National Endowment for Democracy

April 6, 1988

APR 08 1988

The Honorable Henry Kissinger
Center for Strategic and
International Studies
1800 K Street, N.W.
Suite 1021
Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

Please join us at our next <u>Congressional Seminar on</u>
<u>Democracy</u> which will focus on "Realistic Prospects for
Democratic Change in the Soviet Bloc Countries."

We are honored to have <u>The Honorable Zbigniew Brzezinski</u> as our speaker. This seminar will be an opportunity to have a frank, off-the-record discussion of the situation in Eastern Europe led by an individual with a deep understanding of the region.

Dr. Brzezinski is currently Herbert Lehman
Professor of Government at Columbia University and
Counselor, Center for Strategic and International
Studies. From 1977 to 1981 he served as Assistant to
the President for National Security Affairs.

We will meet on **Wednesday, April 27th** at 6:00 p.m. for cocktails, with dinner at 6:30 pm, in room B354 of the Rayburn House Office Building. Please rsvp to Ms. Kim McBee (202/293-9072) by April 20th.

1101 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 203, Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

William E. Brock III
Chairman
Charles T. Manatt
Vice Chairman
LeGree Daniels
Secretary
Jay Van Andel
Treasurer

Polly Baca
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.
Dante B. Fascell
Orrin G. Hatch
Lane Kirkland
Henry A. Kissinger

John Richardson
Olin Robison
Albert Shanker
Sally Shelton-Colby
Charles H. Smith, Jr.
Eddie N. Williams

Carl Gershman
President

MAR - 7 1988.

March 3, 1988

The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
Kissinger Associates
350 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10022

Dear Henry:

Enclosed is the correspondence we received in
response to the inquiries you made at the board meeting
concerning Jan Kren's *The Partnership of Conflict: the
Czechs and the Germans 1780-1918*.

I've also enclosed an evaluation of the book we had
prior to taking the proposal to the board. These will
not necessarily address your questions directly, but
will, I believe, satisfy any concerns you may have.

I think it is important to note that Josef
Skvorecky, the editor of Sixty-Eight Publishers, and
Radomir Luza, a professor of history at Tulane
University who prepared the evaluation, are among the
most distinguished Czech figures in the West.

I enjoyed seeing you at the board meeting and look
forward to seeing you on March 11th.

CG/cc

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

John Richardson
Chairman
Sally Shelton-Colby
Vice Chairman
LeGree Daniels
Secretary
Jay Van Andel
Treasurer

Fuliy Baca
William E. Brock III
Frank J. Fahrenkopi, Jr.
Dante B. Fascell
Orrin G. Hatch
Lane Kirkland

Henry A. Kissinger
Charles T. Manatt
Edmund S. Muskie
Ohan Robison
Albert Shanker
Charles H. Smith, Jr.

Carl Gershman
President

MAR.08 '88 11:52 KISSINGER ASSOCIATES, WASH. DC

P.04

Tulane

Department of History
Tulane University
New Orleans, Louisiana 70118
(504) 865-5162

January 21, 1988

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

Jan Křen, "Konfliktní společenství: Češi a Němci 1780-1918."

The explanation of the tragedy of the repeated failure of the Czechs and Germans to establish a mutually beneficial and durable partnership may be found only in a careful study of their history. To this end, Jan Křen has critically and objectively examined all aspects of the Czech-German relationship, its shortcomings, failures, but also strengths. The story is a complex one -- both thrilling and tragic. Křen's achievement is to dissect the emotion-laden conventional picture of mutual hostility step by step and show how deceptive it is. Where others have turned the limelight on the national conflicts, Křen places them in historical perspective and treats them in a democratic spirit of tolerance. The story is firmly set in its time -- it is told well in a tone of detachment and rare objectivity.

I feel strongly that Křen's exemplary investigation that provides an enlightening case study of the roots of power and the weaknesses and strengths of the Habsburg Empire deserves to be known to the German-speaking public. In the course of my last stay in Vienna, I discussed the possibility of a German edition of the Křen's study with Mr. Kurt Biak, General Manager of the state-owned Oesterreichischer Bundesverlag. Mr. Biak agreed to consider the text for publication. I have arranged for the text to be sent by Mr. Křen to Mr. Biak. The reader is the cousin of former Austrian Federal Chancellor Bruno Kreisky. I intend to continue the discussion of the possible publication with Mr. Biak and Hilde Hawlicek, Minister of Education (to cover the translation expenses), next month when I attend the Symposium on the Anschluss organized by the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Radomir V. Luza
Professor of History

RVL/es

-2-

Kren shows nationalism to be subtle and more complex. Yet sometimes, he overemphasizes the lack of cohesion of German nationalism. Unfortunately, he did not make use of the recent debate on the specific anti-liberal and anti-Western character of German national ideology. He tends to consider Czech and German national conceptions to be of the same quality and fails to see the difference between a small nation emerging from national unconsciousness and the aggressive nature of German imperialism. Kren could have argued more persuasively, if he had contrasted the democratic middle class character of Czech nationalism with the racially exclusive autocratic quality of German national idea. The author treats admirably the Czech and German policies since 1848. His subtle analysis of the factors that contributed to the integration of the Czechs in the Habsburg Monarchy presents a reassessment of the Czech-German association. In tracing its continuity and explaining its adaptability and contribution, Kren conveys an impression of a higher degree of stabilization of the relationship than had usually been believed. Yet, while offering a perceptive, unified overview of the problems of the German-Czech coexistence, the author does not pay much attention to the anti-Semitic strand of German nationalism in the Habsburg lands. Nor does he remind the reader how National Socialism had taken over many of its tenets from traditional German national ideology.

The author makes his points effectively. He raises useful questions, furnishes insights on major issues, and corrects many misconceptions. In his narrative, critical thinking and sound scholarship substitute for categorical pronouncements and sweeping generalizations. I strongly recommend publication because I believe that this work will be highly respectd and influential.

