DOCSLIB.ORG

Democracy in US Security Strategy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Democracy in US Security Strategy Democracy in U.S. Security Strategy CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & From Promotion to Support CSIS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 1800 K Street | Washington, DC 20006 project director and Tel: (202) 887-0200 | Fax: (202) 775-3199 principal author E-mail: [email protected] | Web: www.csis.org Alexander T.J. Lennon contributing authors Larry Diamond Francis Fukuyama Michael McFaul researcher Matthew J. Owens March 2009 ISBN 978-0-89206-567-7 CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & Ë|xHSKITCy065677zv*:+:!:+:! CSIS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES Democracy in U.S. Security Strategy From Promotion to Support project director and principal author Alexander T.J. Lennon contributing authors Larry Diamond Francis Fukuyama Michael McFaul researcher Matthew J. Owens March 2009 About CSIS In an era of ever-changing global opportunities and challenges, the Center for Strategic and Inter- national Studies (CSIS) provides strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decisionmak- ers. CSIS conducts research and analysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. Founded by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke at the height of the Cold War, CSIS was dedicated to the simple but urgent goal of finding ways for America to survive as a nation and prosper as a people. Since 1962, CSIS has grown to become one of the world’s preeminent public policy institutions. Today, CSIS is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. More than 220 full-time staff and a large network of affiliated scholars focus their expertise on defense and security; on the world’s regions and the unique challenges inherent to them; and on the issues that know no boundary in an increasingly connected world. Former U.S. senator Sam Nunn became chairman of the CSIS Board of Trustees in 1999, and John J. Hamre has led CSIS as its president and chief executive officer since 2000. CSIS does not take specific policy positions; accordingly, all views expressed in this publica- tion should be understood to be solely those of the author(s). Cover photo: © Paul A. Souders/CORBIS © 2009 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lennon, Alexander T.J., 1969– Democracy in U.S. security strategy : from promotion to support / Alexander T.J. Lennon. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-89206-567-7 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Democracy—Government policy—United States. 2. United States—Foreign relations—1989– 3. National security—United States. I. Title. JZ1480.L46 2009 355’.033573—dc22 2009005492 The CSIS Press Center for Strategic and International Studies 1800 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 Tel: (202) 775-3119 Fax: (202) 775-3199 Web: www.csis.org 2 contents Executive Summary v Introduction 1. What Now for U.S. Democracy Promotion? 1 Alexander T.J. Lennon White Paper 2. Views on Democracy Promotion from the Strategic Community 9 Alexander T.J. Lennon Alternative Strategies 3. Supporting Democracy: Refashioning U.S. Global Strategy 29 Larry Diamond 4. Reconceptualizing Democracies and Empowering Them to Deliver 55 Francis Fukuyama 5. Engaging Autocrats (and Democrats) to Facilitate Democratic Transitions 75 Michael McFaul Conclusion 6. Democracy Support 97 Alexander T.J. Lennon Appendix A: List of Persons Interviewed 101 Appendix B: About the Advisory Committee 103 Select Bibliography 106 Key Presidential Speeches on Democracy 109 About the Project Director 133 | iii executive summary Democracy promotion in some form has been central to U.S. foreign policy since the country’s in- ception, yet recent setbacks require reevaluating: What role, if any, should democracy have in U.S. security strategy and public diplomacy today? Extensive interviews with former national security advisers, senior diplomats and policymakers, strategic thinkers, and democracy experts, along with in-depth explorations of alternative strategies by Larry Diamond, Francis Fukuyama, and Michael McFaul, all enhanced by an elite, bipartisan advisory committee, have found the following: The consolidation and spread of democracy remain a strategic U.S. interest. Others may cite values, but members of the strategic community unequivocally maintain that the consolidation and spread of democracy remain a U.S. strategic interest for multiple reasons, including an endur- ing belief in the “democratic peace theory”; that democracies make better decisions and partners for the United States; and that a role in spreading democracy can help the United