Focus 2004: World Politics and the Presidential Elections

Focus 2004: World Politics and the Presidential Elections is a guide to issues and policies that affect the United States’ standing in the world. Over the coming editions of Democratic Values, additional issues will be examined from multiple sides of those issues. We hope that this will help our readers in engaging in discussion for the upcoming presidential elections and to encourage critical thought. The issues covered were chosen by council members on the basis of what we consider to be critical decisions that the United States as a country and as the worlds only superpower must decide. Although not all of these issues are currently being covered by the general media and the candidates, we believe that they are all important and worthy of critical reflection. -A.N.   

-Written by Robert S. Woito, P. Wesley Krieble and Augustin  A. Nicolescou

I. National Strategy:

The most important question one needs to answer, is whether one agrees with the Bush Administration’s judgment that deterrence is ineffective in preventing attacks like those of 9/11. The administration has focused on preemptive military intervention as a central part of this country’s policy in the war on terrorism.

Brief: The Administration’s Case is summarized in the National Security Strategy statement issued September 22nd, 2002: “[The United States] must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends [....]

The United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today’s threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries’ choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first”.

(p.11, National Security Strategy Statement)

Counterpoint:

A. Deterrence: Non-governmental terrorist organizations and States that encourage them, do pose a problem but one that deterrence, i.e. the threat of a military response, is adequate to handle. The war in Afghanistan was a needed response to the 9/11 attack because the then Afghanistan government supported them via safe haven,  resources, and other forms of cooperation.  The war against Iraq needed but failed to find justification in a similar imminent threat. Neither the availability of weapons of mass destruction nor the Al Qaeda connection were unambiguously demonstrated in this view.

B. Bad Precedent: The doctrine as now applied in Iraq, sets a bad precedent for other countries. We have lost moral standing, allies, and made enemies as a result.

C.  Never Predictable: The intelligence that an attack is imminent is difficult to obtain, hard to interpret accurately, and rarely clear enough to justify preemptive attack. Before war can be justified an attack must be imminent, perhaps even underway, rather than just possible.

D. Multilateral Institutions: The arena in which the decision to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions, is the United Nations.  In acting outside of the U.N., the United States undermined its credibility and will encourage other countries to do so as well.  

Counterpoint: The shift to a more preemptive stance in the defence of the United States and for the maintenance of a stable and peaceful international community is necessary. Whether or not Saddam Hussein had WMDs at the time of the 2003 war is not the issue. He clearly failed to show that he did not have such weapons, in perhaps an attempt to bluff his way through the crisis he faced and in dealing with surrounding countries. This approach has had results, with Libya  renouncing WMDs and some inroads in ensuring the same with North Korea.   

Critical question:

What is your response to this statement quoted from the Bush Administration’s National Strategy Statement: “Preemption must replace deterrence because deterrence has failed, rogue states and terrorist do not fear retaliation, the weapons rogue states and terrorist possess are weapons of mass destruction, and they target both military and civilian targets. These and other circumstances warrant the shift in military doctrine from deterrence to preemption."

II America's Position as a Leader  in the World

Brief:  In 2004 the United States has emerged as the world’s lone superpower.  Its military capacity is larger than the rest of the world’s combined capacity; its economy is the largest, and its pace of technological innovation unprecedented. 

     Its impact on the world is great and growing; so is the impact of the world on the United States.  There are, within the United States, significant domestic problems which have a prior claim on our resources.  These statements are all true yet mark a significant divide in the debate about American foreign policy.

Critical Questions:

Is the United States a plausible, albeit imperfect, embodiment of our declared commitment to democratic institutions and to religious and secular values that teach universal human rights and the inter-connectedness of human life?

Or is the United States incapable of constructive leadership in world politics because of its commitment to material self-interest, and/or its mistreatment of racial, gender, or lower class members? Should  the Unites States resolves its own problems and inequities, it before attempting to do so abroad.?

Is there a third position for the US to take?

III. American Goals in World Politics- Choices:

1. Promoting Democracy:

  There are currently some 91 countries transitioning to democracy. Democratic Peace, which arises from the fact that countries with strong democratic institutions do not wage war on each other, allows for increased development and cooperation. What kind of special interest should the United States have? What role,  if any, should it play in the transition of these countries to democracy?

