Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Technological Cannons of Democracy:
Historical Perspectives And Future Achievements
Bryan Dreiling
Public Policy, Law, and Ethics in INT
Dr. Art Morin
5 December 2001
Table of Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................... iii
I. The Cannon................................................................................................1
II. The Aim of the Cannon...............................................................................1
III. The Misaim of the Cannon .........................................................................5
IV. The Technological Cannon.......................................................................10
V. Reloading the Technological Cannon.......................................................12
VI. Calibrating the New Cannon.....................................................................15
Notes ........................................................................................................18 Bibliography..............................................................................................21
ii
Abstract
American foreign policy during and after the cold war has focused on the
hegemonic policy of attempted democratization of undesirable governments under the
auspices a moral duty of freedom, rights, and the Kantian theme that democracies do
not fight one another. But past studies prove that the status quo foreign policy is a self-
fulfilling prophesy by fostering feeble and transitory democracies, never gaining
sustainability and lasting support of the people. This is counter-intuitive to the goals set
forth by this geopolitical strategy. Furthermore, not being successful in our rhetorical
attempts of democratization in these nations harms the credibility of our rhetoric and
policies on an international spectrum.
One of the most predominant cannons used for propagation of pro-democratic
information by the United States’ government has been with technology. Nevertheless,
the technological aspects of democracy promotion also fall under the same scrutiny of
the entire democracy promotion project. The hegemonic and forceful attempts of
democratization may ensure sometime immediate positive democratic results in the
targeted country, but infrastructural weakness of the democratic movements plus other
factors makes the revolution short lived.
However, new analysis proves a striking correlation to the amount of internetwork
connectivity and the amount of democratic progress made in countries. With these new
findings the United States should look to facilitate technological revolutions in non-
democratic nation states and thus allow true grass roots movements to foster in that
region. Shifting to this strategy will solve the ineptitude currently plaguing United States’
democracy promotion by allowing a true non-interventionist development for egalitarian
iii
support to mature in non-democratic societies. Amendment of the our democratic
promotion policy will also help restore the international credibility that has been lost with
the old procedure, since now the United States’ rhetoric truly match our democratic
philosophy. Intuitively, the power of this new stratagem will not rest on the United
States, but rather in the message and cause of freedom; therefore instigating systems
of government that are democratic, free, and, as a consequence, successfully satisfying
the intended goals of the original foreign policy framework.
iv
Technological Cannons of Democracy:
Historical Perspectives and Future Achievements
I. The Cannon
Walt Whitman, the famous American poet, makes a powerful proclamation when
he says, "Thunder on! Stride on! Democracy. Strike with vengeful stroke" [1]!
Whitman's words are incredibly analogous to the current path that the United States'
government is embarking on with its democracy promotion foreign policy. The policy is
thundering on with reckless abandon, crashing down upon any country that does not fit
the ideal norm of democracy and striking down vengefully without regard of the
country’s well being. Currently traveling down this lonesome foreign policy path the
United States is not fulfilling the original goals of fostering democratic reforms in the
targeted countries. Moreover, this policy is becoming detrimental since it is leading the
United States down a road of lessened international credibility, the rise of more illiberal
democracies, and instability in the targeted country. The United States must recognize
and remove the current failures indoctrinated in the status quo and move to a strategic
policy that shifts the focus away from a thundering, vengeful strike of democracy to a
strategic partnership that allows democracy to develop, flourish and mature.
II. The Aim of the Cannon
With the fall of the Soviet Union and the subsequent end of the cold war
American foreign policy was forced to change and adapt to new demands and needs in
global politics. This transformation occurred with the election of William Clinton. In his
first foreign policy speech Clinton called for "an American foreign policy of engagement
1
for democracy" [2]. This engagement required a concerted effort to enlarge the
democratic ideals abroad. Anthony Lake, Clinton's national security advisor, declared,
"the successor to a doctrine of containment must be a strategy of enlargement --
enlargement of the world's free community of market democracies" [3]. This new
doctrine justifies the United States to seek out nations that are non-democratic and
attempt to foster democratic elections in those countries. Many different strategies are
aimed in these nations to cultivate democratic forces by promoting the development of a
civil society, human rights, and the dissemination of information about democracy. All
three of these pieces are seen as basic requisite requirements that any liberal, free
nation would have in order to establish democratic elections.