The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
Kissinger and Associates

Mr. Charles T. Manatt
Manatt, Phelps, Rothenberg, and Evans

The Honorable Edmund S. Muskie *
Chadbourne & Parke

Mr. John Richardson
Counselor, U.S. Institute of Peace

Dr. Olin Robison
President, Middlebury College

Mr. Albert Shanker
President, American Federation of Teachers
Vice President, AFL-CIO

Ambassador Sally Shelton-Colby
Consultant, Bankers Trust Co.

Mr. Charles H. Smith, Jr.
Chairman of the Board, SIFCO Industries, Inc.

Mr. Jay Van Andel
Chairman of the Board, Amway Corporation

* Resigned September 1987

- v -

Chairman's Message

This, the fourth annual report of the National
Endowment for Democracy, describes the activities of an
organization which, though still young, is already making a
substantial and growing contribution to the most important
issue of our time: the struggle of people throughout the
world to live in freedom within democratic systems. As the
reader will see, the scope of the work being done is truly
extraordinary, both in terms of geographical reach and
programmatic diversity.

In the course of our work over the past four years, we
have discovered a remarkable degree of bipartisan consensus
on behalf of the proposition that the United States _should_
actively support those working without violence to promote
democracy abroad. The Endowment is the means whereby such
support can be provided -- openly, prudently, and in a
manner consistent with our country's democratic values and
convictions.

It has been a privilege for me, personally, to serve as
Chairman of the Endowment's Board of Directors during these
four years. I know that I speak for the entire Board when
I say how proud we are of what has been accomplished during
this period. The fact that so much has been accomplished
is due to many variables, and many people. I would
particularly like to thank the other members of our Board,
the dedicated members of the Endowment's staff, and our
exceptionally capable and effective president, Carl
Gershman.

I would also be remiss if I neglected to thank the many
other individuals outside of the Endowment who have
provided key support in the past year. We have been
greatly assisted by members of Congress from both parties;
members of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public
Diplomacy; representatives of the U.S. Information Agency,
the Agency for International Development, and the State
Department, among others.

SIXTY EIGHT PUBLISHERS

BOX 695, POSTAL STATION A, TORONTO, ONT., M5W 1G2 CANADA.

Mr. Marc F. Plattner,
Director of Program
National Endowment for Democracy
1101 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
Suite 203
Washington, D.C. 20005

18 October 1987

Dear Mr. Plattner:

Thank you for your letter of September 22nd which - due to the local postal strike - reached me only the day before yesterday.

The methods we use to evaluate the success of the project for which we applied for support in achieving its objectives are as follows:

We applied for financial support for the following titles:

Křen: Konfliktní společenství

Havel /Ed./ Hostina

Urbánek : Popaměti /the author has now expanded and revised the original text and has renamed it Stvořitelé světa, i.e. The Creators of the World/

The first two books are important scholarly works with limited appeal among the general readership. The third title are memoirs by a foremost anti-Communist intellectual and translator of Shakespeare and many American authors.

Basically, we use three criteria for measuring the success of such books:

1/ We sell enough copies to readers in the West to cover about half the direct production costs.

2/ We manage to get a substantial number of copies to Czechoslovakia and to the refugee camps in Europe. We hope to get into Czechoslovakia at least 1/4 of all copies printed, and use for that purpose the services of organizations specialized in such activities, as well as the services of willing tourists and of retired Czech citizens who are permitted to visit their children in the West.

3/ The books get favourable reviews both in emigré magazines, and in the samizdat publications in Czechoslovakia. They are used as sources for scholarly works by dissident scholars in Czechoslovakia and by scholars in the West. We get a significant number of readers’ letters commenting favourably on the books.

I think these criteria are the only immediate tests for the success of our projects. One shouldn't discard, however, the fact that by printing a valuable manuscript the book is saved for future generations of readers and researchers whereas if it existed only in the manuscript form it could be destroyed and lost forever.

I hope that this explanation will suffice. If you have any further questions, please, write or call.

Sincerely yours,

Josef Škvorecký
Editor
/416/ 964-8372 - home
/416/ 964-0337 - office

Bank Accounts: 68 PUBLISHERS TORONTO

CANADA: The Royal Bank of Canada, Yonge & Bloor Branch, 737 Yonge St., Toronto, Ont. Acc. No. 142-694-9

GREAT BRITAIN: The Royal Bank of Canada, 6 Lothbury, London EC2R 7JY, Credit External Account No. 9-72056

U.S.A.: Marine Midland Bank-Western, 225 Falls St., Niagara Falls, N.Y. 14303, Acc. No. 830-79319-4

WEST GERMANY: Deutsche Bank, Filiale Frankfurt, 6000 Frankfurt/M, Postfach 2623, Acc. No. 76/6196

Tulane

January 21, 1988

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

RVL/es

Proposed Agenda

Meeting of the Board of Directors

March 11, 1988

Washington, D.C.

I. Approval of the minutes of the January 15, 1988 meeting of the Board

II. Remarks of the Chairman

III. Report of the President

IV. Consideration of Proposals

V. Guest Speaker: Leopold Berlanger, President of the Haitian International Institute for Research and Development, a NED grantee

VI. Other Business

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

William E. Brock III
Chairman

LeGree Daniels
Secretary

Jay Van Andel
Treasurer

Polly Baca
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Frank J. Fahrenkopt, Jr.
Dante B. Fascell
Orrin G. Hatch
Lane Kirkland
Henry A. Kissinger

Carl Gershman
President

MAR 01 1988

February 25, 1988

MEMORANDUM

TO: Members of the Board of Directors

FROM: Carl Gershman

RE: Upcoming Board Meeting

I would like to confirm the arrangements for our upcoming Board meeting, which is scheduled for Friday, March 11th. We will meet in the Executive Chambers of the Madison Hotel at 15th & M Streets, Northwest. Continental breakfast will be available at 8:30 a.m., the meeting will commence promptly at 9:00 a.m., and we expect to conclude following luncheon.

