|
Preview
of the Seoul Conference on
The Community of Democracies
Challenges
and Threats to Democracy
Transcript
#2
CHAIR:
THE HONORABLE FRANK CARLUCCI, CHAIRMAN, THE CARLYLE GROUP
PARTICIPANTS:
AMBASSADOR ROBERT HUNTER, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, COUNCIL FOR
A COMMUNITY OF DEMOCRACIES; JENNIFER WINDSOR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
FREEDOM HOUSE; MORTON HALPERIN, DIRECTOR, OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE,
WASHINGTON OFFICE; OMAR NOMAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
REPORT OFFICE, UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
MR. CARLUCCI:Can
we all be seated.
MR. CARLUCCI:--
opportunities for democratic movements around the world.But
paradoxically at the same time, it produced unprecedented
threats and challenges.Ethnic and communal hatreds, even in
the heart of Europe, growing disparity between the have and
have-not nations, terrorism, renegade states, and the challenges
-- sometimes perplexing -- of globalization.Can the emerging
democracies handle these threats and challenges without eroding
civil liberties, the very foundation on which democracy is
built?Or is the new model the semi-authoritarian model?
Are there inherent tensions between our war on terror
and our desire to spread democracy around the world, even
recognizing that in the long run democracy is the best antidote
for terror?Are there places where we might not want immediate
democracy?Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, conceivably even Iraq.How
can democracies work more effectively together to meet these
challenges and threats?
These and a lot of other questions are the kinds of
questions I hope our panel will be addressing today.We have
a very knowledgeable and distinguished panel.Our first speaker
will be Jennifer Windsor, who is executive director of Freedom
House.She was with AID some nine years as head of the Center
for Democracy and Governance.She's an adjunct professor at
Georgetown Foreign Service School.She's worked on the Hill,
and she's going to talk to us about Freedom House's annual
report.
Our second speaker is Mort Halperin.Mort Halperin has
been a long-time democracy advocate.He's currently at the
Council on Foreign Relations, where he's establishing a center
for democracy and free enterprise.He's been director of the
State Department policy planning staff, and on the NSC as
director for democracy.He's one of our more innovative thinkers
around town.He's going to talk to us about the forthcoming
CFR report on challenges to democracy.
Our third speaker is Bob Hunter, who is currently a
senior advisor at RAND.You all know he was ambassador to NATO.He
was also NSC director for West European affairs. Long-time
advocate for democracy.He helped form the National Endowment
for Democracy and he is chairman of the board of the Council
of Community of Democracies.
Our final speaker will be Omar Noman, who is deputy
director of Human Development Report office at UNDP.Prior
to UNDP he taught at Oxford.He's been director of the economic
policy research unit in Pakistan, an advisor to the Ministry
of Finance and Planning.He's written numerous books and articles
on democracy, and he will talk to us about the UNDP report,
"Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented World."
With that, let me ask Jennifer if she'd take the podium
and review the Freedom House report.
MS. WINDSOR:I apologize first and foremost for being
technically challenged, but I'm going to try to use the Powerpoint
slides.I want to try to help frame this discussion today of
challenges and threats to democracy by reflecting on the state
of democracy, using some of our recent findings from our annual
survey of freedom in the world.As you all know, Freedom House
each year measures the progress and decline of political rights
and civil liberties for every country in the world, as well
as for 17 related and disputed territories.
Freedom House does not rate governments per se, but
rather the rights and freedoms enjoyed by individuals in each
country or territory.Thus, we factor in the role that state
and non-governmental factors can play in determining the level
of individual freedom within countries.For those of you who
do not have copies of our report, we do have some available
and we do have additional order sheets right outside the door.
As 2001 drew to a close, the world had reached a new
watermark in the number and proportion of democratically elected
governments.As seen in this first chart, tracking electoral
democracy, in all 121 of the world's 192 governments, or 63
percent, are electoral democracies.We define that to mean
they meet the minimum standards of conducting free and fair
elections, although theystill may have not put the full panoply
of civil liberties and political rights in place.Twenty years
ago, as you can see on the chart, electoral democracy is represented
in only 35 percent of all the world's countries.
Next we will look at the proportion of countries that
are considered to be free, partly free, and not free.And again,
according to this year's survey, there are 85 free countries
in which basic political rights and civil liberties are recognized,
whereas there are only 59 partly free countries, which we
define to mean that there is limited respect for political
rights and civil liberties.Oftentimes these states have made
progress, but suffer from an environment of corruption, weak
rule of law, ethnic and religious strife, and often in settings
in which a single political party enjoys dominance, despite
the façade of limited pluralism.Finally, there are 48 countries
that are ranked not free.
What is interesting about these two charts is that
while a record number of countries have reached the state
of electoral democracies, there are in fact over 35 countries
who remain partly free electoral democracies, in that they
have made some progress but have not made enough progress
in basic civil liberties and political rights to meet the
threshold of free states.
If you look at those countries right on the border
between free and partly free, there are two categories of
such countries.Some, like Bangladesh, Brazil, Honduras, Malawi,
Nicaragua, Nepal, and Turkey have been rated free some time
in the past, but since then have deteriorated to a partly
free status.Others have made improvements from a not-free
status, but haven't over the last 10, 15 years been able to
improve beyond a partly free status.Such countries include
Albania, Georgia, Guatemala, Macedonia, Moldova, Mozambique,
Paraguay, Sri Lanka, and Ukraine.
Thus, a key challenge for us today is how to deal with
these partially democratic societies.Many have stumbled on
the difficulties of implementing the institutional reforms
needed for a full democracy, to dispel the concentration of
executive power and grapple effectively with issues of corruption.
Others have simply reversed direction, although perhaps not
dramatically enough to draw substantial international attention.
