The American Spectator : How Not to Promote Freedom in Africa

Text Size

Special Report

How Not to Promote Freedom in Africa

By Roger Kaplan on 1.17.11 @ 6:09AM

From Tunisia to Sudan to the Ivory Coast, the bankruptcy of U.S. democracy-promotion programs.

In a peculiar way, the fall of Zine Ben Ali, sole master of Tunisia for a quarter century, exposes the bankruptcy of a centerpiece of America's foreign policy, namely, our declared support for democracy.

Two inspiring victories for liberty this month, in Sudan and Tunisia, were achieved with no help from America's multi-million dollar democracy industry; one might say despite it. In other countries, ranging from Algeria to Zimbabwe, passing by the Ivory Coast and Africa's longest-lasting unresolved colonial conflict, Western Sahara, the contribution of our "democracists" to freedom's cause has been zilch.

The regime of Omar el Bashir's Congress Party, based on Arab Muslim tribes from the Nile valley to the east and north of Khartoum, has been scolded by successive U.S. administrations for its violent repression of the southern Sudanese, who predominantly belong to sub-Saharan tribes that were evangelized by British missionaries a century ago. Bashir himself is under indictment by the International Tribunal for crimes committed against Muslim groups in Darfur, in Sudan's northwest.

In Tunisia, the regime of Zine Ben Ali, has for 23 years received American support as a partner for progress and more recently against terrorism.

It would be quite respectable to say -- it was first said by John Adams -- that there is very little we can do in these remote and little-understood countries, each of which has its own discrete historical complexity. To proclaim our commitment to freedom, however, spend a lot of money saying so, and then watch like morons as freedom movements go right by us, is at the least embarrassing; at the worst, it fuels anti-Americanism and gives openings to our enemies, who as it happens are usually also enemies of freedom.

When Zine ben Ali pushed aside the founder of modern independent Tunisia, Habib Bourguiba, in a 1987 palace coup, the cover story was that he was an efficient technocrat who would maintain the course on which the aging and ailing Bourguiba had set the country. Intent on proving Islam and modernity were not incompatible, Bourguiba promoted equal rights for women and encouraged them to enter the work force, tolerated political competition and press freedom, up to a point.

Ben Ali, citing an Islamist threat which he crushed, laid down a new social compact in the early '90s: Tunisians can do whatever they want in pursuit of commercial and entrepreneurial opportunities, but in the political realm, they can shut up and get used to it. It was called "le Changement" and it was the classical Carthaginian despotism in late 20th century dress. Purely formal opposition candidates stood in pro-forma elections, until Ben Ali removed all pretense and had the constitution changed to allow him to stay in office forever. No press, no labor unions, no independent civic life, which among other things meant that the liberal advances made during the Bourguiba years, notably where women are concerned, were turned back. The regime added protection to its other rackets, centralizing ordinary Mediterranean baksheesh in the Ben Ali clan.

There is no case, at least not a strong case, for Zine Ben Ali being "our guy, " in the way Congo big man Mobutu Sese Soko was in his day or the way Rwanda strong man Paul Kagame was said to be by President Clinton. I don't think you could even say that Ben Ali was France's guy, even though French foreign policy, through socialist and conservative governments, coddled him much more overtly that we ever did. Practically the day before Ben Ali and his family fled Tunis for Jennah (a resort town in Saudi Arabia, which is full of "our guys" if the way we deal with them is any indication), President Sarkozy's foreign minister, Michele Aliot-Marie, was saying in the French National Assembly that perhaps Ben Ali should "sub-contract" crowd control to France. It was an astonishing thing to hear from a foreign minister and, no doubt, there will be contradictory accounts of what she meant.

While neither we nor the French can be held responsible for every Somoza on the planet, it is a fact that neither we nor they did anything to keep Ben Ali from staying in power as long as he did. And for all the money USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), their French and German and Scandinavian equivalents, and what-all, spend on "democracy promotion," "rule of law," "human rights" and the rest, you would be hard put to find a Tunisian Martin Luther King who got any help from the American government. At the very most, we may have discreetly mentioned to Ben Ali that killing this one or keeping that one in jail without trial (or even charges) is not a terribly good idea, and the quiet word may even have saved a life.

THE REASON THIS MATTERS is that it shows how bankrupt our democracy-promotion programs are. You can argue that the U.S. should not be in the democracy business, as an official foreign policy goal. You can argue, for example, that the best way we promote freedom is to preserve our own -- something we might give some attention to, as it happens. Irving Kristol once quipped -- quite profoundly, as usual -- that the only successful American foreign policy is immigration.

