What does the US stand for? Ask your average American and I’m sure the answer would include the word “democracy”. From its foundation the USA has practiced some form of government by the people, though of course in the past the term “people” was interpreted more narrowly. Nevertheless, the notion that government legitimacy flows from the ballot box is as American as apple pie.
For this reason, it’s no surprise that successive administrations in Washington have tried to portray their foreign policy with reference to this noble idea. In American government propaganda, US allies, aka “the good guys”, are democratic and peace-loving while America’s enemies, “the bad guys”, are despotic and bellicose. A cursory look at US policy confirms that this is nonsense.
During the Cold War the US supported dozens of despotic leaders across the world including Suharto in Indonesia, Pinochet in Chile and various hand-chopping sheiks in the Gulf. American support for these regimes had nothing to do with high ideals and everything to do with base economic self-interest. Any country prepared to do business with the US on American terms was a friend, regardless of the political system they practiced.
Indeed the US went further than just supporting undemocratic regimes already in existence. It also toppled, or attempted to topple, democratic regimes which were judged to be anti-American. The CIA, lately exposed as a poor defender of American lives at home, was and is an expert at undermining governments abroad. The US backed coups in Iran in 1953 and in Chile twenty years later are just two examples of this policy in action. The US has consistently undermined popularly elected leaders who paid more heed to the national self-interest than the American bottom line. Such a policy is the antithesis of democracy.
Yet when confronted with an undemocratic foe, the US abandons all logic and decries their adversary’s lack of popular suffrage. Thus Cuba is attacked and isolated not, we are told, because of its economic system, but because it doesn’t hold free and fair elections. The reality is that the White House doesn’t care a jot if the man in power in Havana is a saint or a sinner as long as he plays ball with US business interests.
Following 9-11, US policy has been concerned not just with economics but also with “the war on terror”. As Bush himself said “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.” Thus the world was divided into “us”, supporters of Bush’s eternal war, and “them” everyone else, including not just sworn enemies but also long-standing friends who happened to have an alternative point of view. Democracy doesn’t come into it.
Once again good little dictators like Musharaf get the red carpet treatment at the White House. Old allies meanwhile are lambasted when the out-workings of their political systems produce results which the US dislikes. Hence the Spanish are “cowards” for electing a socialist government and Gerhard Schroeder is “noticeably unhelpful” in making Iraq an election issue.
In the Third World countries impertinent enough to elect independent-minded leaders are subject to constant US pressure to “reconsider” their choice. In Venezuela, the US is, to all intents and purposes, at war with the regime of Hugo Chavez. In 2002 they supported a coup against him, the following year they encouraged a general strike in the country’s oil industry. This year they’re backing a California style recall effort. What has Chavez done to deserve this? Does he have a poor human rights record? Not particularly. Is he a physical threat to the US? Of course not. His only crime is to be in control of a rather large pool of oil and to have “ideas above his station.”
Do Americans know how their government behaves to the rest of the world? At some level even the most disinterested US citizen must be aware that US foreign policy is not motivated by the noble pursuit of democracy. Ask your average American why their government supports the Saudi autocracy and you’re likely to get a three letter answer.
However at another level, many Americans seem to be in denial. Five years ago I was talking to a group of well educated, politically moderate Americans in Washington. The conversation somehow got round to South America and I mentioned that the US has supported some nasty regimes in that continent. There was an awkward silence before someone changed the subject. I felt like I’d farted in front of the Pope. A major social faux pas.
It could be that this anecdote is not indicative of a wider tendency, that Americans are happy to acknowledge the reality of their government’s foreign policy. But if my experience was typical then, why? Why can’t Americans articulate the plain fact that their government has stifled the spread of democracy around the world? Perhaps in an ever-changing world, it’s comforting for them to cling to the idea that their country is a light onto nations, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. I don’t know, I’m no psychiatrist.
It’s ironic because it’s the rhetoric rather than the policy which is indefensible. To speak of democracy and freedom while supporting the exact opposite is rank hypocrisy. But to support those regimes which co-operate with your economic interests is a logical policy. Why not support regimes which pursue pro-American policies? Why not oppose those who don’t? To hell with democracy, it’s all about the green.
I’m not saying that I agree with this line of reason, I don’t. I am saying though that it is at least a line of reason. To my mind it is deeply wrong to support “friendly” dictators but, once the phoney rhetoric is dropped, such a policy has a cold, cynical, realpolitik rationale behind it. So if anyone wants to defend US policy on these grounds, fine go ahead, we can have a proper debate. But please leave the talk of good intentions at the door.