In terms of the most serious regional challenges, we
need to look first at countries of the former Soviet Union.Where
in Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans there are no
not-free countries any more, and 67 percent of the countries
are considered to be free, among the 15 countries of the former
Soviet Union only 20 percent of those countries are free,
while the bulk -- that is, 80 percent -- remain partly or
not free.Obviously there has been substantial progress in
the last 20 years in this region, when there were in fact
no countries ranked free, but the former Soviet Union is indeed
lagging behind.
Turning the Africa, during the last 20 years Africa
has no doubt improved.In terms of free countries there has
been an increase from 8 percent in 1981 to 17 percent.At the
same time, the number of not-free countries has decreased
from 59 percent in 1981 to 36 percent in 2001.
Electoral democracies now constitute 38 percent of
states in the region.Africa is undoubtedly the most dynamic
part of the world in terms of fluctuating political performance.This
year alone seven African states registered gains for freedom,
while nine suffered significant setbacks.While there is clearly
some movement forward, Africa has obviously not seen a sustained
democratic breakthrough.
Finally I will turn to the 48 not-free countries.Every
year Freedom House gathers and lists the worst of the worst,
those countries that register the worst possible scores on
Freedom House's index.Those countries this year include Afghanistan,
Burma, Cuba, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan,
Syria and Turkmenistan.Of these what is interesting is that
seven out of those 10 countries are in fact Islamic majority
countries.I want to talk a little bit about what we see to
be the Islamic gap in terms of freedom in the world.
Most strikingly, there are no true democracies or free
countries within the Arab world, and there are a low proportion
of free and democratic Muslim majority states.Indeed, since
the early 1970s, when the third major historical wave of democratization
began, the Islamic world has seen little significant evidence
of improvements in political openness, respect for human rights,
and transparency.
As you can see by this graph of electoral democracies
in the Muslim world, in the non-Islamic world there are 100
electoral democracies out of 45 states-- over 75 percent.
In countries with an Islamic majority, 23 percent have democratically
elected governments.There is an even more dramatic freedom
gap between majority Islamic countries in the rest of the
world if you look in terms of the regional records in terms
of Freedom House's three broad categories.In countries in
which there is an Islamic majority, there is just one free
country -- Mali -- while 18 are rated partly free and 28 are
not free.
Over a 20-year period, the number of free countries
in the non-Islamic world increased by 34.The number of partly
free states grew by 10, while the number of not-free countries
declined by 22.Over this 2-year time frame, diametrical trends
were taking place in the Islamic world.The number of free
countries remains stuck at one, and the number of partly free
countries declined by two, while the number of not-free countries
increased by 10.In other words, while the countries of Latin
America, Africa, East and Central Europe, and south and east
Asia experienced significant gains for democracy and freedom
over the last 20 years, the countries of the Islamic world
experienced an equally significant increase in repressive
regimes.
This dichotomy persists in every region in which Islam
has a presence.A look at the political map of Africa is revealing.It
shows, for example, that among the majority Islamic countries
of the African continent, only one of the 20 countries is
rated free, 10 are partly free, and nine are not free.Similar
dichotomies are found in the east central Europe region, and
in the Asian region.
On the other hand, there are electoral democracies
which can be found in a number of Muslim countries, including
Albania, Bangladesh, Djibouti, the Gambia, Indonesia, Mali,
Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Turkey.However,
none of these countries has a majority Arab population.
So in terms of Freedom House's survey findings, the
single biggest regional challenge in terms of addressing the
current threats and challenges facing those who would support
the global expansion of democracy is how to encourage the
Arab world and the larger Islamic majority states to install
universally accepted political rights and civil liberties.
In conclusion, we can say that, yes, democracy is on
the march, but clearly significant challenges remain.We need
to focus on the partial democracies, as well as the remaining
not-free countries, especially in the regions of the former
Soviet Union, Africa and the Middle East, and North Africa.Thank
you.
MR. CARLUCCI:Mort, you're next up.
MR. HALPERIN:I know enough not to try to do a Powerpoint.It
would be disastrous.
I want to report to you on the tentative conclusions
of an independent task force that the Council on Foreign Relations
has established.The task force has not quite completed its
work, so I am giving you here a preview and an anticipation
of what the results will be.Theywill be formally released
at a meeting of the task force which will be held on the eve
of the Seoul conference, and we hope will be presented informally
to the governments before Seoul, and then formally by Professor
Geremek, who along with Secretary Albright are the two co-chairs
of the task force to the ministers at the Seoul conference.
One of the ideas underlining the Community of Democracy
was the notion that democratic states should behave in the
world as democratic states.That is that their behavior in
international institutions and their bilateral relations should
reflect the fact that they are democratic countries.Now this
is a revolutionary idea.I think it traces back in the modern
period to Ronald Reagan's democracy speech, in which he basically
put the United States on that track.The Community of Democracies
itself reflected a commitment to that view by the countries
that participated in that conference.And the Warsaw Declaration
is really the first international document in which democratic
states actually commit themselves to behave as democratic
states in the international community.
One of the most important ways in which they can do
that is to create a climate in which, as the secretary general
of the UN put it in his extraordinary speech to the Warsaw
Conference, that once a state enters the path of democracy,
it should not be taken off that path by violence or by other
unconstitutional action.The secretary general called upon
the states gathered in Warsaw in the Community of Democracies
to take steps to turn that aspiration into a reality.There
was a panel of ministers at Warsaw which discussed this subject,
and the communiqué issued by the convening group suggested
that it might be appropriate for a group of experts to look
at that subject and to make recommendations to the Community
of Democracies and to democratic states as to what additional
steps they might take to try to turn that aspiration into
a reality.
In response to that, on its own initiative, the Council
on Foreign Relations created an independent task force --
in this case an international task force with distinguished
representatives from around the globe, some former government
officials, some people who had worked in NGOs and some scholars
-- to come up with recommendations that would help to advance
this objective.
