The Right Side of the Law

8/3/2019 The Right Side of the Law

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-right-side-of-the-law 1/9

Pre-Publication Copy Autumn (Sept. /Oct.) 2007 (Vol. III, No. 1)

The following article, in whole or in part, may not be copied, downloaded,

stored, further transmitted, transfered, distributed, altered or otherwise used,in any form or by any means, except:

• one stored electronic and one paper copy of any article solely for yourpersonal, non-commercial use; or• with prior written permission of The American Interest LLC.

To subscribe to our online version, visit www.The-American-Interest.comTo subscribe to our print version, call 1-800-767-5273 or mail the form below to:

THE AMERICAN INTERESTPO BOX 338MOUNT MORRIS, IL 61054-7521

Name

Address 1

Address 2

City State Zip

Country

E-mail

Credit Card Exp.

Name on Card Tel. No.

Signature Date

J Payment enclosed

J Bill me later

American

Interest

A75PPC

J BEST OFFER ! Yes, send me two years (12 issues) of The American InteresT for only $69*.

I’ll save 23% off the cover price!

J Yes, send me one year (6 issues) for only $39*. I’llsave $5.75 off the cover price.

*Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery of first issue. Add $14 per year

for shipping & handling to addresses outside the U.S. and Canada.



A utumn(September /OctOber )2007

Building Liberty

6 FaithandProgressby Walter Russell Mead

Anglo-American reedoms, the very sources o worldly success, are

rooted in religious aith.

17 GrudgingConsent by Charles Tilly

Democracy turns out to be a verb describing how some rulers acquire

the resources to govern.

24 Democracy,UnionMadeby Phil Fishman

Free trade unions have long been global democracy’s most powerul

accelerator. How did we orget that?

34 LaborPains

by Daniel Patrick Moynihan

The late proessor, Senator and Ambassador speaks again—rom his

1960 doctoral dissertation.

41 TheRightSideoftheLaw

by Peter Ackerman & Michael J. Glennon

Democracy promotion isn’t “intererence” into the sovereign aairs o

autocracies. It’s legal, and laudable.

Design Failure

48 BreakingtheBank:WhyWeaponsAreSoExpensive

by Edward N. Luttwak

The U.S. military needs to stop cramming new technologies into old

platorms.

59 MarkingTime:WhyGovernmentIsTooSlow by Bruce Berkowitz

Bureaucratic sclerosis is the biggest threat to America’s national security.

71 ManagingtoFail:WhyStrategyIsDisjointed by Paul Bracken

The NSC/interagency system can’t cope with a multi-dimensional

strategic environment.

122

6

48

CONTENTStheA mericAnintereSt•V Olumeiii,number 1,A utumn(September /OctOber )2007



Reporting the “Good War”

81 OverHere,Now

Documentary flmmaker Ken Burns talks about The War

with Thomas Childers.

90 OverThere,Thenby Roger Sandall

In 1936, John Gunther predicted the next nine years’ darkness.

Reviews

96 FastFood

by Jennifer Hewett We’ve been what we’ve eaten, evidently, or some ten millennia.

100 WisingUp

by Gregory F. Treverton

Two new books about what’s wrong with the CIA get it

(mostly) right.

104 ReturnoftheNativesby Clifford Orwin

Kwame Anthony Appiah wrestles with “cosmopolitanism”,

but it escapes him.

108 AirBallby David Wohl

Did the 1984 NBA drat change basketball “orever”?

114 Retroview:FindingtheFairWay

by Edward Allan Brawley

Crusader or the poor, master gol course designer.

Same person.

Letters & Notes

122 LetterfromaBlackBerryAddict

by Andrew Erdmann

Think you can read this without checking your email?

126 LetterstotheEditorPeter Robinson and John Kornblum on Reagan’s “Tear Down

This Wall” speech.

127 AutumnNote:TheKingsandIby Francis Fukuyama

The AI ’s chairman tells Putin and Nazarbayev a thing or two

in St. Petersburg.

website

www.the-american-interest.com

Charles Davidson, publisher & CEOSara Bracceschi, advertising & syndication

Noelle Daly, subscriber services Damir Marusic, marketing & web

Jamie Pierson, circulation & operations

ADVERTISING SALES

Sara Bracceschi

[email protected](202) 223-4408

Perry Janoski

publishing representative Allston-Cherry Ltd.

(212) 665-9885

SYNDICATION

Sara Bracceschi

[email protected](202) 223-4408

Adam Garfnkle, editor Patricia Murphy, executive editor

Daniel Kennelly, senior managing editor Thomas Rickers, managing editor

Executive Committee

Francis Fukuyama, chair Charles Davidson

Jose Joe

Walter Russell Mead

Editorial Board

Anne Applebaum, Peter Berger,

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Niall Ferguson,

Bronislaw Geremek, Owen Harries,

Samuel Huntington, G. John Ikenberry,

Stephen D. Krasner, Bernard-Henri

Lévy, Glenn C. Loury, C. Raja Mohan,

Douglass North, Ana Palacio (on leave),Itamar Rabinovich, Ali Salem,

Lilia Shevtsova, Takashi Shiraishi,

Mario Vargas Llosa, Wang Jisi,

Ruth Wedgwood, James Q. Wilson

Michael McDonald, literary counsel Simon Monroe, R. Jay Magill, Jr., illustrators

cover courtesy National Archives

cover design by Damir Marusic



A utumn(September /OctOber )2007 41

Building liBerty

The Right Sideof the Law

Peter Ackerman & Michael J. Glennon

Inearly2006,shortlyafterRussianPresi-dentVladimirPutinsigned a law requir-ing NGOs to re-register and prohibiting

theuseofforeignfundsforpoliticalactivity,hepointedtotheWest’shistoryofcolonialinter-ventioninjustifyinghisgovernment’sresistancetodemocracy.Hesaid:

Ifwegobackahundredyearsandlookthrough

thenewspapers,weseewhatargumentstheco-

lonialpowersofthattimeadvancedtojustify

theirexpansionintoAfricaandAsia.Theycit-

edargumentssuchasplayingacivilizingrole,

theparticularroleofthewhiteman,theneed

to civilize ‘primitive peoples.’ If we replace

the term ‘civilizing role’ with ‘democratiza-

tion’,thenwecantransposepracticallyword

forwordwhatthenewspaperswerewritinga

hundredyearsago.

Putinishardlythefirstheadofstatetoobjecttooutsideinterferenceinhiscountry’sinternalaffairs.Nor,ofcourse,ishethefirsttowieldre-pressivepower.Fourcenturiesago,KingJamesIofEnglandclaimedthatapeoplehadnolegit-imaterecourseagainstatyrantotherthan“pa-tience,earnestprayerstoGodandamendment

oftheirlives.”Hisargumentturnedouttobethehigh-watermarkofthedivinerightofkingsandalsotheturningofthetide:England’selitesrecoiled,andwithinthreegenerationsLocke’sTwo Treatises on Government hadlaidtheim-movablecornerstoneofdemocratictheory.The edifice built upon that theory, how-

ever,remainsunfinished.Eveninourownage, whichhasmovedcloser thananybeforeittofulfillingLocke’svisionworldwide,theprerog-ativesoftyrantsarestillprotectedfromLocke’sphilosophicalprogeny—thestates,groupsandindividualsengagedinpromotingdemocracy,humanrightsandcivilsociety.Butthistime,Putin, other modern-day authoritarians andtheirsympathizersrelyonbromidesdredgedupfrominternationallegalantiquityratherthaninvocationsofthedivine.Contemporary autocrats hide behind the

principlesof sovereigntyandits corollarypro-hibition againstmeddling in a state’s internalaffairs—internationallegalnormsthatemerged whenmoveabletypewascutting-edgetechnol-ogy.TheirargumentnolongerworksasitdidinGutenberg’sday.Statesovereigntyremainsanimportantpillarinthestructureofinternationallaw,butthenotionthatsovereigntyresidesintheheadofstategavewaylongagotorecogni-tionthatitrestsinanation’speople.Thescope

of sovereignty narrowed further in the 20thcentury,asalargebodyoflawcametoprotectinternationallyrecognized human rights.And withthenumberofelectoraldemocraciesnearlydoublinginthepasttwentyyears,anemergingrighttodemocraticgovernancehasbecomethecenterpieceofhumanrightslaw.