The foundations of a foreign policy based on democracy promotion are solid.
Many scholars will champion the idea that a world with more democratic nations would,
in turn, promote peace and freedom. "Democracies tend not to go to war with each
other, not to produce large number of refugees, not to engage in terrorism, to make
better economic partners, and so on" [4]. In fact, there are only a few times in history
that established democracies have clashed, with one of the most notable being the
conflict between Argentina and England over the Falkland Islands. This has led many
scholars to believe in what German philosopher Immanuel Kant coined as the
"democratic peace theory" or "perpetual peace". Clearly, a world with fewer conflicts,
fewer refuges, and less terrorism would be in America's best interest. As Clinton and
his advisor looked at these facts it became obvious that the United States had the moral
and ethical duty to facilitate democratic ideals and multiparty elections abroad "through
2
the inherent assumption that the United States is especially qualified to promote
democracy around the world" [5].
Democracy is being promoted to the undemocratic world in a number of ways.
One of the easiest ways to spread egalitarian thoughts is by volunteers or the military to
disseminate democratic information in non-democratic countries. This is done with a
myriad of techniques including setting up radio stations just outside the borders of
selected countries and transmitting information and propaganda into the country's radio
waves. Also, the United States has military aircraft that is a glorified fling radio station.
Currently it is being used in Afghanistan in conjunction with the propaganda war
coinciding with air and ground offensives [6]. Other, less technological, techniques
include simple pamphlet campaigns in the countries. Again, something we are seeing
in Afghanistan with the pro-western country leaflets being dropped along with the
humanitarian food aid air-drops [7]. There is usually always small grass root democracy
movements inside of a country, thus all the United States needs to do is give the
materials and/or funding to those groups and they can start working inside of that
country to help foster democracy. Most of these programs are sponsored and endorsed
by the United States' government, but the most important facet of the democracy
promotion campaign is through nongovernmental organizations that works along with
the goals and objectives of United States foreign policy while still being transparent to
official United States policy.
This transparency is accomplished with the help of a seemingly nonprofit and
nongovernmental organization called the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
The NED is the single most important facet to the democracy promotion strategy set
3
forth by Clinton. Barbara Conroy describes the NED as, "a little-known foreign aid
program intended to promote democracy abroad. It is a nominally private organization,
but all of its funds come from the Federal Treasury" [8]. A more conclusive study by the
Council on Hemispheric Affairs concluded that the United States paid for ninety-four
percent of NED's budget in 1990 [9]. As a result, the NED is almost totally at the control
of the United States and the objectives that the United States wants to promote.
Furthermore, the NED is bound to abide by the United States’ policy interests since the
NED's Articles of Incorporation and the National Endowment for Democracy Act passed
by Congress both explicitly state it is bound to United States’ interest [10]. But since the
NED is officially a non-governmental organization the United States can use it to work
on projects that the United States government would not or does not want to partake in.
This can be clearly seen in the rhetoric that former President Clinton used in describing
the NED's objectives in his annual report on the NED.
The NED will increasingly position itself on the "cutting edge" of
democratic advance, employing its nongovernmental status to extend its
reach ... where the most of world's most unsavory governments hold
sway. To reinforce the relatively weak, inexperienced democratic
movements in those areas, the Endowment will provide "venture capital"
to help them overcome social, cultural, political and historical obstacles.
Where breakthroughs toward freedom have yet to occur, the NED -- more
than the U.S. government -- enjoys the flexibility and independence to
encourage democratic activities. [11]
4
The United States obviously can not be officially giving "venture capital" to movements
inside other countries that are illegal in that nation, so the United States has the NED to
carry out these unethical orders. With this rhetorical stance Clinton is substantiating
that that the NED is no more than the United States government's democratic puppet
willing to subject itself to any brash hegemonic means necessary with the hope to
ensure the evolution of a democratic movement in target countries.
The objectives of the policies set forth in the United States democracy promotion
theme are undoubtedly in the best interest of the United States. The NED and the
United States strategy of promoting peace and economic well being though the
engagement of democracy promotion continue to lace every foreign policy speech and
the broad goal for foreign policy. These policies and procedures are excellent
rhetorically, but the actual reality of those polices and procedures do not match the
rhetoric given. The aim of the current democratic engagement plan is missing the
intended targets and causing collateral damage to the United States.