States be, and be perceived as, a benevolent global power. “Democracy” should be rehabilitated, not jettisoned. The new administration should affirm that democracies are not defined by elections, but are slow, complex, and indigenous processes, con- tinuously struggling with self-governance, including the United States itself today. More than Iraq, Egypt has shaped the U.S. strategic community’s views. The principal recent U.S. strategic mistake is viewed as the loss of credibility from the gap between U.S. rhetoric and public action in places like Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, not launching a democracy crusade into Iraq, which was initially a quest to eliminate WMD. Charges of hypocrisy are inevitable. The United States will face charges of hypocrisy not just because it must balance other strategic interests, but also because its strategy should vary with countries’ needs and desires; U.S. partners; the amount of U.S. influence; and the manner (e.g. public or private) to influence others most effectively. Support, do not promote, democracy. Promoting has become synonymous with imposing democracy. U.S. strategy should be patient, humble, cooperative, and pragmatic, and not always active and public. Working side-by-side with other nongovernmental, national, and multilateral actors, the United States should pursue a “democracy support” strategy, invoking these pillars: ■ be a model democracy, including in resolving issues like Guantanamo and torture; ■ rebuild credibility by pragmatically and explicitly acknowledging that U.S. strategies, tailored for different countries and regions, as well as U.S. interests will vary; ■ enhance political assistance to strengthen good governance by shifting from determining what countries need to responding to their initiatives, while sustainably scaling it to countries’ size; ■ use economic assistance to reduce corruption, absolute poverty, and help consolidate nascent indigenous efforts, delivering on the promise of democracy and bringing “freedom from want”; ■ engage autocratic regimes—both friendly and adversarial—and their societies, including democratic forces, through diplomatic and other means to facilitate democratic transitions. | v what now for u.s. 1 democracy promotion? Alexander T.J. Lennon Although many others have dedicated their careers to studying or fostering democracy, I have not. I am a security policy analyst and strategist. So why run a project on the role of democracy in U.S. security strategy? While interacting with officials and experts from other countries, I have not only had opportunities to learn about their politics, priorities, and perceptions, but am often asked for my assessments to help explain the United States. As the situation in Iraq deteriorated and par- ticularly after Hamas won 2006 elections in the Palestinian territories, more interlocutors—both abroad and in the United States—began to assert that democracy promotion would inevitably fade from U.S. foreign policy along with the Bush administration. But a closer look at the United States’ foreign policy history and its own political identity revealed deeper roots for democracy prior to the Bush administration. What role would it perform in the future? The spread of democracy has not traditionally been pursued by the United States simply for altruistic reasons or as a blind ideological commitment; it is a strategy that has sought to enhance U.S. interests. Zbigniew Brzezinski, in his most recent book, Second Chance, recalled French stra- tegic thinker Raymond Aron’s counsel that “the strength of a great power is diminished if it ceases to serve an idea.”1 Without such a supportable idea, countries would not know the ends to which power will be used, balancing against the United States will be inevitable, and U.S. power will in- exorably decline. Historically, the United States has pursued democracy promotion as that idea. Given its place in U.S. foreign policy, but also the setbacks in recent years, the United States is more likely to revisit, and possibly reframe, rather than dismiss the place of democracy promo- tion in U.S. strategy. To help shape and understand the potential changes in U.S. security strategy, questions remained: Given the experiences of recent years, is democracy promotion sustainable? Should it guide U.S. security strategy, be adjusted, or even be replaced? How, if at all, should it shape the U.S. national security strategy itself and public diplomacy by officials with global re- sponsibilities, including the president? Democracy in U.S. History “Democracy promotion is not just another foreign policy instrument or idealist diversion; it is central to U.S. political identity and sense of national purpose,” concluded Georgetown Universi- 1. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower (New York: Basic Books, 2007), p. 180. | 1 ty’s Jonathan Monten in his recent historical review.2 America’s founders were unanimous in their belief that the consent of the governed was the only legitimate basis for political authority and that popular sovereignty was therefore the best form of government. Novus Ordo Seclorum, or New Or- der of the Ages, is written on the back of the Great Seal of the United States, proclaiming the inten- tion of the founders to change the nature of government itself. Thomas Jefferson himself hopefully predicted that the entire Western Hemisphere would eventually be a confederation of democratic republics and that the United States would be the leader in bringing this change about.3 Although the desire to promote democracy in the rest of the world has been a basic principle of U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Notion of Religion in Election Manifestos of Populist and Nationalist Parties in Germany and the Netherlands
    religions Article Religion, Populism and Politics: The Notion of Religion in Election Manifestos of Populist and Nationalist Parties in Germany and The Netherlands Leon van den Broeke 1,2,* and Katharina Kunter 3,* 1 Faculty of Religion and Theology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2 Department of the Centre for Church and Mission in the West, Theological University, 8261 GS Kampen, The Netherlands 3 Faculty of Theology, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland * Correspondence: [email protected] (L.v.d.B.); katharina.kunter@helsinki.fi (K.K.) Abstract: This article is about the way that the notion of religion is understood and used in election manifestos of populist and nationalist right-wing political parties in Germany and the Netherlands between 2002 and 2021. In order to pursue such enquiry, a discourse on the nature of manifestos of political parties in general and election manifestos specifically is required. Election manifestos are important socio-scientific and historical sources. The central question that this article poses is how the notion of religion is included in the election manifestos of three Dutch (LPF, PVV, and FvD) and one German (AfD) populist and nationalist parties, and what this inclusion reveals about the connection between religion and populist parties. Religious keywords in the election manifestos of said political parties are researched and discussed. It leads to the conclusion that the notion of religion is not central to these political parties, unless it is framed as a stand against Islam. Therefore, these parties defend Citation: van den Broeke, Leon, and the Jewish-Christian-humanistic nature of the country encompassing the separation of ‘church’ or Katharina Kunter.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's Many Foreign Policies
    Russia’s Many Foreign Policies MICHAEL MCFAUL hat are Russian foreign policy objectives? It depends on whom you ask. W In making assessments of Russia’s behavior in the world, it is absolutely critical that we recognize that Russia today is not a totalitarian state ruled by a Communist Party with a single and clearly articulated foreign policy of expand- ing world socialism and destroying world capitalism and democracy. That state disappeared in 1991. Rather, Russia is a democratizing state—a weakly institu- tionalized democracy with several deficiencies, but a democratizing state nonetheless. Russia’s foreign policy, in turn, is a product of domestic politics in a pluralistic system. In democracies, “states” do not have foreign policy objectives. Rather, indi- vidual political leaders, parties, and interest groups have foreign policy objec- tives. Under certain conditions, these various forces come together to support a united purpose in foreign affairs. At other times, these disparate groups can have conflicting views about foreign policy objectives. They can even support the same foreign policy objective for different reasons.1 Russia today is no different. Although Russian leaders share in supporting a few common, general foreign policy objectives, they disagree on many others. They also disagree on the means that should be deployed to achieve the same for- eign policy objective. The foreign policy that eventually results is a product of debate, political struggle, electoral politics, and lobbying by key interest groups. Because Russia is undergoing revolutionary change internally, the foreign policy that results from Russian domestic politics can change quickly. This article makes the case for the centrality of domestic politics in the artic- ulation and implementation of Russian foreign policy.
    [Show full text]
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Soviet States: People, Power, and Assets Oral History Archive
    Post-Soviet States: People, Power, and Assets Oral History Archive Interviewee: Mark O. Henry Interviewer: Rebecca Adeline Johnston Date: December 9, 2019 Location: Woburn, MA Abstract Mark O. Henry is co-founder and Chief Financial Officer of Boston-based Bach Pharma. An accountant by training, he has worked as a CPA for Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., a vice president at State Street Bank in Boston, and in numerous business ventures. Much of his career in the pharmaceutical industry has been aimed at establishing a market in the United States for Russian therapeutics. Most prominent in his work is a monosodium luminol product marketed as Galavit in Russia and as GVT in the United States. In this interview, Mr. Henry discusses his experiences working with the Russian and American medical communities beginning in the late 1990s and which remain ongoing. This transcript is lightly edited for clarity. Audio for this interview is not available. Redacted portions are marked as such. Interviewer questions and remarks are presented in bold. Interview Transcript I wanted to start with asking a bit about yourself—where you're from, some of the highlights of your very varied and rich career in accounting and business, up to the point where you started working in Russia. I graduated with a bachelor of science degree in accounting, became a CPA for KPMG. One of my first assignments that I ever had was in South America, specifically in Columbia, South America. I was helping United Fruit Company at the time sell bananas to Russia, which was prohibited from the United States because of the 1947 ban on trade with Russia that the Congress of the United States had passed.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Populism in Europe
    2018 State of Populism in Europe The past few years have seen a surge in the public support of populist, Eurosceptical and radical parties throughout almost the entire European Union. In several countries, their popularity matches or even exceeds the level of public support of the centre-left. Even though the centre-left parties, think tanks and researchers are aware of this challenge, there is still more OF POPULISM IN EUROPE – 2018 STATE that could be done in this fi eld. There is occasional research on individual populist parties in some countries, but there is no regular overview – updated every year – how the popularity of populist parties changes in the EU Member States, where new parties appear and old ones disappear. That is the reason why FEPS and Policy Solutions have launched this series of yearbooks, entitled “State of Populism in Europe”. *** FEPS is the fi rst progressive political foundation established at the European level. Created in 2007 and co-fi nanced by the European Parliament, it aims at establishing an intellectual crossroad between social democracy and the European project. Policy Solutions is a progressive political research institute based in Budapest. Among the pre-eminent areas of its research are the investigation of how the quality of democracy evolves, the analysis of factors driving populism, and election research. Contributors : Tamás BOROS, Maria FREITAS, Gergely LAKI, Ernst STETTER STATE OF POPULISM Tamás BOROS IN EUROPE Maria FREITAS • This book is edited by FEPS with the fi nancial support of the European
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Mcfaul
    Michael McFaul Director, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Ken Olivier and Angela Nomellini Professor of International Studies and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, the Freeman Spogli Institute and the Woods Institute Political Science Curriculum Vitae available Online Bio BIO Michael McFaul is Director at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, the Ken Olivier and Angela Nomellini Professor of International Studies in the Department of Political Science, and the Peter and Helen Bing Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He joined the Stanford faculty in 1995. Dr. McFaul also is as an International Affairs Analyst for NBC News and a columnist for The Washington Post. He served for five years in the Obama administration, first as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council at the White House (2009-2012), and then as U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation (2012-2014). He has authored several books, most recently the New York Times bestseller From Cold War to Hot Peace: An American Ambassador in Putin’s Russia. Earlier books include Advancing Democracy Abroad: Why We Should, How We Can; Transitions To Democracy: A Comparative Perspective (eds. with Kathryn Stoner); Power and Purpose: American Policy toward Russia after the Cold War (with James Goldgeier); and Russia’s Unfinished Revolution: Political Change from Gorbachev to Putin. His current research interests include American foreign policy, great power relations, and the relationship between democracy and development. Dr. McFaul was born and raised in Montana. He received his B.A. in International Relations and Slavic Languages and his M.A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Road to Nexit a Look Into Dutch Euroscepticism
    The road to Nexit A look into Dutch Euroscepticism FINAL EXAM PROJECT 8 June 2018 Sofyan El Bouchtili Sofyan EL Bouchtili Europe in the World 2017-2018 Examiner: Asbjørn Jørgensen Final Exam Project 8 June 2018 Table of Contents ON THE ROAD TO NEXIT (25.079 CHARACTERS)……………………………………………………………………………….3 REFLECTION REPORT (17.760 CHARACTERS)……………………………………………………………………………………17 SOURCE LIST .............................................................................................................................. 24 2 Sofyan EL Bouchtili Europe in the World 2017-2018 Examiner: Asbjørn Jørgensen Final Exam Project 8 June 2018 Link to story on Medium: https://medium.com/@elbouchtili.sofyan/on-the-road-to-nexit-9eac93f9dd48 On the road to Nexit Brexit caused a shock to the process of European integration and has left many Eurosceptic parties with the idea that an exit from the European integration project is possible after all. In the Netherlands a new party is advocating for a Nexit. Forum for Democracy has set its sights on the exit door, but to leave the Union they have another challenge first: convincing the Dutch. Daniel Hannan, British Conservative and Member of the European Parliament, came to speak about ‘Brexit, and the opportunities for the Netherlands’. Photo: Sofyan El Bouchtili “I drank champagne on the morning of the results of the referendum”, says one of the youths as he congratulates British Conservative and Member of the European Parliament Daniel Hannan on Brexit. Brexiteer Daniel Hannan was invited to an event at the Red Hat in Amsterdam on 25 May. The renowned debating center in the heart of the historic center of the city was the venue of choice for Forum for Democracy to talk about ‘Brexit and the opportunities for the Netherlands’.
