FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Problem With “Pro Democracy” Groups

by MARK WEISBROT

I have to laugh when I see the International Republican Institute (IRI) described by the international media as an organization that “promote[s] democracy” (NPR).  The IRI is in the news lately because Egypt’s military government has put some of its members on a “no-fly” list and thereby trapped them in the country, facing investigation and possible trial.  I am wondering just how credulous these journalists and editors are.  If I were to describe the Center for Economic and Policy Research as “a magical organization that transforms scrap metal into gold,” would that become CEPR’s standard description in the news?

The IRI is an international arm of the U.S. Republican Party, so anyone with the stomach to watch the Republican presidential debates might doubt whether this is a “democracy-promotion” organization. But a look at some of their recent adventures is enough to set the record straight: in 2004, the IRI played a major role in overthrowing the democratically elected government of Haiti. In 2002, the head of the IRI publicly celebrated the short-lived military coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Venezuela.  The IRI was also working with organizations and individuals that were involved in the coup.  In 2005, the IRI was involved in an effort to promote changes in Brazil’s electoral laws that would weaken the governing Workers’ Party of then President Lula da Silva.

Most recently, in 2009 there was a military coup against the democratically elected government of Honduras. The Obama administration did everything it could to help the coup succeed, and supported “elections” in November of 2009 to legitimize the coup government. The rest of the world, including even the Organization of American States (OAS) – with pressure from South American democracies – refused to send observers. This was because of thepolitical repression during the campaign period: police violence, raiding of independent media, and the forced exile of political opponents – including the country’s democratically elected president.

But the IRI and the National Democratic Institute (NDI) – its Democratic Party-linked counterpart – went there to legitimize the “election.”  But don’t take my word for why they chose to participate. Here is what the USAID, part of the U.S. State Department and the major funder of IRI and NDI activities, had to say about their role [PDF] in Honduras:

“The absence of the OAS and other recognized international observation groups made NDI and IRI’s  assessment/observation processes more meaningful in the eyes of the international community.  The recognition of a free, fair and transparent electoral process provided a strong argument to support the new government. . . .  The international “assessment” conducted by NDI and the “observation” conducted by IRI, even if they did not fulfill accepted standards, partially achieved the sought-after impact.”

Who knows what the IRI is doing in Egypt?  But we know what the U.S. government has done there: supported a brutal dictatorship for decades right up to the point where mass protests made it clear that Washington could not stop Mubarak’s ouster by a real, popular, democratic movement last year.

The IRI and NDI are core grantees of the National Endowment for Democracy, an organization that conducts activities “much of [which]” the “CIA used to fund covertly,” as the Washington Post reported when the Endowment was being created in the early ’80s. These organizations will sometimes support democracy but often do not, or are even against it. This is not because they are inherently evil, but because of the position of the United States in the world. The United States government, more than any other in the world, is running an empire. By their nature, empires are about power and control over other people in distant lands. These goals will generally conflict with many people’s aspirations for democracy and national self-determination.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the Middle East, where the U.S. government’s policy of collaboration with Israel’s denial of Palestinian national rights has put it at odds with populations throughout the region. As a result, Washington fears democracy in many countries because it will inevitably lead to more governments taking the side of the Palestinians, and opposing other U.S. ambitions in the region, such as its desire for military bases and alliances. Even in Iraq, where Washington brags about toppling a dictatorship, the people had to fight the occupying authorities for the right to hold national elections, and then to kick U.S. troops out of the country.

This creates a vicious cycle in which hated and often repressive governments are supportive of U.S. foreign policy, and these governments receive U.S. support, increasing regional animosity toward the United States. In some cases it also leads to terrorist attacks against U.S. institutions or citizens, which is then used by our leaders to justify long or endless wars (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan).

poll of Arab public opinion by the University of Maryland and Zogby International, which included Egypt, asked respondents to “name two countries that are the biggest threat to you.” Eighty-eight percent named the United States, and 77 percent named Israel. Only nine percent chose Iran.

Another ugly side effect of U.S.-government-sponsored “democracy-promotion” is that it helps governments that want to repress authentic, national, pro-democracy movements. Most of the repressive governments in the Middle East and North Africa have tried to de-legitimize their opponents with the taint of association with Washington, in most cases falsely.  In Egypt before the raids on foreign organizations, the government arrested youth activists associated with the April 6th movement, and other activists.

