The Arsenal of Democracy?

By: Elie Elian

The propagation of Democracy has been the driving force of US foreign policy since the end of World War 1 with Woodrow Wilson’s calls for national self-determination around the world. In the past 10 years alone we have toppled regimes and governments in Afghanistan and Iraq and have replaced them with democracies. George Bush stated, “[We] are committed to a strategic goal of a free Iraq that is democratic, that can govern itself, defend itself and sustain itself.” The promotion of democracies has been significant to most modern presidents and has been part of the justification for the sacrifice of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite this apparently pro-democratic foreign policy, the Obama administration has failed to promote democratic movements in Egypt and has been embarrassingly ambivalent, infusing the crises with political rhetoric. Is this a departure from America’s promotion of democracy, or are these policies simply political rhetoric?

In the past few days we have seen the collapse of two autocratic nations, Tunisia and Egypt. With such passion and drive, the people of Tunisia and Egypt braved walls of riot police and tear gas in the hopes of tasting the freedom that we take for granted.  In the face of a populist uprising, in the name of democracy, Americans might have expected their government to stand firmly behind this movement. One obvious reason for such an expectation would be our nation’s experience and values. The government that we swear allegiance to is a government from the people for the people as a result of a populist rebellion in the face of oppression.

Despite such obvious reasons, our government was and is ambivalent about the uprising in Egypt. The Obama administration has stated that it supports economic and political reforms and does not believe the status quo in Egypt is sustainable. However, it is not calling for the “president” of Egypt to step down, nor has it lauded the Egyptian people’s desire for democracy. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton stated, "We are not advocating any specific outcome.” Such weak and indecisive rhetoric is intentional and reflects the political realities of the situation.  Hosni Mubarak, the “president” of Egypt, is a very close political ally of the US.  The US Agency for International Development reports that during Mubarak’s reign, Egypt has been the recipient of 28 billion dollars from the United States. During this time the international community did not consider Egypt to be a valid democracy.

The close political ties between the United States and Mubarak may explain some of the administration’s ambivalence, but Obama’s administration fears something worse than the loss of an ally. They fear replacing that ally with an enemy.  If a democracy takes hold in Egypt it may empower radical elements of the population that were suppressed during Mubarak’s regime, elements such as the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamic political movement that has been actively suppressed under Mubarak.  The Brotherhood is not considered an ally by the US and has been linked to violent attacks primarily in Egypt.  While not considered a terrorist group there are many who fear the result of the group attaining political power in Egypt. Yet how does the administration’s ambivalence coincide with the long affirmed democracy promoting foreign policy?

The result of the uprising in Egypt has outlined the political rhetoric and half-hearted values that have plagued this policy. We find it necessary to impose democracy with force, but find it concerning when democracy arises from the people. We find it appropriate to sacrifice the lives of our troops in the name of democracy and freedom, but also find it appropriate to remain ambivalent while men, women, and children rise against oppression. While the fears of extremism are justified, do such fears justify oppression?  Our founders feared the powers of “factions” hijacking the government and abusing its power.  As a result, they did not advocate autocracy, they advocated a power sharing system within government to check power.  If we are to be “the great arsenal of democracy” as FDR called us, we mustn’t shy away from those who cry out for freedom.  We mustn’t embrace those who stomp on the values dear to our democracy.  We cannot continue to claim that we are the “arsenal” of democracy if we do not inherently support the ideal. What we must do is stand for the values that embody our nation.  We must be brave enough to support democracy even if the result is not in our favor.  We should do this not because it is political good for us to do it, but because it is simply right. The foreign policy of this administration and many before it, did not fight to promote democracy, they fought to promote a conditional democracy.  We did not fight for the idea of democracy and the value of freedom; we fought for political ambitions. This has become apparent today in regards to Egypt.  To many Egyptians we have been flying the banner of democracy and freedom with vigor and determination in Iraq and Afghanistan.  When they try to do they same, we do not hoist the banner higher, we ask them to stop.  Therefore, we must make a choice. Either, we must hold the values of freedom and democracy high unconditionally to all nations, or we must stop justifying war and the deaths of our soldiers in its name.