    [Show full text]
  • SO 003 006 AUTHOR Nicolosi, Louis J.; and Others TITLE American History: the Multi-Concept Plan for High School
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 062 259 SO 003 006 AUTHOR Nicolosi, Louis J.; And Others TITLE American History: The Multi-Concept Plan for High School. INSTITUTION Louisiana State Dept. of Education, Baton Rouge. REPORT NO Bull-1060 PUB DATE 71 NOTE 205p. EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$9.87 DESCRIPTORS Activity Units; *American History; Civil War (United States); *Concept Teaching; constitutional History; Curriculum Guides; Democracy; *History Instruction; Modern History; Reconstruction Era; Secondary Grades; Sequential Learning; *Social Studies; *United States History ABSTRACT Providing a basic framework for a one year American history course for secondary students, this curriculum guide offers help for teachers in planning, organizing, and teaching social studies. Designed to cover the whole paLorama of history (1450 through 1969) in sequence, the course aims tc help students understand early events and how they are related to contemporary affairs. The multi-concept plan is based upon the assumption that the subject matter of American history can be presented in terms of general organizing concepts. These general ideas (primary concepts) serve as the organizational framework for factual content (secondary concepts) of the course. The students, taught by this plan, become aware of the relativity of historical interpretation and learn to organize facts into meaningful patterns. The thirty-six weekcourse in American history is divided into 17 units of instruction, with each unit varying from one to three weeks in duration. The last three units are devoted to the developing twentieth-century conflict between Capitalism and Communism. Concepts, content, guides, oral and written activities, and bibliography of student and teacher materials are presented for each unit.
    [Show full text]
  • S:\FULLCO~1\HEARIN~1\Committee Print 2018\Henry\Jan. 9 Report
    Embargoed for Media Publication / Coverage until 6:00AM EST Wednesday, January 10. 1 115TH CONGRESS " ! S. PRT. 2d Session COMMITTEE PRINT 115–21 PUTIN’S ASYMMETRIC ASSAULT ON DEMOCRACY IN RUSSIA AND EUROPE: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY A MINORITY STAFF REPORT PREPARED FOR THE USE OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JANUARY 10, 2018 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations Available via World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 28–110 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Mar 15 2010 04:06 Jan 09, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5012 Sfmt 5012 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\COMMITTEE PRINT 2018\HENRY\JAN. 9 REPORT FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER seneagle Embargoed for Media Publication / Coverage until 6:00AM EST Wednesday, January 10. COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS BOB CORKER, Tennessee, Chairman JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland MARCO RUBIO, Florida ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JEFF FLAKE, Arizona CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware CORY GARDNER, Colorado TOM UDALL, New Mexico TODD YOUNG, Indiana CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming TIM KAINE, Virginia JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts ROB PORTMAN, Ohio JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon RAND PAUL, Kentucky CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey TODD WOMACK, Staff Director JESSICA LEWIS, Democratic Staff Director JOHN DUTTON, Chief Clerk (II) VerDate Mar 15 2010 04:06 Jan 09, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\COMMITTEE PRINT 2018\HENRY\JAN.