Brief: There are two conflicting trends facing US policy making. On the one hand, the promotion of democracy has proven to be an important issue to both the Clinton administration as well as the current, post- 9/11 Bush administration. Democracy is seen by the current administration as a crucial component to fighting terrorism.

     The State Department’s Bureau of Democracy Human Rights and Labor (DRL), recently released its report Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record 2002-2003. In the preface, Secretary of State Colin Powel wrote:

“The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the threats they exposed challenged us to strengthen our efforts to overcome the obstacles to building [a world of ever-expanding democracy and human rights]. We are answering that call to action, because liberty and rule of law help prevent terrorism from thriving.”

Counterpoint:  The realist necessity of allies who are not democrats, and who persecute democrats in their own states, makes a principle of only giving aid to countries working towards democracy difficult. Examples currently include such countries as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. In Pakistan, General Musharraf faced strong pressure from the United States for having developed nuclear weapons, and for the antidemocratic nature of his regime.

     In the post-9/11 world, Pakistan became a critical ally in the war in Afghanistan and the larger war on terrorism. Pakistan has since benefited from renewed trade and economic aid from the United States, without meaningful reforms to justify this aid from the standpoint of promoting democracy. This realist necessity goes against the stated goal of encouraging democracy in the world.

Critical Questions:

Should the United States therefore consider “moving towards democracy” as a precondition for providing financial assistance to countries?

Or is the realist position an unavoidable condition of international relations?       

Can there be a balance between the two?

2. Civil Society and nonviolent change:

Between 1975 and 2000, more than twenty countries entered into transition to democracy in which nonviolent social change played a crucial role. Civil Society has been recognized as a critical component of a successful democracy since Alexis de Tocqueville examined the phenomenon in the early days of the United States. A strong civil society helps produce social capital and societal trust, which in turn encourages and promotes development. A strong civil society makes the difference between a country that is democratic in nature, as opposed to one that is democratic in name only. It makes the difference between a successful democratic and capitalist state such as the US, and a failing state such as Albania.

     By encouraging reform movements in transitional governments, the process towards democratization can be gradual and systematic. If there is no such process, and little hope for one, the risk arises that the government will be overthrown by revolutionary means, which is often followed by more violence and destruction not conducive to democracy.                 

Counterpoint: There are problems associated with encouraging local NGO development as well as promoting pro-democracy movements in foreign countries. Nondemocratic governments do not look favorably on such activities, which they see as interfering in their domestic politics. Additionally, to engage in such activity without the permission of the country’s government could be construed as a violation of that nation’s sovereignty.  Such activities would put the United States at odds with these governments, which in certain cases, such as China in particular, can conflict with American security and economic interests.

     Also, it can be difficult to give aid to for NGO development without inadvertently giving aid to armed groups, who are often associated with local NGO organizations. A prominent example is Hamas. Hamas has two sides. Within the Palestinian community, it is a prominent provider of social services in areas such as health and education, among others. However, it also uses its networks to recruit terrorists and funnel money to violent anti-Israeli activities. Likewise, not all associations are good, even within their own society. In the United States the KKK would fall into the category of civil society, but is decidedly un-civil. Therefore, any action in the arena of civil society by the United States risks aggravating problems.

Critical Questions: Should American non-governmental organizations (business, labor, civic, religious, educational and others) make strengthening civil society organizations in other countries an important part of their response to a globalizing world economy?

Similarly, should government appropriations be provided to organizations in other countries promoting human rights and seeking or engaged in aiding transitions to democracy?

3.  Economic Growth:  

Is our own well-being at the expense of other countries economic development objectives and the preservation of the environment or are mutual enrichment and environmental improvement compatible objectives? 

Brief: Governmental declaratory goals include the promotion of trade between countries each of which is assumed to have a comparative advantage in producing some product.  In practice government subsidies to some industries, to agriculture, and in regulating currency supply, as well as restrictions on imports mean trade is more “regulated” than “free”.  The WTO helps regulate controversial questions and facilitate the expansion of trade. 

