Sborník příspěvků XVII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách Hustopeče 18.–20. 6. 2014
907
DOI: 10.5817/CZ.MUNI.P210-6840-2014-118
GLOBAL POLITICS: DEMOCRATIC PRACTICE AND THE
THREAT LOGIC WITHIN AND BEYOND THE
TRANSATLANTIC REGION
GLOBÁLNÍ POLITIKA: DEMOKRATICKÁ PRAXE A LOGIKA
HROZBY UVNITŘ A VNĚ TRANSATLANTICKÉHO REGIONU
MGR. GETNET TAMENE, PHD.
DOC. PHDR. OĽGA BOČÁKOVÁ, PHD.
Katedra politológie
Celouniverzitné pracovisko
Trenčianska univerzita A. Dubčeka v Trenčíne
Department of Political Science
University Department
Trenčín University of Alexander Dubček in Trenčín
* Študentská 2, 911 50 Trenčín, Slovak republic
E-mail: tameneg@hotmail.com, bocakova@tnuni.sk
Annotation
Currently, issues of democratic practice and the threat logic among others have become more
discussable themes than ever before in the transatlantic region1
and beyond. While the absence of
sound common threat has generally deepened the rifts in the relationships of the enlarged
transatlantic alliance (ETAA) in the post-CW era, current events have protracted the rifts even
further, putting in question the nature of the alliance’s democratic practice, which is meant to serve as
a model to those beyond it. Since decision making on global issues has been unilaterally dominated by
Washington, this behavior significantly discourages democratic practice. It is worth to assess the
ETAA in light of democratic practice and global decision making capacity as well as in light of the
threat logic. Following the analysis the paper will make a viable recommendation.
Key words
democratic practice, global politics, threat logic
Anotace
V súčasnosti, otázky demokratickej praxe a logika hrozby sa nielen v transatlantickom regióne stali
oveľa viac diskutované témy ako kedykoľvek predtým. Cieľom príspevku je poukázať na to, že zatiaľ,
čo absencia spoločnej hrozby celkovo prehlbovala trhliny vo vzťahoch rozšírenej transatlantickej
aliancie (ETAA), aktuálne udalosti situáciu viac zhoršovali, tým že spochybnili demokratickú prax
aliancie, ktorá sa pokladá ako vzor pre zvyšok sveta. Keďže, v rozhodovaniach o vážnych globálnych
otázkach výrazne dominuje Washington, toto správanie významne odrádza demokratickú prax. Bude
dôležite hodnotiť ETAA vzhľadom na demokratickú prax a z hľadiska jej schopnosti rozhodovania o
globálnych otázkach ako aj vzhľadom na logiku hrozby. V závere príspevku tiež odporúčame možné
riešenia vzniknutej situácie.
Kľúčové slová
demokratická prax, globálna politika, logika hrozby
1
This refers mainly to the US and Western European countries. In the post-Cold War era it included the Central
and Eastern European Countries, which were incorporated to the Atlantic region, while constituting what is now
understood as Enlarged Transatlantic Alliance (ETAA). Thus ETAA encompasses a wide array of relations
between the two sides of Atlantic, and does not mean NATO per se.
Sborník příspěvků XVII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách Hustopeče 18.–20. 6. 2014
908
JEL classification: F60
Introduction
Contemporary global issues include vast array of problems ranging from security to global warming,
from deepening rifts between the transatlantic region to the relational problems of the regions beyond
it, as well as issues of globalization, democratic practice, spying, unilateralism and the like. Inasmuch
as the nexus of ETAA to these issues is concerned, recent years have seen some major unpleasant
developments in the strategic environment in which ETAA is situated. These include the global
financial crisis; multipolarity without multilateralism; technological threats to international ecosystem;
evolving rules governing the use of force. These events and sporadically rising social conflicts have
dramatic implications on the relationship of post-Cold War transatlantic region, as well as, on its
relationship with regions beyond it. This unpleasant development of relationships has dwindled away
a united policy making capacity, such as the one, which was predominantly oscillated around the issue
of common threat in the bygone era. The results have become in many cases chaotic; since democratic
politics based all-inclusive solutions to global issues have not been met yet. Some events of
endogenous nature may indicate few positive results, but at exogenous level the trend needs to be
carefully seen. This paper tries to analyze in a nut-shell the nature of democratic political practice and
developments within the transatlantic region and beyond it.
