Yes, I have. You're not even dealing with what actually is happening in Ukraine. You're just writing the same generic lame lines. Maybe you're just blinded by your your own worldview. A worldview that appears to be fatally flawed. If it is in our interest the see a more democratic tradition established in places like Ukraine, and make no mistake - it is, then it is BOTH in our interest AND for democracy itself. Your worldview is too simplistic in assuming that there can only be one variable in a decision, and that multiple 'reasons' cannot intersect to spur an action. Or it could stabilize a situation as it did in Japan and Germany and a lot of Eastern Europe. It could help democratize a society as in South Korea or Taiwan. The examples you list are hardly examples comparable to Ukraine, and again you show an apparent lack of understanding of international relations and history. Sadly you can't stay on point. Do you have anything to say about Ukraine? No? Didn't think so. Why don't you run along now to one of the Iraq threads instead of posting the same garbage in every foreign policy thread? You -like the other US bashing group in this thread - have NOT EVEN BOTHERED to try figure out EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING in Ukraine before rebuking the policy. Its ridiculous. Go up in the thread, and look at where the money is going - I listed out a bunch of the initiatives, and then specifically tell us which planks are bad, and why. Otherwise you're just regurgitating the same old tired anti-american BS and contributing NOTHING to what could be a fruitful discussion of foreign policy.
Hayes...you make some very valid points... However, you are looking at it as a American. You have to understand giving political contributions to another country's party is un democratic in the definition of the sense of being Democratic? i tried to make this point... the thing is when you give money to someone (i think wizardball was trying to say this)... it becomes obligatory for them to do something in retern(you become like a spoon to those that have helped you...this an example that can be used on any front...nothing is free in this world)...which means you basically have a party under your pocket if that party wins...see my point is that the U.S is doing this for American Interests...and i think it is wrong...i am not anti-american...i am anti-government(worldwide i think everyone is corrupt) ...even here in Canada
the question is do you believe that quote above or not...that's what i think VinceCarter is talkin about. half the people in here seem not to...since the Bush Admin is shady.
The examples I list are hardly comparable to Ukraine???? Compared to Iran, Haiti, and Nicaragua, Ukraine is a nonfactor. Let's just look at Iran to prove my point that we mess up more times than not when we try to influence the politics of other nations. We funded Pahlavi and his dictatorship (I guess furthering democracy is not important in the case of Iran). The Shah experiment did not work and we later backed his exile to Panama in order to put the Ayatollah in power, and we funded him and his cause. Once again, democracy and freedom were not an issue. When the Ayatollah turned his back on us, we decided that he had to go and we gave weapons and money to a guy named Saddam Hussein to help Saddam defeat Iran in war. That war ended in a stalemate. Finally, the Ayatollah died and Rafsanjani came to power. The story continues and last I checked, Iran was on the Axis of Evil and the next stop in our War on Terror. Maybe I am missing what you are trying to say with "my lack of understanding of international relations and history." I have 12 years of experience working in the State Department and 27 years of experience as a Political Science professor that say that I have an understanding of international relations and history. It's okay to have disagreement. I respect your opinion and I hope you would respect mine. Do not dismiss what I have to say by thinking that I have a "lack of understanding" and that my insight pales in comparison to yours. Doing such does not further your cause nor does it acheive anything.
Not sure this diatribe was necessary (nor that your facts are straight - maybe you can site something about us supporting Khomeni and Ortega). Nobody is contending that democracy was the overarching guideline for our involvement in the Cold War period. Congratulations, that doesn't get you anything. However, if the neocon's are running things, as most people assert these days, then democracy CERTAINLY has taken a jump in priority in the construction of our foreign policy. They are called hard WILSONIANS for a reason. They believe in the spread of our values as embodied in democratic process. They believe in the INHERENT value of the democratic process. That is a far cry from the Realpolitik of the Cold War as seen in Kissinger led policies in Chile etc. In Iran we were supporting a regime involved in election fraud, mass corruption, torture and imprisonment of dissenters, and heavy censorship of the media. In Ukraine we're supporting stronger election laws, election monitoring, media/journalist development, and campaigns to get the public informed and involved in the elections. That doesn't sound the same to me, does it to you? Your comparison of the two starts and ends with 'we were involved.' That's hardly convincing, nor is it a reason NOT to support programs and policies like those currently going on in Ukraine. Similar initiatives in places like Chile and Nicaragua might have bore a less bitter fruit than supporting the dictatorships, but I'm realistic enough to understand the Cold War put its own spin on policy. It was the polar opposite, supporting the censoring, imprisoning, secret policing, election rigging regimes of Somoza, Batista, Marcos, Duvalier, & Pahlavi that bit us in the ass. When initiatives in this (democracy building)vein were supported (see Carter, Chile, and the National Accords or Japan, or West Germany, or Taiwan, or South Korea) the effects were noticably more positive. Finally, these are the same kind of initiatives undertaken by the EU, for example, and the UN. Oh boy, let me guess: you're also a p*rn star and you live in a house full of models, right? In Toronto no less. Haven't we met here before? Not sure what you'd recommend. Maybe we can retract back within our borders and let the chips fall where they may. A paralytic foreign policy is sure a recipe for success.