In thinking about it, the task force divided those
recommendations into: 1) steps that states should take and
international organizations should take before there is a
coup to try to prevent it or to be ready to deal with it effectively,
steps that should be taken when there is a threat to the constitutional
order in a country on the path of democracy.And then: 2) what
to do in situations where it does not appear feasible to restore
the previous democratic government.And finally it considered:
3) what role domestic and international law should play in
trying to deter and to punish those who unconstitutionally
interrupt the democratic process.
The task force has been discussing the importance of
the Community of Democracies itself, acting through its convening
group, to take an active role in this process.There are some
parts of the world, most notably Latin America, where there
is a regional organization that has this task assigned to
it and plays an active role when there are threats to democracy.In
those situations the task force suggests that the CD, acting
through the convening group, should play the role of coordinating
the rest of the world to support the leading role of the regional
organization, to make sure that other democratic countries
as they respond to a potential coup or a threat of coup, work
in coordination with and support the leading role of the regional
organization.
And where there is not a regional organization, the
task force recommendation suggests that the Community of Democracies
itself, acting through the convening group, or perhaps even
a small sub-group of the convening group, should take the
lead and play the role that the OAS council plays, for example,
in Latin America.This role entails reacting when there appears
to be a danger of a coup, or there is a coup, to lead and
organize the community of democratic states to try to respond
in a way that reduces the likelihood that there will be a
coup, or turns back the coup if one occurs.
That involves encouraging states that may be at risk
for coups to threaten their own international procedures.For
example, by making clear the legal obligation not to obey
the orders of coup-plotters who act against the constitution,
by creating a line of succession that might include people
outside the country so it is clear that there is a constitutional
democratic government that can function.For countries outside,
to not quickly or easily recognize the coup-plotters as the
legitimate government, to be in a position to put sanctions
in place against the coup-plotters, as for example was done
in Fiji and ultimately in Haiti, and to cooperation with each
other on steps including suspension of assistance that can
help the democratic forces struggling to prevent a military
coup.
The task force, as I say, also considered what to do
if, as in the case for example of Pakistan and others, it
does not appear for a variety of reasons possible to restore
the democratic government.There the task force is considering
a range of recommendations which involve, again, trying to
organize the democratic community so it speaks with a single
voice and puts forward a set of demands on the coup-plotters
as a pre-condition of any recognition of the coup-plotters
as an interim regime.That would include a commitment for a
firm date for free and fair elections, to be supervised by
an independent commission to prevent those participating in
the coup, or the interim regime, from running in that transitional
election or doing anything which changes the constitution
or denies individual liberty during the period in which the
new election is being organized.
Finally, as I said, the task force is considering the
question of how to strengthen the rule of law in dealing with
such threats.It noted that coups and other unconstitutional
acts are of course illegal acts in the countries in which
they take place, and that other governments can strengthen
their own rules so that they can help the government deal
with this illegal action by bringing those who take those
steps to justice.And finally, to consider the question whether
some forms of military coups or other violent interruptions
of the democratic process should be viewed as crimes that
come under the jurisdiction of the international community
as a whole.
As I say, the task force will complete its deliberations
in the next few days.It will informally present these views
to governments participating in the Community of Democracies
conference in advance, with the hope that it will find its
way into the Seoul action plan, and then the results will
be formally presented, both to the public and to the ministers
in Korea.Thank you.
MR. CARLUCCI:Robert Hunter.
AMB. HUNTER:Thank you very much, Frank.It's an honor
to be here, today.I want to thank in particular the Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars for giving us this
venue and leadership, and for enabling us at the Council of
Community of Democracies to help raise the curtain here in
the United States on this critical meeting in Seoul of the
Community of Democracies.I say critical because what is going
to happen there, building on what happened in Poland two years
ago, , will set the critical agenda for building those attitudes
and activities in the world that we must have if, to borrow
a current term from the American debate, we're to help move
from a Hobbesian to a Lockean world -- that is, a world governed
more by the rule of law than by the lack of rules and by anarchy,
a world that is filled more with hope than with counsels of
despair.
It's a great pleasure to have with us a representative
of the Korean host, deputy Minister Chang-Beom Cho, who himself
is personally playing a leading role in making sure that the
Seoul conference will be as successful as it must be in setting
the agenda for the period ahead.
It's an honor also to be here with Frank Carlucci.In
terms of promoting democracy, we go back a long way.I don't
know if you remember, Frank, when I worked for Sen. Ted Kennedy
and we visited Lisbon in November 1974 and, when we came back
--against the opposition of certain people in a certain administration
– the Senator got $50 million for Portugal.Frank Carlucci
was then sent out there to keep the lid on.But he took the
lid off and helped produce democracy rather than a fall into
communism in Portugal.I'm not so sure, Frank, that everybody's
really thanked you as much as they need to do so, but Portugal
is a free and democratic nation to a great extent because
of this gentleman sitting here, to promote the aspirations
of peoples for democracy.
My topic is democracy and terrorism.Think about that
topic.Fifteen months ago, I don't think anybody would have
linked those two subjects in a conference like this, or many
other conferences.The people who then talked about terrorism
are a fairly limited specialty community, and the ones who
talked about democracy were in a very separate community.If
you look at, for example, the 1999 NATO summit Strategic Concept,
setting the future of NATO, which is an alliance which has
been founded on values and on being relevant to the future,
the issue of terrorism occupies exactly four words -- four
mighty words, tragically, it turned out to be.
Democracy and terrorism is also one of the most difficult
and complex topics that you can deal with.It has a very long
history.It didn't just begin last year.And if you're going
to fight terrorism, it is critical to consider the relationship
of democracy as a process to civil society,to the rule of
law, to the consent of the governed as a basis for having
agovernment and society that will oppose terrorism when it
emerges.Of course, that does not apply to all terrorism.Some
people will never be reconciled, and terrorism will always
be a tool of choice for some.What you try to do is to minimize
it.
Now I say that democracy is necessary as part of a
stable basis for countering terrorismbecause totalitarian
countries can also defeat terrorism.There is very little terrorism
in some countries because police power can limit an awful
lot of terrorism while oppressing people, as in Iraq, today...The
trick is to counter terrorism in a free society, and you do
that through the methodologies of democracy in the broadest
sense of the term.