1. Democratic political practice in the transatlantic region
Undoubtedly, the transatlantic region (US&EU) is a region with the most purposefully democratic
governing institutions in history of the human polity. The region is self-conscious about this
phenomenon, probably it is also proud of its democratic character, and encourages the rest of the
world to emulate its life style. Understanding this conduct will help to identify the policies they adopt
(Michalski, 2009), especially towards the regions beyond it, including non-democratic or marginally
democratic countries, which it desires to shape in own image.
Though it remains a contested policy proposition, initiatives to assist new democracies and to
encourage the emergence of more democracies have been established and have endured on both sides
of the Atlantic. The process, however, projects varying approaches. During the two decades straddling
the end of the Cold War, Europeans and Americans made it their business to work toward the
establishment of democratic governments elsewhere in the world, for reasons ranging from the
altruistic and humanitarian to utilitarian or instrumental rationales relating to security and prosperity.
However, as the motives and the approaches become inconsistent, today democracy appears to be
backsliding and semi-authoritarian regimes in countries such as China, constitute real alternatives to
developing countries in their quest for economic growth and development without having to engage in
risky democratic and social reforms. The EU and the US have a shared interest in redeeming the status
of democracy promotion. Democracy is part of American and European fundamental values it is also a
basic premise of their societies. Furthermore, democracy is a fundamental principle in their foreign
policies and becomes an essential aspect of their relations with third countries. Both the US and the
EU stand to gain if democracy is reinstated as a concrete expression of fundamental universal value
and as a requirement for a multilateral system of governance at a global level. This ideal, however,
suffers deficiency and appears to be very distant, mainly, to those beyond the transatlantic region, if it
is imposed as a one-way-street. In relation to this, an American NGO Freedom House indicates that
more countries have currently seen basic freedoms decline than improve (Freedom in the World,
2009). The inconsistencies, in upholding democratic principles were clear in the past with the US
involvement in Latin America and elsewhere; they are observable in various areas currently as well.
It has been also argued that ‘the Bush administration’s identification of democracy building with the
war in Iraq has discredited the concept both at home and abroad’ and that a ‘generation of
Sborník příspěvků XVII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách Hustopeče 18.–20. 6. 2014
909
work to build consensus at home and legitimacy abroad for USdemocracy promotion is in disarray
(Carothers, 2007).
During its EU presidency, in June, officials in the Czech ministry of foreign affairs presented to an
international conference meeting in the ministry a policy brief setting forth a “common approach” for
the EU’s “Global pro-Democracy Agenda.” Europeans and Americans have over the past two
generations taken turns in leading the way toward the institutionalization of structures and policies on
democracy assistance. In 2009, the EU has stepped forward while the U.S. has stepped back.
European and American leaders should work together on the truly large challenges in this realm, while
dividing between them the smaller challenges, based on notions of comparative advantage and
proximity (Carothers, 2007).
Despite sharing similar value-based foundations and normative principles, cooperation between the
EU and the US in the area of democracy has in recent times been neither systematic nor recurrent. The
US has in the past been criticized for being an explicit promoter of democracy, adopting a rhetorically
charged approach of democracy strategy that too often emphasizes confrontational stances, centers
directly on foreign rulers or specific causes and high–lights visible manifestations or symbols of
democracy, such as elections (Michalski, 2009). Examples like the case of Iraq War and others
underscore the delicate relationship between the articulation of democracy promotion policies that are
based on universal values and the pursuit of own interests.