Maybe I got it wrong when I read the article. It appears the U.S. isn't promoting democracy(nor are they actually trying to stop it). The U.S. is promoting one side over the other. It just so happens in this case the process through which the U.S. is promoting that side is democratic. But the U.S. isn't promoting the democratic process. They aren't promoting autonomy, they are promoting one opponent over another. That being said, I think that is a good way to exert foreign policy, as opposed to invasion, funding an overthrow, etc. I just don't think anyone should look at this as a case of the U.S. promoting democracy.
If funding election observers, training for an independent media, voter drives, legislative strengthening of election laws, etc is not promoting democracy, what is? Are some of these NGOs pro-Viktor Yushchenko? Of course they are. Yanukovich just tried to steal the freakin election, for cryin' out loud. If you are trying to promote democracy, ie NOT stealing elections, you'd naturally be allied on the opposite side of the corrupt institutions (and their representitives) that are inherently undemocratic (ie stealing elections). Again, none of this money went directly to candidates or parties.
It might not have been direct, but according to the article it is financing Yushchenko's campaign. The U.S. hasn't minded bogus elections, or even violently overthrowing democratically elected officials if they thought it would help them in the past. I think it is acceptable to try and influence elections by supporting pro-democracy candidates. It just appears that it is being done to win influence and not necessarily to support democracy. I wish we had tried to influence other groups this way. If we had funded the Sandinistas and not the supporters of the old dictatorship, that influence could have helped prevent some of the blind land grabbing that went on, and we could have had influence on how things went there. Ho Chi Minh also requested aid from the U.S. I think getting to opposition parties early while they are forming, and trying to guide that formation is a good thing. It is pro-active and beats funding and backing authoritarian dictatorships later, after the groups receive funding from people we don't like.
So you don't think we're doing this out of left field (hahaha - 'left' field), as I mentioned before, the EU has similar programs. In their official evaluation of 'what should be done' they recommend steps exactly like what we are funding (the EU is as well) in Ukraine... http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/ukraine/csp/ip03_04_08.pdf "In Soviet times, Ukraine did not have a proactive civil society nor independent media. With independence and the transition to democracy, the situation has improved but it is still far from presenting the characteristics of a modern, multi-layered society. With the exception of a limited number of NGOs, structures inherited from the Soviet period such as trade unions, veterans’ associations, and women’s associations often adopted NGO status without undergoing the necessary transformation towards democratic structures. Of the estimated 30-40.000 NGOs in existence, only 5-8.000 can be considered active. An even smaller number can be described as operating professionally with permanent and well trained staff, on the basis of strategic goals and planning. However, a growing number of small grassroots NGOs have the potential to provide relevant services but face constraints in terms of resources, training, and work capacity. These in particular need to be supported such as by creating resource centres and fostering co-operation between them and local authorities, for example in the social sector. Indirectly, such support will also enhance the functioning of democracy, as these entities will be increasing able to check and balance government power. The media landscape is characterised by the state and local authorities controlling the majority of TV channels, radio and newspapers. Those privatised or newly established by private initiative are concentrated in few hands which are often inter-linked with government powers. Independent media are often weak in financial terms and face numerous difficulties for carrying out their work properly, given persistent control by state organs and a partly difficult legal environment. Even though individual journalists and their associations are playing a growing role, their influence and independence remains still limited. Support is necessary for them to fill their role in society correctly and efficiently."