We have seen terrorism in modern societies – for example,
in Germany with the Baader-Meinhof, in Italy with the Red
Brigades.The reason I believe that eventually they were defeated
is that democracy finally was properly understood in terms
of the overall nature of those societies, so that people got
sick of having their societies seized or hijacked by the radical
few, and eventually turned it around.
We also have to be discriminate in the use of the word
terrorism, so that it does not become a blanket term that
can be used by some governments to exploit oppression of peoples
who may have legitimate grievances. I won't take a stand necessarily
on the Basques and what's happening in Northern Ireland,but
one does have to quote that radical philosopher who's already
been mentioned here today, who said at one pointthat “One
man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.”That radical
theorist, of course, was Ronald Reagan.I don't say that to
be facetious.I just say that one has to be careful.One does
not want the concept of terrorism to cover so much territory
that it can actually produce more terrorism.
One of the things that we are facing now in regard
to Iraq and to the aftermath of the current crisis, and we
are facing now in the aftermath of the war in Afghanistan,
is whether the steps we will take, along with allies, will
mean there is less terrorism in the future, and part of the
answer to that is more democracy.
This is very much like the pursuit of human rights.
In fact, I would say they are inextricably linked.And human
rights, as we know, have three classic elements, all of which
relate to the struggle against terrorism. One is the right
of people to be secure in their persons.Second is political
rights, which include the fundamentals of democracy but are
not limited to them.The third element of human rights, which
is often neglected and became at one point a competition between
ideological systems, is economic rights, the human right to
have a chance to pursue a better life for your family.These
three go together -- security of the person, political participation,
economic rights.
I think there's also a fourth elementthat's a part
of human rights, which is the right to be free of persecution
and bigotry.This is one of the toughest challenges we are
facing even today, in our society, as we see that so much
of the terrorist threat that we're worried about comes from
a particular part of the world and a small part of a particular
confession, namely Islam.The danger is that we will play into
the hands of the terrorists if we aren't free of bigotry.
There is the basic idea, constantly being tested over
the last 200 or 300 years, as to whether being a middle class
society is a necessary or the best basis as a seedbed for
democracy.Can you have democracy unless you have at least
hopes of being middle class?I think different societies have
come up with different answers.That is probably, however,
in general one of the most important elements, and it points
to the need to promote economic advance as a long-range counter
to terrorism.
There is also the idea that education in societies
is critical to the promotion of democracy, in putting down
deep roots and hence of having the basis to counter terrorism.We
often do not recognize the importance ofthis idea and the
need to advance education..
There is also another idea, which also goes back to
that philosopher I mentioned --Ronald Reagan, following Emmanuel
Kant -- which has a lot to do with the formation of the new
democracy movement of the last 15- 20 years.The idea, still
being tested, is that democracies don't make war on other
democracies.Let me also extend that to say that democracies
are less likely to have terrorism within their societies.This
is not 100 percent sure, but I would argue that democracy
is pretty much a requirement.One of the things that NATO tried
to do in the 1990s, with its Partnership for Peace, was to
try to extend democracy through the militaries, and hence
through the rest of society, in order to promote stability;
and, of course, one element of stability is not to see a reflux
of terrorism.
Now we're after 9/11, and there are a number of responses
that we have necessarily taken, but one of those responses
needs to be, and I think it's now recognized,to look at what
the long-term factors are that help to stimulate, if not the
terrorism of the criminals we saw here on 9/11and still see
with Al Qaeda, but passive or active support for terrorism
in a broader society -- what Mao Zedong called the sea of
the people within which the guerrilla – or terrorist – fish
must swim.We are now recognizing this I think full well.
If you look at President Bush's speech at Monterey,
Mexico, you will see some very powerful statements aboutthequestion
of poverty, the question of human rights, and the question
of democracy, in relation to combating support for terrorism.Democracy
of course is not an unalloyed benefit, if separated from other
requirements to make to genuine and to protect it. .There
is a risk of exploitation of the very freedoms of a free society,
as we saw on 9/11..There isa need to balance the efforts of
counter-terrorism, as our chairman has already said, against
civil liberties.Striking this balance, correctly, and not
eroding basic civil libertieis, is one of the most important
challenges we face, today -- in fact, this relates to one
of the primary goals of terrorists who know what their business
is, whih is to try to exploit democracy to get the victims
to undermine their own democracy.If we fall into that trap,
we have indeed validated Osama bin Laden.
Democracy, wrongly understood, also can say that you
can have it instantly.Here there is a question about whether
it can come too soon.I think that varies from society to society,
and it is not for us in this democratic society of our own
to tell somebody they can't have democracy or they're rushing
too fast.Those are decisions people will make for themselves.But
there is a risk democracy will be too shallow and too limited.There
is the possibility,for example, of someone’s saying: “We've
just had an election, so we must be a democracy. “ There was
a joke in the collapsed former East Germany at one point.They
would say, look, I've got my 100 Marks from the West German
government, so I must be prosperous.We’ve had one election,
si I must be a democrat.And I've got my West Germanpassport,
so I must be secure.And they found out it was all a little
more difficult.
There were two elections this past week -- one of which,
in Iraq, was remarkable in that it simplified the vote count.We
didn’t see the problems with punched ballots or Florida or
anything else like that.The count went extremely well and
it came out 100 percent for Saddam Hussein.
There is also a risk that just looking at elections
without the other factors I mentioned can lead to outcomes
that actually aid terrorism.InPakistani elections last week,
the Taliban did very well. .If you held a free election today
with the Palestinians, Yasser Arafat could very well win,
rightly or wrongly.If you held a free election in Egypt today,
I'm sure that -- to use a British expression -- Hosni Mubarak
would lose his deposit.And in Saudi Arabia, if Osama bin Laden
is still alive, he mightbe elected president of the Islamic
Republic of Saudi Arabia.That's why democracy has to be a
lot more.