It is also not quite clear in the area of democracy promotion whether the US views the EU as potent
treaty based global player. An account of The EU’s efforts to promote democracy shed light on its
strengths and weaknesses as well as the challenges ahead (Youngs, 2005). Consequently, the Lisbon
Treaty building on the treaties currently in force states unequivocally that the EU must build relations
with third countries on the basis of its own values and founding principles, namely “democracy, the
rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human right and fundamental freedoms and respect
for human dignity….” (Treaty on European Union).
2. Declining tendencies of post-cold war transatlantic cooperation
The process of creating the European Union (EU) may be seen as a way for restoring the former
prestige and power of diplomacy of the European region. After 1989, however, mainly after the
disintegration of the Soviet Union (SU) in 1991, Europe no longer wanted to be a region protected by
the US. In the post-CW period, the US has been changed to a hegemon. Europe’s position has
changed, too. Its growing ambition for bigger global responsibility could be underlined as one of the
major causes of the ever deepening rifts within the ETAA.
All issues of global nature, on which these sides have different opinions, have contributed to generate
and aggravate the rifts within and beyond, while hindering the capacity of producing a united policy to
address global issues and fostering democratic practice.
Events like the 2003 US led war against Iraq strongly remind us how the ETAA relationships were
getting worse, later on, however, after regular elections have brought new faces in governments of
both sides of the ETAA, relationships seemed to have been getting somewhat better. Nonetheless, the
most current overreaching spy scandals of the US on its allies and others, which came to light
following the leaks of various whistleblowers and reporters, have enormously damaged once again an
already troubled relationship that has been deeply protracted.2
On the other hand, inasmuch as a
perception of the ETAA relations with the rest of the world, which may be described as a-one-waystreet,
is concerned, much has not changed. It rather reflects the common practice of business as usual,
2
The spy scandal has been very worrying. With each leak, as American soft power continued to hemorrhage,
hard power has threatened to seep away with it.” Thus, various News outlets such as The Guardian went on to
question what it means “to be an American ally in the 21st
century.” Also available on:
< http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/23/merkel-nsa-phone-allies-enemies>
Sborník příspěvků XVII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách Hustopeče 18.–20. 6. 2014
910
where the ETAA humiliates particularly those less developed weaker nations and it easily gets along
with it.3
None of the ETAA approaches in providing solutions to the current global issues such as
world peace conditions, economic progress, ecological or social preferences confirm the relevance of
the ETAA trend, as a single effective policy-making choice, to all human polity.
In other words, the ETAA is far from causing unified solutions to array of global issues, indeed,
skeptics see it as a kit box for the US’s hegemony and its impious imperial lust, which conducts
actions that are based on unilateral decisions, such as invasion of nation states, arming and leading
armed insurgencies against peoples who want self-determination, drone warfare, economic blockades
that harm ordinary people especially children, destabilizing countries, negotiating trade deals that
favor US corporations, rendition, black op's, water boarding, spent uranium bombs, increasing
poverty, environmental destruction, increasing totalitarian policing and now the bow that ties it all
together the security and surveillance state. This exposure is what starts to change an idea about what
the US is, and the ETAA that has been constellated around it. None of these phenomenon project
genuine democratic practice.
3. Dwindling significance of the threat logic for the transatlantic future
As indicated above, the notion of threat has been the linchpin that bound both sides of the transatlantic
relationships. It served as a cornerstone for the further existence of the ETAA. The relationships
between Europe and the US have been geared to depend on the notion of common threat than anything
else over the Cold War period. The threat logic was probably appropriate during that bygone time, but
these days it appears to be increasingly out of whack. In the context of security dilemma4
, sticking to
this declining logic of threat does not seem a viable strategy for the ETAA. Consent was very possible
during the era of traditional security dilemma (TSD), for instance, over the Cold War period
Communism was perceived as an indivisible common threat for all members of the transatlantic
partners. In the TSD, the threat logic had served the objective of holding the transatlantic alliance
together and to device a unified policy or a workable action plan.
