The journal of Foreign Affairs has been running a series of articles from the various major presidential candidates from both parties. The articles have been presented as an opportunity for the candidates to present their view of the world and what each of them believe should be the priorities of the next president. The last issue (July/August 2007) included essays from Mitt Romney and Barak Obama. I haven’t had a chance to read them yet, but I will in the coming weeks and include my take on their stance on democracy promotion. The current issue (September/October 2007) includes essay from Rudolph Giuliani and John Edwards. I will also follow up with my thoughts on Edward’s piece later this week, but I feel pretty compelled to take up Giuliani’s essay now given that it has gotten so much attention – both positive and negative.

First off, I will limit my commentary to the portion of his essay that deal with democracy promotion. I have a lot of additional opinions about his overall world view, but I don’t think they are relevant to this forum which focuses on democratization, US foreign policy, and democracy promotion.

Giuliani opens his essay with a framing of his world view and what he sees to be the three biggest challenges for the next American president:

We are all members of the 9/11 generation… Civilization itself, and the international system, had come under attack by a ruthless and radical Islamist enemy… But this war will be long, and we are still in its early stages… The next U.S. president will face three key foreign policy challenges. First and foremost will be to set a course for victory in the terrorists’ war on global order. The second will be to strengthen the international system that the terrorists seek to destroy. The third will be to extend the benefits of the international system in an ever-widening arc of security and stability across the globe. The most effective means for achieving these goals are building a stronger defense, developing a determined diplomacy, and expanding our economic and cultural influence. Using all three, the next president can build the foundations of a lasting, realistic peace.

By his own words, he sees 9/11 as a moment that redefined the international order that pits the whole of “civilization” and the international system against a global radical Islamic enemy that seeks to dismantle the international system. The next president should move to strengthen the global order, which can be expanded to increase security for more regions of the world. Only through the increased strength of the international system vis-à-vis a strong US leadership will a long-term peace be possible. Ok, fair enough – keep this in mind as we examine how democracy promotion fits into this.

Giuliani dips into the first hints of democracy promotion in the sixth paragraph:

At the core of all Americans is the belief that all human beings have certain inalienable rights that proceed from God but must be protected by the state. Americans believe that to the extent that nations recognize these rights within their own laws and customs, peace with them is achievable. To the extent that they do not, violence and disorder are much more likely. Preserving and extending American ideals must remain the goal of all U.S. policy, foreign and domestic.

So he argues that the American view of inalienable rights based in a deist origin should be the model for other countries, which seems fairly Anglo-centric view of the world. However, he doesn’t specifically state what the “certain inalienable rights” actually are. Are they as specific as the rights enumerated in the American Bill of Rights? Or are they as vague as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? He then backpedals a bit and states that there is a positive relationship between the degree to which countries integrate these “certain inalienable rights” into their laws and the propensity for peace with the US. Furthermore, it is the goal of US domestic and foreign policy to spread our American values. Giuliani seems to be hedging both sides of the fence here – inalienable, good ol’ American values for everyone vs. a respect for the different expression of rights based on different cultures and traditions. While I tend to appreciate a clearly defined set of inalienable rights that the US should consider as non-negotiable and seek to assist those that fight to protect them, Giuliani’s first statement here is incoherent and tries to have both ways. He wants to proclaim the superiority of the American view of individual liberty but retain the traditional conservative cover of support for authoritarian regimes by claiming that each culture has a unique pace and expression of freedom that needs to be respected. Very Reaganesque – may play well with the base.

A bit later on, Giuliani states his idea of what America’s goal should be in Iraq and Afghanistan:

Our goal is to see in Iraq and Afghanistan the emergence of stable governments and societies that can act as our allies against the terrorists and not as breeding grounds for expanded terrorist activities.

The previous Bush administration focus of establishing stable democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan is gone. Bush, and to his credit, truly believes (or at least he professed to) that democratic systems of government are one of the best ways to undermine support for terrorism and radical Islam. When the political arena is open and competitive, the appeal of radical Islamists diminishes because they are unable to meet the tasks of daily governing and won’t satiate the individual’s desire for self-expression and liberty.

From here, Giuliani later moves on to the issue of using public diplomacy to improve the US’ image:

It is clear that we need to do a better job of explaining America’s message and mission to the rest of the world, not by imposing our ideas on others but by appealing to their enlightened self-interest. To this end, the Voice of America program must be significantly strengthened and broadened. Its surrogate stations, such as Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, which were so effective at inspiring grass-roots dissidents during the Cold War, must be expanded as well. Our entire approach to public diplomacy and strategic communications must be upgraded and extended, with a greater focus on new media such as the Internet.

Straightforward enough, but this statement is completely lacking substance. Of course the US needs to improve the way in which it engages with publics around the world, this is definitely one area that the Bush administration has been absolutely horrible. This is partly due to the unpopular nature of many of the administration’s policies around the world, but it is also very much a factor of the administration just not carrying about international opinion. Like the Bush administration’s practice of domestic politics, they do not care about the view of those beyond the base supporters. If you disagree with their world view, you are to be ignored and are ignorant. As they have learned, this approach undermines your ability to do almost anything because this style of politics alienates everyone and polarizes everyone who you’ve burned. Additionally, the Bush administration has allowed America to be “Swift boated” by al Qaeda and radical Islamists. They have failed to effectively rebuff and respond to al Qaeda’s arguments and accusations and let them fill the void of public discourse in much of the Muslim world. Giuliani’s answer is not sufficient. Here he simply states increasing radio broadcasts and developing communication strategies for new media.