III. The Misaiming of the Cannon
The objectives of the United States democracy promotion policy are not being
fulfilled and they are having detrimental impact in many different ways to the United
States unilaterally and multilaterally. Democracy is not flourishing or even surviving in
the countries that the United States is attempting to change. Furthermore, some
countries that are in the process of democratic transition are not becoming any more
free or liberal. Instead they are filled with turmoil, corruption and instability. Overall, the
democracy promotion foreign policy theme is causing the rise of illiberal democracies,
5
transitional instability and a lowering of the United States credibility in international
affairs.
Elections are the United States’ indicator for a successful transition to democracy
in newly democratic countries. When elections are multiparty, free, and fair the United
States believes that democratic ideals are mature enough in that nation. The United
States will also look more favorably on nations that hold elections and tolerate a great
deal more from that country’s leadership. In Russia, Boris Yeltzin is an exemplary
example of this increased flexibility. To illustrate this point, in 1993 Yeltzin suspended
the constitutional court, dissolved the local governmental authority, and fired several
governors [12]. Later in his term he fired his entire cabinet and attacked Chechnya.
Nevertheless, the United States still viewed him as a liberal democrat at heart and thus
tolerated his questionably democratic actions. The benchmark for the acceptance of a
nations states government is very shortsighted by the United States as it only looks at if
elections are free and fair.
The implications of free and fair elections also have greater ramifications on the
citizens of the newly democratic, "free" nations. For the last century the term liberal
democracy -- a "political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by
the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech,
assembly, religion, and property" [13] -- is what the western world has considered a
democracy. Yet, United States’ endorsed democracy requires only free and fair
elections, with no guarantee that individuals elected will follow the established rule of
law or limit their power. Elections are only one part of a successful strategy to have a
liberalized, democratic nation. Richard Holbrooke, an American diplomat, contemplated
6
a scenario on the 1996 elections in Bosnia, "Suppose the election was declared free
and fair … and that those elected are racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly
opposed to [peace and reintegration]" [14]. As Holbrooke's antidote suggests, there is a
new bread of United States and NED constructed democracies that have no liberalist
grass roots infrastructure and the result is the rise of illiberal democracies.
Out of the 193 countries in the world, 118 of them are termed democratic. To the
causal observer this inception of democracy would be a huge victory for the world and
for the prospects of peace. But as Fareed Zakaria notes, "there is a growing unease at
the rapid spread of multiparty elections … because of what happens after the elections"
[15]. Looking at empirical examples it is easy to see why Zakaria is skeptical of
multiparty elections. For example, after elections in their countries leaders like Borris
Yeltzin of Russia and Carlos Menem of Argentina have used executive authority to
bypass their parliaments without public consent. Ethiopia's elected government had
their security attack journalists and political opponents. Peru's Alberto Fujimori
disbanded the legislature and voided the constitution of Peru [16]. All of these
examples show an elected president overstepping the boundaries of constitutional
liberalism and favoring illiberalism. These twenty-first century governments are finally
making many eighteenth-century writers like Tocqueville and Madison's words finally
seem prophetic. The root cause of the illiberal democracy problem is the United States
short-sided foreign policy that claims democracy can flourish with only free and fair
elections.
Another problem inherent with nations changing their form of governance is
historical instability that occurs during the transition to democracy. The United States
7
democracy promotion foreign policy has many times used the mantra that they are
promoting peace by promoting democracy. Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder have
done extensive research on the stability of nations that are undergoing regime changes
and they conclude that promoting peace by promoting democracy is a self-fulfilling
prophecy.
It is probably true that a world in which more countries were mature, stable
democracies would be a safer and preferable for the United States. But
countries do not become mature democracies over night. They usually go
through a rocky transition, where mass politics mixes with authoritarian
elite politics in a volatile way. Statistical evidence covering the past two
centuries show that in this transitional phase of democratization, counties
become more aggressive and war-prone, not less, and they do fight wares
with democratic states … The following evidence should raise questions
about the Clinton administration's policy of promoting peace by promoting
democratization. [17]
This transitional war that Mansfield and Snyder talk about can be seen dramatically in
two pairs of the former Soviet states -- Serbia and Croatia, and Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Both of these pairs of countries had fairly substantial conflicts while trying to engage in
electoral democracy. Sadly, the examples do not stop there. In general, Mansfield and
Snyder's studies conclude that a country moving from a complete autocracy or a mixed
regime had anywhere from a fifty to sixty-six percent increase of getting into a conflict
within ten years of becoming democratic. Metaphorically they contend that, "governing
a society that is democratizing is like driving a car while throwing away the steering
8
wheel, stepping on the gas, and fighting over which passenger will be in the driver's
seat. The result, often, is war" [18]. Once again the policy of democracy promotion that
the United States is embarking on is causing a detriment to not only the people in the
target country but also the geopolitical stability of the world because it leads to an
increased chance of armed conflict.
The promotion of democracy as a foreign policy foundation is not only hurting the
target country and its citizens but it also has negative consequences on the
effectiveness of United States' policy. The rhetoric set forth by the current and past
presidential administrations on democracy promotion is not matching the policies that
they are supposed to be corresponding with. Jonathan Clarke contends that no longer
are actions driving words but rather words are spoken and policies are attempted to
match those policies [19]. Democracy promotion is guilty of this misguided rhetoric.
Carothers maintains that the current democracy promotion rhetoric does not correspond
with the policies that have been implemented. Using broad generalization and vague
rhetoric has lead to high international expectations in United States policy and when
unfulfilled hurts the United States standing in international affairs [20]. Later he
concludes that, "although the rhetorical emphasis on democracy promotion is intended
to cast the United Sates as a principled actor in the world, it has the contradictory effect
of calling attention on its inconsistencies and saddling it with the reputation of hypocrisy.
[21]"
Current democracy promotion is failing. The flaws of the policy framework are
causing self-inflicted wounds to the nations that we are attempting to help and to
ourselves. The United States' democracy promotion strategy must be changed in order
9
to start meeting the objective of successfully transitioning of nations to free, democratic
governments and begin to end the problems caused by illiberal democracies and
unstable transitory governments. When these policies are changed United States'
rhetoric in foreign policy will also match the reality the foreign policy is obtaining. Until
this happens the United States will continue the reckless, thundering march of
democracy promotion without regard for the success and implications that the
egalitarian crusade is causing.
IV. The Technological Cannon
Technology is the staple of modern society. Without technology humanity would
still be living like cave people, with a limited knowledge of the world around them.
Everything in our society is inextricably linked to the manifestation of technology in our
society. Technology is so indoctrinated into modern society that everyday life would be
extremely difficult without many of the inventions that technology has spurred.
Democracy promotion, like life, is critically linked to technology. The advancements in
technology over the years have made the dissemination of the democratic message
more manageable and available to a wider audience. From the beginning of democracy
in the United States to present times technology has been a predominant cannon used
to fire the notion of democratic freedom.
When our founding fathers were creating the underpinning of what the world now
considers the American state the message of democracy was printed in the pages of
letters and pamphlets to be carried across the nation on horse back. John Madison's
famous "Federalist Papers" are ideal examples of how the technology of the printing
press allowed the idea of democracy to foster in what would become America. War with
10
England was neither popular or a smart idea with the mass populace, but with the
theory of democracy loaded into the technological cannon of the printing press
America's thoughts about democracy and secession from England changed.
Democracy triumphed in part due to the technological advancements of the times that
allowed the ideas to travel throughout the country.
Technology continued to advance and with it the United States. By the twentieth
century the United States was one of the world great superpowers. With that world
power came the hegemonic ideals of promoting their governmental philosophies to the
rest of the world. Technology advancements garnered ways to allow the United States
to circulate democratic ideals in targeted areas. One technology the United States
employed on this task was the use of short-wave radio frequencies to broadcast pro-
democracy rhetoric and biased news and information into non-democratic nation. The
first of these government sponsored radio stations was entitled Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). Created in 1949, RFE/RL broadcasted news and
current affairs to countries under the Soviet Iron Curtain in order to hopefully break
down the communist block. Today RFE/RL broadcasts in 11 different time zones in
Europe and the former Soviet Union with the mission that it started with back in 1949
that it is "promoting democratic values and institutions by disseminating factual
information and ideas" [22]. RFE/RL, along with its sister stations Radio Free Asia
(RFA) and Radio Marti, are United States Congress funded non-profit, private
corporations [23]. These short wave radio stations again shows that technology is a
predominant means to promote democracy abroad.
11
The Internet is also starting to be used more by the United States and its
nongovernmental partners to help spread the message of democracy. RFE/RL, RFA,
Radio Marti, and Voice of America have all launched websites hoping to garner traffic in
foreign nations and stimulate interest about democracy [24]. With the Internet
becoming more of a global community and more countries are increasing connected, it
can be assumed that the United States will start using the Internet more to force its
democratic message on the rest of the world.
Even though technology has been essential to the programs and objectives in
the aforementioned examples, these programs still fall under the same criticism of the
entire democracy promotion theme. The objectives of the technological programs of
democracy are doing nothing to solve the harms of an increasing amount of illiberal
democracies, instability during the transition to democracy, and the decreasing
international credibility these policies establish for the United States. The technological
cannon is loaded with the United States ideas of democracy promotion but the payload,
like the policies, are missing the intended targets.
V. Reloading the Technological Cannon
Democracy promotion does not have to be like Whitman's prophetic statement of
a thundering, vengeful, powerful strategy that views the non-democratic nation a target
and the enemy. Democracy is not something that should be forced on a nation by the
United States because common consensus believes having that nation as a democracy
is a strategic interest to the United States. Growth of stable, mature, democratic
movements happen when the citizens of the countries band together and start
democratic movements themselves because they feel they can successfully accomplish
12
and want democracy, not that the United States requires that they become a
democracy. The United States should help build the structures that promote democracy
and freedom and stop trying to force countries to democratize. This non-hegemonic
democracy promotion can take place, but it requires a shift in the current policy
framework. The technological cannon of democracy needs to have a new non-
hegemonic payload. The new payload should be for the United States to foster
technological development of network interconnectivity and allow the notion of
democracy to foster in the communication and information sharing that will take place in
the new interconnected nation.
In the past economic development and education have been seen as the best
facilitators of democracy. But with new technological advances it is becoming evident
that telecommunications and internetwork development are advancing both democracy
and economic development in many countries. Christopher Kedzie, a researcher for the
RAND organization, believes "while governments can and have tried to control such
[communication and information] technologies for their own ends, the liberating effects
have ultimately proved to be the more powerful and, where unfettered, have led to more
competitive and adaptive societies" [25]. Kedzie's goal was to take this anecdote and
see if research would follow the correlation to internetwork connectivity yields
democracy and economic development.
In determining this positive correlation between democracy and interconnectivity
the terms used in the studies must be defined. The level of democracy that a country
has is adapted from the Comparative Survey of Freedom conducted by Freedom
House. This survey gives "Political Rights" and "Civil Liberties" ratings for each country.
13
Political rights entails the level of participation that citizens of a country have, while civil
liberties are considered the amount of personal rights citizens are allowed [26]. Kedzie
believed that the average of these two rankings gives the most accurate indicator of a
country’s democratic level because a true liberal democracy needs both high levels of
political rights and civil liberties [27]. The interconnectivity rankings that Kedzie uses
are from the Matrix Information Directory Service (MIDS). MIDS measures "nodes per
capita per country for each four major computer systems that can exchange electronic
mail [Internet, BITNET, UUCP, and FidoNet]" [28]. Electronic mail is used as the
benchmark because it is the most mature interconnectivity technology and gives people
the easiest access to communicate with a plethora of different individuals across many
borders [29]. With the two variables of democracy and interconnectivity defined and a
value for the level of each variable now able to be assigned it is possible to prove the
correlation of interconnectivity leading to democratic development.
