Realism: Why Democracy Promotion Matters

Thank you, Dr. Schwab. It is an honor for me to appear before this forum co-founded by Hans Morgenthau, the man who did more than any other individual to bring the study of international relations into the forefront of our academic institutions.

I had the privilege of meeting Professor Morgenthau a year after this committee was created. I was a graduate student in American foreign policy at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, SAIS as we called it. And I got to sit at a dinner table with him before he was to give us a lecture. I was asked by the dean of SAIS, a disciple of Morgenthau, to make "small talk" with him. With all the confidence of a student who had mastered the sum total of two courses in American foreign policy, I asked Morgenthau: "Professor, what is your opinion of the behavioral approach to the study of international politics?" He looked up from his dinner and replied: "Negative," then resumed his meal.

I took his answer as an opportunity to hone my skills in persistence, a skill I would need especially if I hoped to become a diplomat. I pressed on: "Professor Morgenthau, could you elaborate?" At which point the good professor put down his knife and fork, cleared his throat, raised his voice and bellowed: "Extremely negative!" I suddenly realized the importance of an exit strategy. I attempted no more follow-up questions and rediscovered my faith in prayer as I fervently hoped for a quick end to the meal. Morgenthau had taught that magnanimity in victory is always the best approach, so he turned to me with a smile and said: "You seem like a bright fellow, so take my advice, do not succumb to fads."

I've thought often about that evening as I traveled my professional journey through the departments and offices of Washington, DC, and as I became a lecturer in American foreign policy at the very institution where I had my first encounter with Dr. Morgenthau. And I can say this: fads have come and gone, but the fundamentals that guide and shape American foreign policy remain. And one of the most enduring of those fundamentals, as old as our Republic itself, is America's support for the advancement of democratic values.

The United States has never been a status quo power. This can be unsettling, even to our friends and allies. Several years ago I found myself in a spirited debate with the editor of a major French newspaper over the wisdom of calling for reform in the Middle East. As I was describing the intense debate in the United States, this well respected journalist said: "Many of our readers are comfortable with a caricature of America. But when they read or hear of an America that debates ideas, that unsettles them deeply."

The efforts of various Administrations to advance human rights and democratic principles have been put to extraordinary tests in the international arena. These efforts also have touched off extraordinary debates here at home between those who argue that we have abandoned our values in pursuit of security and economic interests, and those who assert that we have overextended ourselves in our ardor to spread liberty. The two contending lines of argument co-exist. They are permanent. They are not fads. Indeed, they have served to define America and its place in the world.

I would argue that today, our values and our interests are more closely linked than ever. As President Bush recently said in his State of the Union address: "What every terrorist fears most is human freedom … Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies … So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates and reformers and brave voices for democracy."

First guideline: We cannot and dare not separate American diplomacy from our democratic roots. In the long-term, the American people will not support, and the U.S. Government cannot sustain, policies that contradict democratic principles. To be sure, elements on both sides of American politics today criticize value-based foreign policy as patently unrealistic or believe that the War against Terror has so corroded our credibility that we cannot effectively advance a democracy and human rights agenda. However, our efforts to promote and defend human rights and democratic principles continue to enjoy broad-based bipartisan backing and the strong support of the American people.

Third guideline: Democracy is not chemistry. You can't concoct it using a formula. That said, three interrelated elements are essential to any democracy. One element, of course, is elections. But a free election on Election Day is not a fair election if in the run-up to the election the playing field is not level because the political process is manipulated and basic rights are undermined. There also must be present a second element for democracy to work: good governance--representative and accountable institutions of government and the rule of law, including an independent legislative body that can act as a check on executive power. Do the leaders who win elections democratically, govern democratically? Is a culture of corruption present? Corruption is a cancer on democratic institutions that destroys any confidence of citizens in their government. And the third essential element in a democracy is a robust civil society that can keep government honest, keep citizens engaged and keep democracy-building on track. In a fully functioning democracy, all three elements must be present--electoral, institutional and societal.

Fourth guideline: Democracy promotion is not about pushing a single model--a one size fits all--for every region and country. In the Western Hemisphere, the challenge is to help democracies address the governance deficit and convince citizens that democracy can deliver a better quality of life than can populist leaders like President Chavez in Venezuela, who undermine democracy once they are elected. For many countries in Africa, ending violence remains the central issue. Promoting democracy and human rights in Africa also will depend in large part on our ability to strengthen multilateral organizations, such as the African Union, to field robust peacekeeping missions, monitor elections and support reforms.

