Posted By Stephen M. Walt Share

By Jack Snyder

Realists never miss a chance to criticize neoconservatives' noisy, sometimes violent support for democratization abroad. With a Pew survey showing that Americans rank democracy promotion abroad dead last in importance among fifteen major public issues, the realists would seem to have prevailed on this battlefield of ideas. Though the US still makes clients like Hamid Karzai hold elections, Hillary Clinton winks and is prepared to call just about anything free and fair. Even President Obama proclaims Reinhold Niebuhr one of his favorite authors.

But not so fast. Colin Dueck's Reluctant Crusaders reminds us that realist interludes in American foreign policy are short-lived. Liberal internationalism, steeped in the mission of making the world safe for democracy, is America's default setting. Realists, being above all realistic, need to accept this and think about pragmatic steps to advance what will inevitably be a liberal global agenda.

A brilliant new book by Barnard Professor Séverine Autesserre, The Trouble with the Congo (Cambridge, 2010), can help us think this through. Luminaries' sizzling blurbs on the back cover call it "a magnificent accomplishment," a "disturbing book" that international peacemakers will read with "trepidation." Autesserre blames the failure of peace-building in Congo on the national-level "election fetish" of international aid culture. Instead, she says, security problems are mainly local and need to be solved by corralling spoilers, strengthening local capacity, and setting up working legal institutions at the grass roots level. These moves aren't a substitute for the strong national institutions that will eventually be needed to make democracy work, she says, but the bottom-up spadework needs to be done first.

My own research with Dawn Brancati, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, points in a similar direction. Quick elections where conditions for democracy are not yet ripe often lead back to war, we find, but elections that come at a later stage in the transition are more likely to be compatible with stability. The key is to get the sequence right.

Brancati has put together a unique database of all the first post-civil-war elections since 1945. Statistical tests she designed show that the earlier a country holds its first post-conflict election, the more likely that the vote will be a revolving door spinning the country back into violence. Elections that happen before rebels are disarmed and before administrative and legal institutions are improved are especially likely to lead back to war. What makes this finding even more disturbing is that, since the end of the Cold War, the election fetish of international donors has cut in half the time from a peace deal to the first election.

The good news is that the international democracy promoters that are helping to cause this problem can also contribute to solving it. Our results show that early elections are much less dangerous when international actors provide peacekeeping, facilitate rebel disarmament, help build institutions of governance and law, and encourage power sharing that limits the cost of losing an election. For two papers detailing these results, "Rushing to the Polls" and "Time to Kill," please go to http://brancati.wustl.edu/Research.htm.

Realists with a pragmatic sensibility have a huge contribution to make to the idealistic liberal agenda, which is an inevitable part of the baggage that America brings to its engagement with the world. In the twenty-first century, realism can no longer mean a crabbed sense of the narrow national interest. Instead, it must increasingly mean figuring out clear-eyed ways, attuned to realities of power and interest, to make the liberal project work.

Jack Snyder is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations in the political science department and the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University. His books include to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War (MIT Press, 2005), co-authored with Edward D. Mansfield.

LIONEL HEALING/AFP/Getty Images

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

SCOTTINDALLAS

3:10 PM ET

July 26, 2010

Realist don't advocate democracy?

First off, your defense of a label is stupid and beneath you, Steven and all who contribute to this site. What is a realist versus whatever else really becomes meaningless once the terms are exercised in the details.

What concerns me is our insistence that foreign leaders betray the interests of their own people. That is anti-democratic in the clearest sense of the word. We do this, naturally and have many competitors, to get advantages in trade, military, whatever. It concerns me that we will impetuously alter foreign gov'ts if they drive a hard bargain for their people.

I'm not a total idealist. I understand that they can compromise, but should get something for their people. But, it's awful tempting and seemingly easy to change these regimes. We may pump money into one party in elections, spread lies, or secret damning information to affect their leadership. Or, make false coups, or simply assassinate or arrest someone we don't like. And, other countries are willing to do the same thing.

So, I'm saying we shouldn't engage in these Machiavellian machinations. They aren't worth the blow-back, nor the unforeseeable consequences. We shouldn't bribe officials even though that may be a more cost effective means of winning a contract, or deal. We should be squeaky clean and when bribing countries, bribe the people, openly--Build a damn, power plant, highway.

The best way for an America worth living in to succeed is to follow my course. If we believe in these principles, let's practice them. Other means don't alter the best definition of democracy I know, "the consent of the governed." Your arguments equivocate these terms to preserve your titles, its tendentious, tired and a waste of time.

Should be demand other societies change and advance their perspectives on human rights and the rights of minorities? Well, the only this happens is by debate. Even if we bomb someone, install a gov't we're just delaying the debate. The very stability of the government comes from the consent of the governed. There ain't enough cops, ISAF forces to change that. These debates must happen.