    [Show full text]
  • Country Fact Sheet, Democratic Republic of the Congo
    Issue Papers, Extended Responses and Country Fact Sheets file:///C:/Documents and Settings/brendelt/Desktop/temp rir/Country Fact... Français Home Contact Us Help Search canada.gc.ca Issue Papers, Extended Responses and Country Fact Sheets Home Country Fact Sheet DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO April 2007 Disclaimer This document was prepared by the Research Directorate of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada on the basis of publicly available information, analysis and comment. All sources are cited. This document is not, and does not purport to be, either exhaustive with regard to conditions in the country surveyed or conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum. For further information on current developments, please contact the Research Directorate. Table of Contents 1. GENERAL INFORMATION 2. POLITICAL BACKGROUND 3. POLITICAL PARTIES 4. ARMED GROUPS AND OTHER NON-STATE ACTORS 5. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS ENDNOTES REFERENCES 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Official name Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) Geography The Democratic Republic of the Congo is located in Central Africa. It borders the Central African Republic and Sudan to the north; Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda and Tanzania to the east; Zambia and Angola to the south; and the Republic of the Congo to the northwest. The country has access to the 1 of 26 9/16/2013 4:16 PM Issue Papers, Extended Responses and Country Fact Sheets file:///C:/Documents and Settings/brendelt/Desktop/temp rir/Country Fact... Atlantic Ocean through the mouth of the Congo River in the west. The total area of the DRC is 2,345,410 km².
    [Show full text]
  • US Democracy Promotion in the Middle East
    The London School of Economics and Political Science US Democracy Promotion in the Middle East The Pursuit of Hegemony? Dionysius Markakis A thesis submitted to the Department of International Relations of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, October 2012 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 86.627 words. 1 Abstract The promotion of ‘democracy’ abroad has been a feature of US foreign policy since the earlier part of the twentieth century, accompanying its rise as an international actor. It provided the ideological basis for its opposition to rivals in the form of imperialism, fascism and then communism. The end of the Cold War, which signalled the emergence of the US as the sole superpower, accelerated this process. With the ideological fusion of democracy and capitalism credited in large measure for the defeat of communism and the state-planned economy, the promotion of democracy alongside capitalism as the only viable, legitimate mode of governance emerged as an increasingly important component of US foreign policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Launching a New Institution: PACIFIC COUNCIL on INTERNATIONAL POLICY
    Launching A New Institution: PACIFIC COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL POLICY 1995-1996 Launching a New Institution: The Pacific Council on International Policy 1995-1996 Established in cooperation with the Council on Foreign Relations, Inc. To the Members of the Pacific Council 1 on International Policy Launching a New Institution 2 Programs and Meetings 15 Visiting Scholars and Fellows Program 24 Board of Directors 25 Corporate sponsors 26 Individual Contributions 27 General and Program Support 29 Membership Policy 30 Membership Roster 31 Staff 36 Pacific Council on International Policy University of Southern California Los Angeles, California 90089-0035 (phone) 213-740-4296 (fax) 213-740-9498 (e-mail) [email protected] To the members of the Pacific Council on International Policy n two years, the Pacific Council on International Policy has moved from a compelling vision to a vigorous and extraordinarily promising organization. We have made rapid progress in Iestablishing a leadership forum which will attract the participation of thoughtful and concerned leaders from throughout the western region of North America and around the entire Pacific Rim. The Pacific Council’s founding and charter members believe that there is a clear and urgent need for an international policy organization rooted in the strengths of the western United States — its leaders, resources and diversity — but which will consistently and creatively look outward to the kinds of relationships that should be developed with our neighbors to the west in the Asia Pacific region and south in Latin America. It is essential to bring together a broad based group of leaders from around the Pacific Rim to consider the challenges that face us all and to make recommendations for policies that would contribute to growth and stability.
    [Show full text]