Today, however, with the rise of the new security dilemma (NSD), this threat logic sounds to have
been declining. Unlike the TSD, in the case of NSD, the threat logic shows a dwindling trend, mainly,
because the threat logic has now become divisible. All members of, for instance, the transatlantic
alliance would not be able now to produce a unified common strategy on the grounds of any perceived
threats. As the threat logic dwindles so does the transatlantic unison as well. This development has
been one result of the shift from TSD to NSD which has taken a faster pace over the post-Cold War
era (Cerny, 2000). The shift occurred when the Uni-Multipolar system has replaced the bipolar one
during the 1990s. Ever since, the threat logic has become feeble, unable to hold the transatlantic
unison.
The following three points belong among the major factors that attempt to explain the falling tendency
of the transatlantic relationship. They include:
§ The shift from TSD to NSD – this has led the longstanding threat logic to expire;
3
This refers to what is known as the West spearheaded by the US, the euphemism of ‘free world’, western
dominated global community, international community, or ETAA or the US and its allies, which is using
international institutions, military power and economic resources to run the world in ways that may maintain
Western predominance in all areas. It has been obvious in various cases including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya
to show, how it destroys weaker nations and easily gets along with it. Also see Huntington, S. 1993, The Clash
of Civilizations, on the next pattern of conflicts. See <http://www.bintjbeil.com/articles/en/d_huntington.html>
4
Security dilemma refers to the concept that directly and indirectly, both strength and weakness can upset the
balance of security in international relations. It is also understood as the spiral model. The term refers to a
situation in which actions by a state intended to heighten its security, such as increasing its military strength or
making alliances, can lead other states to respond with similar measures, producing increased tensions that
create conflict, even when no side really desires it. Also see Cerny, Philip, The New Security Dilemma, pdf.
Sborník příspěvků XVII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách Hustopeče 18.–20. 6. 2014
911
§ The shift from one-way-street transatlantic based nation state politics to the two-way-street that
includes those beyond the TAA – this aspect has gathered momentum in the environment of
globalization. Since globalization enhances trigger strategies, new actors do inevitably rise,
compete and resist one-way-street domination and undemocratic unfair practices;
§ The emerging of a 21st
Century New Order and pertinent systems – this aspect is currently on
motion, it focuses on inducing the rise of a possible human friendly arrangement, which is more
just-full towards all the human polity, unlike the one which is currently exhausted and ETAA
dominated. The new order and its associated systems are on the rise, the exhausted TAA
dominated old order and its associated systems are on the decline. Despite all the attempt of
retaining the ETAA dominated old order and its associated system such as unipolarism, chains of
events ostensibly confirm the opposite.
The emerging 21st
century order may be understood as a World Society Order. The corresponding
initial system of this World Society Order is observably the Uni-Multipolar System. This currently
observable uni-multipolar system has been tilted towards multipolarism than unipolarism. Thus, one
may arguably claim that a multipolar System which presupposes a workable multilateral democracy is
on the horizon (Tamene, 2013).
4. The Transatlantic and those beyond it: the case of Democratic Republic of
Congo
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is one example among many others to reflect the
transatlantic behavior in the face of those beyond it. A number of companies and western governments
pressured a United Nations panel to omit details of shady business dealings in a report out in October
2003, concerning the DRC. As the British newspaper, The Independent reported, in October [2002],
the panel accused 85 companies of breaching OECD standards through their business activities. Rape,
murder, torture and other human rights abuses followed the scramble to exploit Congo’s wealth after
war exploded in 1998. According to the panel, for example the trade in coltan, a rare mineral used in
computers and mobile phones, had social effects “akin to slavery”. But no Western government had
investigated the companies alleged to have links with such abuses. Some, including ones from the UK,
US, Belgium and Germany, had lobbied to have their companies’ names cleared from the “list of
shame”. This is blatantly undemocratic practice that has nothing to do with fostering democracy
within those beyond the transatlantic region (International Battle Over Resources), despite ostensible
mention of human rights, the rule of law, and democratic practice for all. In the DRC, the conduct of
the transatlantic based companies had not confirmed the expected enhancement of peace and
democratic practice, in the country; they rather encouraged undemocratic practice that led to further
corruption and self-enrichment through exploiting the mineral wealth of the country (Bekoe,
Swearingen, 2009). Resources from the mining sector have provided a source of violent competition
as well as income for combatants in eastern DRC (Collier, Hoeffler, 2000). Lincény (2012) indicates
how media manipulation is able to affect activities in this regard.