Africa Working Group

At our final meeting of the semester, we screened the film Munyurangabo, a quiet, independent film released in 2007. The film follows two adolescents, Sangwa and Munyurangabo, as they journey through Rwanda in the aftermath of the 1994 genocide. Though they are companions, it is later revealed that one boy is a Hutu, and the other is a Tutsi. During the 100 days of the Rwandan genocide, Hutu extremists murdered hundreds of thousands of Tutsis over cultural conflict. Though survivors of this tragedy from opposing sides, the boys seem unfazed. They share a simple relationship expressed in little dialogue, and only when we meet Sangwa’s family does the tension become evident. The film is powerful because it marks the growth, maturation, and strength of these two boys, while simultaneously paralleling the growth, maturation, and strength of a country after great devastation – without a scene of violence.

After a semester of exploring both broad-based and specific areas of research in African development and bringing in guest speakers from two African countries (Uganda and Sudan), Munyurangabo was a wonderful way to cap off 2010. We look forward to continuing our work in 2011!

Is government transparency always a good thing for the people?

Starting November 28^th, 250,000 diplomatic cables were released to the public through Wikileaks. Wikileaks is an international non-profit media organization that seeks to encourage government transparency by releasing otherwise classified documents to the public. Among the quarter-million documents released Sunday, 11,000 of them were marked secret. The editor in chief of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, staunchly defends the release of the documents stating that governments use secrecy to conceal unjust behavior, and therefore Wikileaks must, “act against abusive organizations.”

Some of the leaked documents were almost comical - one U.S. diplomat called Russian Prime Minister Medvedev Robin to Putin’s Batman.  Other documents were more substantial; some indicated that Iran’s Arab neighbors are quietly pleading with the US to launch an attack against Iran’s nuclear program.  While this might come as a surprise to some, those who closely follow the region suspected as much.

Now that Iran is aware other Arab nations are coordinating the United States, will this adversely affect efforts to impede Iran’s nuclear program? Will Arab states be more reluctant to coordinate with the United States, even in secret, for fear their actions will be revealed? When does transparency become detrimental to international diplomacy?

The Wikileaks documents undermined political trust built up between nations.Releasing this type of political gossip does not make the world more just, it makes world more difficult to diplomatically navigate. If governments cannot communicate in private and give their honest opinions about heads of state without fear, they become less efficient, and therefore less effective. I’m usually a tremendous advocate for government transparency. However, in this scenario I do not see the benefit.

Present and/or publish your work to a broader audience

Political science faculty meet annually at the Palmer House in Chicago to present their current research at the Midwest Political Science Association's Annual Conference. For several years, the organizers have included a poster session for undergraduate research and several ND students have presented in the past few years. If you are interested, see the following blurb extracted from a recent email:


"Finally, I wanted to remind you that several years ago, the MPSA created a Poster Section for Undergraduate Research. This is a great opportunity for advanced undergraduate students to present a capstone project and get an understanding of academic research if they are considering graduate school. If you have any undergraduate students that might be interested, please forward them information on this (www.mpsanet.org) The deadline is December 3, 2010."


Additionally, I was recently contacted Columbia University’s Journal of Politics & Society, an undergraduate academic journal distributed in outlets like Barnes & Noble and Borders. I was specifically asked to nominate papers from my junior seminar on financial crises but also other undergraduate research of note such as seminar papers and senior theses. If you are interested, please let me know (Guisinger.1@nd.edu). The deadline is January 15th; papers must be a minimum of 15 pages. To find out more, you can also go to www.helvidius.org.


Best,


Professor Guisinger

Latin America Working Group

We began a discussion on immigration from Latin American countries to the United States. A topic we focused on was the current policies towards immigrants and how refugee status is given. Many citizens are denied refugee status even though human rights violations are occurring in their countries. A possible explanation is the US support for those countries governments and the desire to display one image towards it. Some examples of these countries are Haiti, Colombia, or El Salavador. The percentage of people granted refugee status from these countries is much lower than other countries. Next week we plan on continuing the discussion on immigration.

Africa Working Group

This week the Africa Working Group continued it's discussion about South Africa, examining and discussing articles which forecast South Africa's future and needs. We discussed how though South Africa has the strongest economy of any other sub-Saharan country it is not the strongest institutionally, with countries like Botswana having a far more efficient and less corrupt government. 

Southeast Asia Working Group

The Southeast Asia group discussed the ND Forum, "The Global Marketplace and the Common Good," as it pertains to the region. The discussion focused on China and ways to incentivize innovation in the green energy industry. The group also discussed Thomas Friedman's surprising height--he only comes in at about 5'7".