Democracy Promotion in the International Arena: The Role of the Community of Democracies

I’m delighted to have been asked to address the Washington Foreign Law Society. Recently, you honored Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, two extremely distinguished people in their fields.
 
Both of these exceptional individuals have had long, successful careers, and have also made a tremendous impact in the new world in which we are living since the tragic events of September 11. We are indeed working in an international environment which is truly unprecedented.
 
The changed global environment has required that we increase our international engagement. We continue, however, to recognize the important role the global community plays in democracy building, protecting human rights, and advancing universal principles and values.
 
The Community of Democracies is one of our leading vehicles to do just that. In fact, this concept was conceived by Amb. Jeane Kirkpatrick and several other Freedom House board members years ago. Let me give you a bit of background on the initiative.
 
The Community began with a meeting of over 100 ministers in Warsaw, Poland in June 2000. This diverse group -- representing countries from every corner of the globe -- came together to affirm their commitment to fundamental principles of democracy and to promoting democracy throughout the world. This was a monumental effort, as it marked the first time that countries were gathering not because of regional, ethnic, or religious similarities, but rather because of their shared values and respect for basic human rights. There was a recognition that democracy is the best tool to bring stability to a country and a region, the best vehicle to provide a level playing field for economic development, and the most effective system to protect and provide for the needs of the citizenry, including education and health care.
 
A Convening Group of countries was then established to guide the Community. It is made up of the United States, South Africa, Mexico, India, Czech Republic, Mali, South Korea, Poland, Chile, and Portugal. This diverse grouping represents different continents, ethnic and religious backgrounds, and, as equally important, varying stages of economic and democratic development. We don’t pretend to think about issues in exactly the same way but we do recognize the importance of our shared commitment and the importance of this movement to the international community.
 
The initiative was not a one time conference, so it didn’t end in Warsaw. It continues both through biannual Ministerial meetings and a host of follow-up activities. The second Ministerial meeting was held in Seoul last November, and was attended by representatives of over 100 countries. It built upon the momentum gained at the Warsaw ministerial, and also made notable progress in several key areas.
 
First, the list of countries invited differed slightly. Let me note that unlike a formalized regional or international organization, there is no static membership in CD. The invite list is updated each ministerial meeting to reflect the current landscape of democratic nations.
 
In addition, we recognized that all countries are not at the same point in their democratic development, and that, to be a credible forum, the Community of Democracies needed to reflect this. We felt the need to include countries that are committed to democratization, but still have a long road ahead of them.
 
Given these considerations, we created an observer status invitation, to be issued to those countries that we hoped would join the Community of Democracies but which we recognized still have a way to go. These countries participated in the ministerial meeting but as observers. We were pleased with how this process worked, and even that several of these countries were represented at the ministerial level. We are confident that the Community of Democracies can be a useful forum for helping those countries in their democratization.

Second, we made the Seoul meeting more practical and hands-on. Rather than lengthy plenaries with multiple speeches, we chose to build the Ministerial around roundtable discussions. While this was somewhat unusual for senior level officials, many expressed their appreciation for this type of frank, open and productive discussion, which gave them the opportunity to grapple with real issues. Ultimately, as fellow democracies, we need to be in constant dialogue on how to strengthen our own democratic institutions and how we can best lend a helping hand to those on this path.
 
Third, we were in closer partnerships with groups in the non-governmental community, which has been the engine behind many of the democracy movements we’ve seen over the last 30 years. In both Warsaw and Seoul, NGOs held a parallel international non-governmental meeting. While these meetings are, in and of themselves, important, we believed that the Ministerial and NGOs meetings should be more closely linked. We included NGO representatives in the plenary meeting and each of the roundtables. We had a joint reception for NGOs and ministers, and a series of NGO activists presented their findings and recommendations to the ministers at the end of the Ministerial meeting.

Finally, rather than another declaration, we felt it was important to develop a roadmap, a blueprint for action. And that is why we drafted the Seoul Plan of Action. Before I explain the components of the Plan, I would like to mention that these documents are available on our website and I encourage you to take a look at them. From the Department’s website, www.state.gov, simply type in “Community of Democracies” in the search engine, and you will find various speeches and the documents I just mentioned.

There are six main elements of the action plan.

First, regional action. This calls on countries to strengthen coordination on democracy promotion within their region, and to identify means in which regional organizations can also play an active role in dealing with challenges to democracy. The OAS’s Inter-American Democratic Charter is a model from which others can benefit. Specifically, it has called on countries in our hemisphere to help -- either with sticks or carrots -- those countries that are struggling with democratic development. We have much to be proud of in our hemisphere but there are a number of countries and people that need help.

Second, the Plan of Action addresses Responding to Threats to Democracy, which includes violence against democratic governments, disruption of constitutional rule, persistent unconstitutional alteration of the democratic order, or support for terrorism. It calls upon countries to undertake preemptive action.

Third, the plan calls for Education for Democracy. The Plan recognizes that a citizenry, which is educated about democracy and the rights and responsibilities that come with it, is a citizenry that will be best able to actively participate in governance. This participation is essential to holding leaders accountable for strong, transparent, and fair management.