Yanukovych sounds like a great guy. From the uber-conservative Slate: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108758/
No, according to the guy who just stole the election we are financing Yushchenko's campaign. Which is wholly irrelevant. Unless you want to say we're hypocritical for funding dictatorships in the past, and now funding democratic reform. I guess that is hypocritical but it seems silly to castigate us for reversing a policy that everyone criticises, lol. You used to shoot heroin, now you say shooting heroin is bad. You hypocrite! This is infinitely regressive. Any action anyone takes can always be attributed to their own self interest. If we used this standard then no country, official, or citizen ever really wants to promote democracy, they just want to advance some gain for themselves. Certainly giving aid to other countries involves expanding our influence, but that doesn't exclude other motives. For instance, no doubt our influence in Bosnia is greater today then it was before we intervened to stop Serbia's genocide. Does that mean we didn't intervene to stop genocide? No, it doesn't. Well I'm not sure what your beef is. We're funding democratic institutions and organizations that further the democratic process. That's less biased than directly funding particular candidates. That's LESS biased than YOUR suggestion, lol, and certainly more democratic. You strengthen the institutions and democratic awareness and the people still decide.
I still don't have any problem with the US funding democracy organizations in a country that has had to re-do an election because of massive election fraud. Even if the perpetrator of that fraud disagrees.
I don't have a beef at all. I like the policy. It is less biased than my suggestion. I wasn't saying it was bad. I think the reason we are doing it in a less biased way is because it is possible to work within the perameters of the system that way and still get what we want. That is all I was saying, is that we were doing it because we can win the influence we want that way, and not out of a bid to support democracy, though that is a nice bi-product. I don't have a beef, just disagree that we are doing it for democracy's sake.
Your arguement is weakening your statement. Situation A, US supports something in the name of democracy, ended up totally wrong; situation B, US is supporting something again in the name of democracy, let's assume US is on the right side. It occurs to me, that both situation A and B happen to be in the interest of US. What would be your conclusion? Mine was that US did in their interest, in both cases. Not there is anything wrong with that, really. I am a realistic person. But it's absolutely wrong, to paint that simple interest driven motive as some noble "supporting democracy" action, just in my humble opinion. To me, that's the only logical conclusion from your examples. However, unless you claim that US had no clue about democracy in situation A, but they thought they did, and ended up wrong. US has full understanding in situation B and does the right thing. But they are both due to noble causes. Then, I would ask, since you were wrong in Iran, what makes you think you are absolutely right in Ukraine? You can't pretend to be objective, if you only think what you think. You have to at least try to think what others think as well, to be able to claim that you are trying to be objective. What is this all about? He's not showing off or anything. You first said he didn't have understanding of foreign policies etc. He showed you that his knowledge base and working experience giving him leverage to form a decent and broad view of politics. What's that about to attack him as a Canadian? You felt inferior to discuss politics with a politic professor? This tough arrogant "you are either with us or against us" chant can't get you anywhere. If you say, you feel appalled and offended that a Canadian is criticizing US policy, AND you follow up by not saying anything about Ukraine and other countries, I would have more respect to you.
OK, I never said the US support for the Shah was based in trying to further democracy (in Iran - although one could point out that in the overall global ideological war, it was a battle for democracy). In fact, I point out that in the greater context of the Cold War, we supported quite a few dictators. A policy for which we have been widely criticized - 'you claim to be the leaders of the free world but you are not supporting democratic reform in country X'. In Ukraine we are not supporting a dictator. We are supporting democratic aparatus. To claim that is hypocritical is silly, and puts us in a catch 22 that ignores what we are ACTUALLY doing in Ukraine. I never said it was exclusively to promote democracy, or that it was not in our self interest. On the contrary, I argue that those two intersect in Ukraine, and that is good. Further, when trying to ascertain 'intent,' neoconservatives (and you can argue whether or not they are guiding US foreign policy but I think most agree they are) ideologically DO want to see the spread of democratic principles in other places like Ukraine, irrespective of their own self interest. They believe it is inherently superior to totalitarianism. No, certainly if he was in the state department and is a political science professor, then he does have a knowledge base to work from (although he's still wrong ). And certainly I don't shrink in the face of letters behind a name. I was making a tongue in cheek allusion to our dearly departed friend MacBeth, who is a known adept, p*rn star, modelizer, and historian.
You DO SO have a beef... Uh, too many cups of coffee this morning... I answer this above. Yes, it is in our interest. But its also consistent with our intent to promote democractic reform, at least as we define ourselves historically (although that may not always be an accurate self portrayal), and as the current leaderships school of thought goes (assuming neoconservatism is the predominant ideology of our leadership). In addition, I don't find it hypocritical because we are more consistent now with our expressed overall ideology than we were in examples like Iran (shah era), or Nicaragua, or Chile.
