Democracy Fund: A loser for America

By Cheryl K. Chumley
web posted October 11, 2004

How much is enough?

That should be the overall question for Americans to ponder
after President Bush's speech to the U.N. General Assembly on
Tuesday, Sept. 21, during which he pledged to increase U.S.
responsibilities for providing for the world's downtrodden and
poverty-stricken via more funding and greater cooperation with
the global government.

Forefront of Bush's plan was a call for creation of the
Democracy Fund, a coffer to "help countries lay the foundations
of democracy by instituting the rule of law, independent courts, a
free press, political parties and trade unions." A boon for the
impoverished nations, no doubt. But Americans should view this
proposal with wary eyes, for two main reasons.

The Democracy Fund proposed by Bush would be overseen, at
least in part, by the United Nations, a body with historic
ineptness at allocating money absent scandal and waste (witness
the Oil-for-Food program). Secondly, the United States
provides more than enough in terms of international assistance,
billions of dollars at both national and international levels, and
moreover already operates a so-titled Democracy Fund within
the State Dept. that accounted for more than $66 million of
taxpayer dollars between 1999 and 2003.

The Human Rights and Democracy Fund "supports innovative
programming designed to uphold designated principles, support
democratic institutions, promote human rights and build civil
society in countries and regions of the world that are geo-
strategically critical to the U.S." Not only does this agenda mirror
that of the proposed Bush plan for a U.N. Democracy Fund,
leading to the question of course of why America must pay twice
for separate identical programs, but it also, of perhaps greatest
importance, includes the clause "geo-strategically critical" to the
United States.

This provision, crucial to upholding the tenets of sovereignty
upon which our constitutional republic is built, is notably lacking
with the U.N. Democracy Fund. And what this oversight
amounts to is yet another U.S. taxpayer liability absent U.S.
control.

Here's an ideal to consider, as outdated as it might seem in
America 2004, but whatever happened to the caveat of one of
our nation's most influential Founding Fathers?

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with
any portion of the foreign world…," said George Washington,
during his 1796 farewell address to the country.

Seems this U.N. Democracy Fund might meet the criteria of a
defined entangling alliance, given that the U.S. taxpayers would
foot the bill of an outreach program they would not even then
independently oversee. Better for America than a presidential
promise to cede more money and oversight to the United
Nations would have been a Bush appeal to Congress and the
duly elected (who remain accountable in word and deed to the
American constituent) for greater funding of the State Dept.
Democracy Fund. At least that way, our nation could pinpoint
which countries to support, as we did for example, during FY
2003–2004 with $615,000 to prevent torture in Uzbekistan, or
$607,000 to promote law in China.

While arguably true that some of these State Dept. expenditures
might still run contrary to Washington's warning against
international alliances, this method of funding nonetheless
requires those in the political realm to debate, consider and
weigh on a case-by-case basis whether each proposed allotment
would bring benefit to America, either short-term or in the long-
run. Sending money to the United Nations to disburse as it
largely sees fit guarantees no such consideration would exist, and
the fact that Bush did not yet stipulate how much America would
provide in initial contributions for this fund only furthers the
concern that this entire idea is based on irresponsible economics.

But this proposed new U.N. fund mocks America on another
front, also: Lacking is any mention of free-market principle, a
core value of the very democracy Bush seeks to spread. While
grants and giveaways can be seen as necessary as an economic
jumpstart for deeply impoverished nations that have little from
which to build and produce, long-term funding absent real reform
of the part of the receiving country does not result in motivation
to achieve self-sufficiency. In other words, instead of proposing
a fund geared loosely at spreading democracy world-wide, and
setting the United Nations as overseer of this program, Bush
instead should have confined his dream to U.S. borders with
approved allocations that focused on helping the world's
impoverished to develop products that could ultimately prove
desirous and tradable on the international level.
 
In this way, the United States maintains control over the direction
of funding, maintains control over the choice of nations to help,
based on potential to achieve democratic reform and economic
solvency, and simultaneously, maintains at least some small part
of the spirit and basic ideals that guide our constitutional system.

Cheryl K. Chumley is also a freelancing columnist and may be
reached at ckchumley@aol.com.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com