Who is best to council a woman on her sexual liberation, her friends, their own people, exposed to foreign ways of life through trade, or her rapist? I'm not the one advocating "shock and awe," or some liberal version of re-education camps. Nor am I a racist, society-ist, nor nationalist; I'm probably more of an anthropologist, and dig people and cultures. Though, I don't necessarily like people themselves much.

I really find these conversations about realists versus, whatever else, neo-con, isolationist... to be so silly. Address the questions I raised. Which is it, war, or trade, or covert coups, contributions, conspiracies and communications? Should we, CAN we continue to demand gov'ts betray their own people? Is bribing foreign leaders wise? Should we allow our corporations to do it? Is there a cost here? Does the fact that we're not the only ones trying to do this matter? Those are far more substantive debate/discussion topic than "defend realism." As if that word really means anything anyway. In the particular, it becomes tangential to the issue. Please, for the love of rational discussion, drop this label defense and focus on the issues.

It would halve the length of the articles here, and make this 100% more substantive.

 

SLANEY BLACK

7:48 PM ET

July 26, 2010

How does this apply to Congo?

First off, it's not as if Congo (I assume you mean DR Congo) has been a revolving door. The presidency has been held by the Kabila family since 1997. If anything, elections have helped to strengthen the central government rather than leaving it in the hands of a weak foreign-imposed coalition arrangement. (Sure, Kabilism isn't an outcome that's ideal from the standpoint of American self-interest, but that's a separate issue).

Please explain further, because on the face of it, it looks like Congo is a case of realism gone haywire - all hyperviolent jockeying for control of mineral resources.

It's also not a mystery what's fueling the Congo crisis - Uganda and Rwanda, acting as proxies for shady Western mineral interests, if not Western powers themselves.

And the 'spadework' of developing local institutions hasn't been done at least in part because the international community doesn't want it. It was precisely when Laurent Kabila started founding popular mobilization committees around the country that the international community abandoned him, and he conveniently ended up dead. Apparently what he should have done is rely on the foreign troops who installed him in power.

I don't mean to swamp you with recent DR-Congo history, but I just have a hard time seeing what you mean here.

 

SCOTTINDALLAS

9:31 PM ET

July 26, 2010

stanley, Jack et al

I think the facts you present make my point. We should stand for a clean playing field, not to be the best of the corrupt. We should support the crack-down of corporations fueling conflicts, which we know is all too common throughout all but the Western World.

This "Realist" BS is a waste of time on some macro paradigm when it's the particulars that count. I don't dismiss the opinions or views of anyone on here, I just want the facts, not the Realists defense. Hell, one clear lesson that can be drawn from the 20th century was that labels can fuel wars. What was justified under the crackdown on anything remotely identified as "communists" or "Socialist" is nothing short of tragic. Usually, these labels hid agendas that made all that talk sophism. If you try to justify some position solely because it's the "Realist" position, that's vacuous.

I have tremendous esteem for Steven Walt and I'd extend that to the authors here. James A. Baker stands in my mind as the greatest diplomat of our day, Ike perhaps the best of his. I prefer Zbig to any of the other biggies that come to mind, though he hides some repugnant details. My comments are unfairly posted under this or any single post, I want to extend them to all the authors. Make your points, justify your points in facts presented and developed; stop wasting your time on tying all this to any "ism" or "ist." I'm not sure it necessarily means much in the particular. In fact, you can probably get 80% of people to agree on any specific point, why then divide everyone again?

I would except from this the need to identify single issue groups. Neo-cons, Christian freedom/rapturists, Cuban blockaders, Taiwan/China activists, Corporatists, and War contractors the all war is good, all the time folk. I think many neo-cons fall into the last group as well, but other than those, what are you fighting.

I wrote my first post before reading the article through, which I said was addressed to the web site generally; anyway, I agree that elections shouldn't be confused with democracy, though you didn't make that express point.

I wrote the CIA saying we indeed need to unwind our support of tyrannical puppets throughout the Muslim world. (I had written enough hostile things in the run up to Iraq that I thought I should communicate my position to anyone curious to know--they will probably never find it.) I suggested we need to encourage initially a free press, freedom of assembly and speech. Then within a year or so political parties must be allowed to form. I suggested that regional and municipal elections should be first opened, the the lesser houses of legislature a few years later, leading to the upper houses and eventually the executive.

Rushing this could easily lead to extremism. Ushering a ground up movement indeed creates the establishment of a bureaucracy that may help these extremist groups weed through some management challenges. The day to day mundane nature of civil governance might ground them. Again, it strains the mind to wonder in which aspects of this are "realistic" and really is totally academic.

 

TGGP

6:31 AM ET

July 27, 2010

Barry Weingast says Europe

Barry Weingast says Europe developed because it DIDN'T have peace-keepers.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/08/weingast_on_vio.html
Africa needs to go through the same process. As Edward Luttwak said, "Give war a chance!"

 

ATHEIST

3:06 PM ET

July 28, 2010

Does anyone still believe

Does anyone still believe that Neo-conservatives are actually concerned with democratization? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that their aim to continue wars indefinitely, and "democratization" is a useful excuse?

 

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Read More