Peter Ackerman is chairman of the board of

Freedom House and was executive producer of the Peabody Award-winning PBS documentary Bring-ingDownaDictator. Michael J. Glennon is professor of international law at the Fletcher School

of Law & Diplomacy at Tufts University, and the author of LimitsofLaw,PrerogativesofPower:

InterventionismafterKosovo (2001).



42 theA mericAnintereSt

Building liBerty

Though today’s autocrats are thus swim-mingagainstthetideofhistory,theyareswim-minghard.Thecasus belli oftheirnewcounter-offensivehasbeenthetriumphofthe“coloredrevolutions” in Georgia and Ukraine, which

broughtgreaterpolitical freedomtomillions.Claimingthat“foreigninfluence”istoblamefor such events, and concerned that coloredbellsmaysoontollforthem,today’sautocratsaredeterminedtorootoutdemocracyadvocatesthrough police harassment and intimidation,falseaccusationsandarrests,revokedregistra-tionsand shutteredoffices.Securityforces inChina,Venezuela,Egypt,Iran,Zimbabweandthe formerSoviet states ofEurasiahavebeen

amongthemostsingle-mindedinthis effort,forcinganumberofdemocracyassistancepro-gramstoclose.Thereisalsoevidenceofcoor-

dinatedactivityamongauthoritarianregimes.Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez visitedPresidentAlexanderLukashenkoofBelarusin July2006tobringhimgoodnews:“Therearemanypossibilitiesnowforformingastrategicalliancetosavetheworldfrommadness,warsandcolorrevolutions.”ItistemptingtodismissthelikesofHugo

Chávez andAlexander Lukashenko as small-

timeopportunistsdestinedforthedust-binofanincreasinglydemocratichistory.Thiswouldbeamistake.Theautocraticoffensiveagainstdemocracyanditspromotersisaseriouschal-lengeandshouldbeahighpriority,especiallyforanyAmerican administration espousing aFreedomAgendaasitscentraltheme.Thereasonisthatthereisarealriskofthe

democraticadvance stallingand fallingback- wards.Theriskofatippingpointarisesbecause

autocratsarelearningtoevisceratetheirpeoples’civicchoicesincrementally,therebyavoidingthepublicitythatafrontalassaultwouldgenerate.They“nickelanddime”theopposition,abridg-ingonlyseeminglyinsignificantrightsatfirst. Asmalltown’svotesarenotcounted,aunionorlocalcooperativeisbanned,apetitioncannotbe

circulated,abookcannotbepublished,foreigntravelisprohibited,aspeechisoutlawed,pri-vateassetsareexpropriated.Thecumulativeef-fectofindividualchoicescanbecomeamightyforceforfreedom,andthereverseisjustastrue:

Ifactssuchasthesearesuccessfullysuppressed,theultimateresultcanbeadramaticregressioninthedirectionofpoliticsandcivilsociety.Thedangerliesinthetransferenceoftheknow-howofoppressionfromonetyranttoothertyrantsaround theworld,thusputtingmultiple newdemocraciesonthedefensive. Autocratsknowthatthekeytothesuccessof

indigenousoppositionmovementsincountrieslikeSouthAfrica,PolandandChilewastheir

abilitytogeneratefocusedpublicpressure.Op-positionmovementsdidthisbybuildingbroad-based,non-violentcoalitionsthattargetedthe

pillars of an autocrat’ssupport—economicand business allies,collaborators amongthe military and po-lice, and sympatheticreligious, cultural and

ethnicorganizations.Whenthosepillarsweak-enedorcollapsed,democracywon.

Intheirattemptstopreventtheloyaltiesofsuchgroupsfromshiftingundertheirfeet,auto-cratshavetargetednotonlytheindigenousop-positionbutindividualsandgroupsthatprovideawiderangeofexternalassistancefallingunderthe general rubric of “democracy promotion.” Amongthebesiegedwhoreceivesuchassistance

arethosefightingforworkers’rights,racialequal-ityandwomen’srights,aswellaslocaladvocatesofmoretraditionalobjectiveslikegovernmentaltransparency, free elections and participatoryrights.Numerousgovernmentsandinternation-alorganizations,tradeunions,politicalparties,legislaturesandNGOshaveallcomeunderfirefromPutinandhisautocraticassociatesfortheireffortstoadvancefreedomaroundtheglobe.Notalloftheseexternallybasedgroupsfo-

cusonpromotingclassicdemocraticinstitutionsandcivilsociety.Whereauthoritarianregimeshave subverted normal democratic processes,groupshaveofferedtraininginnon-violentre-sistance.Thistraininghastakentheformofgeneraladvice,thedistributionofeducationalmaterialsandtheco-sponsorshipofconferences

Autocrats know that the key to thesuccess of indigenous oppositionmovements was their ability togenerate focused public pressure.




the right Side of the law

andworkshops.Thoughitismorecontrover-sial(butoftenmoreuseful),democracypromo-tiongroupscanoffertraininginthestrategyand tactics of civic disruption—strikes, peti-tions, walkouts,mass demonstrations, sit-ins,blockades, boycotts, official resignations andthe refusal to pay fees and taxes. U.S.-basedcivilsocietygroupsdoingthiskindofworkarehardlythe“uglyAmericans”thatautocratsseektoportray:The“offending”groupsinvariablysteerclearofcounselingoradvocatingviolence,avoidthosewhouseviolence,andprovideno

trainingintechniquesofviolentresistance.

Law and Legal Sophistry

W ithmightbutnotrightbehindthem,au-tocratsthroughouthistoryhaveseldomfeltanobligationtospelloutalegalrationalefor suppressing dissidents.The “most respect-ableargumentsoftherightsofkings”,Freder-

icktheGreatcounseledhisbrotherHenry,are“yourgreatguns.”Today,however,somehavedeignedtoprofferajustificationrestingonthecorollaryofthesovereigntydoctrinethatpro-hibitsinterventionintheinternalaffairsofotherstates.Inpushinga2004billthatwoulddenyNGOs access to foreign funds, for example,

Zimbabwe’sPresidentRobertMugabedeclaredthathisgovernment“cannotallow[NGOs]tobeconduitsorinstrumentsofforeigninterfer-enceinournationalaffairs.”TheShanghaiCo-operationOrganization, consisting of Russia,China, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, UzbekistanandTajikistan,launchedathinlyveiledattackondemocracypromotionin2005,insistingthat“therightofeverypeopletoitsownpathofde-velopmentmustbefullyguaranteed”pursuanttotheprincipleof“non-interventionininternalaffairsofsovereignstates.”

There are, tobe sure,many internationallegalinstrumentsthatinveighagainstinterven-tion.TheUnitedStates isnotalone inregu-latingforeigninvolvementinitselectoralcam-paignsandlobbying,anditisfullyjustifiedindoingso.Butthreeproblemsinhereinthereli-anceofauthoritarianelitesonthenon-interven-tionnorm:practice,progressandlogic.

First,theirrationalehasbeenevisceratedbycenturies of contrary state practice. From the

outsetthebanoninterventionwashonoredmoreinthebreachthanintheobservance.Evenintheyearsimmediatelyfollowingthe1648PeaceofWestphalia,statebordersprovedpermeable,andstatesremainedsubjecttoforeign interfer-ence.AsEvanLouarddetailedinThe Balance of Power (1992),itwasnormalforgovernmentsto

New Friends: Robert Mugabe, Alexander Lukashenko and Hugo Chávez

Associated Press




Building liBerty

seektoinfluencepoliticalaffairsinotherstates.Manyprominentpoliticiansinrivalstatesweredirectlyinthepayofforeigngovernments,andopposition groups were frequently subsidizedandmanipulatedfromabroad.

Politicalinterpenetrationincreasedinthefol-lowingcenturies.By1945,whentheframersoftheUnitedNationsCharterconvenedtocodifythenormofnon-intervention,externalinvolve-menthadbecomesowidespreadthattheChar-ter’sdraftersprohibitedonlytheuseorthreatofmilitaryforcebyonestateagainstanother.Non-violenteffortstoinfluenceastate’sinternalpoli-ciesarenotprohibitedbytheCharter,howeverintrusive those effortsmight be. Today, with

information,peopleandcapitalgushingacrossinternationalbordersintorrents,influencingev-eryaspectofdomesticpolitics,thenormagainst

non-forcibleinterventionhasallbutvanishedasameaningfullimitonstatebehavior.