Properly understood, I would argue democracy is the
most robust agent against the exploitation by terrorists of
our societies.Look what happened in this country after 9/11.I'm
not talking about the debate we've had in the government on
civil liberties and the like.I'm talking about the outpouring
of concern and coming together as a culture and a society
among the people in this country.Everybody who was physically
here became an American, with all that that word means in
democratic terms.We were misjudged as a society by Al Queda.We
were misjudged very badly.
This also relates, with democracy properly understood,
to the constituent elements.Education.Development.Health as
an important constituent of promoting democracy.Civil society.Civil
justice, and if not equality, at least the principle of equality
toward which one would want to move.Yes, anti-defamation,
whether here or elsewhere.All elements of this animal we call
democracy, including in relationship to counter-terrorism.
Over time, allthese matters have to be promoted, not
just in one country but in others.In Central Europe they're
learning.In the Middle East and elsewhere, I would say that
if democracy is not pursued vigorously, counter-terrorism
cannot succeed.Democracy is a critical and indispensable element
of the total package. But it is demanding, this total package.
It is going to be expensive.It's intrusive.It requires a long
degree of commitment.In the Middle East, we're going to have
to be there 20 to 30 years.We've already crossed that line.No
matter what happens in Iraq, we've crossed that line.
There are different models of democracy.“Made just
in the United States” is meaningless and indeed counterproductive.That's
the beauty of the Community of Democracies meeting in Seoul,
bringing together so many people with so many different attitudes
which can be brought together and operate in their own way
and carry this on for as long as we have to.
In this country, if we want to turn our tremendous
power to lasting influence, it has to be through creating
institutions, attitudes, processes and practices that work
for us. …because they also work for others.The glue, the spark
plug, the indispensable element has to be that flame of democracy
and what it must be stoked with in terms of other efforts
to keep that flame burning, not just here but everywhere.
Thank
you.
MR. CARLUCCI:Thank you very much, Bob.Omar Noman.
MR. NOMAN:This is the week that President Jimmy Carter
got awarded the Nobel prize for his great work for democracy
and human rights across the world.Soon after he was in Jamaica
illustrating vividly the reasons for his nobel award.So it
seems rather appropriate that we meet today at the center
dedicated to the last great American President to have received
this honour.A moving quote from Woodrow Wilson has resonated
across global launches of the Human Development Report, “
I would rather belong to a poor nation that was free than
to a rich nation that has ceased to be in love with liberty”.This
phrase has been quite inspirational for many of the launches.
I shall begin not only with thanks to the Woodrow Wilson
Center, but a complaint that I have on the Community of Democracies
organizers.I acquired very minor fame as the only person on
this planet who has been to North Korea but never to South
Korea.That record is about to be broken, so I hope you can
prevent me from coming.
Apart from the Nobel award, this has also been a month
where there has been a very major development through democratic
elections.The elections in Kashmir, represent a significant
phase in reducing tensions in South Asia.I'll come back to
that later.So while we worry about, quite rightly, the Bali
tragedy, it's worth mentioning the Kashmir issue and the elections
there.
I'm going to give a brief overview of this year's global
human development report, which is on deepening democracy
in a fragmented world.I'm also going to very briefly refer
to two other reports.One that a colleague will speak about
later, which is the Arab human development report.And a third,
report is the Indonesian national human development report.UNDP
now has a series of national human development reports in
about 130 countries, and the one that I'm going to refer to
today is Indonesia, not only because it's been in the news
but it's an excellent report on the challenges of democracy
in Indonesia.
The basic aim of the global report on democracy was
to try and shift the debate on democracy and development from
one that was mired in suspicion about democracy.There were
lingering doubts and suspicions associated with democracy.It
was either premature or it needed to be deferred because developing
countries needed ‘ good dictators’ for rapid growth.In any
case, it was inappropriate for international agencies to delve
into the politically sensitive areas relating to democracy.Hence
the aim of thisreport was to shift toward, an engaged a positive
discourse on democracy and development.It sees democracy not
only as one of the principal objectives of development, rather
than one that should be held in suspicion, but explored the
conditions in which democracy would aid other aspects of development,
including economic growth and social justice.
Within that context I want to point to five aspects
of the report which provide the texture of the debates we
have had in launches across the world.The first, and a point
not frequently made, is that the majority of Muslims in the
world now live under democracy.The Muslim world has elected
five female heads of state in the last decade.In the recent
Kashmir elections, one of the most positive developments was
the emergence of Mehbooba Mufti as a critical player in the
new alliance that has displaced the national conference.
In some of these countries, such as Bangladesh, there
have been very important innovations.There has been a provision
whereby interim government takes power to hold the parliamentary
elections.This arose from a certain lack of faith that a sitting
government will tamper with the electoral process. The constitutional
change in Bangladesh, which now has this provisional government
headed by a chief justice, has been a very significant development.
In Indonesia, where we quite rightly worry about the
horrors of Bali, it's also worth recalling that recently the
Indonesian parliament rejected Sharia (Islamic law) through
a democratic process -- and this is a good example of how
democratic processes themselves should confront challenges
of theocracy and terrorism.So there have been these profound
democratic developments in the Muslim world, which should
not be overlooked in the current climate of suspicion.
Now while we make that point, we, of course, recognize
that almost all of these new democracies are in serious trouble,
whether you are in Indonesia, whether you are in Nigeria or
in Bangladesh.So we're not trying to make a naïve point.There
are huge problems these countries face.But the whole point
is to support these democracies. Indeed to a place exceptional
value on supporting these Muslim democracies when they are
imperiled.
If you want to address the problem of deepening democracy
in Islamic countries, these are the countries to support.This
is a legitimate task, an important task for international
agencies.Any discourse that tries to hector and lecture Muslim
countries on democracies is in my view one to be avoided.What
you need at this very delicate stage are mechanisms which
promote, which facilitate, which encourage rather than lecture.