Using the numeric rankings that that Freedom House and MIDS studies give us
we can see the general correlation that interconnectivity has on democracy. Using a
scaterplot graph and then calculating a linear regression of the data there is a strong
association that shows that nations with more interconnectivity are more prone to have
also high levels of democratic control. This relationship is further proved when the
nations are separated into regions. All six of the regions (Africa, Asia, Eurasia, Latin
American, Middle East and Western Europe) show the same upward trends that link
interconnectivity to democracy. These trends are most dramatic in regions currently
undergoing the most political transformation (Eurasia and Africa). Kedzie comments
that the graphs "exhibit a surprising powerful correlation between interconnectivity and
14
democracy. Multiple linear regressions provide further convincing evidence that one
cannot dismiss this correlation as spurious" [30]. Later Kedzie looks at other major
factors generally assumed to correlate with democracy promotion like education and
economic well being and declares, "Immediately apparent is that, again,
interconnectivity emerges as the dominate predictor. More startling, perhaps, is that
interconnectivity is the only statistically significant predictor over which policy may have
any influence" [31].
In Kedzie's research it is only interconnectivity that provides a universal positive
correlation to democracy other factors that are prevalent in the current foreign policy do
not have this strong positive association. In light of these studies, the United States
needs to seriously look at the methods they are using when going about their
democratic enlargement conquests. Considering the negative ramifications that the
current foreign policy is producing, it would be in the best interest of the United States to
look at these new studies and change the payload it is using in the technological
approach to democracy promotion.
VI. Calibrating the New Cannon
The United States official policy of democracy promotion is in turmoil. The
thundering, vengeful force that it is exerting on its target nations is worsening the
stability of the world, instead of making it more peaceful for the United States. The
failure of democracy in former Yugoslavia and other former Soviet Union satellites
exemplifies the chaos that the United States policy is instigating. They entire focus of
the policy needs to change.
15
Fortunately, there is an alternative policy option that the United States can take.
Instead of believing the United States and their partners can build a nations democratic
movements by promoting the development of a civil society, human rights, and
disseminating information about democracy using forceful and overt means; the United
States can help foster a mature technological revolution that gives the besieged nation
an increased availability of information and networks for the people that are limitless
and see no boundaries. The first step for foreign policy change is to take all the money
currently allocated to the NED and all other policies and programs the United States
uses for democracy promotion and divert it to a policy that helps nations build the
infrastructure for advanced telephone and data communication interconnectivity.
Successfully making this transition of foreign policy objectives from democratic
enlargement to interconnectivity enlargement will disentangle the United States form the
destructive ramifications of its current policy. As Russell Kirk claims, "the United States
must exercise leadership without imposing its political and cultural values on others.
This is a fine line to walk … we should not, however, engage in an indiscriminate global
ideological crusade" [32]. This new strategy will do just as Kirk requests since the
United States will no longer have a strategy believing that only elections are sufficient
for a democracy to successfully form and thus preventing illiberal democracies from
forming. Also, nations will transition themselves to democracy when the political climate
is proper thus avoiding the transition wars that Mansfield and Snyder warn of.
Furthermore, the United States will be able to regain the international credibility it has
lost as a result of having a democracy promotion policy that relied on colorful rhetoric
instead of solid policy reality. Most importantly, the United States, by helping to engage
16
in an interconnection revolution with countries bilaterally, will help democracy gain
strength in non-democratic countries without a thundering, vengeful strike. In its place
the United States will arm its technological cannons with the promise of technological
advancements with the hope that those technological advancements will help transform
another nation into a democratic state.
17
Works Cited
1. Bartlett, John, comp. Familiar Quotations. Boston: Little, Brown, 1919.
<http://www.bartleby.com/100>. 23 September 2001.
2. Carothers, Thomas. "Democracy Promotion Under Clinton" Washington Quarterly
Autumn 1995, 13.
3. Carothers, 13.
4. Carothers, 13.
5. Carothers, 13.
6. Munk, Eva. “Radio Liberty Once Again on the Front Lines”. Yahoo News. 12
November 2001. 1 December 2001. <http://dialynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/
20011112/lf/attack_czech_radio_dc-1.html>
7. Kelley, Matt. “Strikes Damage Suspected Taliban Base”. Yahoo News. 28 November
2001. 1 December 2001. <http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/2011128/us/
attacks_military-335.html>
8. Conroy, Barbara. "Foreign Policy Loose Cannon: The NED." USA Today Magazine
August 1994 , Lexis-Nexus.
