Does Obama Have His Own Freedom Agenda Or Not?

Democracy promotion after Bush.

BY JAMES TRAUB | FEBRUARY 24, 2010

Barack Obama's administration is extremely touchy about claims that its "engagement" policy amounts to old-fashioned "realism," with America offering autocratic allies a free pass on human rights and democracy promotion in exchange for cooperation on the big geostrategic issues. We have, after all, seen the alternative: All the blood and thunder that accompanied George W. Bush's Freedom Agenda produced very little actual freedom (or progress on geostrategic issues for that matter).

As one Senior Official -- as I was instructed to identify him -- said to me in a background conversation last week, "If we were to not engage regimes with authoritarian tendencies, to lecture them from Washington, they would suddenly therefore decide to become democracies and accede to our demands?"

When I said that sounded like a parody of the argument of democracy advocates, this official shot back, "I think the administration has unfairly been subjected to a parody the other way around."

So lay off, you barking dogs of liberal internationalism.

Has the administration, in fact, found its own path to democracy promotion? Is it possible the Obama mantra of "engagement" has facilitated, rather than precluded, this fundamental preoccupation of American policy, which began not with George W. Bush, but Woodrow Wilson? Certainly, President Obama's administration includes in its senior ranks a number of leading advocates for democracy promotion, including Michael McFaul, senior director for Russia at the National Security Council. His new book, Advancing Democracy Abroad, argues convincingly that adding to the world's tally of democracies is in the American interest; is achievable as policy, albeit with patience and modesty; and should be a central concern of the administration he has since joined. So they've got the horses.

The democracy-promotion community generally regarded the Freedom Agenda as a missed opportunity -- a clumsy and often calamitous attempt to bring democracy to the Middle East (likewise Your Columnist, in his 2008 book The Freedom Agenda). A number of those critics now think that Obama has begun to restore democracy promotion's good name. Kenneth Wollack, president of the National Democratic Institute, told me, "There's been this drumbeat that there's been an abandonment, but I don't think that's the case." Wollack notes that though at first Obama seemed reluctant even to utter any of the words Bush had rendered toxic, "the terms 'democracy,' 'freedom,' 'universal values' have become part and parcel of the presidential lexicon." Wollack also points to the steep increase in the budget of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) -- from $874 million to $1.4 billion -- as well as concerted efforts to shore up troubled democracies in Africa.

The MCC, arguably Bush's sole lastingly positive contribution to the conduct of foreign affairs, provides aid to decently governed states and thus serves as a reminder of the unglamorous business of fortifying weak democracies -- as opposed to the melodramatic one of issuing ringing calls for change in authoritarian states. Obama and those around him are plainly more comfortable with the former than the latter. Administration officials point to the linkage they have promoted -- in forums like the G-20 -- between development and good governance and their overall focus on capacity building, especially in Africa.

There's a real argument that this should be the central business of democracy promotion. "This has not been the focus of past administrations," as Senior Official #2 put it. "But if we fail to focus attention on those places where we actually have committed and dedicated leadership, then we are going to be in the situation we were in before, with a set of hard cases, and then a set of failed democratic transitions on top of that."

Insofar, then, as democracy promotion involves making complicated, long-term policy choices under more or less consensual conditions, the Obama administration has both the intellectual wherewithal and the will to do the right thing. (It's not yet clear whether Congress will authorize the necessary funds.)

JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

 

James Traub is a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and author of, most recently, The Freedom Agenda. His new column for ForeignPolicy.com will run weekly.

VIVA LA EVOLUTION TO A REPUBLIC

12:11 PM ET

February 25, 2010

obama spells freedom without reedo

replace reedo with ascis

and one can clearly see the obama agenda

all hail greatleader

 

JOHN MCAULIFF

12:59 PM ET

February 25, 2010

Freedom is a goal not a policy

Who appointed the US to be the moral judge and master of the world?

Is our history, or current practice, so pure that we can with a straight face lecture others? Ethnic cleansing (the Indian wars), slavery, territorial expansion (Mexican war), military intervention in neighbors to protect US investors, racial discrimination on voting, Vietnam and Cambodia, gross economic inequality, absence of universal health care, detention without trial (Guantanamo), uncontrolled guns, disproportionate and ethnically distorted prison population, etc.

There is much to admire in our system, but it is our example of improvement that is compelling, not our efforts to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries.

Self-righteousness in any country feels good and plays well in the media but is usually counterproductive to real goals, e.g. the completely self-isolating character of our policy on Cuba.

It is also inevitably selective if not hypocritical. Authoritarianism in countries we need economically or strategically will always be given a pass in practice and highlighted in countries with which we have other conflicts.

John McAuliff
Fund for Reconciliation and Development

 

TOMMISO

3:12 PM ET

March 8, 2010

To be honest, I wouldnt say

To be honest, I wouldnt say that he might have his own agenda folks. But this is just a simple observation from the dude from Europe. Peter