5. Conclusion
This paper has tried to assess the ETAA in light of democratic practice and global decision making
capacity as well as in light of the threat logic. Washington’s unilateral decision making approach to
global issues significantly discourages democratic practice. Consequently, the logic of finding a
unifying common threat that is not just self-serving has now become more difficult between those in
the ETAA as well as between the ETAA on one hand and those beyond it on the other. This puts
democratic practice based global political decision making capacity at risk, while obstructing
perspectives that lead towards cooperative and inclusive end. The most pressing global issues of our
time require inclusive global decision making capacity that anchors itself in the practice of genuine
democratic politics and on avoiding the dwindling fake logic of threat. The solution this paper
recommends envisages a multilateral multipolar arrangement.
Sborník příspěvků XVII. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách Hustopeče 18.–20. 6. 2014
912
References
[1] BEKOE, D., SWEARINGEN, M., (2009). What next for the Democratic Republic of Congo?
Recommendations from a Trans-Atlantic Diaspora Dialogue. Washington: United States Institute of Peace.
Available at: < http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/resources/drc_diaspora_dialogue.pdf>.
[2] CAROTHERS, T., (2007). Repairing Democracy Promotion, Washington Post.com’s Think Tank Town,
The Washington Post. [online]. [cit. 2014-1]. Available at: <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/>.
[3] CERNY, P. G., (2000). The New Security Dilemma: divisibility, defection and disorder in the global era.
Review of International Studies, vol. 26, iss. 4, pp. 623–646. DOI 10.1017/S0260210500006239.
[4] COLLIER, P., HOEFFLER, A., (2000). Greed and Grievance in Civil War. Vol.1. World Bank.
[5] Freedom in the World 2009, (2009). Freedom Retreats for Third Year. [Online]. [cit. 2014-1]. Available at:
< http://www.freedomhouse.org/article/freedom-world-2009-freedom-retreats-third-year>.
[6] HUNTINGTON, S., (1993). The Clash of Civilizations, on the next pattern of conflicts. [Online]. [cit.
2014]. Available at: <http://www.bintjbeil.com/articles/en/d_huntington.html>.
[7] International Battle Over Resources. Available at: < http://www.globalissues.org/article/87/the-
democratic-republic-of-congo>.
[8] LINCÉNY, M., (2012). Parliamentary Elections 2012 and Media. In Elections 2012. Trenčín: Transparent
Publisher. pp.138-40.
[9] MICHALSKI, A., (2009). Democracy Promotion in a Transatlantic Perspective: Reflections from an
Expert Working Group. Swedish Institute for European Policy Analysis, vol. 2009, iss. 2. ISSN 1651-8942.
Available at: < http://www.sieps.se/sites/default/files/518-20092-epa.pdf>.
[10] TAMENE, G., (2013). Alternative Perspectives in International Relations and Politics of the 21st Century.
In Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, vol. 3, iss. 1, pp.14-36. ISSN 1944-1096.
[11] Treaty on European Union (as amended by the Lisbon Treaty), art.21. [online]. [cit.2014]. Available at:
<http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/full_text/index_en.htm>.
[12] What it means “to be an American ally in the 21st
century.”, (2013). The Guardian, [online]. [cit. 2014].
Available at: < http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/23/merkel-nsa-phone-allies-enemies>.
[13] YOUNGS, R., (2005). The reluctant debutante: The European Union as promoter of democracy in its
neighbor hood. [online]. [cit. 2014-1-2]. Available at: < http://www.fride.org/publication/26/the-reluctant-
debutante>