Fourth, the Seoul Plan of Action also identified the need for Promoting Stronger Democracies through Good Governance. In particular, the Plan calls on countries to foster the rule of law, alleviate poverty and promote economic growth, and build and sustain a strong political party system and a healthy civil society. The legal profession was an area of particular focus, as it was noted that the professionalism of lawyers and judges is imperative to ensuring the rule of law.

Fifth, the Plan called on countries to promote volunteerism, a crucial element of a stronger civil society. This was an important component, but one that was somewhat foreign to some countries. We will look for ways to help plant the seed of volunteerism in countries where it could really make a difference in providing social services and teaching people to take part in and responsibility for their community.

Finally, there was also the need identified by participants in Seoul to coordinate Democracy Assistance. We heard from many developing countries that well-intended assistance sometimes does not have maximum impact because of poor coordination among donor countries and between donor and recipient countries. We are looking at how to close those gaps.
All of these action items will be reviewed at the next ministerial, which will be hosted by the Chilean Government in early 2005.

Let me stress, however, that the Community of Democracies is not only about these large gatherings, although they have significant value. CD is about individual country action, increased cooperation, and changing how governments view their role in the international community. Let me highlight some of these individual actions and then move on to the larger context of how governments act in the international community.

There have been several very exciting follow-up projects to the Seoul Plan of Action, as countries tailor implementation to their specific region. I will mention just a few.

We hosted a meeting of 14 African, Caribbean, and Latin American democracies in Coral Gables, Florida last June. This Dialogue on Democracy, as it was called, included the participation of El Salvador’s President, Cape Verde’s Prime Minister, the Vice President of the Dominican Republic, and other high level officials, as well as non-governmental representatives. This meeting gave them a platform for grappling with tough, sometimes controversial issues, and for exchanging perspectives on effective regional action with partners on the other side of the Atlantic with whom they rarely speak. We began the one-and-a-half day seminar with excellent briefings from former and current representatives from the Organization of American States and African Union, both of whom were frank and hopeful about the challenges and potential of these organizations. The group addressed challenges facing democracies in their regions, as well as the rights and responsibilities of neighboring democracies to help regional partners confront challenges.
 
We also conducted small group simulations on how to deal with a neighboring country that is facing a constitutional crisis. I can attest to the fact that hearing the group readouts was eye-opening, provocative, and very educational for all of us. Each group’s recommendation differed from the next. Some preferred quiet diplomacy by respected eminent persons; others opted for intervention on the part of an international organization. Some suggested working directly through civil society groups that promote democracy; some advocated engaging democratic oppositionists. No answer was right or wrong, but each highlighted the diversity of options and the importance of regional partners discussing these situations and coordinating responses.
 
Lastly, the Dialogue participants didn’t leave empty handed. We summarized the excellent recommendations made during the conference, which is essentially a list of best practices from which these countries can draw from.
 
The American and Portuguese ambassadors in East Timor are working closely with the East Timorese Government to coordinate delegations from CD governments to go to Dili to share information and approaches with East Timorese officials working on judicial reform, human rights, and other democracy related issues. We are excited about this opportunity to help one of the world’s newest democracies.
 
The Romanian Government is organizing a conference to be held this November. It will bring together governmental and non-governmental representatives from some 20 countries in their region to discuss democratization in Central and Eastern Europe. We applaud this effort and hope that each of the countries in the region, which have such diverse experiences with democratization, can share best practices and learn from others.
 
The Chilean and Italian Governments will also host a seminar this fall on political party building, an issue which has been raised by several Latin American countries as a crucial one for their region.
 
Let me mention another exciting initiative before I close my remarks. We have been working closely with numerous countries on the concept of creating a democracy caucus in the United Nations. I said earlier that the objective of CD is not simply to hold meetings, but to increase the coordination among democracies to help advance democratic principles. The United Nations is a natural forum for those principles to be reaffirmed. In fact, when you look at the founding documents of the United Nations, the principles enshrined in those documents are unquestionably the same ones that are the cornerstone for democracies. Yet, these principles will not develop and guide UN affairs without diligence and coordination among those members states that themselves uphold these principles.
 
If we expect the UN to stand for the protection of human rights, we ought to mobilize those countries that protect them at home. If we expect the UN to fight for women’s political participation, we need to galvanize action among countries who support women’s rights. If we expect the UN to stand strong against governments like Burma that imprison democracy activists, we must marshal the forces of those countries that cannot conceive of stifling the voice of democracy at home.
 
Think for a moment about how that additional option for coordination impacts the way we’ve done things for decades. For example, Botswana can dialogue with Japan or El Salvador about shared goals or principles, as opposed to only being able to turn to countries in the region -- some of which are democracies, but some of which are dictatorships and autocracies. It gives any democracy a forum to voice and answer the question “How do I work to ensure that the principles that have brought peace and prosperity at home are advanced globally for the same purposes?”
 
We are facing a tremendous number of threats in this rapidly changing international environment. Our coalitions to fight terrorism and crime are essential to challenging these current threats and ensuring that Americans and others around the world remain safe. The Community of Democracies is our longer term coalition to begin altering fundamental elements of societies to advance peace. It will help solidify the framework, the principles, and the values that we share and prevent human rights abuses and terrorism.