People's Democracy

UN DEMOCRACY FUND

Spreading Democracy a la Bush? 

Prakash Karat

DURING the recent visit of prime minister Manmohan Singh to New York to attend the United Nations General Assembly session, among the various activities conducted on the sidelines of the session was the launching of the UN Democracy Fund. The meeting was co-hosted by the US president, the Indian prime minister and the UN secretary general. This event did not attract much attention in the Indian media as they concentrated on the meeting with president Musharraf and the US efforts to get India on board its stand on the Iran nuclear issue. India’s participation in the Democracy Fund is part of the “Global Democracy Initiative” announced by India and the United States jointly during prime minister’s official visit to Washington in July. This global democracy partnership needs to be looked at carefully.

What is the UN Democracy Fund? Though the United Nations launched this fund in July this year it was an idea mooted by president Bush. In his speech to the UN General Assembly in September 2004, Bush proposed the establishment of a Democracy Fund within the United Nations. In his words, “the fund would help countries lay the foundations of democracy by instituting the rule of law and an independent courts, a free press, political parties and trade unions.”

It is this proposal of Bush which has now been acted upon. The secretary general of the United Nations announced the setting up of the Democracy Fund on July 5, 2005. 26 countries, led by the US, expressed support. Most of these countries, with some exceptions, are traditionally allies of the United States and there was a large representation of countries from Eastern Europe. India was also on the list.

Just as the United States contributed $10 million to the fund, India too had committed a similar amount when the Global Democracy Initiative was announced during the July visit of the prime minister.

It may be asked, what is the objection to a UN Democracy Fund that aims to strengthen democratic systems and process in various countries? India as the world’s largest democracy should surely be having a stake in such a democracy initiative. The simple answer is that there is enough evidence of what Bush means by helping countries “to lay the foundations of democracy” through a “free press, political parties and trade unions”.

It is necessary to analyse the purpose for which the Bush administration has initiated the Democracy Fund. Ever since the Bush administration first took office in 2001, it has been aggressively promoting “the spread of democracy”. Much before the Bush presidency, the United States has been engaged in spreading its version of democracy around the world. Briefly put, democracy and free markets are the two inseparable components of this version of democracy. In doing so, the United States has had no hesitation in financing political activities against governments and political systems which it perceives to be a threat to US interests or those which do not accept the notion that democracy equals free markets and unrestricted freedom for the movement of finance capital.

In the same speech at the General Assembly where he proposed the Democracy Fund, Bush had talked of helping build democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. He had lectured the Palestinians on the need to build democratic institutions and indirectly threatened Yasser Arafat by asking world leaders to “withdraw all favor and support from any Palestinian ruler who fails his people and betrays their cause”. The democracy project of Bush is loaded with the US design to impose its model of democracy around the world through an ideological and political offensive and backed by military force if necessary.

It will be instructive to see how the United States has been spreading democracy as it has a direct bearing on how it will seek to utilise the UN Democracy Fund. In the 1980s, the United States set up the National Endowment for Democracy during the Reagan presidency. Funded by the US government, the NED’s motto is “free markets sustain democracy”. The NED has four core institutions through which it finances and supports political parties, media, trade unions and other groups in targetted countries. The four affiliates of the NED are the Centre for International Private Enterprises (CIPE), the Free Trade Unions Institution (FTUI), the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI).

The NED financed the rightwing parties in Nicaragua to topple the Sandinista government. In 1989 alone, the NED spent $9 million to support the rightwing opposition and other groups. The NED has been financing the émigré and opposition groups in Cuba. The NED spent $65 million in three years in Ukraine and was instrumental in getting Yushchenko elected as the president. NED financed the forces against president Aristide in Haiti which led to his forcible ouster.  The NED’s activities did not attract much critical attention in the United States as long as it operated in East Europe and Central Asian countries in the recent period. However, its brazen support for the rightwing opposition to president Hugo Chavez in Venezuela has highlighted the interference and manipulation of political parties to subvert democracy.

Between 2000 and 2001, the NED through its affiliates more than tripled its funding in Venezuela from $257,831 to $877,435. The NED financed the opposition groups organising a signature collection for the recall of the president in 2003. Three parties – Democratic Action, COPEI and First Justice – were the beneficiaries of the funds distributed by the NED. The Venezuelan case makes the issue clear. The United States is not funding activities to strengthen democracy but to subvert democratic processes and the will of the Venezuelan people who have consistently supported Hugo Chavez.

During the Clinton administration, the United States sponsored the Community of Democracies and the first ministerial conference was held in Warsaw in June 2000. The Vajpayee government was an enthusiastic supporter of this move and India became a co-sponsor alongwith the US, Poland, Czech Republic, Male, Chile and South Korea. From the Community of Democracies, the United States proceeded to set up the Democracy Caucus within the United Nations. This became necessary after the United States failed to have its way in the Commission on Human Rights. To its chagrin it found countries like Libya being elected to the chairmanship of the Commission, while the US failed to get elected once. Since then, the United States has not only relied on spreading democracy through its own agencies like the NED but also concentrated on the Democracy Caucus. At a Reception for the Promotion of Democracy hosted by the US State Department during the 59th session (2004) of the UN General Assembly, the US assistant secretary for International Organisation Affairs stated that the Democracy Caucus “can help to change the character of UN bodies by getting more democratic nations elected.”

The UN Democracy Fund is a continuation of this theme.  At the September 14 launch co-hosted  by the US president and the Indian prime minister, Bush talked about helping “emerging democracies” like Georgia and Iraq. The United States under Bush is implanting democracy in occupied Iraq. The United Nations has legitimised this experiment even though its approval was not sought when Iraq was invaded. Presumably, the Democracy Fund will now be pressed into service to create a political system in Iraq which serves the long term goal of the United States. Already the NED affiliates like the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI) are part of a consortium of agencies led by the USAID which has been financing and supporting political and electoral activities in occupied Iraq. In the run-up to the January 2005 elections, these organisations provided $80 million for these activities. Favoured political parties like the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution and the Islamic Dawa Party were provided funds and training by these organisations.

The UN Democracy Fund, if it is allowed to function under US tutelage, will be financing parties and groups in various countries in the name of supporting democracy which are actually suited to US interests. It will be supplementing the efforts of American groups like the NED. The US needs its NED, the Coalition of Democracies and the Democracy Fund to propagate and enforce its dubious democracy ventures. One may ask what is India doing in this scheme of things? Will it have any say in how the $10 million it has contributed will be spent? Will it have anything to say if such funds are used in countries like Venezuela, Cuba or the countries of Central Asia and the former Soviet Union to finance rightwing pro-US parties as against those which stand for national sovereignty, independence and blasphemously in some cases socialism?