

Continue reading »

Democrats on the wrong side of history

Former USAID administrator J. Brian Atwood hits the nail on the head for why it is in the US national interest to support democracy over stability. Writing in the Huffington Post, Atwood correctly observes,

Many liberals argue today that stability is a more realistic goal in a chaotic world. They even see advantages in the relative efficiency of autocratic regimes. Yet these regimes will eventually meet political and economic pressures that will either force internal change or create conflict that can be contained only with violence. When this happens, the United States is better off having been consistent with its fundamental principles. Short-term, so-called “pragmatism” can place us on the wrong side of history.

I agree completely.  The US was in a much better position to help countries in the former Soviet Union transition to democracy after the empire’s collapse because the US Government had been pressuring the Soviets to respect human rights and increase individual freedom long before the Soviet Union fell apart.  Does anyone believe that had the US Government been propping up the Soviet Union it could have engaged with reformers after its fall?

Michael Allen at Democracy Digest has more.