|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  |
 |
  |
This is an archived USAID document retained on this web site as a matter of public record.
Remarks of J. Brian Atwood - World Affairs Council "Democracy: Beyond the Ballot Box" Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
October 5,1998
Thank you very much for that kind introduction. As someone who has had a long career in the field of democracy and human rights, I always welcome the opportunity to speak on the subject. Today, I would like to talk about how the notion of democracy stret ches well beyond the simple process of voting. I would like to speak to the question today of America's role in promoting democracy around the globe, and whether, with economic and political upheavals occurring throughout the world, the U.S. can act to in stitute democratic ideals without being seeing as foisting its beliefs on others.Certainly the history of democracy promotion by the United States has been deeply shaded by its historical context. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, our advocacy of democracy abroad had an almost evangelical tilt. Like an argument for divine right or manifest destiny, Washington saw converting the great ignorant unwashed masses of the rest of the world as its duty in keeping with its higher moral authority -- as long as this democracy did not interfere with pressing commercial or strategic interest s. We were to make the world safe for democracy.
Later, in the Cold War, democracy promotion became hopelessly tangled with our perceptions of communism. Our optic of the rivalry between capitalism and communism -- economic systems -- became synonymous with competition between democracy and autocrac y -- political systems.
As we saw in places like Chile, America was, at times, willing to place its fight against communism ahead of its interest in promoting democratic systems. The world was viewed as a zero sum game, and any advance by communism had to be thwarted, even i f it came through a legitimate election.
It was in that context that the political cartoonist Walt Kelly had his possum Pogo contemplate whether we were now in the business of, "Making the world safe from democracy."
But today things are very different and the end of the Cold War has really changed the playing field. Clearly, promoting democracy is in our interest more than ever. A combination of technological, commercial, and political trends is shortening dista nces, opening borders, and connecting far-flung cultures and economies.
With this phenomenon have come new benefits and new dangers. As goods and services move more quickly and freely among countries and continents, so do viruses, narcotics, criminals, and terrorists, as well as the causes and consequences of environmental degradation.
In an increasingly interdependent world, Americans have a growing stake in how other countries govern, or misgovern, themselves.
The larger and more close-knit the community of nations that choose democratic forms of government, the safer and more prosperous Americans will be, since democracies are demonstrably more likely to maintain their international commitments, less likely to engage in terrorism or wreak environmental damage, and less likely to make war on each other.
That proposition is the essence of the foreign policy rationale for vigorously supporting, promoting, and, when necessary, defending democracy in other countries.
Democracy has also spread because it can help countries modernize their economies, improve social conditions, and integrate with the outside world. Under a representative system of government, leaders are more likely to be accountable to their people. While corruption is all too common in democracies, including well-established ones, an independent parliament and judiciary, along with a free press, can check abuses of power.
This is also why promoting democracy is no longer just an American endeavor. Almost all of the international community now recognizes that it has a vested interest in promoting democracy.
The European Union, the Americas (save Cuba), and many others now work as partners with us in promoting democracy. Indeed, last year the United States accounted for only 13 percent of the total global funding dedicated to Official Development Assistanc e. We remain an important player, but far from the only one operating in this field.
It is also very important to remember that we no longer live in a world where democratic ideals have to be foisted on anyone. Indeed, we can barely keep up with the pent up demand and desire at the grassroots level for democratic change.
Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott is fond of pointing out that when Henry Clay argued 178 years ago for U.S. support of independence movements in the Spanish colonies of Latin America, Clay articulated a standard that holds up today: "I would no t force upon other nations our principles and our liberty, if they did not want them. But, if an abused and oppressed people will their freedom; if they seek to establish it; if, in truth, they have established it; we have a right, as a sovereign power, t o notice the fact, and to act as our circumstances and our interest require."
From people power in the Philippines, to peaceful change in South Africa, to the political sea change that swept Suharto out of office, people are expressing their desire for self-rule, the rule of law and individual freedom. How can we not help with that process?
In the United States, some criticism of the administration's emphasis on democracy overseas has come not just from those people who seem to oppose any sort of foreign policy other than staying at home, but also from some internationalists who warn that a "crusade" on behalf of democracy will overstretch American resources and mire the United States in endless and complicated political intrigues.
The U.S. government, they argue, should concentrate on influencing other countries' foreign, military, and trade policies, and let political systems sort themselves out.
Some have gone so far as to claim that authoritarian regimes are actually better for countries trying to emerge economically from poverty. In this view, "enlightened authoritarianism" is seen as a more effective means of generating economic growth. Her e the record is ambiguous, but the recent experience in Asia should really disavow people of this notion.
In Asia, we have seen an economic crisis that is political as much as economic. Because public institutions were not transparent and accountable, they were easily led down a path of poor economic decision-making by powerful economic and political elit es. A strong hand may steer a nation out of misery and chaos for a time, but even the most benevolent dictator is not likely to know when to let the wisdom of the public steer a nation.
Secretary of State Albright summarized last summer the essence of what we need to be doing: "In the wake of the Cold War, it is not enough for us to say that Communism has failed .... we must heed the lessons of the past, [and] take advantage of the o pportunity that now exists to bring the world together in an international system based on democracy, open markets, law and a commitment to peace."