Second, the emergence of internationallyprotectedrightstoinformationexchange,civicparticipation anddemocratic governanceun-dermines the autocrats’ protestations againstintervention.Talleyrand’s famousquip aboutnon-intervention being “a metaphysical term whichmeansaboutthesameasintervention”maygoasteptoofar,becauseeventodaythere

stillexistunlawfulformsofintervention,suchasstate-sponsoredassassinationorkidnapping.However, it is closer to juridical truth todaythaneverbefore.Thisisparticularlytruewiththe advent of internationally recognized hu-man rights. Since1945,explicitinternationalrestrictions have increasingly reached withinstateboundariestopreventgovernmentsfromdenyingbasicrightstotheircitizenry.Centraltotheserightsistherighttoinformationex-

change.TheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRightsaffirmstheright“toseek,receiveandimpartinformationandideasthroughanyme-diaand regardlessof frontiers.”Thisright isreinforcedbythelong-recognizedrightoffreeassembly,codifiedalongwithitinvirtuallyallhuman rights legal instruments. Such rights

suggestthe existenceof other, implicit rightsthatarenecessarytogivethemmeaning.Theright to exchange information, for example, wouldbeemptywithoutarighttogatherin-formationandcommunicateiteffectively.

The protection of these rights by inter-nationallawhasgonehandinhandwiththeglobaladvanceofdemocraticself-government.Themostprofoundeventofthe20thcentury,asThomasM.Franckhaswritten,maywellprovetobe the“almost-complete triumphofthe democraticnotionsofHume,Locke, Jef-ferson andMadison—in Latin America, Af-rica, Eastern Europe, and, to a lesser extent, Asia.”1Thattriumphisreflectedinthewords

ofnumerousinternationalagreementsandUNGeneralAssemblyresolutions.Theirneteffectistomakeclearthat,inthewordsoftheUni-

versalDeclaration:“Everyonehastherighttotakepartinthegovernmentofhiscountry,directlyorthroughfreelychosen representatives.” The will ofthepeopleisnowtheacceptedbasisofgovernmental authority, as the2000

WarsawDeclaration declared.Thatauthoritymustbeexpressed“byexerciseoftherightandcivicdutiesofcitizenstochoosetheirrepresen-tativesthroughregular,freeandfairelections withuniversalandequalsuffrage,opentomul-tipleparties,conductedbysecretballot,moni-toredbyindependentelectoralauthorities,andfreeof fraudand intimidation.”More thanahundrednationsnowjoinintheDeclaration.Third, the original rationale behind the

non-intervention norm has become illogicalin current circumstances.That rationale wasintended to ensure that a state remains freetochoose itsownpoliticalsystem.Butinthemodernworld,asLoriDamrosch puts it, “Astate ‘freely’ chooses its political systemonly whenitspeoplearefreetochoose.”2Effortstostrengthen the people’s ability to select theirgovernmentalsystem,eveneffortsaidedfrom

The original rationale behindthe non-intervention normhas become illogical.

1Franck, “The Emerging Right to DemocraticGovernance”, American Journal of Internation-al Law (January1992).

2Damrosch,“PoliticsAcrossBorders: Noninter-

vention andNonforcible Influence overDo-

mesticAffairs”, American Journal of Interna-tional Law (January1989).




the right Side of the law

abroad,advancethepurposeofthenon-inter-ventionnormbyenhancingopportunities forself-determination. The original rationale forthenormthussupports,ratherthandisallows,actions by states and organizations to foster

democratic governance and accountability inotherstates.Ofcourse,thelinebetweendemocracyand

autocracyisnotalwaysdistinct.Theadvanceoffreedomoftentravelsacircuitouspath,withap-parentadvancesinonecategory(electoralpro-cess,forexample)accompanyingrealsetbacksin another (such as free expression). Thesecountervailingtrendscreateconfusionthatfoesofdemocracycanexploit.Indeed,theNational