Ever since Carter and Reagan put human rights and democracy, respectively, high on their foreign policy agendas, we have spent a lot of money and expended quite a lot of hot rhetorical air, but achieved very little. It is really as if all the billions spent on and by NED, USAID, the State Department's Human Rights bureau, and the rest have been a transfer payment to middle class Americans much, much more than they have been real crusades, with tangible results, for democracy in unfree countries.

Hillary Clinton, when she was First Lady, visited Tunisia one time when I happened to be there, and she gave support to the regime of Ben Ali, ostentatiously visiting some model housing project in Tunis that, supposedly, represented splendidly his program of gradual improvement. The Obama administration only a few weeks ago was congratulating Ben Ali as a partner in the war against terror and a model of orderly economic progress, even if a bit backward in areas like press freedom (there are no independent news media in Tunisia and until the recent riots, the Internet was under tight control). In between, the Bush administration took the same line.

There was nothing shocking in these gestures: they represent normal state-to-state courtesies that, unless we want to call into question the whole system of international relations, we can scarcely avoid. But since that is so obviously so, what difference does it make to the Tunisian regime if the State Department, in its annual human rights report, gives it low marks? Or even that the U.S. Embassy, according to a Wikileak document, refers to the joint as a police state? To the defunct regime, all this meant is that we are wimps; to the opposition activists and truth tellers like the imprisoned Taoufik Ben Brik -- "the last journalist in Tunisia," as he was known -- it can only signify that we are not what we pretend to be.

The point is that purely from a foreign policy perspective, it would be better to jettison the entire democracy-and-human-rights baggage and simply say forthrightly that we, as a nation, support liberty and we wish liberals everywhere a good fight and godspeed, but as a matter of statecraft the issue of freedom outside our borders only becomes part of our strategy when we know it is of clear benefit to us and we expect our policies to have tangible consequences. .

In this regard, the 1970s-'80s policy of supporting human rights in the Soviet Union, including the right to emigrate, is exemplary. It became an effective tactic that weakened our adversary, while doing real good to real people. It preceded, and really had nothing to do with, the human rights industry as it developed in certain bureaus of the State Department and associated boondoggles like NED and USAID and their NGO subcontractors. Indeed, putting pressure on the Soviets on issues of human rights and emigration even preceded the famous Jackson-Vanik amendment, which in a very real sense was the initial big investment in that industry and thus a terrible precedent.

Page: 1 2 3 >

About the Author

Roger Kaplan is a writer in Washington, D.C.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (18) | Leave a comment

Booger| 1.17.11 @ 6:27AM

From the desk of President B. Hussein Obama:

To: Organization of Islamic Countries:

Dear Brethren,

As we watch the unfolding events in Sudan, please allow me to be the first to assure you that I share your concerns over the immoral revolt against the just and lawful government of Sudan. The Sudanese government has labored against all odds for many years to bring peace and harmony to their country, but the obstinate refusal of the christians and pagans in the southern part of the country to accept the blessings of Sharia has been a constant threat to the stability of that country. Now I believe we see that our worst fears are coming true in this matter. I believe we must act quickly, for if this cancer of rebellion against The Prophet (peace be upon his name) is allowed to spread there could be dire ramifications for all of our plans.

First of all, allow Me to explain that I fully understand the problem that the Sudanese government is facing in this crisis. Here in My own country of amerikkka, our backward and christian-infested southern states are now united in their opposition to My Great Program. Not only do they insolently oppose me, but some of them, especially those redneck rebels in texas, are actually speaking of "secession", just as is now occurring in Sudan. The out and out refusal of the christians in my country and Sudan to accept their proper status as dhimmis is an ongoing blasphemy against the revealed will of Allah (peace be upon His name) and is completely unacceptable.

I have instructed My ambassadors to the United Nations to expedite amerikkka's inclusion in support of the many Great Initiatives you are setting forth to prohibit blasphemy and apostasy against The Prophet (more peace upon his name). I should note that under amerikkkan law treaties can trump the constitution, so once I can convince them to sign onto a treaty prohibiting speech against Islam I will no longer have to deal with that ridiculous first amendment.