This year in particular I am gratified to speak on the subject of democracy and human rights because we are celebrating, throughout the year, the 50th Anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This is an important anniversary and it is also a somewhat bittersweet commemoration. We have indeed made tremendous strides in upholding basic human freedoms around the world during the last five decades. However, at the same time we live in a world where Kosovos and Rwandas still occur. We live in a world where ethnic cleansing is a phrase that everyone understands. To be disappeared is not a concept of the past. No one is suggesting that the 50th year is a conclusion to our struggle.
Indeed, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is very much a living document. It certainly guides the work of my agency.
At the same time, I am not certain that the specific provisions in the document have received the attention they deserve by people in this country and throughout the world. Too often human rights take a back seat to other priority concerns and governm ents act only when veritably shamed into responding to egregious human rights violations. Modern communications has provided the world with a powerful tool for shining light on the human rights conditions in every corner of the globe, and that is somethi ng USAID does in concert with our colleagues at other government agencies.
How do the principles and themes articulated in the Universal Declaration guide the activities of USAID? First, we clearly recognize the relationship between our commitment to promote economic and social development, and the extent to which political and civil rights are respected in a given country. USAID will generally not work in a country where the human rights situation is particularly egregious -- because sustainable economic development is unlikely to occur absent the existence of sound democ ratic institutions and an engaged civil society.
Under some circumstances, we work in countries where political and civil rights are being violated, but our programs there emphasize support for local nongovernmental organizations that are advocating for change. In Indonesia during the Suharto era, U SAID financed many of the NGOs that have been at the forefront of the movement for democratic change. In South Africa, U.S. support for peaceful change through nongovernmental organizations played a key role in that country's successful transition to majo rity rule.
Second, we collaborate with governments and nongovernmental agencies to create an economic environment in which jobs are more available, to devise policies that address the basic health needs of the population, and to set aside sufficient resources to provide meaningful educational opportunities. Growing prosperity represents a sound investment in promoting respect for human rights and democracy.
A current example of USAID's work in this regard is a $3 million effort in Ukraine through which we are fashioning a national strategy to counter trafficking in women. We are working both with government entities and NGOs to prevent trafficking, prote ct its victims and support prosecution of the traffickers. Our approach includes the building of shelters, the provision of health care and counseling, affording legal assistance, establishing credit unions and mentoring in skills development and other b usiness training so that the victims become living examples of economic opportunity. Our goal is to remove the economic incentive of the traffickers and their government accomplices.
Third, we introduce the principles of human rights and democracy directly into our development efforts. Our education programs, for example, seek to overcome the legacy of discrimination against girls and minorities by encouraging policy changes that allow or facilitate school attendance by girls. Our programs to support women entrepreneurs help encourage changes in laws so that women have the right to own and inherit property. While traditional attitudes often frustrate the adoption of truly nondis criminatory policies, the principles enunciated in the Universal Declaration offer a well recognized basis for advocating for change.
Similar examples can be drawn from our environmental programs, many of which are built around a model of community-based natural resource management, that empowers towns and villages to protect local resources while creating real economic opportunity. For instance, USAID has worked with local NGOs on the Island of Palawan, one of the last natural frontiers in the Philippines, to help them establish tenured land rights necessary for them to manage more sustainably their natural resources of primary for ests and coral reefs.
Such work usually is not associated with democracy or international human rights. Yet the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reminds us that property ownership and use, and refusal to be arbitrarily deprived of property, are fundamental to the huma n dignity that the Declaration seeks to achieve.
Fourth, our efforts to address a specific development problem often demonstrate how closely human freedoms are intertwined with all the development issues in a country. For example, in some countries we will find that thousands of people are hungry, b ut that adequate food is not the problem.
Indeed, the true cause of hunger may be the fact that people lack freedom of movement as a result of war or repressive government policies. Or, as in the Sudan today, desperately-needed food assistance to sustain over 1 million starving people is used as a weapon of war. We may find that a country's economy is lagging simply because the rule of law is not respected, and investment and savings become prey to an autocrats whims.
While democracy is potentially viable everywhere, the process of democratization is long and hard, especially for countries where political progress is hostage to economic disadvantage. It is also important to remember that real democracy is much more robust than simply holding elections. In societies torn by war, racked by poverty, or undergoing a deep economic crisis what is needed is a long-term strategy for democratic assistance to foster the growth of civil society, basic freedoms, the rule of la w and transparent institutions of government.
There have also been recent studies that show how vital it is to support young democracies. An ongoing research effort by the CIA has found that some of those nations most vulnerable to becoming "failed states" -- prone to upheaval and civil war -- ar e those countries in the very early and tumultuous stages of embracing democratic reform. In my opinion, this does not show a flaw in democracy. Conversely, it demonstrates how vital it is to support democracy in strengthening its roots. I think this res earch also shows that successful democracy is closely linked to successful development. The best thing we can do to ease pressure on young democracies is to help these nations improve living standards, public health and general well-being.
Unfortunately, America's development resources have been severely constrained in recent years. Development assistance at some of the lowest levels since WWII. In real dollar terms, USAID's budget is 30 percent lower than in 1982. Agency has cut staff by one-third. Total foreign affairs spending is down 43 percent from 1982 in real terms.
If we want to consolidate the important victories that are now possible after the end of the Cold War, we need to remind our legislators and leaders we can not walk away from our international leadership. Democracy is every bit as important at home an d abroad, and we, as a people, should demand more from our own nation in leading the world. Thank you very much.
This is an archived USAID document retained on this web site as a matter of public record.
 |
|||
Last Updated on: July 18, 2001 |
