The EU and democracy promotion

Or

(4) The late but necessary realization that embargoes only isolate the population and entrench ruling dictators?

Well if you look at the uncomfortable history West Germany had with its socialist twin, with the many occasions where hardliners (rightfully?) accused the Bundesregierung of pandering to the SED regime, you might find a blueprint for the current course of action of the EU. Clearly it is meant as an alternative to the U.S. schoolyard bully variety of regime change. But there was a reason why the Eastern Bloc regimes toppled from West to East.

The growing strategic divergence between the U.S. and the EU over a range of issues is key to a couple of pieces I posted recently (links below). And while the U.S. is completely preoccupied with Iraq, the EU discussion over Cuba (among other issues) goes largely unnoticed in America.

From “On the Wrong Side of History”…

Once in a rare while, tectonic historical change occurs with the span of only few days. The dramatic fall of the Berlin Wall heralding the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union, was one of those watershed moments. And for many Americans, the events of the last 10 days of January, with the Rice confirmation, the Bush second inaugural, and the Iraqi elections, represent a democratic tide sweeping the Middle East, a sea change the whole world is watching.

Sometimes, though, dramatic changes in the global balance of power and riches slip by almost without notice. And for the United States, the signs of silent upheaval come not from Iraq and the terror threat of radical Islam. Instead, while all eyes here were focused on Iraq, other January developments in Europe and China may augur more dramatic change and a more difficult future for American global leadership…

For more, see:

– “On the Wrong Side of History”

For more background on the changing global landscape and myopic Bush foreign policy, see:

– “The End of the Unilateral Moment: Five Global Challenges for a New American Internationalism”

“Here, the EU has effectively sidelined demands for greater democracy in favour of concentrating on the nuclear security issue.”

The saddest thing about this explanation is that their concentration on the nuclear security issue isn’t likely to gain them anything concrete. So in all likelyhood they are trading democracy promotion in Iran away for nothing in return.

“It’s still interested in democracy promotion […] where it has a clear selfish interest”

Just like the US, it is simply playing the realpolitik superpower game. The rest is all rethoric.

Now we’re cooking.

I wonder sometimes if the EU as an institution is capable of actually formulating a coherent strategic policy. If one looks at how power within the union is divided, at the process of nominating the commissioners, with whom the power there is actually resides, then it becomes apparant that stable policy making (this includes interal affairs) is a VERY difficult proposition. This is one of the many reasons why a collective wish within the EU that proposition 3 be true, flounders on internal political reality.

That said. I personally believe very strongly that proposition 3 needs to become true as tempered by proposition 2.

It is true. The EU was formed on a set of ideas made feasible by unique historical conditions. These no longer pertain. European thankfulness for American support and protection in the past cannot mean that we sell our political and ethical soul and suborne our convictions (assumption here is that there IS a collective conviction) to US Policy for all time.

As to the mantra “Democracy:” The external ENFORCEMENT of democracy at high speed produces some very undesireable effects. I can remember the elections forced on Bosnia in the very early 90s. They were lauded at the time as being fair according to international standards. That the result was a 3 way split of equal proportions leading to precisely the situation that was feared does seem to have been forgotten. This cannot mean that one must forgoe the principle that those whom we call our friends must allow their people freedom and guarantee their basic rights. It is a question of method though. And therein lies the rub.
America has never been shy of propping dictators up it the democratic movements in those lands affected show signs of an ideology contrary to current ideological take of the incumbent administration.

So yes the EU does need to wake up, reform itself, set out a coherent policy based on priciple and thus create a strong but friendly counterweight to some of the more questionable certainties of US Foreign policy.

Good Post – I enjoyed it alot.

As a purely empirical matter, it would seem to me (I welcome corrections) that the path of “authoritarian regime creates a middle class followed by democracy” has been rather more successful than the path of “create a democracy in some god-forsaken civic wasteland”.
Assuming this is the case, it is not to me immediately clear that this is a bad thing. It would seem that authoritarian regimes that are not too horrible (Malaysia or Indonesia) should perhaps be kept in place and worked with.
Now this doesn’t solve the problem of what to do with authoritarian regimes that either are horrible (Burma, North Korea) or apparently incompetent at or uninterested in creating a middle class (Cuba, Iran). China is a controversial case — apparently sincerely interested in creating a middle class, many will consider it on the horrible side of authoritarian regimes while others will consider what it is doing as what has to be done to keep the country moving forward while not flying apart.

I think in judging the EU’s actions, one should bear in mind first my empirical point; and second that the alternative to a bad ruler, in many societies, is not a good ruler but the chaos and bloodshed of large parts of Africa. Thus it seems to me that the best thing the EU can do in most places is to do what it can to hasten the rise of the middle class, and poorly targetted sanctions do not do much towards that end. The fact of the matter is that the fate of Iran and China are in the hands of their citizens, both of whom have suffered immensely from foreign meddling, and it takes a singularly confident mind to be sure that this time round the meddling would be to everyone’s benefit and would have the hoped-for consequences.

