The Democratic Ideal as Strategic Tool

For the past seven decades, and more vigorously in recent years, democracy has been hailed as the best strategy for state development by most of the “developed” world. Justifications for this argument include the economic and social development associated with the established democracies of North America and Europe. Moreover, countries like Germany, England, Italy, and France have a vested interest in the success of the economic power of the United States of America (U.S.). Such countries have stepped in line behind U.S. military action in Afghanistan for the past 13 years, a country and region that has seen collusion from the outside world for a very long time. The ongoing war in Afghanistan is a powerful example of how the trends and norms of the world prior to World War II are still very contemporary. The recent breakdown in East-West relations headed by Russia’s annexation of Crimea has many commonalities with the situation in Afghanistan. It is likely that the strategic location of Afghanistan will continue to play a large role in militaristic and economic actions of allied countries in the West.

Many truths about the current economic state of Afghanistan, and the activities of U.S. interests in the region over the past decade, have surfaced in recent years. Yet, the common message voiced in the U.S. by the White House has been that of democratization. Of course, any trend towards democratization will be tensed in resistance and conflict, a common characteristic of any political revolution. Then U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul voiced his opinions regarding the trend towards democracy as a fixture in international politics, despite the many autocratic regimes that hide behind the guise of a representative system (77). But are puppet democracies and terse assurances a positive direction? Moreover, does democracy mean development? Certainly, McFaul took notice of Russia’s forced annexation of Crimea from Ukraine shortly after he stepped down as U.S. Ambassador to Russia.

Clearly the Western world is interested in both democracy and development. Alarmists will likely point out that the majority of U.S. backed democratic transitions as argument for politically motivated maneuvers that undermine the democratic process itself. The West's pursuit of democracy is more likely, though, an attempt to establish an environment in which physical, resource-oriented, and financial security is assured so that capital can be grown. After all, that’s the environment in which most successful democracies have excelled.

Does that mean democracy serves development? Adam Przeworski can’t find such a correlation. On the contrary, his work has shown that economic liquidity is actually a necessary precursor to a successful democracy (Przeworski 13). His study of 135 countries and their development over 50 years found that the most successful democracies and the most successful dictatorships shared equal growth in average and total income (Przeworski 17). Risk aversion, it seems, is a major reason affluent societies uphold democracy. The incentives to be malicious towards an opposition within a democracy decreases when basic needs and comforts are met.

In consideration of these arguments, it is untruthful to claim the war in Afghanistan is one of democratic ideals. Instead, it makes much more sense to view Afghanistan through the lens of East-West relations and the ongoing struggle for natural resources in a world that has experienced unprecedented population growth over the past few centuries. In his commentary on the Afghanistan war Michel Chossudovsky states that U.S. and European interests in Afghanistan are “part of a profit driven agenda: a war of economic conquest and plunder” (1). The geographic location of Afghanistan, alone, speaks to its strategic importance in terms of natural resource allocation and transportation. The northern borders of Afghanistan touch the former Soviet Union and a growing Russian power that sits on a massive natural gas reserve. Its eastern borders reach towards another growing economic giant, China. Its western borders line up along the eastern borders of long-time conservative and anti-Western Iran.

No matter the motives, and aside from the war time atrocities that have occurred in Afghanistan at the hand of Western military personnel, the long-term outcome will be an interesting case study in nation building. If economic liquidity is a necessary precursor to a successful democracy, U.S. officials who used the democracy-building argument to justify military action in Afghanistan assured that the money would flow. A Harvard political scientist, Linda J. Bilmes, recently published a report on U.S. military costs citing the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq in the first decade of the twentieth century will cost a total of $4-$6 trillion (Londono 1). That’s an estimate because we will be paying the bill for decades. The upfront cost, an estimated $2 trillion, was largely borrowed and made up about 20% of the debt incurred by the U.S. between 2001 and 2012 (Londono 1). This means that if democracy was the sole reason for military action in Afghanistan, democracy is expensive. The wartime cries for spreading the democratic ideal throughout a land of oppression will likely be matched by cries for domestic spending on social services and public infrastructure in the land of the free.

Considering the cost incurred by the U.S. and its allies, the war in Afghanistan seems more likely an investment with an expected return in actual currency than a humanitarian push for democracy. Considering the strategic location of Afghanistan centered between some of the largest natural gas reserves in the world in countries that hold anti-West sentiment, it doesn’t take a Harvard political scientist to see the economic potential in having military control over the region. European and other West-leaning countries like Germany, Italy, England, and France have a vested interest in backing U.S. military control. With the recent movement of Russia into Ukraine, the increasing economic power of China, and the emboldened anti-American sentiment in Iran, such European countries are feeling external threats for the first time in decades.

Works Cited

Chossudovsky, Michel. "The War is Worth Waging: Afghanistan's Vast Reserves of Minerals and Natural Gas." Global Research. Center for Research on Globalization, 21 Feb. 2014.

Londono, Ernesto. "Iraq and Afghan Wars Will Cost Up to $6 Trillion, Study Says." The Washington Post 29 Mar. 2013. National Security.

McFaul, Michael. "Engaging Autocrats (and Democrats) to Facilitate Democratic Transitions." Democracy in U.S. Security Strategy: From Promotion to Support. Washington, D.C.: CSIS Press, 2009. 75-96.

Przeworski, Adam. "Democracy and Economic Development." Political Science and the Public Interest. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2002. 1-27.