AFP NOTES 4/17

Lecture 22 Contd

A) The Limits of Nation Building
many times, democratization doesnt work in the third world
-this is because lots of times there is an extremely small elite subclass who owns the economy and political process
-for democracy to work, you need a broad base for voting pool
-you need a 'third force' between the elites and the peasants
-labor unions, church groups, academia/media, etc

why has Iraq been so unsuccessful while Japan, Italy, and Germany were more successful after WWII?
-all three of the WWII states were afraid of communism
-the three all had 'nation-state' aspects
-iraq lacks this, basically
-there were 'italians', 'germans', 'japanese', but no real 'iraqi' people, more like 'shia' or 'sunni' or 'kurd'
-iraq was never a 'nation-state' but more like a conglomeration of ethnicity
-the sunnis happened to win, impose their will on the two other groups up until the US invasion

exemplarist position is getting swept under the rug
-freedom through force- reagan doctrine
Lecture 23: Democratization and US Foreign Policy: Practice
democratization is a PROCESS, not a stage-based concept
-made of 3 sub-processes
these three are:
-instances of political liberalization
-toleration of opposition
-democratic transition
-goes beyond 'the electoralist fallacy'
-signifies more than a competitive election
-elections do not a democracy make
-elections are a necessary condition, but more important is agreement among the political actors about what shape the institutions will take
-democratic consolidation
-when democracy has become 'the only game in town'
-democracy is deeply internalized in social, institutional, and psychological life
-democratic institutions are the only venue for gaining/maintaining power
-this is a really high standard, not even the US fulfills it, persay

US is promoting US-style democracy
-so the US is shaping debates about democratic governments
-during the cold war, US didn't really promote democratization in latin america

A) Latin America
the problem with democracies nowadays is that the bush administration meddles too much?
-wait what?

wow this guest lecturer is a fucking TOOLBAG
-if i'm looking for analysis, i'll ask the PROFESSOR, not this grad student douche
-'the bush administration has shown a tolerance for extraconstitutional action' in meddling in foreign affairs
Venezuela: Hugo Chavez

oh thank god he's gone. time to listen again. wow that guy was a douchebag

B) The Middle East

Egypt- Hosni Mubarak- Muslim Brotherhood
Condi Rice called off a visit to Cairo after Mubarak arrested a dissident leader
-unusual move
-american 'change in policy'
-'for 60 years, my country pursued stability at the expense of democracy, and we achieved neither'
-now they're moving towards democracy
-first ever grants given to egyptian pro-democracy groups
-this is a HUGE change in policy with regards to egypt

Saudi Arabia
'golden list'
-not quite sure what this is

Iran
another stumbling block in the region
-one of the most democratic state in the region
-ahmedinijad was elected 'democratically' by the iranian people
-bush denounces this as 'undemocratic'
-says that iran is a state sponsor of terror, works to eliminate israel
-while these are true, they don't explain why iran is undemocratic

C) Lebanon
2005, in reaction to the assassination of a former prime minister
-generally blamed on syria
The Cedar Revolution
the big winner from this action was HEZBOLLAH
Hezbollah
integrated social networks
-put it into a massively strong position to take advantage of the electoral process
-got elected to a large block of seats in the lebanese parliament
-was able to make demands on the lebanese government through parliament, cabinet
-this meant that hezbollah was classified as a 'resistance movement' rather than a terrorist organization, was allowed to keep its arms
D) Palestine

Fatah
another example of democratization gone wrong
-used to be the dominant party in palestine
Hamas
seized control in the election
-took advantage of social integration, organization
-problem was that the political arm of Hamas was intimately tied to the guerilla arm of hamas

this means that the US has to actually fight back democracies in the middle east... ooops...
-why are extremists winning elections all over the place (when they're even held)?
-this is not working out as it should
-now israel and US have to work together to fight democracies that they've helped set up

god damn whats going on now

kddk

AFP NOTES 4/16

Final Exam SATURDAY MAY 5
HODSON 110
10-1130 AM
Review Session next Tuesday

Lecture 22: Democratization & US Foreign Policy Theory
1st of two modules on democratization and its significance for foreign policy
A) The first September 11
first september 11th was actually in CHILE
-only effectively viable american-style democracy in south america
Salvador Allende
Marxist political candidate
-CIA was concerned that he was getting too much popular support
-in 1970, allende was the top ranked contender in the election
-36.3% of the vote?
-promised to nationalize foreign companies in chile
-most importantly the COPPER industry
-US constituencies demanded that the US step up covert involvement in chile
2 tracks
-Track 1
-effort to block Allende's ascension to office through legal means
-this failed
-Track 2
-covert means of removing him from office
-Kissinger- i dont see why we have to sit and watch a country go communist due to the ineptitude of its own people
-covert involvement is stepped up
-US administration starts cutting off aid, loans, credit
-cuts off income to the chilean government/economy
-starts funneling money to opposition parties and newspapers
-this culminates on September 11, 1973
Augusto Pinochet
Military leader
-stages a coup on sept.11, 1973
-military dictatorship established
-lasted through the 80s

this shows the real dichotomy between US long-term goals of democratization and short-term goals of security

