Intervening for Democracy?

DEMOCRACY IS ALL the rage in Washington this week. Faced with a phenomenal popular revolt against longtime U.S. client Ferdinand Marcos, the Reagan Administration reluctantly adopted an alledgedly interventionist policy. Yet it is in spite of American policy--long one of malign neglect--that the Philippine people have finally won their freedom.

But those who value a foreign policy that works for anti-communism, U.S. military bases and the multinational way can rest easy that conservatives will extract a quid pro quo for our withdrawl of support from Marcos. Their argument, as explained by Neo-Conservative guru Charles Krauthammer, is that if the U.S. is going to support democracy in the Philippines, well, then gosh darn we should support it in Nicaragua and Angola too.

But while Vice President George Bush has lauded--with a straight face--Marcos' record of "adherence to democratic principles," the administration's policy in the Philippines has worked against any such principles. Even when it became clear that Marcos had stolen the presidential election earlier this month, President Reagan equivocated in the face of widespread reports of election fraud and intimidation by Marcos supporters. Reagan actually encouraged Filipinos not to contest the results of the election.

Not until Congress threatened to cut off aid and preempt Reagan, did he even threaten sanctions against Marcos. If there is a Reagan doctrine, it is certainly not active intervention to support the development of democratic regimes.

In fact, Krauthammer's examples illustrate the total absence of concern for popular self-determination that has characterized the administration's foreign policy. The U.S. should, indeed, be working for democracy in Nicaragua and in Southern Africa, but the policy that Krauthammer advocated--and, more specifically, the legislation the administration is now pushing in Congress--will do just the opposite.

In its latest efforts to support democracy in Nicaragua, Reagan--backed by clamoring cold-warriors like Krauthammer--is seeking $100 million in aid for the Contra rebels that have inflicted several million dollars worth of damage on the struggling Nicaraguan economy and have killed on wounded over 12,000 people, most of them civilians.

Not only have the Contras failed to hold any territory in Nicaragua--indicating that they are hardly popular--but they are actually fighting against a democratically elected government that received overwhelming support from the populace in an election that international observers characterized as generally fair and open.

One could not say as much for the latest elections in El Salvador where the U.S. is propping up a repressive government with massive military and economic aid. In its efforts to support democracy, the Reagan Administration has just announced that it will resume training of Salvadoran police who have been implicated in a decade of mass terror and murder.

Believe it or not, the administration's designs for Angola are even worse. State Department officials acknowledged last week that the U.S. will give $15 million in "covert" aid to Angolan rebels led by Jonas Savimbi. The rebels are fighting against the Cuban-backed Angolan government.

Again, the policy pays little attention to the past: for example, to the fact that Cuban troops were invited by the Angolan government to help repel an invasion by South African forces from bases in the illegally occupied territory of Namibia.

The administration is really just proposing to do South Africa's dirty work, as Savimibi has long depended on convoys of aid from the white minority regime and has fought with the South Africans against Namibian guerilla forces.

So when Krauthammer sees the U.S. doing the same thing in the Philippines, in Central America, and in Southern Africa, he is right. However, what this country is doing is of little benefit to democracy, or peace or the general welfare, in any of those places.