What Democracy? A Brief Look at U.S. Foreign Policy

• Published on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
• http://tinyurl.com/4dmyn
• What Democracy? A Brief Look at U.S. Foreign Policy
  by Marc Pilisuk and Neil Wollman
  
  
• We are told that no matter one’s stand on the legitimacy of attacking Iraq or Afghanistan, such U.S. interventions have brought significant steps toward democracy there and elsewhere. But is the Bush administration correct to assert that spreading democracy is, and has been, the role of the U.S. in the world? A brief review of outcomes in both Iraq and Afghanistan--as well as the history of U.S. interventions over decades—suggests a different role, one involving U.S. based global corporate interests.
  It is useful to first define what we mean by democracy. I (the first author) spoke to an imprisoned labor leader in El Salvador during their civil war in which the U.S. assisted a government ruled by military death squads. He urged me to remind the U.S. that democracy is not only about elections (which can be unfairly influenced). Democracy, he said, is more about whether it is safe for ordinary people to gather to talk about what they need and what they can do to get them met.
  Though we praise the courage of Iraqi citizens and the first step of holding an election there, to this point what is transpiring in Iraq is not so much democracy as a triumph for leaders of particular factions permitted by the occupying military rulers. Too many citizens do not feel safe, to gather to talk about what are their needs and how to attain them. Iraq does not have a democracy with power to wrest control from U.S. corporations now finding Iraq a profitable market. Neither can its new government stop permanent foreign bases in its country, or insist that Iraq’s rich resources adequately provide for its citizens traumatized by war. A real democracy in Iraq would reflect majority opinion to end military occupation and stop preferences given to US contractors.
  In Afghanistan, democracy and specific gains for women were trumpeted by Laura Bush in her recent visit there. But outside of fortified Kabul, little democracy exists for women in a countryside dominated by warlords. Illiteracy and malnutrition are rampant, and narcotics are the only viable economy. At the same time, the military assures protection for building a pipeline to the Caspian Sea that will benefit an American oil company.
  Motives other than love for democracy are suggested by the U.S. role in a recent unsuccessful coup attempt against the democratically elected President Chavez of Venezuela. The U.S. government-funded International Republican Institute provided funds for opposition parties; and its Venezuelan office praised the attempted take-over. Chavez’ wealthy opponent was helped by the US Ambassador. Chavez’s greatest crime was providing social programs by doubling royalties paid by U.S. petroleum companies.
  The whisking away of elected President Aristide of Haiti by U.S. soldiers is not an argument for U.S. interest in democracy. The pattern is not new. Popularly chosen leaders such as Mosadegh in Iran, Allende in Chile, Arbenz in Guatemala, and Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic were all removed by U.S. military and intelligence operations. In Panama, the U.S. invaded, in part, because President Noriega planned to give a major construction contract on the canal to a non-U.S. company. Officials associated with the U.S. company that stood to lose, were concurrently occupying powerful positions in the US government. These interventions occurred in the wake of threats by those governments to make foreign corporations restore some of their profits to citizens living there. U.S. military support goes to governments cited by Amnesty International for crimes against humanity (Guatemala and Indonesia are noteworthy examples). Meanwhile, non-democratic governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and elsewhere continue to receive U.S. military assistance. Indeed, despite claims by the Bush administration and others, informed observers question how much democracy is actually budding in Egypt and Saudi Arabia—or Lebanon- and whether those openings really resulted from U.S. interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. This sampling of U.S foreign policy reveals motivations other than spreading democracy. Indeed, a more consistent theme has been to protect the interests of U.S.-based, global corporations. Friendly democracies will do fine, but compliant tyrants are just as welcome and the cost in lives to support corporation-friendly governments is easily justified as “spreading democracy.”
  
• Marc Pilisuk, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus at the University of California Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center. He can be reached at mpilisuk@saybrook.edu
  
• Neil Wollman, Ph.D., is Senior Fellow at the Peace Studies Institute and Professor of Psychology at Manchester College, IN and can be reached at mail:Njwollman@manchester.edu