Opinion: "Beyond 'Democratic Peace'"

Susan E. Rice
Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, Global Economy and Development Center, The Brookings Institution
Friday, December 16, 2005 1:00 PM

Susan E. Rice , senior fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, Global Economy and Development Center at The Brookings Institution, was online Friday, Dec. 16, at noon ET to discuss her op-ed in today's Post, "Beyond 'Democratic Peace'," , in which she argues that the Secretary of State's "solution to the challenge of weak states and transnational threats is at best inadequate."

The transcript follows.

____________________

Arlington, Va.: What is the relative importance of poverty to religious extremism in fueling terrorism? You mention places like Indonesia, but other poor nations like Haiti or Honduras are not as commonly associated with terrorism. Thank you for your time.

Susan E. Rice: There is a lot of debate on this subject, much of it rather facile, i.e. the argument that the 9/11 hijackers were all educated Saudis, so poverty cannot have anything to do with terrorism. I think the question of whether poverty motivates individuals to get involved in terrorism requires further and more thoughtful study. But what I am more confident of is poverty's indirect but nevertheless important contribution to terrorism -- which manifests itself not at the individual level but at the state level. That is, poverty (low GDP per capita) is a causal factor in civil conflict, and conflict zones are easily and often exploited by terrorists for recruitment, training and staging. Poverty also undermines weak states' capacity to control their territory and resources as well as to provide for the basic needs of their people. This creates a vacuum which predatory actors, including terrorists and their associates, can fill. We see this phenomenon in many places -- in Africa, South Asia, the Central Asia. It is less evident in Latin America and the Caribbean.

_______________________

Rolla, Mo.: What has happened in Afghanistan? Is there a functioning democracy there, and if not, why not?

Susan E. Rice: There is a very fragile, nascent democracy in Afghanistan that remains at risk of reversal. Our attention to Iraq has forced us to be less involved than I think is wise in Afghanistan -- militarily, politically and financially. Democracy's failure there would be a major setback for U.S. interests, given the resurgence of the Taliban and continued Al Qaeda presence.

_______________________

Geneva, Switzerland: Yes, the administration may be "too limited" by geography, but that is understandable, is it not? The greatest threats today come not from Mali or Bangladesh, but from Iraq, Pakistan, etc. So you seem not to oppose democracy-promotion, but wish it extended. Fair enough. You might just recognize that it was under this president that the internal character of states because a priority.

Susan E. Rice: Actually, the internal character of states has been a U.S. priority for quite some time -- at least going back to Carter's day, certainly Reagan and, of course Clinton -- who was ridiculed by candidate George W. Bush for nation-building and democracy promotion in places like Haiti. It was also under Clinton and Gore's direction that the CIA was instructed to form the State Failure Task Force, which really has provided the empirical base for much of our current understanding of what causes states to succeed and fail and the role of democracy and development.

_______________________

Laurel, Md.: Ms. Rice, as a lifelong resident of a democratic nation (this one) some aspects of democracy are rather transparent to me in the sense that I don't have to think about them.

One is literacy. Most everyone in this nation is literate and therefore can read as much as they are interested in any candidate and then punching the right chad on the ballot.

In a largely illiterate society, how to citizens become informed voters? Don't just about all low-literacy democracies vote virtually 100% along ethnic and regional lines, because the citizens don't know much more than "he's our guy."

Susan E. Rice: Literacy is crucial for development, and helpful but not essential to democracy. Campaigns in many poor parts of the world rely on radio and symbols rather than manifestos and slogans in order to scale the literacy hurdle. I am not sure the data supports the contention that low literacy societies vote on ethnic lines only, or that the reason for ethnic voting is illiteracy. But it's an interesting theory.

_______________________

Storrs, Conn.: It is my understanding that though democracy alone will not provide security, the benefits that come from liberalism will mitigate negative interpretations of American actions, in the long term. While we convert the world to democracy all at once, is there a better long-term solution to mitigating anti-Americanism than spreading liberalism and democracy, which are better than authoritarianism? Are you suggesting we need more democracy promotion, less, or are you mainly disappointed with the hypocrisy of the duality in American policy?

Susan E. Rice: I am ALL FOR democracy-promotion and believe we need more --for a combination of moral and policy reasons. But, I do not think we can accomplish it best through the barrel of a gun, but rather by wise, long-term investments in building civil society, supporting political party development, institution-building, press freedom etc.

My point is that we can't bank on democracy ALONE to ensure our security in a world of transnational threats like terror and disease. In other words, democracy promotion is necessary but not sufficient. We need to do more than promote democracy to build state capacity successfully, including help to reduce poverty in underdeveloped regions.

_______________________

Calgary, Alberta: In your commentary in The Washington Post today, you stated:

"The jury remains out over whether democracy in the Arab world would yield governments more supportive of U.S. interests, produce populaces less sympathetic to jihadists or prevent al Qaeda from pursuing its goals through terrorism."

I found that an odd thing to say.

Democracy is a risk in that you will find out what the underlying population truly feels. . . . . yet that also carries some refreshing honesty versus the alternative.

In other words, if they elect jihadists or a government contrary to the interests of the U.S., don't we want to know that's what the people of that country truly feel so that we can deal with them on that basis?

In Iran, the President of that country is making some pretty remarkable statements, yet we have no real idea if he represents the average Iranian given the skewed nature of the elections that brought him to power.

Susan E. Rice: I think we can and should promote democracy in the Middle East and be prepared not to like what it may yield. In the long run I think it will serve our interests.