The second positive point on the democracy debate the
report talks about is how Asian values are no longer an obstacle
to democracy.I say this particularly with the conference in
Korea in mind.Had we done this report, let's say six years
ago, we would have had an assault on how Asian values somehow
are against democracy; that somehow rapid growth in Asia always
occurred under authoritarian governments and democracies could
not achieve poverty reduction.
What you actually have seen in Asia is a radical transformation
of this debate, not least because of the recovery after the
1997 crisis.The economic recovery that has occurred in many
of these countries has been under democracy.This is very important.And
of course Korea has led in this respect, but there have been
others.The new Thai constitution the minister referred to
is an exceptional document.The national corruption council
that has been set up is taking prime ministers and ministers
to court on corruption charges.Hence this change in the Asian
debate has been critical.
Further, India is now one of the fastest growing economies
in the world.That's in the context of a history whereby a
military ruled Pakistan would outperform democratic India
on the economic front.So that has also helped in transforming
the Asian debate on democracy and growth.The big Asian democracy
is no longer the economic laggard.
The third factor that we point to as positive change
is the degree to which in many countries of the former Soviet
Union democracy has been consolidated.While we appreciate
that there are huge problems inmany post Soviet countries,
there is very little doubt that in Russia, democracy has been
consolidated in a way that many would not have expected.No
matter what you may think about other developments, in Russia
there is very low probability that democracy will be reversed.So
a whole series of consolidatory processes in countries such
have Russia have enormously helped change the debate on democracy
& development.
Of course in this context it is also worth mentioning
that despite the various economic challenges and instabilities
that Latin America has faced democracy has been sustained
.It is worth noting that even in the current crisis in Argentina
nobody seriously expects that democracy will be replaced by
a military coup.This positive environment in many ways augurs
well for the consolidation of democracy across the world.
However, this report is not a naïve celebration of
the spread of democracy.Much of it is about the deficiencies
and the deficits that are visible across the world, and in
some cases are growing.We point pointedly to the issue of
lack of social justice, the lack of economic growth creating
serious problems in many democracies.In many democracies where
the change in the shift to democracy is accompanied by growing
inequalities, by rapidly growing poverty, the tensions are
acute & threaten democracy.It is very difficult, no matter
how well intentioned political leaders and many political
parties may be, to sustain fragile democracies when their
economic base erodes, when you have policies that are seriously
undermining social justice.That is a very major concern that
we point to repeatedly in the report.
Another form of deficit that is more related to the
formal systems of democracy is where elected leaders behave
like their authoritarian predecessors, crushing institutions
such as the press or the judiciary.And whatever you may think
of leaders such as Shareef, they clearly undertook a series
of measures which undermined democratic institutions.
A third democratic deficit affects well established
democracies as well as new ones. The Achilles heel of democracy
are minorities, specially minorities that are not needed for
electoral reasons.Minorities that are not needed electorally
can feel very vulnerable in majoritarian democracies.In this
context, we point to that famous example in South Africa where
the ANC, by giving a seat to Chief Buthelezi, which was not
required on the basis of majoritarian rule, did something
critical for an inclusive democracy.This wise and magnanimous
gesture was fundamental to the success of democracy in post-apartheid
South Africa.
When we pay so much attention to democracy deficits,
we were acutely aware that we would be accused of harboring
some latent desires for the return to authoritarian rule.That
we are assaulting at democracies, as part of some kind of
hidden agenda of the report.So we are very conscious in the
report to remind people of the horrors of authoritarianism
in the 20th century.We point to the fact that something
like 170 million democides occurred in the 20th
century; willful killing by government.We point to the fact
that in the 1990s there was a serious famine in North Korea
where the cause was not the lack of food but the lack of democracy.This
was another reminder of the work of Professor Sen, who is
very closely associated with our report, and has frequently
pointed out how famines have been caused not by food shortage
but by the absence of freedom.I could go on and on about the
various horrors of authoritarianism that we document, which
all of you are very familiar with.
The above is a summary of the 5 major issues that have
attracted attention in the Human Development Report launches.
Let me end on a personal note.I'm originally from Pakistan.I've
lived in a country that broke because of the absence of democracy,
because we were not willing to transfer power to the Bengalis,
the majority ethnic group, and this led to Bangladesh.Pakistan
currently faces a complex choice of how to move toward a democracy.
Let me end, however on one positive feature. Even in
the South Asian context, no elected civilian government in
Pakistan has gone to war with India.Thank you.
MR. CARLUCCI:Thank you very much, Omar.One of our panelists,
Mort Halperin, has to leave.So if there are questions specifically
for Mort, let's take them.
Q:Dr. Rahman Mansour.I work at National Endowment for
Democracy.Forgive my broken English.I wanted to outline some
absent facts about Muslim world and democracy.
MR. CARLUCCI:Can we be brief on this?
Q:Yes.First, there is a gap, or you can say a contradiction
between Islam as a religion as Muslims as history and civilization
and human acts.
Number
two, Muslims are three categories, or three groups, Sufi,
and there are moderate Shiia.But the fanatics are the Sunni.Inside
the Sunni category there are four schools of jurisprudence.The
most fanatical the school is Hambali.Inside the Hambali, the
hardest teaching belongs to Ednatamiya (ph).Inside Ednatamiya
the hardest teachings belong to al-Wahabia. Al-Wahabia is
a belief of Saudi Arabia kingdom.
By the oil and by the help of America, the teaching
of Wahabia spread out all over the Muslim world and inside
the Islamic groups in West and United States.
MR. CARLUCCI:We need to get to the question.
Q:This is not a question.This is a comment to clarify
many absent facts.This teaching of Wahabia is the culture
of terrorists that produced Osama bin Laden.The question is,
if United States you help in creating this monster and you
deal with this monster gently.I think Saddam Hussein is a
small, helpless monster locked up in a cage.The real monster
is this culture of terrorism that has spread out all over
the Muslim world and endanger all the human beings and especially
the democratic trends inside Islamic world.Thank you.
MR. CARLUCCI:Do any of the panelists want to comment
on that?
MR. HUNTER:I'll start with a reputation of the premise
that there is something inherently impossible in Islam to
be compatible with democracy, just as our colleague here talked
about recognition that democracy is compatible with so-called
Asian values.So I start with that as a premise. I see nothing
in the Koran, or the Hadith, or anything else that indicates
that democracy is not potentially or actually a human aspiration
within Islam as it is in other confessions.
The first responsibility of dealing with what you've
accurately described as Wahadism therefore rests with Muslims
themselves, to counter it within the various Muslim communities,
whether you take any one of the branches that you talked about
-- Sufism, which spreads across, of course, both Shiiaism
and the Sunnis -- or wherever it's found, or whatever flavor.
It is then part of the responsibility of others so
that the seeds of the terrorists which draw upon a very narrow
school of Islam don't fall on fertile soil.Countering them,
as we have in Saudi Arabia, as we do in pursuing al Qaeda
and Osama bin Laden, et cetera, through robust means, has
to be augmented with pursuing the opportunity for the seeds
to grow in fertile soil.You can't do the two together.So we
have a responsibility, but so do the people of the Islamic
world.
MR. CARLUCCI:You had a question or a comment here?
Q:My name is Afkhami Mahnaz, Women's Learning Partnership.I
wanted to thank the presenters for their very interesting
approaches, but one thing I thought was missing as well, and
that is that in the panel on challenges and threats to democracy,
there wasn't much of a comment concerning the majority of
the peoples of the earth, the women, who have very minimal
participation across the world basically, even in the developed
democracies.
I think that somehow interconnecting the democracy
movement with those movements that have to do with the betterment
of the status of women is extremely important.In reference
to Muslim societies especially, the status of women seems
to be an extremely important indicator of the level of both
development and democratization in these societies.I wondered
if any of the presenters have a comment as to how to approach
that better, or how to integrate the women's status into the
democracy movement?
MR. CARLUCCI:I think your point is well taken.Jennifer,
Omar?
MR. NOMAN:I'm glad you made this point.Perhaps it was
because of the gender imbalance of the various panels that
it hasn't been stressed.I just wanted to make two points related
to that.One, in the report, the global human development report,
you will see a section on the countries which have 30 percent
or over participation of women, representation of women in
parliament, have all used quotas of women.This includes the
Nordics, but also includes one of the poorest countries in
the world, Mozambique.We have endorsed very strongly the use
of parliamentary quotas wherever countries -- as a mechanism
of expanding this.
Second, on your point on the Muslim world, and obviously
the huge gender deficits, to put it so mildly, that exist
there. One of the critical issues the development agencies
can do is mandatory female education and support for it.Mandatory
primary education in any case.To take one particular example,
Pakistan has received $50 billion of aid and it's got a female
literacy rate of 20 percent.It's a disgraceful record for
aid, and of course for the domestic priorities.That has to
change, and if you were going to make a critical investment
for women in the Muslim world, mandatory primary education
is a damned good start
MR. HUNTER:I'd just add one word.You're 100 percent
correct, and we salute you for your personal leadership in
making sure that this issue rises to the top of the pile.Thank
you.
MR. CARLUCCI:Let me just make a comment.There seems
to be a difference, at least a difference in tone, between
the Freedom House report and UNDP report, particularly as
it pertained to the Muslim world.You're more upbeat.You saw
more challenges to democracy in the Muslim world.Do either
of you want to comment on that?
MS. WINDSOR:I'm assuming that it's always interesting
to compare statistics.We were commenting specifically on Muslim
majority states, so that is not necessarily incompatible with
majority of Muslims living under democracies because of course
India has substantial Muslim population, as does Indonesia,
Bangladesh, Turkey, other countries.So I'm assuming that's
where the difference.
I don't think it's necessarily that we're -- I was
not commenting about the future.I was commenting about the
past.My personal opinion related to the problems with democracy
in Islamic world has to do with the leadership in those countries,
and what needs to be done in terms of reforming the state
structures.I don't think there's anything that's incompatible
about it.I think it just represents the biggest challenge
that we all need to focus on, and in a positive supportive
way, certainly allowing those countries and the reformers
within those countries, which I think are increasingly active,
to make some headway in a very important region.
MR. NOMAN:I refer to that a bit in the comments, that
I think the critical issues to change the debate, to recognize,
first of all, that yes, there are huge democratic deficits
in the Muslim world, but to point to the critical developments
that are happening.The majority of Muslims are living in democracies.Indonesia
is the largest Muslim country.Bangladesh is the second largest.These
are democracies.There are problems with them.That's the way
to go forward on this issue.The largest Muslim country has
an elected president, prime minister.I think that is very
much one of the issues that has acquired enormous traction
in the global launches.It also came with the Arab human development
report, and I won't speak to that because there's a separate
panel on it, which focused on the absence of freedoms in the
Arab world, a courageous, terrific report.
So we will never be naïve about the challenges, but
we were -- through the global report and through the follow-up
we've continuously made the point that these are the large
Muslim democracies that need support by international agencies.
MR. CARLUCCI:Questions from the audience?
Q:I'm John Sewell.I'm a senior scholar here at the
Wilson Center.I was very glad that Bob Hunter linked together
economic and developmental freedoms with democracy.I'd like
to pose a question just to get the reactions of the panel,
particularly the gentleman from UNDP.It seems to me that the
link is now very close, but that in discussions of democracy
promotion it doesn't often get made, partly because we're
compartmentalized in our individual interests.
The links are positive in the sense that most people
in the development community believe that participation in
key development decisions is one of the critical elements
of success, and for that reason the World Bank now has mandated
that each country that receives World Bank aid will have a
participatorily developed development plan, which of course
has considerable relevance to democracy.So on the positive
side there's a great push for peoples' participation in decisions
that affect their own lives through the actions of the development
agencies.
The negative side, however, is that all of our experience
with the industrial revolution in old industrial countries
says that unless there's a social safety net in place, the
problems of market liberalization are very great.That was
at least in part a cause of the disaster in the inter-war
period, and the rise of fascism.I think there needs to be
an intellectual and policy link made between those people
who believe in the magic of the marketplace for the third
quote of our former president, and a promotion of democracy.That
is, promoting unfettered market liberalism without a set of
policies in place within countries to buffer the inevitable
impacts will pose a major threat to democracy over the next
several decades.
I'd value reactions from Bob Hunter or Omar or anybody
else.
MR. HUNTER:First, thanks to John Sewell and the other
members of the board here, and staff of the Council for a
Community of Democracies for the work that you're doing and
that I have the opportunity to take the credit for from time
to time.But I recognize the tremendous role that's being played.
Secondly, those of you who don't know, John Sewell
for so many years led the Overseas Development Council, which
fought to keep these issues in front of policymakers here
and abroad in a way that would be effective and achieved an
awful lot.
I would testify that I'm going way out on a limb.I
think one thing that happened after 9/11, of demonstrating
whether this is the dark side of globalization or something
else, a phenomenon of vulnerability, the answer to which has
to be finally an understanding of the integrated quality of
international society, and that a lot of the issues we've
put into compartmentalization, whether it's democracy and
whether it's security, whether it's development and health
and education, have to be seen on an interactive and almost
holistic basis.Choices obviously have to be made, but unless
you see them together, even that fundamental quality we call
security is not going to be achieved.
We've been given, I think, a wake-up call, but it's
a wake-up call taking us into a new era that is not going
to change back to the old era.We have a lot of money, we've
got a leadership, we have a lot of opportunity in this country
to get it right, and I think this is kind of the clarion call
that needs to come out of Seoul as to why democracy now is
not a secondary phenomenon but it is, to use the German phrase,
the sferplanck (ph), the leading edge of starting very slowly,
but I hope very surely we can get these things right.
MR. NOMAN:I'm very glad you raised this issue.The report
goes into this in some detail, and I want to make two comments.As
you know, there are few developing countries who went against
the kuznetska (ph), that inequality is going to increase because
you've got high growth, and of course many of them were East
Asian.And we point to the need that especially in democracies
where social injustices are increasing, where inequalities
are sharply increasing, looking at the East Asian experience.Why
is it that they managed to do the things that they did, and
some of the policies that they pursued?I fully endorse what
you are saying.
The countries that are not doing it, the democracies
that are not doing it, they will be undermined by social injustice,
inequality.
The second point, we do have a look at correlation
of democracy and growth where across 150 years you don't get
a simple correlation. You'd like to believe it, but of course
it's not there.
MR. CARLUCCI:We've had a long morning.Let me take one
more question.
QMy name is David Anable.I'm the president of the International
Center for Journalists, and we partner on occasion with Freedom
House.We do training of journalists worldwide to try and improve
the quality of journalism, and also thereby to underpin democracy.
None of the panelists have mentioned journalism.None
of the panelists has mentioned freedom of the press.A recent
report within the past 12 months from the World Bank showed
a direct correlation between the freedom of the press and
the ability to have development. I wonder if any of the panelists
would like to comment on that.
MR. HUNTER:Free press, free speech, freedom of assembly,
freedom to worship, freedom to love journalists even when
you don't like them is part of democracy.One of the great
ironies today is that we have a proliferation of sources of
information but not necessarily a proliferation of sources
of wisdom and knowledge.I look perhaps less to this newspaper
to find out what's going on in the world than I do to the
Web, but thank God for the Web.Anybody who wants to get at
this has a chance.
But it has also been demonstrated that there are some
modern societies that still, through the persecution of a
free press, can do an awful lot to keep people from knowing
what they have to know.As Frank Carlucci said in three words,
we all agree.
MS. WINDSOR:I just would like to say a couple of points.One
is, I think the importance of the issue of media in democracy
is seen particularly in the upcoming Community of Democracies
conference by the fact that there are both governmental and
non-governmental sessions on the issues related to media and
democracy.That's the only issue that has both a governmental
and non-governmental focus.
Second, I would say that we do actually produce, as
you know, the press freedom survey, copies of which are available
outside as well, so Freedom House has long recognized the
importance of press.One of the trends that we have seen in
the last several years is that the threat to media and freedom
and independence of the media has been actually manifesting
itself in a more subtle fashion, and that is the economic
constraints that are put on the role of media.So that, I think,
is a challenge for all of us to try to grapple with, sometimes
than less overt ways that media are controlled by economic
forces.Again, it ties into John Sewell's point about the connection
between the broader economic and development issues and democracy.
I think one of the things that we're going to be looking
at this year is how much in the post-9/11 era have we seen
in the increase in laws related to sedition, or some sort
of constraints related to 9/11.So that's one of the theses
we're going to test in terms of our data and then after your
press --
MR. CARLUCCI:I
think the machinery is telling us we've reached the conclusion.
Let me
thank the panelists…..
(END OF PANEL #2.)
(C) COPYRIGHT
2002, FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC., 620 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING,
WASHINGTON, DC 20045, USA.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.ANY REPRODUCTION,
REDISTRIBUTION OR RETRANSMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.UNAUTHORIZED
REPRODUCTION, REDISTRIBUTION OR RETRANSMISSION CONSTITUTES
A MISAPPROPRIATION UNDER APPLICABLE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW,
AND FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO PURSUE
ALL REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO IT IN RESPECT TO SUCH MISAPPROPRIATION.
FEDERAL
NEWS SERVICE, INC. IS A PRIVATE FIRM AND IS NOT AFFILIATED
WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.NO COPYRIGHT IS CLAIMED AS TO
ANY PART OF THE ORIGINAL WORK PREPARED BY A UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AS PART OF THAT PERSON'S OFFICIAL
DUTIES.
|