In addition to our regular agenda, we will have with us Leopold Berlanger, who will brief us about the new situation in Haiti. As President of the Haitian International Institute for Research and Development, which the Endowment has supported, Mr. Berlanger has helped coordinate the efforts of Haitian democrats to move their country toward democracy.

I look forward to seeing you on the 11th.

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

William E. Brock III

Chairman

Charles T. Manatt

Vice Chairman

LeGree Daniels

Secretary

Jay Van Andel

Treasurer

Polly Baca

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.

Dante B. Fascell

Otrin G. Hatch

Lane Kirkland

Henry A. Kissinger

John Richardson

Olin Robison

Albert Shanker

Sally Shelton-Colby

Charles H. Smith, Jr.

Eddie N. Williams

Carl Gershman

President

February 19, 1988

MEMORANDUM

TO: MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

FROM: CARL GERSHMAN

RE: INFORMAL PROPOSAL REVIEW MATERIALS, ENCLOSURES

Enclosed are the materials for the upcoming informal proposal review meeting, which will be held on Thursday, February 25th at 9:30 a.m. at the Endowment's office. I look forward to seeing those of you able to attend.

Also enclosed are summaries of proposals we have received since our last mailing. In addition, a recent column from the *Cincinnati Post* on our conference book is included as well as an article from this week's *Washington Post* describing the shocking assassination of Syed Majrooh, an Endowment grantee who directed the Afghan Information Center in Peshawar, Pakistan. His death, as you will see from the article, is a great blow to the democratic cause in Afghanistan.

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

William E. Brock III

Chairman

Charles T. Manatt

Vice Chairman

LeGree Daniels

Secretary

Jay Van Andel

Treasurer

Polly Baca

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.

Dante B. Fascell

Orrin G. Hatch

Lane Kirkland

Henry A. Kissinger

John Richardson

Olin Robison

Albert Shanker

Sally Shelton-Colby

Charles H. Smith, Jr.

Eddie N. Williams

Carl Gershman

President

FEB 18 1988

February 16, 1988

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

Please join us at our next <u>Congressional Seminar on Democracy</u> which will focus on "Prospects for Democracy in Haiti."

We are pleased to have <u>Mr. Leopold Berlanger</u> as our speaker. This seminar will be an opportunity to have a frank, off the record discussion of the situation in Haiti led by an individual who has played a key role in the democratic movement there.

Mr. Berlanger is president of the Haitian International Institute for Research and Development, a nonpartisan, nongovernmental organization which has served as a neutral forum for dialogue about the effort to achieve a successful transition to democracy. He served as coordinator of the "Group of Eight," the leaders of the moderate Haitian democratic political parties who signed a Pact of Common Action for the Promotion and Defense of Democracy in December 1987. Mr. Berlanger is a professor of economy and development, and is a specialist in political economy, administration and rural development.

We will meet on <u>Wednesday, March 9th</u> at 6:00 p.m. for cocktails, with dinner at 6:30 p.m., in Room B369 of the Rayburn House Office Building. Please rsvp to Diane Bettge (202/293-9072) by March 2nd.

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

Polly Baca
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.
Dante B. Fascell
Otrin G. Hatch
Lane Kirkland
Henry A. Kissinger

Carl Gershman
President

January 23, 1988

The Honorable
Henry A. Kissinger
Center for Strategic and
International Studies
1800 K Street, N.W.
Room 1021
Washington, D.C. 20006

JAN 28 1988

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

Please join us at our next Congressional Seminar on
Democracy which will focus on "Realistic Prospects for
Democratic Change in the Soviet Bloc Countries."

We are honored to have The Honorable Zbigniew
Brzezinski as our speaker. This seminar will be an
opportunity to have a frank, off-the record discussion
of the situation in Eastern Europe led by an individual
with a deep understanding of the region.

We will meet on Wednesday, February 10th at 6:00 p.m. for cocktails, with dinner at 6:30 pm, in room B354 of the Rayburn House Office Building. Please rsvp to Ms. Jodi Longo (202/293-9072) by February 5th.

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

Polly Baca
William E. Brock III
Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.
Dante B. Fascell
Otrin G. Hatch
Lane Kirkland

Henry A. Kissinger
Charles T. Manatt
Edmund S. Muskie
Olin Robison
Albert Shanker
Charles H. Smith, Jr.

Carl Gershman
President

NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE
FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Suite 605, 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 328-3136 • Telex 5106015068 NDIIA

JAN 26 1988

January 25, 1988

**Chairman**
Walter F. Mondale

**Vice Chair**
Madeleine K. Albright

**Secretary**
Rachelle Horowitz

**Treasurer**
Peter G. Kelly

**President**
J. Brian Atwood

**Board of Directors**
James B. Booe
Elizabeth F. Bagley
John C. Culver
John P. Dunfey
Thomas F. Eagleton
Geraldine Ferraro
Maurice Ferré
Arvonne Fraser
Marifé Hernandez
John T. Joyce
Penn Kemble
Elliott F. Kulick
John Lewis
Leon Lynch
Lewis Manilow
Kenneth F. Melley
Julius Michaelson
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Mark A. Siegel
Michael Steed
William Thomas
Esteban Torres
Kathleen M. Vick
Frank A. Weil
Marvin F. Weissberg

**Senior Advisory Committee**
Richard F. Celeste
Cyrus Vance
Anne Wexler
Andrew J. Young

**Chairman Emeritus**
Charles T. Manatt

**Executive Vice President**
Kenneth D. Wollack

**Vice-President for Programs**
Vivian L. Derryck

**Senior Consultant**
Patricia J. Keefer

Mr. Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.
Chairman
Republican National Committee
310 First Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003

Dear Frank:

I did not get an opportunity to respond to your concern about our salaries and benefits request at the NED meeting last week. Since you and others might be left with an erroneous impression, I feel an explanation is in order.