Here in Washington, there seems to be little awareness that “pro-democracy” groups funded by the U.S. government might have a credibility problem in most of the world. But this is true even when these groups aren’t actively opposing democracy. Their funding would be a good target for budget cuts.

Mark Weisbrot is an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: the Phony Crisis.

This article originally appeared in The Guardian

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. and president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also the author of  Failed: What the “Experts” Got Wrong About the Global Economy (Oxford University Press, 2015).

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

March 28, 2017
Mike Whitney
Ending Syria’s Nightmare will Take Pressure From Below 
Mark Kernan
Memory Against Forgetting: the Resonance of Bloody Sunday
John McMurtry
Fake News: the Unravelling of US Empire From Within
Ron Jacobs
Mad Dog, Meet Eris, Queen of Strife
Michael J. Sainato
State Dept. Condemns Attacks on Russian Peaceful Protests, Ignores Those in America
Ted Rall
Five Things the Democrats Could Do to Save Their Party (But Probably Won’t)
Linn Washington Jr.
Judge Neil Gorsuch’s Hiring Practices: Privilege or Prejudice?
Philippe Marlière
Benoît Hamon, the Socialist Presidential Hopeful, is Good News for the French Left
Norman Pollack
Political Cannibalism: Eating America’s Vitals
Bruce Mastron
Obamacare? Trumpcare? Why Not Cubacare?
David Macaray
Hollywood Screen and TV Writers Call for Strike Vote
Christian Sorensen
We’ve Let Capitalism Kill the Planet
Rodolfo Acuna
What We Don’t Want to Know
Binoy Kampmark
The Futility of the Electronics Ban
Andrew Moss
Why ICE Raids Imperil Us All
March 27, 2017
Robert Hunziker
A Record-Setting Climate Going Bonkers
Frank Stricker
Why $15 an Hour Should be the Absolute Minimum Minimum Wage
Melvin Goodman
The Disappearance of Bipartisanship on the Intelligence Committees
Patrick Cockburn
ISIS’s Losses in Syria and Iraq Will Make It Difficult to Recruit
Russell Mokhiber
Single-Payer Bernie Morphs Into Public Option Dean
Gregory Barrett
Can Democracy Save Us?
Dave Lindorff
Budget Goes Military
John Heid
Disappeared on the Border: “Chase and Scatter” — to Death
Mark Weisbrot
The Troubling Financial Activities of an Ecuadorian Presidential Candidate
Robert Fisk
As ISIS’s Caliphate Shrinks, Syrian Anger Grows
Michael J. Sainato
Democratic Party Continues Shunning Popular Sanders Surrogates
Paul Bentley
Nazi Heritage: the Strange Saga of Chrystia Freeland’s Ukrainian Grandfather
Christopher Ketcham
Buddhism in the Storm
Thomas Barker
Platitudes in the Wake of London’s Terror Attack
Mike Hastie
Insane Truths: a Vietnam Vet on “Apocalypse Now, Redux”
Binoy Kampmark
Cyclone Watch in Australia
Weekend Edition
March 24, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Michael Hudson
Trump is Obama’s Legacy: Will this Break up the Democratic Party?
Eric Draitser
Donald Trump and the Triumph of White Identity Politics
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Nothing Was Delivered
Andrew Levine
Ryan’s Choice
Joshua Frank
Global Coal in Freefall, Tar Sands Development Drying Up (Bad News for Keystone XL)
Anthony DiMaggio
Ditching the “Deep State”: The Rise of a New Conspiracy Theory in American Politics
Rob Urie
Boris and Natasha Visit Fantasy Island
John Wight
London and the Dreary Ritual of Terrorist Attacks
Paul Buhle
The CIA and the Intellectuals…Again
David Rosen
Why Did Trump Target Transgender Youth?
Vijay Prashad
Inventing Enemies
Ben Debney
Outrage From the Imperial Playbook
M. Shadee Malaklou
An Open Letter to Duke University’s Class of 2007, About Your Open Letter to Stephen Miller
Michael J. Sainato
Bernie Sanders’ Economic Advisor Shreds Trumponomics
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail