Democracy News

CEIP Report Gives Mixed Reviews on Obama’s Democracy Policy
January 20, 2012
By: Rebecca Aaberg | Printer Friendly

On January 12, 2012, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) released a report by Thomas Carothers, founder and director of the Democracy and Rule of Law Program, which analyzes the Obama administration’s engagement with democracy promotion titled, “Democracy Promotion Under Obama: Revitalization or Retreat?” The report, part of a series released at the end of each presidential term, includes a broad overview of Obama’s policies as well as an analysis of specific international events that affected democracy. Carothers views Obama’s policies as a mixture of positive rhetoric and only moderate engagement, and writes: “The Obama team’s overall engagement on democracy support is multifaceted and significant, and is rooted in a set of guiding principles that have helped revitalize the United States’ (US) profile on the topic. At the same time, the administration downplays democracy and human rights in a number of nondemocratic countries for the sake of other interests. This inconsistency represents a familiar pattern rather than a change in US policy.”

Carothers divides Obama’s relationship with democracy promotion into three segments: 1) retreat from the previous administration’s policies, 2) multilateral engagement, and 3) policy changes as a reaction to the Arab Spring. According to Carothers, when Obama entered office, both the reputation of democracy in the US and of the US’ ability to effectively promote democracy were damaged by the Bush administration. He indicates that the forcible change in policy of Bush’s pro-democracy campaign negated principles of international cooperation and human rights. By mid-2009, Obama began to speak out in favor of democracy promotion by utilizing an active human rights policy and democracy diplomacy.  However, at the same time, in July 2009 the Obama administration made the decision to cut funding from USAID to civil society groups in Egypt, restricting funds to official non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and implying tacit support of the Mubarak regime.  Carothers also criticizes Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton for her explicit avoidance of democracy with her “three D’s” approach to international engagement: diplomacy, defense, and development. 

As the Arab Spring brought new political actors to the international sphere, the Obama administration acted in favor of democracy promotion, moving away from a rhetoric-only approach.  After the ousting of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Obama promised $65 million in democracy support and another $1 billion in debt relief, as well as $1 billion in loan guarantees, showing his support for building democracy in the country. Carothers concludes that Obama’s relationship with democracy promotion requires a long-term strategy rather than short-term goals.  As president, Obama supported rising democracies like Brazil, India, Indonesia, and Turkey by focusing on a multilateral approach through international consensus, and committed to international anticorruption campaigns. However, though Carothers sees the gains throughout the administration as moving toward promoting democracy, he also acknowledges the autocracies in the Gulf States and the continuation of downplaying democracy in favor of oil and counterterrorism efforts in sub-Saharan Africa as blind spots for the Obama administration.

Carothers ends the report by explaining that Obama’s effectiveness in democracy promotion has been mixed, stating: “The real weight of the administration’s broadly stated commitment to democracy and human rights is also undercut by its pursuit of friendly ties with many nondemocratic governments for the sake of countervailing economic and security interests.” Finally, he suggests the following recommendations for improving democracy policy: 1) push autocrats to reform, 2) continue funding democracy assistance programs, 3) rethink relations with the Arab world, 4) engage with new actors, and 5) strengthen democracy at home.

In conjunction with the release of the report, CEIP convened a panel discussion, inviting David Kramer, the president of Freedom House, and Jeremy Weinstein, a political scientist from Stanford University, to speak about the findings in Carothers’s report, POMED reported.  In Kramer’s assessment, “Obama came up short” because of the confusion in his retreat from broader democracy promotion as well as the lack of supporting democracy as a component of human rights policy.  For Weinstein, the administration’s other interests beyond democracy limited the response of the US in promoting democracy during the Arab Spring.  Weinstein added that “fear” of whether the movements’ outcomes would damage strategic interests restricted the US from taking further action, Democracy Digest reported.

For previous news on the United States, please see:
US Department of State Establishes the Office for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights

Sources:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace – Democracy Policy Under Obama: Revitalization or Retreat? (Executive Summary)

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace – Democracy Policy Under Obama: Revitalization or Retreat? (Full Report)

Democracy Digest – Obama’s Reclaimed, Revitalized Democracy Policy

POMED Wire – POMED Notes: “Democracy Promotion Under Obama: Revitalization or Retreat?”