You mentioned in passing that we had a staff intensive operation. This point deserved more attention since our staff conducts virtually all of our programs. This means we handle all of the program development, preparations, itinerary, agenda, background papers, research, reporting and general logistics for our training projects. We do not simply send grants to other organizations who then perform the work.

Only $50,000 was expended for grants out of $3.687 million for the FY-86 and 87 grants. In all, NDI staff ran 35 projects during this two year period, conducted numerous program development surveys and tended to such duties as informing Members of Congress, briefing the State Department, conducting Board meetings and generally attempting to expand awareness of NDI and the NED. We did all this with a NED administrative budget supporting only 14 staff positions.

During this period, our staff operated as if in a campaign environment. We logged thousands of hours of uncompensated overtime and generally operated as if there were no tomorrow for NDI. It has paid off and we and NED are in a much stronger position, as are many of those we helped overseas.

Our salaries budget for 1988 was expanded slightly (to ease the load on our accounting staff), but it is still too low to complete our work; this would be especially true if we restricted ourselves to eight-hour days. To compensate for the shortfall, we have used a State Department officer on detail and have made creative use of consultants and unpaid and minimally paid interns and volunteers.

conducting nonpartisan international programs to help maintain and strengthen democratic institutions

C

Mr. Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.

January 25, 1988

Page 2

I would be more than happy to subject NDI's salaries to the closest Hill scrutiny. They are well within government and congressional standards given the experience of various staff members. In my case, for example, I made the top government salary in 1977 when I was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. I remained at the top level (even exceeding it when I served as a Presidential appointee and, subsequently, when I received Senior Executive Service bonuses in 1981 and 1982) until I left government in 1982. I am now making $2,500 less than the top government salary and $5,000 less than I was making in 1983 in private industry. I have maintained this level because of sensitivity toward the Hill and I have used the same discretion with respect to other members of my staff. No one at NDI makes what they are worth, I assure you.

Given the important differences in methods of operation, the extent of outside institutional support and the approaches the core grantees take, it seems to me a mistake to make comparisons. We at NDI have no outside institutional support for our salaries and overhead as do CIPE and FTUI. We conduct our own programs and have kept grants to a minimum, unlike NRIIA. We use a non-partisan approach which requires a lot more time and effort to identify and conduct programs.

I am not arguing here that this is the most effective approach; it is the approach our Board has agreed on and we believe it has served the purpose of NDI and the NED very well. Nevertheless, it requires a staff intensive operation. We have done well, we have convinced many Members of Congress of this, and the NED's support in Congress has grown as a result.

I hope this information is helpful in evaluating our salaries and benefits budget. In the future, I would appreciate the opportunity to make a case for our proposals either at the meeting or in advance if you have concerns. I am afraid many people left the NED meeting last week with the impression that NDI's salaries are inflated. This is neither accurate nor fair.

cc: NED Board Members
Walter F. Mondale

JBA/gt
NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

8

January 13, 1988

JAN 13 1988

MEMORANDUM

FROM: Carl Gershman

RE: El Mercurio Interview and Conference Book

I wanted you to see the enclosed interview, which was given last week during my visit to Chile. As a result of the special congressional appropriation to the Endowment of $1,000,000 "for the promotion of democratic activities in Chile leading to a transition to democracy," the Endowment has become a subject of controversy in Chile. An effort has been made to portray the Endowment as a narrowly political organization intervening in internal Chilean affairs. This interview was arranged by the Public Affairs Officer at the U.S. Embassy as an attempt to set the record straight by describing the openness, the broad scope and long-term democratic purpose of the Endowment's work -- in Chile and around the world. El Mercurio, Chile's leading newspaper, has been critical of "the $1,000,000" so this was an appropriate place to try to counter the misconceptions about our work.

Also enclosed is a copy of the book containing the proceedings of our May 1987 conference on "The Challenge of Democracy." I think the book -- like the conference itself -- reflects the global scope of the NED program. We would be happy to provide you with additional copies and hope you are as pleased as we are with the final product.

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

Polly Baca
William E. Brock III
Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.
Dante B. Fascell
Orrin G. Hatch
Lane Kirkland

Carl Gershman
President

DRAFT

TRANSLATION

Carl Gerschman [sic]: "Who's Afraid of NED?"

[Interview with Carl Gershman in El Mercurio, Santiago, Chile]

Sunday, January 10, 1988

President of the National Endowment for
Democracy explains the organization's
purposes, its world-wide activity, how much
money is given to whom and for what in Chile.

Before joining the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Carl Gerschman [sic] was Senior Counselor to Mrs. Kirkpatrick at the United Nations and, in that capacity, served as his country's representative to the [U.N.'s] Third Committee, to the National Security Council [sic], consultant to the [National] Bipartisan Commission on Central America chaired by Kissinger, and was a scholar at Freedom House, a "conservative"-leaning research center. Presently, he presides over the Endowment which, following a congressional appropriation of one million dollars to "promote democracy in Chile," has become a highly controversial institution in Chile. Carl Gerschman [sic], who is visiting our country to "pick up information," eluded the press and decided to speak in an exclusive interview with El Mercurio in order to explain the purposes of his organization, its world-wide activity, how much money is given to whom in Chile, how and for what purposes.

Although his background seems to suggest a more conservative tendency, he rejects being classified as either a "conservative" or a "liberal." "I define myself only as a democrat with a small 'd', as we say in my country, in order to avoid partisan misunderstandings." He believes that his lack of political identification is an advantage to his institution which seeks to be a meeting point for Democrats, Republicans, businessmen and trade unions.

