Fill out the brief form below for access to the free report.
In Case You Missed It: Elliott Abrams on “Democracy and the Pivot to Asia”
Elliott Abrams from the Council on Foreign Relations and former deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser during the administration of President George W. Bush, recently contributed an article as a guest contributor to the Freedom Collection. Mr. Abrams discusses the continuing importance of democracy and human rights in the United States’ evolving relations with Asia. This blog originally appeared on www.freedomcollection.org. The great “pivot to Asia” that is said to mark American foreign policy these days raises a critical human rights issue: is democracy promotion part of the “pivot,” or a casualty of it? As Christian Caryl wrote on foreignpolicy.com, “it’s no wonder that Washington policymakers describe both trade and security as central to their new Asian agenda. But in the meantime a lot of people have forgotten that the pivot was always supposed to be based on a third ingredient: support for democracy.” Secretary Clinton has certainly stated this clearly: “I have to say that in many ways, the heart of our strategy, the piece that binds all the rest of it together, is our support for democracy and human rights.” The question is, how do we translate that objective into an effective policy? Secretary Clinton listed several initiatives: “We’ve created an emergency fund for NGOs and individuals who come under threat. We have strongly supported a Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Assembly at the UN Human Rights Council. We have created a new global forum, the Open Government Partnership, to promote transparency, accountability, and the rule of law. And we speak out on behalf of marginalized people — racial, religious, ethnic minorities, LGBT people, and yes, still women.” Every one of these is a positive contribution. But in my experience, the most effective form of democracy promotion is direct rather than indirect. It does not come from financing NGOs, or UN rapporteurs, but from direct U.S. government pressure on foreign governments to stop abusing human rights and allow for some political opening. Here is an example: Egyptians who were active in the struggle for democracy during the Mubarak years have commented to me, and to many others, that the regime got off their backs during 2004-2006. They were arrested less often, could publish more daring comments in the press, and could speak more freely. This was the moment of the toughest U.S. pressure on Mubarak to lighten up, symbolized by then-Secretary of State Rice’s speech about democracy and reform at American University in Cairo in 2005. These Egyptians attribute the relaxation of pressure on them, and the slightly more open window for dissent and for political activities, to direct pressure from the top of the U.S. government. They do not ever say “thanks for the NGO activities” or “thanks for the UN rapporteurs.” And in my own view, those more indirect ways of pressing for democratic change can be too easy for the United States. They rarely threaten bilateral relations with the country in question, nor do they interfere with security or commercial relationships. But I think they are rarely as effective as targeted, top-level pressure: comments by the President and Secretary of State, made openly as well as in private, naming countries rather than vaguely referring to the need for progress. The next administration, whether Republican or Democratic, will continue the pivot to Asia due to the challenges and opportunities we face there. Whether that will include a robust democracy element remains to be seen. But we should judge whether it exists not by listing indirect, all too easy steps for our country to take through NGOs or through the UN; we should instead insist on tougher, sometimes more difficult, direct American support for political openings. In the Reagan years, I recall Secretary of State George P. Shultz placing human rights at the top of his discussion list when he met with Soviet officials. Why? Because if it were near the bottom, the Russians would think those issues were near the bottom of Shultz’s, and Reagan’s, true concerns. That’s a lesson we should recall during the “pivot to Asia.”
Lindsay Lloyd is the Director of the Human Freedom Initiative at the George W. Bush Institute, where he manages original research and programmatic efforts to advance freedom and democracy in the world. Lindsay currently leads the Bush Institute’s Freedom in North Korea project, which raises awareness of human rights violations in North Korea, proposes new policy solutions, and engages leaders to help improve the lives of the North Korean people. Lindsay is also responsible for managing the Freedom Collection, a multimedia archive that documents the stories of nonviolent freedom advocates from around the word.
Prior to joining the Bush Institute, Lindsay served for 16 years at the International Republican Institute (IRI), most recently as senior advisor for policy. Previously, he was IRI’s regional director for Europe and co-director of the regional program for Central and Eastern Europe, which was based in Slovakia. At IRI, Lindsay worked with candidates, elected officials, political parties, and civil society activists to develop lasting democratic institutions.
Before joining IRI, Lindsay worked for several members and the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives, as political director for a political action committee, and for Jack Kemp’s 1988 presidential campaign. He graduated from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service.Full Bio
Chinese Prisoner’s Death Holds a Message for Americans and China
Liu Xiaobo, China’s most prominent dissident and Nobel Peace Prize winner died this week. His death holds a message for Americans and for China.
Release of Chinese Political Prisoner a Timely Reminder to Support Freedom Advocates Abroad
More than half the world’s population still lives in countries where basic political rights and civil liberties are only partly respected, if at all.
Bringing Freedom to the Forefront of 21st Century Politics
Is the global liberal democratic order in danger? Purposefully constructed in the aftermath of World War II, this order -- and the American leadership that is central to its success --has contributed to securing peace and expanding prosperity in the United States and around the world. Today, that order appears to be dissolving. This crisis is not new or sudden; it has been mounting for several years. Global challenges like authoritarian capitalism, violent extremism, demographic pressures, and displaced populations have placed global freedom in decline. Fraying traditional alliances united by core values of freedom are increasingly weak to respond. It is alarming that the downdraft in democratic resilience over the past decade or more includes countries that have long been part of the consolidated democratic West. This is democratic deconsolidation. In much of the Western world, we see a rise in demagogic populism, illiberalism, nationalism, protectionism, and waning conf
The Importance of Speaking Truth to Tyrants
What the president of the United States says matters. Even during the realpolitik policies of détente under Richard Nixon, it was still clear that American policy was based on a set of core values. Nixon’s practical goals of reaching deals with America’s adversaries was never based on the “great chemistry” with himself or praising the Soviet or Communist Chinese leadership doing a “fantastic job.” When the president aligns himself with the autocrats and dictators, he aligns America with their oppression. He sends a message that corruption and brutality are not our concern. Contrast that with how Ronald Reagan defied much of world opinion in calling out the brutality of the Soviet system. Natan Sharansky, then a refusenik imprisoned in a Soviet gulag, later wrote for the Weekly Standard of his thoughts on Reagan’s pronouncement that the USSR was an evil empire: “It was the great, brilliant moment whe