#democracypromotion?
In 2009 the USAID programme created ZunZeneo, a Cuban social media
tool similar to Twitter. An Associated Press report containing documents and
interviews alleged that the US hoped to create a network that would help incite
mobs and eventually assist with an uprising. The report stated that the funding
for this project was listed in public government records as being drafted for a
project in Pakistan, but the document did not specify where exactly the money
was going. According to the report,
great care was taken to keep the link to US hidden with the communications
network built from secret shell companies and financed through foreign banks.
(info from http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/3/us-secretly-builtcubantwittertostirunrest.html
)
The US while admitting to the creation of the programme, denied that
it was a covert operation. USAID has defended the project saying that “the
purpose of the Zunzuneo project was to create a platform for Cubans to
speak freely among themselves, period” (http://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/apr-3-2014-statement-reference-associated-press-article-cuban-twitter
). USAID has said that it has been a longstanding policy of the US’s to promote
communication amongst Cuban people and with the rest of the world. In addition,
USAID said that in the circumstances of a hostile environment it was necessary to
“take steps to protect the companies” it was working with on the ground. The US Senate has had split views, with some
appalled that the USAID had not made them aware of what the funding was for. Others
feel the focus should be on the fact that USAID was trying to promote the
values the US stands for which was openness, debate, communication and
democracy.
Constructivism would see the US’s actions and the rhetoric used to
justify it as evidence that international relations cannot be explained without
recourse to normative ideas. Constructivists argue that the world cannot be
understood in material terms alone. Normative ideas help explain why states
behave the way they do and that these normative ideas shape identity. Alexander
Wendt, a prominent constructivist, argues that identity is grounded in social
interactions, and this shapes interests. States try to conform to idealized
images, but still have to fashion their behavior to fit their identity. Wendt
criticizes the neoliberal and neorealist approaches. According to Wendt, these
theories focus on states being self-interested agents motivated by material
gains. They see the need to rely on self-help, as states exits in an anarchic
world with no overarching power to protect them. If a country is threatened,
its only way to ensure its survival is to protect itself.
Wendt argues that anarchy and the distribution of power are
insufficient explanations to help distinguish enemies from friends in international relations. Wendt compares the US’s attitude towards Canada compared to Cuba. Canada
is a more powerful state in military terms than Cuba, but is not seen as a
threat. Yet Cuba, a tiny island is seen
as a threat. Wendt acknowledges that distribution of power effects state
actions, but how it does so is dependent on the ideology of the countries. In
the case of Cuba, the communist ideology of its government differs from that of
the US.
The importance of ideology is seen in the way the US uses the
rhetoric of democracy promotion in order to justify its actions. The USAID has
said that it was proud of its work in Cuba and saw its actions as basic
humanitarian assistance through promoting human rights and universal freedoms. The US appealed to the normative ideas of democracy rather
than democracy promotion itself. Assisting a state in overthrowing a government
would be seen as violating that state’s right to autonomy. Instead of
justifying their actions on the need to install a democratic government, it has
focused instead on values such as openness and communication that the world
recognizes as being ‘right’. To force democracy on a country would be seen as
paternalistic. Enforcing good values, might be more acceptable. Framing their
actions in this way, the US is more likely to gain support from its citizens as
well as more likely to avoid international condemnation. This rhetoric also proves Wendt's point about sates needing to be seen as behaving in a way that reflects its idealised norms.
This explanation of the Cuban Twitter defence would be criticised as leaving out the fact that Cuba did not hold any other interests for the US. Neorealists
agree that norms exist but insist that they are regularly discarded in the
interests of power. Merit to this criticism of constructivism is seen in the
inconsistency of the US appraoch to democracy promotion. Democracy is a central part of the US's identity, yet through out history there has been examples where this was abandoned to pursue other goals. The US frequently turns a blind eye to countries with authoritarian governments if other interests are at stake. For example, the US helped Saudi Arabia improve their
domestic infrastructure and build its oil industry. Support for an
authoritarian government meant that the US received stable oil prices. The US
abandoned its commitment to promoting democracy when it was economically
beneficial. State survival is dependent on economic prosperity. These theorists would criticise constructivism for not being able to account for the several times the US has acted not in democratic interests, but in self interest. Thus while norms are helpful in explaining cases such as US/Cuba relations, the theory fails to explain why democracy promotion seems to occur where it suits other US interests.