The Endowment, "a project dear to President Reagan," is a privately incorporated nonprofit organization comprised of representatives from both parties, business and trade union organizations. Its purpose is to promote democratic values throughout the world and to actively engage "the North American [U.S.] people and private sector in this task, in a manner consistent with U.N. proclamations, international law, and North American ideals."

He considers it a privilege to contribute to the "often heroic" struggle of the Solidarity Movement in Poland, Hungarian intellectuals, Armando Valladares in defense of human rights in Cuba, [Charta] 77 group in Czechoslovakia, La Prensa and the mothers of political prisoners in Nicaragua, intellectuals and dissidents in China, or the Afghan resistance, "reconstructing the educational system destroyed by the Soviets in an attempt to indoctrinate young minds."

situations, such as Afghanistan or Nicaragua, we support
peaceful opposition. We are prohibited by law from supporting
any armed activity, and in the case of Nicaragua, for example,
our work receives bipartisan support because, despite acute
internal disagreements regarding the Contras, there is a general
consensus in favor of supporting the unarmed resistance [civic
opposition]. And then, of course, we have what we call
countries in transition: those where favorable conditions exist
for the restoration of democracy, as in the case of Chile.

One Million Dollars for the Opposition?

- What is NED's total budget, and where do the funds originate?

For FY 1987 it was $15 million, and for FY 1988 it is a
little over 16. Pretty modest if you consider, for example,
that the total expenditures for a presidential campaign in the
United States are probably over $200 million. Our funds are
appropriated by Congress.

- Is this budget made public?

Everything is published in our Annual Report. All grants
are included and we provide all necessary information to anyone
who requests it. We have had requests, for example, from
Australian communists regarding our expenditures in the Pacific
and we have provided this information.

- What percentage goes to Latin America, and specifically to Chile?

Our major contribution is for this region: around 45%. I
don't have the exact figure with regard to Chile, but it must be
more or less around 15% of our budget for Latin America.

- These funds will increase following passage of the Harkin amendment, which awards $1 million to foster democracy in Chile, to be distributed through NED. What are the implications of this Congressional measure, and what precedents are there?

It has only happened once before: last year when a special
fund was approved for Solidarity. In the present amendment,
that grant is renewed and Chile has been added. It is an honor
for Congress to have deposited its confidence in us, and the
unanimous approval of the amendment demonstrates strong
bipartisan support for our objectives.

- What projects will be carried out in Chile with this money?

Well, that is one of the reasons I am here. But we have a
policy in our organization of not discussing concrete programs
until these are approved by our Board of Directors, and it would
be premature to discuss anything.

- What does it feel like to see yourself called "the man who brings funds for the opposition"?

I think it is a pejorative caricaturization of what we are trying to do. Congress speaks of promoting democracy. Why should this be synonymous with helping the opposition? Our intention is simply to support a democratization process, and we are not "supporting an opposition [group]," which would be very negative. We are not a negative organization: we are not against something, but rather are in favor of democracy. Any program in pursuit of these objectives is within our mandate, and our initiatives do not have to be limited to certain groups nor to certain points of view.

- Do you think it is fair to claim, at least up until now, that NED grants have gone to the opposition?

No. We work with a great variety of organizations. We support, for example, the CDT. ...

- And the Comando [CNT]?

I believe we are trying to work with both organizations.

- You are not concerned about awarding funds to trade unions that cooperate with communist organizations?

The objective is always to strengthen those groups committed to an open and democratic society. The support is to the CDT, with some specific projects of cooperation devoted to strengthening the democratic commitment of trade union organizations.

- Who else receives funds?

A variety of organizations. We have several projects related to private enterprise, with the Christian businessmen presided over by Jose Zavala; the Center for Public Studies [CEP], the Chamber of Commerce in Concepcion; Editorial Andante, to promote the writings of young authors representing the entire range of political tendencies; FLACSO, etc.

- One of the problems associated with these funds is the manner in which they are awarded. They are never direct grants. There always seems to exist a triangular operation in which NED gives the money to one organization which in turn transfers the funds to Chilean recipients, and here everyone denies they receive money from NED.

Look, there is no attempt to obfuscate or to hide anything. In fact, the general policy of the NED is not to make direct grants, but rather to engage private U.S. organizations in this effort. There are two reasons for this. In the first place, since its establishment, we have tried to avoid turning into an enormous bureaucracy. We have only 20 permanent employees and,

consequently, we hire the services of other business, trade
union, university or voluntary organizations to administer our
projects. Moreover, President Reagan's primary interest was
precisely that of increasing the U.S. private sector's
commitment to democracy and to encourage it to work with its
counterpart abroad. NED never envisioned itself solely as an
organization established to finance activities, but rather, in
addition, it seeks to enhance international cooperation, and for
this reason we rely on our private partners to carry out these
projects.

- Now, this way of operating creates confusion in the public
mind. For example: you finance CED, which is a research
organization, but it turns out that it in turn channels funds
into Sergio Molina's Committee for Free Elections, and this
creates an impression of irregularity. How can the Chilean
public know exactly who in Chile receives how much from NED?

This information is public. Every grant establishes the
exact purposes for which the funds were awarded. I do not
believe we have been well understood in this country. Our
procedures are clear, and we have always advised our grantees
that our operations are public and that everything we do is
subject to appearing in tomorrow's *New York Times*.

Free Elections -- Plebiscite

- The most controversial project is the one connected with the
  Committee for Free Elections. How much money was given, how,
  and to whom?

The total amount was $135 thousand. The grant was made
through the University of South Carolina to CED for two
projects. One, to carry out public opinion studies and the
other for Sergio Molina's committee for a publicity campaign.
One must subtract a percentage from the total grant for the
University of South Carolina's administrative costs and for the
honorarium fees of a public opinion specialist who came to
provide technical assistance.

