Search results

"Explore the numerous paradoxes at the heart of the theory and practice of democracy promotion. The Democracy Promotion Paradox raises difficult but critically important issues by probing the numerous inconsistencies and paradoxes that lie at the heart of the theory and practice of democracy promotion. For example, the United States frequently crafts policies to encourage democracy that rely on cooperation with undemocratic governments; democracy promoters view their work as minor yet also of critical importance to the United States and the countries where they work; and many who work in the field of democracy promotion have an incomplete understanding of democracy. Similarly, in the domestic political context, both left and right critiques of democracy promotion are internally inconsistent.Lincoln A. Mitchell provides an overview of the origins of U.S. democracy promotion, analyzes its development and evolution over the last decades, and discusses how it came to be an unquestioned assumption at the core of U.S. foreign policy. His discussion of the bureaucratic logic that underlies democracy promotion offers important insights into how it can be adapted to remain effective. Mitchell also examines the future of democracy promotion in the context of evolving U.S. domestic policy and politics and in a changed global environment in which the United States is no longer the hegemon"--

Main description: Lincoln Mitchell tracks the course of events leading up to the recent revolution in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, analyzes the contributing factors, and explores the role of the United States both in contributing to the revolution and in Georgia's failure to live up to its democratic promise.

By viewing Georgia's upcoming elections entirely through the lens of democratic advance or retreat, the West risks overlooking the real political developments in the post-Soviet states. (Survival / SWP)

The 1990s were the period when democracy promotion in the form we think of it today began to take shape. But that global political environment was unique…. Things have changed since then.

The Russian—Georgian war in August 2008 and Russia's decision to recognise the independence of the Georgian breakaway territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia have fundamentally altered the political balance of what were previously referred to as 'frozen' conflicts. After years of pursuing policies that isolated Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the European Union and the government of Georgia have both announced new strategies towards these regions. Despite certain similarities between the two strategies, however, aligning their instruments and goals will prove difficult given the different political priorities of Brussels and Tbilisi. The EU must prepare to pursue its own engagement strategy regardless of how the Georgian approach is crafted or implemented.

Georgia and the United States have had strong relations since the mid 1990s when Presidents Clinton and Shevardnadze forged an alliance. In recent years that relationship has become closer due to a narrative presenting Georgia as a democratic beacon and key strategic country in the region. However, this narrative is beginning to give way to an alternate narrative which suggests that Georgia is governed by an impulsive leader with authoritarian tendencies who was far too close to the Bush administration. While both of these narratives draw on elements of truth, they also lack any nuance or shades of grey. Accordingly they both lead to policy decisions that are bad for Georgia and for the United States. US policy towards Georgia needs to be viewed more soberly drawing on evidence and actions rather than competing narratives. (Survival / SWP)

Last summer's war in Georgia brought into sharp focus several key components of U.S. foreign policy in the post-Cold War period, and raised major questions about the future of U.S. relations with Russia, Georgia and most of the former Soviet region. The war was also a wake-up call (to those who may somehow have still been asleep): The post-Cold War period—a time marked by a prostrate Russia and virtually unchecked American power in the region—is over. In this new post-post-Cold War period, the challenge for U.S. policymakers is to craft a strategy that recognizes both the potential danger Russia poses to its neighbors and the limits to U.S. influence in the region— limits that have only grown tighter thanks to the ongoing global economic crisis. The war has already forced the United States to take a more critical look at its relationships with both Georgia and Russia. That task fell to a Bush Administration as it was coming to an end. But the war also forces us to situate those challenges in the context of a triangular relationship between Russia, the United States and Europe, because the United States cannot formulate an effective policy toward Russia without the sup - port of the Europeans. This task falls to the Obama Administration as it is just beginning.