Endowment for Democracy’s 2006 report,“TheBacklashagainstDemocracyAssistance”,describes“theemergenceofsemi-authoritarianhybrid regimes characterized by superficiallydemocraticprocessesthatdisguiseandhelple-gitimateauthoritarianrule.”Therearecurrentlyanywherefrom45tosixtysuchregimes.Somepresentnoobstaclestodemocracypromotion;othersseek,inonewayoranother,toquashit.Thusthelawfulnessofspecificstateregula-

tionsthatrestrictdemocracyassistancewillalwaysdependonthefactsofeachcase—whetherthelaw’saimistostifledemocraticadvocacy,wheth-eriteffectuatesalegitimatestatepolicyobjective, whetheritdiscriminatesonitsface,whetheritisenforcedeven-handedly,andwhetheramorenarrowly tailored regulation could achieve thesameend.Partoftheanswertothesequestions willalwayslieinthenatureoftheregimepro-

mulgatingtheregulations.Whateverthelevelofastate’scommitmenttofreedom,however,inter-nationallawasitexiststodaycounselsthatthepresumptionisonthesideofdemocracypromo-tion.Thegoverningprincipleisthesameinallcases:Whereagivenregulationispartofalargerschemeaimedatdeprivinggroupsorindividu-alsofinternationallyprotectedhumanrights,itviolatesinternationallaw.Evendemocracypromotioninitsmostcon-

troversial form—the provision of informationandresourcestopromotenon-violentcivicdis-ruption—isthereforeconsistentwithwidelyac-ceptedinternationalstandards.Itsbeneficiarieshavearighttoreceiveit.Itsprovidershavearighttogiveit.Andneitheranautocrat-in-fullnoranautocrat“lite”hasanyrighttoobstructit.

Letusnotbeconfusedbythosewhowouldconflatedemocracypromotionwithoth-

er,lesssavoryfeaturesofcurrentU.S.foreignpolicy. An irreducible truth remains: Peace-fully providing information and resources in

responsetorequestsfromthosewaginganon-violentstrugglefortheirfreedomisafarcryfrominvadingacountryandofferingitspopu-lationunrequested“assistance”—inpromotingdemocracy or anything else. President Putiniscorrectthat,incenturiespast,internationallawdidlittletostoptheexploitationofcolonialpeoplesandtheplunderingoftheirresourcesunder the cover of a “civilizingmission.”Heis wrong, however, to equate contemporary

democracy promotion to European colonial-ism.Democracytodayisnota“whiteman’s”idea;itisheardfromWestPapuatoWesternSahara,fromBelarustoTibet.Itssuccess,asitsbestadvocatesknow,dependsuponindigenousinitiativeandenergy,notforeigninfluenceorpressure.Democracypromotiondoesnotdenyanypeoples’righttoself-determination;itgiveslifetothatright.It is said, however, that even if they de-

siredemocracy,notallsocietiesarereadyforit.Somepeoples,theargumentgoes,lackthecultural, civic or legal traditions to governthemselveseffectively.Theymustbeallowedto progress more slowly, and authoritarianregimesmustbegrantedameasureofunder-standingandperhaps evena little sympathy.“WhenmypeopleactlikeSwedes”,theShahofIranreportedlysaid,“Iwilltreatthemlike

Swedes”, and many observers in democraticcountriesprofessedtoseehispoint.Yetthear-roganceofanauthoritarian’stimetableisoftenoverrunbyhistory. We do not suggest that democracy can

springlikeatulipthroughautocraticconcrete.Democracyworks,orworksbest,whencivilso-cietynotonlyexists,butisrobustandunitedinavisionofitscountry’sfutureandinitsstrategyfor getting there. Once victorious, new lead-

ersmustbewillingtoacceptprocessasanendaswellasameans,respectingoutcomeswith which they disagree. Those outcomes, afterall,aretheproductofprocessestowhichtheydid agree.Theymustbefirmaboutprocedureandthereforetentativeabouttruth.Theymustbecommittedtoenrichingtheirpeoplerather




Building liBerty

thanthemselves.Theymustbewillingtoleaveoffice when theyhave agreed to leave. Theymusttakeprideintheslowandsteadydevelop-mentofinstitutions.Notalloppressedpeoplecanexpectaquicktransitiontosuchleadership.