- What did this publicity campaign consist of?

In support of free elections, of a transition to democracy.

- Have you followed up on how these funds were spent?

I have not yet had the opportunity.

- What are you referring to when you speak of "free
elections"?

Well, I hope this isn't a controversial issue. Free
elections are competitive, in which different political parties
can participate, with freedom of association, with access to the
media, etc.

- In Chile, the Constitution contemplates a plebiscite to decide the issue of presidential succession. The Committee for Free Elections primarily aspires to, or aspired to, a constitutional reform for open elections. But in essence, it is an organization with a specific political strategy, that favors a NO vote in the plebiscite, and tries to promote a candidate and an alternative program. Don't you think that NED support to said committee does not translate into neutral support for democracy, but rather to one of the various existing strategies to achieve democracy?

Our objective is to support the democratic process. This project was submitted to us a long time ago, before the evolution which the situation here in Chile has experienced. There are many ways through which a nation can arrive at free elections, and we do not have a point of view regarding specific changes to the constitution or regarding the plebiscite. We simply seek to provide constructive support to that which will lead to a democratic system with free elections.

- There exists a sector in this country that believes that the existing constitutional mechanisms guarantee a return to democracy, a restoration of the people's sovereignty, and allow the election of a congress, etc. That being the case, NED, in supporting opposition efforts, is seen as opting in favor of the opposition.

We are supporting groups and individuals who have demonstrated an authentic commitment to democracy. If someone has an alternative proposal and wishes to submit a project that promotes democracy in some way, NED would be willing to consider it.

"Yes" or "No"

- But support to a strategy in favor of a NO vote can be interpreted to mean that you believe that the only way to prove one's democratic credentials is by voting NO.

I am not aware that Molina's group advocates such a strategy. We do not support any campaign in favor of a vote in any specific direction, neither in support of a YES nor in support of a NO vote. We only want to support those groups who wish to make a transition to democracy. In the following eight months, attention will be focused on the plebiscite vote, but after that there will exist many issues relevant to democracy. We will continue to be committed to those groups devoted to democracy and to policies and programs which foster it. We are not committed to any specific group or any specific strategy or political line. We want to help all those institutions that, from our perspective, make a contribution in any area -- in the intellectual, business or trade union sectors -- to the values of democracy. Our objective for Chile is not in the short term, but in the long term. We hope to be able to contribute for a long time, because democracy is a permanent, long term process.

- Do you think that the constitutional time-table can be a path to achieve democracy?

It is not incumbent upon me to make a judgment in that regard. These are issues that must be decided by the Chileans and not by us. The principal criterion by which individuals or projects are judged is not whether or not they support the constitutional time-table, or the way they will vote in the plebiscite. Democracy, I repeat, does not end with the plebiscite or with open elections. What is important is that there be future programs to guarantee democratic stability.

- Would you be in favor of using NED funds to support an electoral campaign, and do you believe that it would be legitimate to do so?

Our own statutes prohibit us from becoming involved in elections or supporting candidates. In fair elections, it is the Chilean people who must decide and it would not be appropriate for the NED to intervene in this process in any way.

- But according to a report in our newspaper, the opposition "has already spent" the million dollars on publicity, television ads and campaign premises. . . .

Well, if that were the case, it seems somewhat presumptuous to me, since we don't even have the million dollars and they are prejudging the decisions of our Board of Directors -- an autonomous, independent, self-generating entity, over which no one, not even Congress nor the administration, has veto power (although we are obliged to consult and inform them), and therefore, the only valid voice.

- Given that the most probable scenario is that of the plebiscite, what conditions do you think it must fulfill for it to be fair and legitimate?

Well, in our estimation, the participation in the plebiscite of those democratic organizations with which we are in contact would be very important for us in terms of its legitimacy. Our concern in this case would be to support activities that would contribute to its impartiality (equity, fairness).

- Do you believe that would be equivalent to intervening in the Chilean electoral process?

Look, one has to distinguish between supporting democratic forces and intervening in electoral processes. In those cases where a free and democratic process exists, where diverse groups can compete freely, it is illegitimate for NED to intervene in the results. But efforts to promote free and democratic processes are a form of solidarity not intervention.

- Now, if there were a plebiscite with certain guarantees of fairness and it were won, what would the reaction of the United

States be?

I cannot predict. I should note, however, that a plebiscite
is not equivalent to a free election. Take the Korean
situation. It just had an open election after much discussion.
There has been talk of fraud. But, definitely, it is viewed as
a just and legitimate process, because it allowed for open
competition, a popular vote, the possibility of organizing
opposition campaigns. It was not a plebiscite.

- Although Mubarak won in a plebiscite and no one in the United States questioned its legitimacy. . . .

Well, issues become politicized for various reasons. I am
not saying that we live in a just world: there are many
injustices against which no one protests.

- Do you think that Chile is judged according to biased standards?

Not at the NED. We try to apply consistent standards. What happens is that in Chile there are real possibilities for achieving democracy and more is expected. Look, I was in the United Nations when indeed Chile was judged by a double standard. I saw Cuba promote resolutions against Chile. I gave speeches denouncing Cuba for this and saying that we would not support resolutions presented by a totalitarian country, merely for political reasons, against Chile. I am fully aware of the dangers of this double standard and we do not fall into this trap at the NED.

D6 DOMICAGO 0
EMERO 198

100

CARL GERSCHMAN:

# ¿Quién Le Tiene?

# Miedo al Ned?

Por LUCIA SANTA CRUZ

* Presidente de la Fundación Nacional para la democracia explica los propósitos de su organización, su actividad en el mundo, cuánta plata le da a quién y para qué en Chile.