The most disturbing item on the list, to me, is the item about dissidents in Cuba, but realistically, how much of that is purely posturing? I imagine these people will still speak to the people they used to speak to, they just won’t exchange meaningless pleasantries in public. I suspect that, in return for a pretty useless concession that makes Castro look good to some locals, the EU achieved some, probably not to be publicized concession with more important consequences.

Yes this is rather panglossian, but as I have now said twice, look at empirical history. All the wishing in the world appears unable to create a civil society from certain situations.

“in many societies, is not a good ruler but the chaos and bloodshed of large parts of Africa. Thus it seems to me that the best thing the EU can do in most places is to do what it can to hasten the rise of the middle class”

And how exactly does tolerating rulers like Sani Abacha, Mobutu Sese Seko or Robert Mugabe help to foster the rise of a middle class?

Except that Annäherung may well have lent more apparent legitimacy to Honnecker &Co than was necessary. The communist regimes did not fall West to East back in 1989. Poland’s change came well before the GDR’s.

An EU that is ignoring Havel on how to deal with dissidents and repressive regimes is an EU that is not using its resources effectively.

I’m going to plump for (1), based on the view of EU policy being generally the policy of the most interested member state. There are rare exceptions where the CFSP actually is common. Generally, however, policy is driven by either a single member state or a small coalition of member states. Thus Adamkus and Kwasniewski in Kiev. Thus earlier Denmark, Sweden and Finland taking the lead on Baltic integration. Examples multiply.

EU policy on democracy promotion, such as it is, does not seem strong enough to trump commercial interests (French arms to China) or old imperial prestige questions (Spain on Cuba), let alone common security questions (Iran).

Iran does seem an example of a common foreign policy (though not one run out of Solana’s office), but one where the long-term security of a democratic Iran is subordinated to the hoped-for short- and medium-term gains of a non-nuclear Iran.

Keeping 1940s technology away from 21st century states is not an easy task, and there are certainly valid disagreements on how to go about it.

Explanation (1) is also more parsimonious from the point of view of people making day-to-day decisions in the EU governments, and in Brussels. Changing the raison d’etre and balancing the US are both second-order items; that is, neither can be done directly. On the other hand, putting sales above human rights in China relations can be done directly. Any larger effects come inductively. Unless and until someone can ride herd on what the small initiatives add up to, (2) and (3) remain unlikely as conscious effects. The national governments by definition can’t do this, and I don’t think that Solana’s office has the resources or the clout to do it. (Not that foreign policy incoherence is a problem unique to the EU.)

Boycotts do not work. They just lend more legitimacy current governement and help the rise of nastionalitic sentiment among the population.
Avoiding official contact is good, let trade do the job.
Its a medium term solution for sure. Embargo are offective but only over the very long term.

The only reason we have embargo on Cuba is for internal policies. Cuban vote in florida is important. But we can’t push it too hard. Look at the backflash that happened after the most stupid stringent where put in place last year.

“[…] old imperial prestige questions (Spain on Cuba)[…]”

is a silly sentence. Spaniards care about Cuba for very personal motives, since a lot still have family living there.

DSW

God, this is so silly. None of this has anthing to do with any ‘democracy promotion’ or any human rights, especially the West trying to pull down the Soviet empire. How can anyone take this crap seriously? NGOs can promote democracy and human rights abroad, not national governments; never, it’s just crazy talk…

abb1 is absolutely right. Can anybody say with a straight face that the US interventions around the world since 1898, and especially since 1945, have been to promote “democracy”in these places? It is national security, or national interest that has driven all these wars America fought, and all the regimes that America installed. Although some of these countries did become (or from the begining have been) democracies, that was never the objective of the wars. The US has never hesitated in toppling a democratically elected government just because it was a democracy. The increasingly loud noise about promoting democracy (actually it is not even democracy, it’s “freedom” as defined by the US and the US alone)was a very recent thing: much later than the invation of Iraq: after the original pretext of WMD blew up, and after no connection was found between Iraq and bin Laden. I am not saying the US can’t approach international affairs with only its own interest in sight. Quite the opposite, it has every right to choose its tools (or weapons) to deal with other countries. But that’s exactly what the EU is doing with Cuba, Iran, and China: based on its own interest. I don’t undersatnd why the EU has to take the same approach as the US to promote its own interest, as long as national (or regional) interest is the motive. In the end, whether Cuba (or Iran or China or Chile) has a democratically elected government is a much weaker predictor of US policy toward the country than whether it has a government that’s frendly to the US. Just look at the recent and close-to-home examples of Braizil and Venezuela.

5) The EU is in a recession, 5 million unemployed in Germany etc. Beggars cant be chosers