Additionally, once my Federal Communications Commission has established full control over the internet through "net neutrality" we will be able to shut down any and all websites propagating or disseminating material contrary to the teachings of The Prophet (peace out! be upon his name). I believe that once the first amendment is made irrelevant and the net is neutered I will be able to shut down the apostate opposition to Most Holy Islam here in amerikkka. And once amerikkka is brought to heel the rest of the infidel dogs will quickly fall into line as well.

Just in case My plan does not go off as smoothly as we would all like, I am taking steps to downsize amerikkka's military as well. Soon the imperialist dogs who bark mindlessly from this country will find that their teeth have been removed. As the other western nations have already largely disarmed, the weakening of amerikkka will remove the only real obstacle to our plans to bring Islam to the global prominence for which Allah (peace, dude! be upon His name) has destined us.

That is why I find the events in Sudan so disturbing. Just as we are on the cusp of victory, the pathetic inhabitants of the country's southern region think they can defy us. If we allow this, it will spread. If people around the globe see that even a weak, starving, homeless and rag-tag gang of rebels is willing to fight hopelessly and die rather than submit to Allah (peace to infinity and beyond! be upon His name) then their defiance may spark more rebellion. We must not allow this! Thus, I assure you that I will prohibit any amerikkkan troops from interfering to protect the devils in southern Sudan, and my ambassador to the United Nations will block any resolutions condemning the actions we all know will be necessary to take against them. In the coming war we must remember to fight as directed by The Prophet (peace when there is no peace be upon him) in the Holy Koran, and not be restricted by the infidels' rules of the Geneva Conventions. After all, their women and children will make fine slaves.

Your Friend and Partner in the Holy Jihad,

United States President for Life B. Hussein Obama

More here... http://beautifulletters-bls.blogspot.com/

Alan Brooks| 1.17.11 @ 11:47AM

Why isn't the lead piece on the MLK national holiday?:
because you don't care much for him; the more you deny it, the less believable you are.

Not Sure What...| 1.17.11 @ 1:26PM

...MLK means since they passed the FACE law. Similar legislation would've shut Dr. king down. That's the way you totalitarians operate.

Alan Brooks| 1.17.11 @ 5:48PM

"[...] you would be hard put to find a Tunisian Martin Luther King who got any help from the American government."

The author brought MLK up, not me. He pays lip service to MLK, but that is IT.

Stormzeye| 1.17.11 @ 7:24AM

Very cute Booger.
Now, as to the piece by Mr. Kaplan, it is a brilliant expose of our "democracy industry" both in the Department of State and in the 20th century liberal world of Wilsonian elitist strategy of the intellectual elite teaching the "primitives" about the benefits that come from liberal/progressivism. Mr. Kaplan's example of the Bureau of Indian Affairs was brilliant. It was simply a domestic example of the later policies of European colonialists and American charities (Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc.) and hyper-active church groups (Catholic Charities, various Protestant missionaries, etc.) to spread the word of Western enlightenment. Instead, we should have taught the people of these remote regions about the benefits of clean water, transportation, and communication through the introduction of simple infrastructure. The Chinese, with their sense of Expediency as opposed to our Western sense of Morality are better suited to making such in-roads throughout the world. Ben Ali was a Tunisian Mafiosi much like Napoleon (who installed his family members as leaders of every country he conquered) and as a secular autocrat hated Islamists and successfully repressed them. We could have co-opted and softened his thuggish instincts by trading valuable infrastructure improvement for such things as: effective civil law (judicial enforcement of contract law, property rights, etc.) without having to weaken him politically through support for political opponents who would only serve as "useful idiots" for the ultimate success of Islamists whose first act would be to suspend elections and install Sharia law.
This piece deserves re-reading and hopefully will be noticed by the Republican foreign policy establishment on Capitol Hill.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.17.11 @ 7:56AM

Mr. Kaplan
Thank you. This article desperately needed to be written.
The debate needs to begin!

The problem in countries that include a Muslim plurality, is that the people are pre-programmed to be nothing but slaves under Sharia.

Perhaps we could begin a "Germ of Liberty"movement within our resource development operations if any; geographical "islands" where the locals get a taste of freedom.
In a very quiet way, we did so across the oil producing countries when we were developing projects for them. Within our "compounds" the TCN , (Third Country Nationals),or local personnel were treated like Americans.

Once they got over their shock, they loved us. All we required was that they treat each other, (and us), with respect, and do an honest day's work.

old white guy| 1.17.11 @ 10:16AM

hmm, we are talking debate. i did not see a whole lot if debate in tunsia. we may be running out of time to use words to obscure problems.