ANTES de integrarse a la Fundación Nacional para la Democracia (National Endowment for Democracy, NED) Carl Gershman era el consejero principal de la señora Kirkpatrick en Naciones Unidas y, en esa capacidad, representante de su país ante el Tercer Comité, el Consejo de Seguridad Nacional. Consultor de la Comisión bipartidista para Centroamérica presidida por Kissinger y academico de Freedom House, centro de estudios de tendencia "conservadora". Hoy preside el Endowment que, tras la otorgación de un millón de dólares por parte del Congreso para "promover la democracia en Chile", se transformó en una institución altamente controversiada en Chile. Carl Gershman de visita en nuestro país recogió información aludida a la prensa y decidió hablar en entrevista exclusiva con "El Mercurio" para explicar sus propósitos de su organización, su actividad en el mundo, cuanta plata le da a quien es Chile, como y para qué

Aunque sus antecedentes parecen sugerir una tendencia más bien conservadora, rehusa ser clasificado como "conservador" o "liberal". "Me define sólo como un democrata con minuscula, como decimos en mi país para evitar confusiones partidistas". Cree que su falta de indentificación política favorece a su institución que intenta ser un punto de encuentro para Democratas, Republicanas, empresarios y sindicatos.

El Endowment "un proyecto muy cido al Presidente Reagan" es una corporación privada, sin fines de lucro, conformado por representantes de ambos partidos, por las organizaciones empresariales y sindicales. Intenta promover los valores democráticos en el mundo y comprometer activamente "al público y los normas privados norteamericanos en esta tarea, de acuerdo a las normas proclamadas en Naciones Unidas, el derecho internacional y los ideales de Norteamericana".

Considera un privilegio contribuir a la lucha "muchas veces heroica" del mundial Solidaridad en Polonia; armando los intelectuales húngaros, con Armando Valladares para defender los derechos humanos en Cuba; con el grupo 77 en Chemosíova, ayudando a La Prensa, a las madres de prisioneros políticos en Nicaragua; con intelectuales y disidentes en China, o con la resistencia aficana "recomponiendo el sistema educacional destruido por los soviéticos para adoctrinar las mentes modernas".

Pero uno de los proyectos más estimulantes para él es aquel emprendido por Hernando de Soto y el Instituto para la Libertad y la Democracia en Perú. "Creemos que su contribución es primera importancia y novedosa. Su libro. El Otro Sendero" ofrece una interpretación pionera acerca de la naturalaleza y de las causas de la pobreza. La idea de que la excesiva regulación estatal de la economía es la razón principal de la falta de desarrollo económico, llamamos en transición: aquellos donde existen condiciones propias para una restauración democrática. como es el caso de Chile.

so, una dictadura elegida en la cual el pueblo no participa efectivamente en el proceso de toma de decisiones. No se trata solamente de tener elecciones sin de asegurar la permanencia y consolidación de los valores democráticos y de participación.

## Los objetivos del NED

* ¿Cuáles son los parámetros dentro de la opera el Endowment?

* El objetivo es promover la democracia basado sobre la premisa de que cada país es distinto y de que cualquier programa que apoyemos debe reflectar sus condiciones reales y surgir en forma autónoma.

* ¿Hasta qué punto son sus operaciones totalmente abiertas o son en parte encubiertas?

* Mire. respondemos a tres exigencias fundamentales. La primera es completely transparency acerca de todo lo que hacemos; no tenemos nada secreta, nada encubierto y estamos dispuestos a responder sobre todos nuestros actos frente al Congreso, a la opción pública, a la prensa y a los pueblos de todo el mundo. En segundo lugar, somos un organismo de respuesta a necesidades locales, a erfuerzos nacionales auténticos que tienden efectivamente y no sean contraproducentes para la democracia. Y somos coherentes: tratamos de incentivar las instituciones democráticas en todos los países, sean ellos de izquierda o de derecha, pero reconociendo las diferencias objetivas que existen en el mundo.

* Pero, trabajando en situaciones tan diversas, las políticas, me imagino, deben ser diferentes en cada caso.

* Evidentemente. Conceptualmente hemos dividido nuestro trabajo en diferentes categorías. Dentro de las categorías comunes, que clasificamos de "cerradas" a tratamos de abrirnos, aunque sea un poco. Apoyamos iniciativas que tienden a la libertad discusión pública, publicaciones o solidaridad. En las democracias emergentes, como Perú o Argentina, tratando de fortalecer instituciones y valores que son aun débiles. En situaciones de conflicto, como Afeganistán o Nicaragua, apoyando las resutencias pacíficas. Por lo que podemos favorecer ninguna actividad armada y en el caso de Nicaragua, por ejemplo, nuestro trabajo recibe apoyo bipartidista, porque, a pesar de las agudas discrepancias internas acerca de la Contra, existe consenso general a favor de ayudar la restitución no armada. Y luego, por cierro, tenemos los países que llamamos en transición: aquellos donde existen condiciones propias para una restauración democrática. como es el caso de Chile.

## El millón de dólares para la oposición?

* ¿Cuál es el presupuesto total del NED? ¿Y de dónde provienen los fondos?

* Para el año fiscal 1987 fueron 15 millones de dólares y para el 88 poco más de 16. Bastante modesto si usted considera, por ejemplo, que los gastos totales de una campaña presidencial en los Estados Unidos deben superar los 200 millones de dólares... Son asignados por el Congreso.

* ¿Qué porcentaje va a a Latinoamérica y específicamente a Chile?

* ¿Qué porcentaje este presupuesto?

* Todo este presupuesto es en nuestro Informe Anual. Todas las donaciones aparecen y damos toda la información necesaria a quien quiera la solicite. Hemos tenido policías en este sentido. Respecto a Chile no tengoFIELD EXACTA, pero debe ser más o menos el 15% del presupuesto latinoamericano.

