Washington Note guestblogger Leon Hadar called my attention to an interesting article in the NY Sun today. It's about some language in an upcoming congressional bill called the ADVANCE Democracy Act that would, among other things, require the US diplomatic corps abroad to
draw up democracy transition plans for unfree regimes, with input from nonviolent opposition movements in the various countries.
It would also
allow the State Department to "use all instruments of United States influence to support, promote, and strengthen democratic principles, practices, and values in foreign countries." It charges the CIA and Treasury Department with tracking the personal assets of dictators and their associates.ADVANCE would require the secretary of state to approve an annual report designating nations as either democratic, undemocratic, or in transition.
This is one of those ideas that, if it were implemented by a competent government, is not objectionable. Promoting democracy and working with local organizations to help peacefully implement democracy in less-than-fully-democratic countries is a laudable goal. But a mandate like that in the hands of a self-serving bunch of incompetents who care more about the preservation of their own power and the interests of their buddies than about anything else -- in other words, BushCo -- it instead engenders feelings of concern and cynicism.
Do you really expect that if this becomes law, that the Bush administration would countenance a report officially designating their buddies in Saudi Arabia as undemocratic? If you do, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. But without impartiality, this act becomes just another way to politicize things like civil service promotions and foreign aid allocations. In other words, a big old mess.
I wasn't always this cynical. It would be really nice if there were some flickers of hope on the horizon, but it's a long time until the 2008 elections.
Comments (2)
How about if we started it HERE first?
We would have to achieve such things as:
1. Honest voting (No unaccountable machines made by companies overtly supporting one party)
2. No private money in election-campaigns; complete public financing for all candidates who get, say, a 1000 signatures, and equal free airtime on TV and radio (the airwaves are supposedly public)
(Some say this infringes free speech. But there are areas where private intrusion is harmful--for example, police. Can you set up your own police force and arrest people? The same goes for public election campaigns.)
3. U.N. supervised U.S. elections (!!!!!!)
4. No state laws favoring only 2 parties (many states have such laws, now)
5. Fairness doctrine re-instituted on all public media
There are many more, but these would be a start.
Only AFTER the U.S. achieved these would it be allowed to even THINK of interfering in other nations' elections.
Posted by Paul Schumacher | July 29, 2005 5:44 AM
Thus confirming that the U.S. embassy is just the catspaw of the empire that seeks to devour them. Smooth move. Just add another billion people saying "See, we were right all along when we told you they were using the embassy to attack us."
IOW, I don't think this would ever be a good idea.
Posted by serial catowner | August 2, 2005 2:50 PM