My concern is that the Administration is promoting democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere somewhat selectively -- i.e. we shy away from a tough line when it's Egypt or Saudi Arabia at issue. My other concern is that we not be fooled into thinking that we can "win the war on terror" over the long run solely by seeding democracy in the Middle East. We need a multifaceted and more sophisticated strategy than than.

_______________________

Bristow, Va.: While you were in the Department of State from 1997 to 2001, virtually nothing was done in the Middle East to change the status quo, even as attacks from Al Qaeda grew in magnitude and Iraq became increasingly hostile. Given those facts, doesn't your criticism of the Bush administration ring hollow?

Susan E. Rice: I was responsible for Africa policy, not the Middle East at State, but one of my colleagues who was responsible for the Middle East, Ambassador Martin Indyk, has said we should have done more in this regard sooner. So has Secretary Albright.

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: Summary: The Bush administration contends that the push for democracy in the Muslim world will improve U.S. security. But this premise is faulty: there is no evidence that democracy reduces terrorism. Indeed, a democratic Middle East would probably result in Islamist governments unwilling to cooperate with Washington.

Do you have any evidence to refute or support Gause?

Susan E. Rice: I think Gause makes some strong points. There is a raging debate in the academic literature over whether democracy promotion in the Middle East will actually reduce terror.

I think the jury is out, which is part of why I worry about putting all our eggs in that basket.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Dr. Rice, in an article that is posted on campusprogress.org/ , you discussed the lack of diversity among national security experts. Considering the unique understanding that many African Americans have about poverty and inequality in the U.S., what message (if any) would it send to the Middle East if progressive African American/persons of color became visible and active participants in promoting the spread of democracy, and addressing the other problems (such as poverty) that prevent stability in the Middle East?

Susan E. Rice: For a whole host of reasons, including the one you cite, I think our foreign policy-making would be far stronger if it reflected more fully the views and experiences of the great diversity of our society -- racial, religious, ethnic and socio-economic. I am glad you read that piece and hope others will too.

_______________________

Ottawa, Ontario: In recent years the Bush administration has been touting the usefulness of 'coalitions of the willing' to achieve national security objectives (such as reviving failed states) that require the use of military forces. What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of the diplomatic/military instrument?

Susan E. Rice: I think so-called "coalitions of the willing" are a necessary tool for some circumstances, but a less desirable tool than coalitions that reflect the will of the entire international community as indicated, for example, by a UN Security Council mandate as President George H.W. Bush sought and received during the Gulf War.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Thank you, Dr. Rice, for hosting this discussion and for your valued input in the field of foreign policy. I have read of a concept that government control over the distribution of resources, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere, often limits the formation of alternate sources of power necessary for a competitive democracy. Do you feel the U.S. can and should pursue efforts to promote the diversification of wealth within states?

Susan E. Rice: Yes, concentrated wealth often extracted by elites through corrupt appropriation of natural resources (like oil or diamonds), can retard democratic and economic development. It is a problem U.S. policy can and should address. The U.S. has tried to do so in numerous ways with varying success by supporting: the British-led Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, the Kimberley Process (for conflict diamonds), the World Bank's efforts to prevent (now it seems unsuccessfully) revenues from the Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline from being diverted away from development purposes.

_______________________

Takoma Park, Md.: You mention that to build state capacity, the biggest hindrance is poverty. Wouldn't ditching agricultural tariffs and subsidies to agricultural products in the developed industrial countries go a long way to reducing world poverty?

Susan E. Rice: yes, indeed

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: Hello Dr. Rice,

Why are you and others in the know not unveiling the true face of Lady Democracy in Iraq?

Is it because she is really a bearded man holding an AK-47 and a Koran in his hands?

Please, enlighten people of the fact that Iran is the chief beneficiary of Bush's invasion/occupation of Iraq.

Thanks.

Susan E. Rice: Increased Iranian influence in Iraq is a real and negative consequence of U.S. policy.

_______________________

Laurel, Md.: Much of world map was drawn by colonializing powers without regard to indigenous population patterns. Iraq is a strong example.

Is there precedent for a nation with such an artificial amalgam of ethnic groups to form a unified democracy?

Susan E. Rice: Tough one. Canada? Indonesia? Nigeria (fragile but holding)?

_______________________

Storrs, Conn.: The states of the Middle East have been unreceptive to advances of liberalism and democracy. Are authoritarian regimes like in Syria and Iran likely to capitulate simply because we show a desire to invest in their civil society and integrate our economies? At some point, will we have to spread liberalism and democracy by force, in order to reshape a region that will not reshape itself? I do believe that we need more moral clarity and purpose in our resolve to spread democracy, but there are no good solutions for solving problems like poverty if it means upholding undemocratic regimes. Thank you.

Susan E. Rice: We don't need to uphold grossly undemocratic regimes to reduce poverty.

In the Middle East, I think there is a deep and genuine popular aspiration for democracy. We need to stoke and support that. Change will come to these places eventually, and, hopefully peacefully and sooner rather than later, through the force of popular resolve. But the use of military force to impose democracy has a poor track record -- not improved to date by Iraq.

_______________________

Susan E. Rice: Thanks very much for the opportunity to chat. Great questions all.

Democracy is a great good for us all. It is not, however, the sole silver bullet that will make America secure.

Thanks

_______________________

Colonial amalgam = democracy: The obvious answer is India!

Susan E. Rice: Yes, good point. Thanks

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.