9. Council on Hemispheric Affairs and Inter-Hemispheric Education Resource Center.
National Endowment for Democracy: A Foreign Policy Branch Gone Awry. March
1990, 26.
10. Council on Hemispheric Affairs and Inter-Hemispheric Education Resource Center,
23.
11. Clinton, William J. Ninth Annual Report of the NED. February 25, 1993, 7.
18
12. Zakaria, Fareed. “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy.” Foreign Affairs 76:6 (1997): 20-
43.
13. Zakaria, 22-23.
14. Zakaria, 22.
15. Zakaria, 30-31.
16. Mansfield, Edward, and Jack Snyder. “Democratization and War.” Foreign Affairs
74 (1995): 79-80.
17. Mansfield and Snyder, 80-83.
18. Mansfield and Snyder, 88-89.
19. Clarke, Jonathan. "Rhetoric Before Reality: Loose Lips Sink Ships." Foreign Affairs
74 (1995): 2-3.
20. Carothers, 22.
21. Carothers, 22.
22. An Introduction to Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty. 2 May 2001. Radio Free
Europe / Radio Liberty. 2 October 2001. <http://www.rferl.org/welcome/english
/history/introduction.html>.
23. An Introduction to Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty. 2 May 2001. Radio Free
Europe / Radio Liberty. 2 October 2001. <http://www.rferl.org/welcome/english
/history/introduction.html>.
24. Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty In Brief. 1 December 2001. Radio Free Europe /
Radio Liberty. 1 December 2001. <http://www.rferl.org/about/organization-
brief.html>
19
25. Kedzie, Christopher R. Democracy and Network Interconnectivity. 12 May 1995.
Internet Society. 2 October 2001. <http://www.isoc.org/HMP/PAPER
/134/html/paper.html>.
26. Kedzie, no page.
27. Kedzie, no page.
28. Kedzie, no page.
29. Kedzie, no page.
30. Kedzie, no page.
31. Kedzie, no page.
32. Kirk, Russell. "The United States Should Not Impose Democracy on Other Nations."
America's Foreign Policy. 1993: 49.
20
Bibliography
An Introduction to Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty. 2 May 2001. Radio Free Europe /
Radio Liberty. 2 October 2001. <http://www.rferl.org/welcome/english
/history/introduction.html>.
Bartlett, John, comp. Familiar Quotations. Boston: Little, Brown, 1919.
<http://www.bartleby.com/100>. 23 September 2001.
Carothers, Thomas. "Democracy Promotion Under Clinton" Washington Quarterly
Autumn 1995, 13.
Clarke, Jonathan. "Rhetoric Before Reality: Loose Lips Sink Ships." Foreign Affairs 74
(1995): 2-3.
Clinton, William J. Ninth Annual Report of the NED. February 25, 1993, 7.
Conroy, Barbara. "Foreign Policy Loose Cannon: The NED." USA Today Magazine
August 1994 , Lexis-Nexus.
Council on Hemispheric Affairs and Inter-Hemispheric Education Resource Center.
National Endowment for Democracy: A Foreign Policy Branch Gone Awry. March
1990, 26.
Kedzie, Christopher R. Democracy and Network Interconnectivity. 12 May 1995.
Internet Society. 2 October 2001. <http://www.isoc.org/HMP/PAPER
/134/html/paper.html>.
Kelley, Matt. “Strikes Damage Suspected Taliban Base”. Yahoo News. 28 November
2001. 1 December 2001. <http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/2011128/us/
attacks_military-335.html>
21
Kirk, Russell. "The United States Should Not Impose Democracy on Other Nations."
America's Foreign Policy. 1993: 49.
Mansfield, Edward, and Jack Snyder. “Democratization and War.” Foreign Affairs 74
(1995): 79-80.
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty In Brief. 1 December 2001. Radio Free Europe /
Radio Liberty. 1 December 2001. <http://www.rferl.org/about/organization-
brief.html>
Munk, Eva. “Radio Liberty Once Again on the Front Lines”. Yahoo News. 12 November
2001. 1 December 2001. <http://dialynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/
20011112/lf/attack_czech_radio_dc-1.html>
Zakaria, Fareed. “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy.” Foreign Affairs 76:6 (1997): 20-43.
22