2 basic types of order-building strategies
-realist response to rise of soviet power in the cold war
-we've discussed this before
-restoring stable and open relations among the major democracies
-chief objective of US Liberal Grand Strategy
B) Liberal Grand Strategy
restoring stable and open relations among the major democracies
-democracy is an integral component of stable world society
-america's gift to the world is to give the international system the traits that have served it so well at home
-basic content:
-free trade + prosperity + democracy = peace
-in that order
-trade promotes economic growth promotes democracy promotes peace
-this is DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY
-democracies do NOT go to war with eachother
this was articulated as early as 1909
-norman angell
-"the great illusion" (1909)
-economic interdependence fosters peace
-war's economic disruption costs more than any territorial gains could pay off
-this was written just a few years before WWI.. hehe, oops
people promoting democracy seem like they may be idealists
-this is not seen as idealism any longer, seen as fulfilling LEGITIMATE SECURITY GOALS


Washington Consensus

democratic socialization parts (3 specific goals of the washington consensus)
-Democracy
-Open Markets
-state downsizing
-Free Trade
this is called GEOECONOMICS

clinton embraces 'enlargement of the democratic community'
-the policy of democratic enlargement (labeled as the clinton doctrine)
-containment has served its purpose
-now we move to a new model
-counter the aggression, expand democracy aggressively

US Agency for International Development
components
-'Conditionalities' imposed for US aid by
-world bank
-imf
-oecd

as governments liberalize their regimes and economic apparatus, they receive more and more aid
-the reverse, however, is also true

promotion of democracy becomes a PRIMARY OBJECTIVE of US foreign policy
-this becomes a security goal, as well as an ideological goal

1995- 41% of poll respondents said that the US should mind its own business and let other countries survive best they can on their own
-real isolationism is coming back
-this is ironic
-US aid has actually DROPPED since 1991
-$11.6 billion in 1991, $7 billion in 1999
-the majority of the funding cuts came in the 3rd world, south america and africa

Engagement
while the cold war was being waged
-when security aspects conflicted with ideological aspects, security won out every time
-now they actually coincide
-this is true EXCEPT possibly in the middle east
-security interest here is essentially that we NEED oil, so we dont care who's in charge, as long as they provide a stable flow of oil

american democracy was always distinct from an 'electocracy'
-US democracy is LIMITED
-federal constitutional republic
-there are checks and balances here
-ultimate power lies in the CONSTITUTION
-problem with american democratization is that it's not working as well as it did in the US
-actually promoting chaos and disunity around the world
-what's going on here?
-pushing too hard with the democratization is actually harmful to US security interests

C) Realpolitik

realists are arguing against some of the points of the washington consensus
-free trade and open markets may actually be harmful to democracies
-realist policy is as follows
-1st- overriding national interest
-2nd- stability of the international system as a whole (reflection of the US status as a status quo power)
-ends justify the means argument
-defeat of communism was a MORAL OUTCOME in and of itself
-even if the US undertook actions that were against its stated policy, the outcome was just
-we should note the difference between 'reversible non-democratic regimes' and 'non-reversible communist regimes'
-we can re-overthrow right-wing non-communist regimes, we can't do the same so easily with communist states
-ideological relativism was the name of the game
-Raphael Trujillo
-dictator of the dominican republic
-finally got assassinated during kennedy regime
-his statement
-3 outcomes, in order of preferredness
-democracy
-aim at this first
-continuation of the status quo under another dictator
-don't denounce this one until we're SURE that castro-ization is impossible
-castro-ization
-this is REALLY BAD
-carter is the term where most of the realist theorists jumped ship to the republican side
-made morality the cornerstone of US foreign policy
-this just didn't work
-was accused of 'naive idealism'
-carter 'lost' iran, nicaragua, etc
-he has 3 key mistakes
-faith in democratic alternative to encumbent government
-belief that the status quo was not possible
-belief that any change from the status quo (INCLUDING marxist regimes) was preferable
-he's just WRONG on these points
-democracy is ONLY viable when the conditions are right
-3 conditions that JS Mill put up
-people should be willing to receive
-people should be willing and able to preserve
-people should be willing and able to discharge the duties
-carter administration failed not because of lack of good intentions, but because of lack of REALISM

realists were willing to support autocracies around the world because they thought that the alternative was rise of MARXIST regimes
-US would tolerate 'pet tyrants'
-now that the soviet union's gone, there's no reason to tolerate them anymore
-Disengagement was now the name of the game
-but who do we withdraw from?
-great deal of SUBJECTIVITY
-we have to decide whether the autocracy is 'rising' (china) or 'decadent' (USSR)
-decide if they're strategic (middle east-esp pakistan, 1979, for instance) or irrelevant (pakistan after the USSR pulls out of afghanistan)
-popular vs unpopular
-viable vs undesirable alternative
-plebiscitary vs opaque (form of citizen consensus and participation)
-external vs internal (rogue states vs pariah states)

Key parts of democratization (NATIONBUILDING)
-separation of powers, separation of church and state, 1 person 1 vote, etc are taken for granted
-phillipines is the key example here