Fifth guideline: Democracy promotion is not about achieving perfection. Perfection can never be attained by us or any other nation. The late Secretary of State Dean Acheson, who Morgenthau lauded as one of the greatest in the 20^th century, would dismiss as naïve the idea that the "Celestial City" of perfection could be replicated on earth. One of our greatest strengths as a nation--indeed of democracy itself--is not that our system of government is infallible, but that it is accountable. We do not engage in democracy promotion because we think America is a paragon of democratic virtues. Indeed, democracy is a system of, by and for the people based on the assumption that human beings are flawed and that therefore there must be limits on power--checks and balances embedded in the governmental system--and other correctives.

Sixth guideline: Democracy promotion cannot be imposed. By democracy's very definition, a system that is imposed cannot be democratic. As President Bush has said: "America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way."

Though democracy cannot be imposed, it can be nurtured. That is exactly what we have been doing with our partners in the G-8 major industrialized nations and from the broader Middle East through a young institution, the Forum for the Future. The Forum is a key vehicle through which we are supporting the indigenous desire for political, economic and educational reform in the region.

Three years ago, when the United States pressed for the creation of such a Forum where reform could be addressed and advanced, many European diplomats told us that the countries of the Middle East would never endorse it. At the first Forum for the Future in Rabat in 2004, only 5 civil society organizations participated. When I accompanied Secretary Rice to the 2006 Forum held at the Dead Sea in Jordan, we were encouraged to see participating nearly 50 civil society umbrella organizations, representing hundreds of NGOs and thousands of men and women across the region. The theme was "empowerment," especially of young people and women. These NGO voices are part of the debate in the region about how to reform their societies, economies and governments to meet the challenges of the 21^st century. These are local voices--not Americans or Europeans--demanding change from within. No one is under any illusions that the hardest part lies ahead: follow-through by governments in implementing the recommendations put forward by civil society. Nonetheless, the Forum has opened political space that did not before exist for civil society organizations to form and interact with governments in the region.

Seventh guideline: Democracy promotion is a long-term effort. It often can take successive generations of determined men and women working for democratic change in their own countries and it will require long-term commitments of support for them on our part. When Secretary Rice was sworn in as Secretary of State she asked us to ensure that junior officers would be in attendance. Her message was clear: what we start now will not necessarily bear fruit in 1, 2, or even 10 years. It is a multi-generational challenge. But, as Secretary Rice says, it is urgent work that must not be delayed.

Where does that leave us today?

It is fair to say that the issue of democracy promotion has become a central issue in the international system. Indeed, all around the world, people are pressing for their rights to be respected and their governments to be responsive, for their voices to be heard and their votes to count, for just laws and justice for all. Recognition also is growing that democracy is the form of government that can best meet the demands of citizens for dignity, liberty, and equality.

But it is also fair to say that for each effort by governments, organizations, and individuals to advance human rights and democracy, there has been push-back. Hans Morgenthau once described power as expanding until checked by countervailing power. This point has been echoed by Secretary Rice, who has observed that if you are surprised by push-back, you don't know history.

The power of freedom is coming under assault by those who do not want to be accountable to their people and who do not want to accept limits on their power.

Countries in which power is concentrated in the hands of unaccountable rulers tend to be the world's most systematic human rights violators. These states range from closed, totalitarian systems like North Korea, or brutal military regimes like Burma, that subject their citizens to a wholesale deprivation of their basic rights, to authoritarian systems like Belarus and Zimbabwe in which the exercise of basic rights is severely restricted. The Iranian government continues to deprive its citizens of their basic rights and ignore their desire for responsible, accountable government. Elections in Iran may seem free, but they are not fair--not when women, and for that matter the majority of all candidates, are barred from running for office, media is shut down or manipulated, and debate is stifled.

China has freedoms today unimaginable three decades ago. But Chinese citizens still are denied internationally recognized freedoms of expression, religion and assembly and a meaningful say in how they are governed. Even as the Chinese leadership strives to give its citizens the tools to compete economically, it stifles them politically.