However,nearlyallcan,atleasttosomedegree,drivepositivechangeandbuildfromonesuc-cesstothenext.Inmeetingtheclaimthatagivenpeopleare

notreadyfordemocracy,itisthereforeessentialtodisaggregatetheconceptofdemocracy,toaskspecificallywhat thepeoplearenotreadyfor.Notreadyfortelevisionstationsthatlampoonapparatchiks’heavy-handedness?Notreadytoboycottafakeelection?Notreadytowritea

blogcriticizingcorruption?NotreadytoreadThoreau’sCivil Disobedience ?Whentheissueofreadinessisbrokendownintodemocracy’s

componentparts,itbecomeshardertojustifyaspecificinfringementandeasiertomakethecaseforprotectingotherfreedomsthatmightgetlostinthefalloutofpoliticalcompetition.

Regime Change Is the Point

Democracyadvocatesthushavenoreasonto be sheepish or disingenuous about

their intentions. The National Endowment

for Democracy report asserts that equatingdemocracypromotion with regime change is“unhelpful”and“hasplayedintothehandsofauthoritarian regimes.” But where a people’sright to self-determination is suppressed, the wholepointofdemocracypromotionistoalterthecharacteroftheoppressiveregimethroughlong-term engagement. The entire enterprise would beset to naught if tyrannical regimes wereexpectedtoremainsublimelyimpervious

toindigenouscivicpressure.Ofcourse,effortsofdemocracyadvocatesto

changethecharacter ofaregimemayleadulti-matelytoachangeinits identity .Non-violentchangeinitiatedfromwithin,however,isverydifferent from violent replacement instigatedfromabroad.Democracypromotion,evenatits

mostdeliberatelydisruptive,isnotaboutIraq.Norisitaboutthe“uglyAmerican”versionofviolentinsurrectionexecutedbyafriendlymili-tarycadrethatsomemayhopeforinIranorNorthKorea.Itisaboutwidespreadcivicresis-

tance,asrecentlyoccurredinGeorgia,Ukraine,KyrgyzstanandLebanon,andinthe20 th-cen-tury inIndia, the Philippines, Poland,South AfricaandChile.Infacingpressuretoexpandfreedom, thechoicebetween accommodationanddisintegrationbelongstotheautocrat.De-mocracyadvocatesfailiftheydonotmakeau-tocratsownuptothatchoice.Whatmostplaysintothehandsofautocratsisdefensivenessandcircumlocution about democracy promotion’s

objectives.Theintendedobjective is tomakeauthoritarianregimeschange—orgo.Thatisexactlyasitshouldbe,foranauto-

crat’s worst nightmare isnot“regimechange”asitoccurredinIraq.Rightlyorwrongly,mostarecon-fident of their ability to

handlemilitarythreatssuccessfullyand,ifnec-essary,tomeetviolencewithgreaterviolence.Theirgreatestfearisdomesticisolation—facingunified non-violent resistance that wins overtheregime’sfair-weatherfriends,asoccurredinthecoloredrevolutions.ShiZongyuan,China’stop press regulator, spoke formanyautocrats when asked recentlywhy Beijing had haltedplanstoletforeignnewspapersprintinChina:“WhenIthinkofcolorrevolutions”,hesaid,“Ifeelafraid.”

It is good thatShiZongyuan is afraidofoppressedpeopleinChina—muchbetterthanthepeopleofChinabeingafraidofShiandhisCommunistPartyassociates.Nooppressedpeo-pleinthe21stcenturyareobligedtobepatient,praytoGod,oramendtheirlives,ratherthanstandupforinternationallyrecognizedrights,the rule of law, freeelectionsanddemocraticgovernment.Noraretheyobligedtostrugglealone.Theyhaveeveryrighttoreachoutfor

assistancefromabroadinanon-violentstruggletothrowofftheiroppressors.Contrarytotheclaimsofautocrats,internationallawisontheside of thosewho seek democracy and those whohelpthem.Theruleoflawamongnationspromotestheruleoflawwithinnations.That,too,isasitshouldbe.

The rule of law among nations pro-motes the rule of law within nations.

Documents

The Right Side of the Law