Does Giuliani want to hire bloggers to fight al Qaeda? Does he want to enlist a “Yglesias Corps” to take on the al Qaeda message machine? First, the Cold War analogy doesn’t fit for this argument. In the Cold War we were struggling against an enemy that controlled a defined territory and a defined population. It is easy to broadcast programming into those regions and reach those people and inspire those dissidents, but to take that same approach would not be tenable in the Middle East because it would undercut Giuliani’s priority of having “stable” governments to work with. How do you parse a message that is anti-al Qaeda and pro-liberty that doesn’t concurrently undermine the “stable” regimes with which Giuliani seeks to partner?

Giuliani’s take of how the US should approach Russia and China:

Washington should also make clear that only if China and Russia move toward democracy, civil liberties, and an open and uncorrupted economy will they benefit from the vast possibilities available in the world today.

Great. I agree. He doesn’t say anything about supporting individuals or groups within those two nondemocracies who seek to reform their countries. I guess we’ll just have to rely on the allure of radio programs and the Yglesias Corps for that.

Next, Giuliani goes a bit Kirkpatrick on the reader:

America has a clear interest in helping to establish good governance throughout the world. Democracy is a noble ideal, and promoting it abroad is the right long-term goal of U.S. policy. But democracy cannot be achieved rapidly or sustained unless it is built on sound legal, institutional, and cultural foundations.

Here’s the rub from the first section I highlighted. According to Giuliani, democracy isn’t for everyone right now. According to Giuliani’s argument, the US’ short-term strategy should focus on improving governance by helping states build sound legal structures and governing institutions… and culture? Hmm . . . that is going to be a really big order; I guess that is where the long-term, noble ideal of democracy comes in. Giuliani totally misses the point. Democracy is not culturally exclusive. The argument has been made for decades and it has eventually receded as it has been proven wrong time and time again. First, Catholics were seen as having a cultural foundation that wasn’t fit for democratic governments – much too patriarchal for democracy. Second, the Iberian and Latin cultures were too Catholic and emotional for democracy. Next, it was of “Confucian” society in which the individual submitted himself to his master. The Slavs are slavish (sorry) for a strongman. African cultures are two tribal, backwards, and dumb. All of these stereotypical views have at time been used to argue why a culture was not suitable for democratic governance, and each has been undermined by the passing of history and the struggle of individuals.

Whether with friends, allies, or adversaries, democracy will always be an issue in our relations and part of the conversation. And so the better a country’s record on good governance, human rights, and democratic development, the better its relations with the United States will be. Those countries that want our help in moving toward these ideals will have it.

Does this mean we disengage in countries that don’t explicitly seek our assistance in developing democratic governing structures? Do we cease to help those non-government organizations and individuals working for democracy if the nondemocratic government under which they live doesn’t want our help?

Economic investment and cultural influence work best where civil society already exists. But sometimes America will be compelled to act in those parts of the world where few institutions function properly — those zones that lack not only good governance but any governance — and in states teetering on the edge of conflict or recovering from it… To assist these missions, the next U.S. president should restructure and coordinate all the agencies involved in that process. A hybrid military-civilian organization — a Stabilization and Reconstruction Corps staffed by specially trained military and civilian reservists — must be developed. The agency would undertake tasks such as building roads, sewers, and schools; advising on legal reform; and restoring local currencies. The United States did similar work, and with great success, in Germany, Japan, and Italy after World War II.

The development of a post-conflict rapid-deployment reconstruction squad seems to be on every serious presidential candidate’s list of plans for changing US foreign policy. Actually, I think Gore and Kerry also proposed it in 2000 and 2004, respectively. This is an interesting proposal, one that merits consideration and discussion. However, I notice that Giuliani’s proposal again focuses on issues of developing stable states while neglecting developing democratic governments. Perhaps it is just a given? I think this shows his emphasis on state stability and ensuring security over democracy, but it is also tied into his view that governance should be established before democracy.

This may be the appropriate phasing given a long-term, significant international occupation of a completely defeated foe and the utter destruction of the previous regime and its ideological foundations. However, it isn’t a sufficient strategy to press for democratization in autocratic regimes that the US doesn’t invade, and this accounts for 99% of the cases. This is where Giuliani really misses the point. He never addresses how to really pressure autocratic regimes that challenge our interests. Furthermore, his main point on diplomacy and using cultural influence to win the battle of hearts and minds won’t work by just shipping McDonald’s around the world.

But it ( the leadership of Reagan, Thatcher, and Pope John-Paul) was effective because it came with Western economic investment and cultural influence that inspired people in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries. Companies such as Pepsi, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and Levi’s helped win the Cold War by entering the Soviet market. Cultural events, such as Van Cliburn’s concerts in the Soviet Union and Mstislav Rostropovich’s in the United States, also hastened change.

The reason this approach was effective was because the American culture was associated with US rhetoric and concrete support for dissidents seeking to undermine and overthrow the Soviet Union. If we want to really combat the appeal of al Qaeda to the Middle East public and the broader Muslim world, we need to stop supporting the oppressive dictatorships in the region. Instead of seeing American as a beacon of freedom and the source of Levi’s and rock-and-roll, they see America as the source of funding and weapons for the government that continue to mistreat their citizens. This is why the Bush’s initial rhetoric of freedom has increasing sounded hollow as it has continued to support “stable” partners. Sadly, based on my reading of Giuliani’s essay, his approach is pretty much the same as Bush’s - strong at times in rhetoric, but ultimately convoluted, hollow, and counterproductive.