      Developing countries often raise legitimate complaints about this system, as do human rights advocates (the right of workers to organize trade unions) and those concerned about government corruption in developing countries.  A recent focus of complaint is agricultural subsidies in both Europe and the United States. Countries from Botswana to Moldova sought dramatic reductions of subsidies to agricultural those enabling their own products to compete on a leveler playing field. Both countries are now forced to buy subsidized grain from abroad, rather than their own

The WTO is still the best arena for international trade because it gives less powerful countries the added strength of numbers, as opposed to a bilateral trading system. Certain inequities in the WTO system can be addressed within its own framework. 

     Reducing subsidies can be beneficial domestically. New Zealand, for example, has seen prices of domestically produced agricultural crops drop without a serious drop in the number of farmers. This was possible through efficiency discouraged by subsidies. 

Counterpoint: It is the United States’ vital interest to maintain domestic production of agricultural and manufacturing products.  The costs of production are higher in the United States.  If the US were to forgo all subsidies, the economy would suffer.  Jobs would leave the country and cheap foreign goods could flood markets, further worsening the trade deficit.  Prices of products to consumers may also rise if subsidies are removed perhaps increasing inflationary pressures. 

     The American economy has been the driving force in increasing wealth world wide.  A downturn in the American economy brings other countries down also.  Western Europe is not likely to forgo its subsidies and until it does, there is little reason for the United States to eliminate its own.

Critical Questions:    

Should the United States act toward achieving free trade by reducing its own subsidies of agricultural product and opening its market to developing countries as a matter of principle? Only if Europe does also? Only if developing countries accept unions and work to end corruption?

Fraudulent elections

In 2004, as the European Union expands eastward, bringing former communist states into the union, it is surprising to think that there remains a country that more closely resembles a totalitarian state than a modern democracy. Yet this is the case in Belarus, where the incumbent president Alexander Lukashenko fraudulently won the elections held on September 9th 2001. Far from fair or free, the elections caused international outrage.

     International protest was short lived however, when two days  later four planes were hijacked, two crashing into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon and the forth in a Pennsylvanian field; the focus of governments across the globe turned to international terrorism and away from the small country of Belarus. Mr. Lukashenko was quick to capitalize on the unexpected advantages of fading from the world’s headlines.

Mr. Lukashenko's Policies of Repression  

His regime’s repressive policies focus on two groups- political opponents to his regime, including politicians as well as journalist, and non-governmental organizations which can be denied registration and rapidly liquidated. The means are found in the corrupt court system as well as through unofficial channels, especially for the orchestrated “disappearances” of opposition figures. In pressuring these two groups, Mr. Lukashenko has ensured that the availability of information and the forums for free political discussion remain minimal at best.

Out of the 1,464 NGOs that applied for registration in 2003, only 94 NGOs were approved. Meanwhile, the stringent regulation laws were used to liquidate 51 NGOs. The Independent Society for Legal Research, for example, was liquidated by the Minsk City court, having been found guilty of “repeated actions which caused a written warning during the past 12 months.” The liquidation was in punishment for the participation of Society members' in the defense of NGOs facing liquidation or attempting to fight a rejection from registration. There had been no warning or questions raised when Society members had aided in 40 other cases since its inception in 1996. This closing coincided with the closing of two other legal aid NGOs.

Persecution of pro-democracy leaders

     On the democratic leader front, Lukashenko has been equally aggressive. Protesting, picketing or any meeting of any kind can lead to prosecution and convictions. More seriously, there have been a number of high profile “disappearances” of opposition figures which have failed to been adequately investigated.

     According to the Human Rights Center VIASNA, since the beginning of the year, the persecution of peaceful activists has continued. On January 16th, Aksana Novikava was sentenced to conditional imprisonment for 2 years for “insult of president Lukashenko” in April of 2003, and was fined approximately $2000 US. She had been active in the action to prevent a third term for Mr. Lukashenko. She refused to appear in court on November 25th following her arrest the previous day on charges related to her activities of April 2003, explaining that “I am not going to go there on my own will. The regime is illegitimate, that means all its demands are illegal and there is no necessity to obey them.” On January 21st she was fined $1630 US for having picketed without permission with a sign saying “We Need Jury Trial” near the Minsk City Courthouse.

