Democratic Values in Domestic vs. International Policy

These last few weeks I found myself struggling over how to approach some of the recent issues in US domestic governance.  From uncomfortably authoritarian reactions to left-leaning protestors, to authoritarian flavored ideas on internet freedom and detention of citizens, I’ve floundered for weeks somewhere between Chicken Little style ranting and my -tragically common- defeated indifference.  Finally looking to a thoughtful recent post from Liza on US Foreign Policy on issues of Rule of Law and Human Rights in Russia, I decided that the best approach to writing on these subjects would just be to ride the coattails of my sharper witted peers .
Continue reading »

Government Policy & Internet Freedom

The subject of internet freedom is a contentious one, even without the hornet’s nest of foreign policy being involved.  Though not exactly an issue of common household conversation, this touchy subject has fierce advocates on both sides here in the United States.  It is one of those rare subjects in US politics that does not divide clearly along partisan lines, and also among those thorny areas where concepts of freedom of speech, information and a right to privacy contrast sharply with state and private interests.  So when Secretary Clinton spoke today on the promotion of internet freedom around the world it didn’t take long for criticism of the administration to start rolling in.

Internet freedom is one of those subjects that opinions vary heavily on depending on the specific situation and one’s personal interests in keeping information controlled.  In light of this year’s rather massive political scandals over WikiLeaks and the diplomatic cabletastrophy, it seemed an interesting choice of subjects for Secretary Clinton to address.  On the other hand, given the impact internet freedom and the development of technology had in the recent uprisings throughout the Middle East, how could she not?

Unfortunately the nation has faced a great number of problems with contradictions in policy and public diplomacy throughout the political crises coursing through the Middle East.  Our government’s reactions to the troubles presented by WikiLeaks, set against Secretary Clinton’s words on internet freedom seem to be the latest addition to the list of contradictions.  There is no doubt that the US has a more relaxed approach to information control than the world’s authoritarian regimes, but we’ve a long way to go still before dubbing ourselves champions of internet freedom.

It is clear that internet freedom is an immensely important subject lately, and easily one of the greatest tools to promote government accountability, transparency and support for democratic institutions.  What is less clear is just how much right we as a nation have to lecture on the subject at this particular moment in history, and what potential impacts such lecturing might have on international relations.

China tells Clinton to shut up

Seems like Hillary Clinton’s recent speech on internet freedom did not go over very well with everyone in China. According to Reuters:

A speech by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday showed a lack of respect for China, which cannot accept conditions on matters of “national security” or “social stability,” said Beijing Association of Online Media Chairman Min Dahong…

“How China’s Internet develops and how it is managed are Chinese people’s own affairs,” Min said in an interview with state-run Xinhuanet.com.

“On the Internet question, China doesn’t need any lessons from the United States on what to do or how,” he said…

“Hillary’s speech on January 21 insinuating that China lacks freedom of information and speech is in fact disrespectful and doesn’t stand up,” Min said.

Good for Secretary Clinton.

Clinton’s speech pleases the left and the right

Michael Allen at Democracy Digest has a good review of reactions to Secretary Clinton’s Human Rights Week speech.  Two big themes emerge from the reactions.  One, critics on the left and right both seemed pleased with the speech.  Two, the strong commitment to supporting democracy abroad was unanticipated.  We will see how that translates into policy.

Is Obama turning the corner on democracy?

Secretary Clinton outlined the administration’s human rights policy today in a speech at Georgetown University.  The speech made clear that supporting democracy is going to be a foreign policy priority.  According to Clinton:

…supporting democracy and fostering development are cornerstones of our 21st century human rights agenda.

This administration, like others before us, will promote, support, and defend democracy.  We will relinquish neither the word nor the idea to those who have used it too narrowly, or to justify unwise policies.  We stand for democracy not because we want other countries to be like us, but because we want all people to enjoy consistent protection of the rights that are naturally theirs, whether they were born in Tallahassee or Tehran.  Democracy has proven the best political system for making human rights a human reality over the long term…

With China, Russia, and others, we are engaging on issues of mutual interest while also engaging societal actors in these same countries who are working to advance human rights and democracy. The assumption that we must either pursue human rights or our “national interests” is wrong.

…conscience demands that we are not cowed by the overwhelming difficulty of making inroads against misery in the hard places  like Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, North Korea, and Zimbabwe, or on the hard issues like ending gender inequality and discrimination against gays and lesbians—from the Middle East to Latin America, Africa to Asia…

A change has taken place fairly rapidly within the Obama administration.  Even as short as a few weeks ago, many were claiming democracy would not be a priority.  Yet, in the span of three weeks, we have seen three big foreign policy speeches that suggest this is not true, Obama at West Point and in Oslo for the Nobel Prize, and Clinton today.  While I predicted the administration would eventually embrace democracy, I did not expect it this quickly.  I am very pleased.

Michael Allen at Democracy Digest and the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) has more.