John Navratil| 1.17.11 @ 10:25AM

A fascinating article damning the fecklessness of U.S. foreign policy. I'm disturbed by the conclusion that we should let "people go their way and not [send] them cynical signals about democratic standards that lead to perdition." If, by that, we mean self-determination, fine. If, by that, we mean allowing the establishmest of a state actively opposed to U.S. interests, not so fine.

There is, by my reading, a hint that the U.S. got it so wrong in Tunisia and elsewhere, that anything will be better, so long as it is self-determined and not promoted by Washington paper pushers. Then Kaplan writes: "If past experience is any guide, Ben Ali having gone the way of the Shah, our democracists have made it as likely as not that Tunisian democrats have just enough time to thank us for nothing before the resurgent Islamists sweep them away." Does Kaplan blame past failures for this? It seems so, and not without merit.

The central question is "When are political developments in a country to be supported as being in the U.S. interests and when are they to be countered?" The answer isn't always obvious but clarity of purpose is, as the author claims, required.

I could be much more sanguine were it not for the contrast presented by Obama's support for the courage of those in the streets in Tunisia while being stonily silent toward the courage of those in the streets of Tehran.

Nicholas| 1.17.11 @ 10:48AM

I was with you until you spun this as a conservative/liberal split.

Why were liberals targeted here? They're not the ones invading countries.

Liberals, in the US and Western Europe, like to give aide to troubled nations, with the philosophy that stabler nations are friendlier nations. And, if a stable nation can become more developed, we can mutually benefit each other economically.
That's not invasive--literally INVASIVE--democracy building like the conservatives have pushed for in the last couple decades.

The other day I clicked an ad that you have on this website and it took me a liberal-baiting t-shirt and bumper sticker site. One of those t-shirts promoted the invasion of Iran. What's that all about?

Nicholas| 1.17.11 @ 10:53AM

http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff/1359561

Yukon Jack| 1.17.11 @ 11:27AM

Freedom in Africa?

Isn't that like morality in Las Vegas?

Bob| 1.17.11 @ 11:53AM

Thanks to the imbecilic policies of W. Bush the Islamic World more radicalized then ever before is uniting against American Imperialism.

Alan Brooks| 1.17.11 @ 12:17PM

It appears you are correct- this war has no light at the end of the tunnel.

Toady| 1.18.11 @ 12:29PM

Bob

Sept 11 occurred before any invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The middle-east was trending toward radicalism way before GW Bush saw the White House.

gene hauber| 1.17.11 @ 1:37PM

Roger,
A wonderful and very well researched article. I am not a follower of the antics of our State Dept. , but I have never put a whole lot of credence in it's ability to solve any problem except, perhaps, to teach our "diplomats" which fork to use when. THAT SHOULD BE THE LIMIT OF THEIR CHARGE AND NO MORE.

I THINK THE SHIP OF STATE IS DERELICT.

IT IS apparently a menace to the interests of the UNITED STATES.
The only surprise that I received reading your article was that a lot of my suspicions were verified; and I want to thank you for that.

You mention the Chinese method of foreign policy and it seems so perfect, full of self interest and as such, PERFECT, for any nation. WE SHOULD WITHHOLD ALL SUPPORT, ESPECIALLY MONEY TO ANY NATION THAT DOES NOT DO OUR BIDDING AND THE HELL WITH TRYING TO EXPORT DEMOCRACY. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COMES, AS YOU HAVE INTIMATED, BY WATCHING US AND NOT LISTENING TO US, BECAUSE OUR DIPLOMATS ARE JUST FAKES, PHONIES AND FRAUDS.

In the spirit of self interested foreign policy, I advocate the following: In Iraq and Afghanistan we stop nation building immediately and concentrate on the threat of al quaida and the taliban and islam in general to the UNITED STATES, and start killing them with gusto and as the only thought in our mind.

Henceforth, like tomorrow, we start killing the enemy as energetically and as ruthlessly as we can, using ALL CLASSES OF WEAPONS AT OUR DISPOSAL, despite protests from the phony governments of those havens of terrorism and when WE consider the job done, and I mean done.....only then do we leave and we leave with the admonition that if we perceive the slightest threat from their area of concern including drug trafficking, we will respond WITH overwhelming force , ALL FROM THE AIR, you know, death from above, that will take decades to recover from..That's not as devastating as it sounds, since they still live in the 7th century.
Thanks for a great article,

Gene Hauber
Brick, NJ