     On January 26th activist Raman Kazakevich was fined $163 US, for having picketed in front of the prosecutor’s office with signs reading “Lukashenko, Sheiman, Sivakow! It’s time to take responsibility.”

     On January 29th the police turned toward three young activists handing out VIASNA’s publication “The Right to Freedom.” Charged that day with violating Article 172 of the Code of Administrative Offences regarding the illegal production and distribution of the printed materials, the three activists were later released.

     This is a short list of activities by the Belarus Courts under Mr. Lukashenko’s direction against supporters of human rights and democracy in the country over a short period of time. Yet the courts are not the only means utilized to repress and undermine the democratic movement in Belarus.

Silencing Dissent

     In order to increase pressure on NGOs, the government has given special attention to limit free press. The case of the “Assembly” magazine is especially worrisome. It is a publication that, since 1997, has been dedicated to NGO activities in Belarus. It is the only publication of its kind in the country. Several hundred issues sent by mail in sealed envelopes to associations across the country, were seized from the Minsk post office.  Its following issue in January 2004 dealt with the activities and participation of NGOs in elections. A center piece of the issue dealt with the “Grey List” of officials connected to repressive activity against NGOs. Justice Ministry bureaucrats had previously expressed unhappiness with the content of the “Assembly.”

     The weekly paper “Salidanasts” resumed publication in January 2004 after the publisher refused to print the paper in December of 2003. Previously, in June of 2003 another printing press had refused to print the paper.

Journalists have also received death threats. In the case of Iryna Makavetskaya, the police refused to investigate, even once it was revealed that the caller was an employee of the Homel TV and Radio Company. It is highly unlikely that this individual was acting of his own accord.

Belarus’ Disappeared

     The disappearance of opposition figures forms a prominent part of the regime’s plan of action against democrats and human rights activists. A report recently approved unanimously by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly and drafted by the Cypriot parliamentarian Christos Pourgourides details the disappearances of Belarus citizens. It concludes that the cover up of a number of high profile individuals was undertaken “at the highest level of the State.” 2

     These disappearances include those of fomer Belarus Interior Minister Yuri Zakharenko in May 1999, former Parliamentary Vice-President Victor Gonchar and businessman Anatoly Krasovski in September 1999, and Russian TV cameraman Dmitri Zavadski in July 2000. These cover-ups were linked to the Belarus secret service which is still known as the KGB.

     The report also includes a recommendation to investigate the involvement in the disappearances of the current Prosecutor-General Victor Sheyman, the current Sports Minister Y.L. Sivakov, and a high-ranking officer of the special forces, Colonel Pavlichenko. 

     Uladzimir Navumaw, Belarus minister of Internal Affairs, commented on Mr. Pourgourides’ report, saying that “[During the interview] he asked me questions, and I answered them. It is difficult to guess why he came to such a conclusion.” The minister did not, however, comment on the substance of their conversation. He himself is linked to Mr. Pavlichenko by Mr. Pourgourides.

Ending Repression in Belarus 

     Civil society, the keystone of democracy, is under assault on all fronts in Belarus. As long as Mr. Lukashenko is in power and government policies remain repressive while the courts and police act to undermine democratic freedoms, there is little hope for the people of Belarus to develop both politically and economically.

The European Union, the US and the Council of Europe must continue to pressure Mr. Lukashenko to end his repressive regime, and support the democratic movement and NGOs of Belarus. Pressure must also be place on the Russian government which maintains a strong influence over the former Soviet state.  

     It is in the interest of the international community and of Europe in particular, to ensure that democracy is strong in all of Europe. An authoritarian regime in the midst of increasingly developed and democratic states such as Lithuania Latvia and Poland, all of which will have been accepted into the European Union, can only be detrimental to those states and to the stability of the region, which would surely occur if Belarus continues to sink into authoritarianism. -A. N.

The article was written based on information from BBC World News, The Council of Europe News website,and the Human Rights Centre VIASNA website.

 1 Council of Europe “Belarus disappearances: Assembly report names senior officials who may have been involved and points to cover-up ‘at the highest level’” Strasbourg, 27.01.2004 http://press.coe.int/cp/2004/043a(2004).htm

 2 Human Rights Center VIASNA “News Updates” 03 February 2004 www.spring96.org