Sadly, lack of accountability is not limited to totalitarian or authoritarian dictatorships and intolerant theocracies. Some countries that had started down the democratic path are backsliding. In Russia, we confront the challenge of finding practical ways to support democratic actors under President Putin's so-called "sovereign democracy" or "managed democracy." The Kremlin's tightened controls on political processes, grip on the media, and constraints on the work of NGOs all make the environment surrounding the 2007-2008 Duma and presidential elections a daunting one for opposing views.

Today, in every region of the world, we are seeing disturbing attempts to intimidate human rights defenders and civil society organizations and to restrict or shut down their human rights and democracy efforts. Unjust laws and regulations have been wielded as political weapons against those with independent views--I call it rule by law rather than the rule of law. There also have been attempts to silence independent voices by extralegal means.

As Secretary Rice has said, democracy is not a linear process. Democracy promotion is about working hard to get the trajectory right. When I meet with Secretary Rice, the question that comes up the most is: "What is the trajectory?" Is the country more responsive to its citizens? Is a culture of just laws taking root? What can we do to help?

Today, throughout the world, the United States is supporting the efforts of those calling for their rights and for reform of their governments. By on-the-ground interaction with government officials, civil society organizations and individuals, and through regional and global organizations, we are defending international human rights standards and advancing democratic principles. We are helping fellow democracies better deliver Democracy's blessings to their people, strengthen their institutions of government and sink deeper roots for the rule of law. We are encouraging the participation of all citizens, including women and minorities, in the public life of their countries. And to ensure that the will of the people prevails, we are promoting political pluralism and helping to level playing fields so that elections can meet international norms.

Just last December on International Human Rights Day, Secretary Rice announced two important initiatives in support of human rights and democracy defenders:

First, Secretary Rice has created a Human Rights Defenders Fund. The Fund will begin at $1 million and will be replenished each year as needed. This fund, to be administered by the State Department, will enable us to quickly disburse small grants to human rights defenders facing extraordinary needs as a result of government repression. This funding, for example, could go to cover legal defense or medical costs, or short-term support to meet the pressing needs of activists' families.

Second, we issued 10 guiding NGO Principles regarding the treatment by governments of non-governmental organizations. These core NGO Principles will guide our own treatment of NGOs, and we also will also use them to assess the actions of other governments. The Principles are meant to complement lengthier, more detailed, UN and European Union documents addressing NGOs and other human rights defenders. We hope that our contribution of the 10 NGO Principles will help to rally worldwide support for embattled NGOs by serving as a handy resource for governments, international organizations, civil society groups and journalists.

All of these efforts are integral to what Dr. Rice calls "Transformational Diplomacy."

This policy does not originate around a conference table in the State Department or the situation room in the White House. It originates with men and women across the globe, who despite all odds and at great personal risk, stand up for their own rights and for the rights of their fellow citizens.

As Secretary Rice has said: "[U]ltimately, the impatient souls all around the world who struggle and stumble and rise again to take up freedom's cause will succeed--for the great mover of history is the power of the human spirit."

America will never claim ownership of, or judgment over, the human spirit. But we will continue to defend it. Our activism for human rights and democracy opens opportunities for the advancement of freedom that might not otherwise exist. Sobering realities shape our efforts. At the same time, our efforts create new, hopeful realities.

The great realist Henry Kissinger acknowledged this phenomenon recently, when he eulogized President Ford at the National Cathedral. President Ford, he said, "helped shape the Final Act of the European Security Conference, which established an internationally recognized standard for human rights, now generally accepted as having hastened the collapse of the former Soviet Empire." Kissinger went on to relate how Ford, "looking directly at Brezhnev, … proclaimed America's deep devotion to human rights and individual freedoms. 'To my country,' he said, 'they are not clichés or empty phrases.'"

I will leave you with these thoughts in closing: Not a day goes by that some commentators in the media don't rejoice in the return of Realism, and not a day goes by that others don't lament the Bush Administration's abandonment of its Freedom Agenda.If by heavenly intervention I could have had the pleasure of sitting next to Dr. Morgenthau tonight, chances are we'd have engaged in that great debate. I trust that I would have proved better equipped to keep the great professor's interest than I was 30 years ago. Given the chance, I would have made to Dr. Morgenthau the same argument that I have just made to you: that today's reality compels us to conduct a foreign policy that aligns itself with the brave men and women around the globe who work for peaceful, democratic change. I think Dr. Morgenthau would have given me a fair hearing. After all, although the good doctor understood the harsh reality of human nature, he never gave up his hope in the human sprit. And neither will we.

Thank you.