* Estos fondos aumentarán tras la aprobación de la enmienda Harkin, que otorgará un millón de dólares para la democracia en Chile, a ser distribuidos a través del NED. ¿Qué implican este tiene esta medida del Congreso y qué precedentes?

* Sólo ha ocurrido una vez ante mí; el año pasado, cuando se asignó un fondo especial a Solidaridad. En la enmienda actual se renueva esa donación y se incluye a Chile. Para nosotros es un orgullo la confianza que el Congreso ha depositado en nosotros y su aprobación, sin ninguna oposición. Demuestra un fuerte apoyo bipartidista a nuestros objetivos.

* ¿Qué proyectos se van a abordar en Chile con ese dinero?

* Bueno, esa es una de las razones por las cuales estoy aquí. Pero tenemos una política en nuestra organización de no discutir programas concretos hasta que no hayan sido aprobados por el Directorio y sería prematuro adelantar nada.

* ¿Cómo se siente al verse clasificado como "el hombre que trae las platares para la oposición?

* Creo que es una caricaturización peyorativa de lo que tratamos de hacer el Congreso habla de promover la democracia. ¿Porqué sería esto sinómi de ayudar a la oposición? Nuestra intención es simplemente solidarizar con un proceso de democratación y no es tan grave. Si no es así, ¿cual seria muy negativo. No somos una organización negativa; no estamos en contra de algo; sino que a favor de la democracia. Cualquier programa que tienda hacia estos fines, cae bajo pues, tra competencia de los partidos. No son tan negativos, no tienen por qué limitarse ni a ciertos grupos, ni a ciertos puntos de vista.

* ¿Cree usted que es justo asesorar que, al menos hasta ahora, las弯ungen del NED han ido a la oposición?

* No. Trabajamos con un gran diversidad de organizaciones. Apoyamos por ejemplo, a la CDT...

* ¿También al Comando?

* Creo que estamos tratando de trabajar con ambos.

El hombre del
millón de dólares,
¿para quien?..

—¿No les preocupa otorgar dinero a sindicatos que cooperan con las organizaciones comunistas?

—El objetivo siempre es reforzar a aquellos comprometidos con una sociedad abierta y democrática. El apoyo es a la CDT, con algunos proyectos de operación específicos que tienden a reforzar el compromiso democrático de las organizaciones sindicales.

—¿Quien más recibe dinero?

—Una variedad de organizaciones. Tenemos varios proyectos relacionados con la empresa privada, con los empresarios cristianos que preside José Zavaleta, con el Centro de Estudios Públicos, con la Universidad Católica, con el CED, con la Cámara de Comercio de Concepción, con la editorial Andante para promover los escritos de jóvenes autores de todas las tendencias políticas, con la Flacso, etc.

—Uno de los problemas con estos dineros es la forma en que se otorgan. Nunca son donaciones directas. Parece haber siempre una operación triangular en que el NED le da la plata a otro organismo y ese lo traspassa a los destinatarios chilenos y ahí todos niagan que reciben dineros del NED.

—Mire, no hay ningún intento de ofuscar o ocultar nada. Efectivamente, la política general del NED es no hacer donaciones directas, sino comprometer a organismos privados norteamericanos en este esfuerzo. Las razones son dos. En primer lugar, desde su fundación tratamos de no convertirnos en una enorme burocracia. Tenemos sólo 20 empleados permanentes y, por lo tanto, contratamos los servicios de otros organismos, sean empresariales, sindicales, universitarios o voluntarios para la administración de nuestros proyectos. Más aún, el interés principal del Presidente Reagan era precisamente aumentar el compromiso del sector privado con la democracia y estimularlos a trabajar con sus congé-

neres en el mundo. El NED nunca se visualizó como una entidad que sólo fínicancia actividades, sino que, además, trata de incrementar la cooperación internacional y por eso dependemos de nuestros socios privados para llevar a cabo los proyectos.

—Ahora, esta forma de operar crea confusión en la opinión pública. Por ejemplo: ustedes financian al CED, que es un organismo de estudios, pero resulta que éste desvia fondos para el Comité para las Elecciones Libres de Sergio Molina y esto crea la impresión de una irregularidad. ¿Cómo puede el público chileno saber efectivamente quien en Chile recibe cuánto del NED?

—La información es pública. Todas las donaciones establecen los propósitos exactos para los cuales fueron otorgados. Creo que en este país no hemos sido bien comprendidos. Nuestros procedimientos son claros y siempre advertimos a nuestros socios que nuestras operaciones son públicas y que todo lo que hacemos es susceptible de aparecer mañana en el New York Times.

## Elecciones Libres-Plebiscito

—El proyecto más controvertido es aquel conectado con el Comité para las Elecciones Libres. ¿Cuánta plata le dieron, cómo y a quien?

—El monto total fueron 135 mil dólares. La donación se hizo a través de la Universidad de South Carolina al CED para dos proyectos. Uno, para realizar estudios de opinión y otro para el comité de Sergio Molina para una campaña de publicidad. Al presupuesto total hay que descontar un porcentaje para gastos de la Universidad y los honorearios de un especialista en opinión pública que vino a asesorar.

—¿En qué consistía esa campaña publicitaria?

—A favor de elecciones libres, de una transición democrática.

—¿Han hecho un seguimiento de cómo se gastaron esos dineros?

—No he tenido la oportunidad todavía.

—Cuando usted habla de "elecciones libres" ¿qué se refiere?

—Bueno, yo espero que eso no sea materia de controversia. Las elecciones libres son aquellas que son competitivas, en las cuales diferentes partidos pueden participar, con la libertad para asociarse, para acceder a los medios de comunicación, etc.

—En Chile la Constitución contienda un plebiscito para la sucesión presidencial. El Comité por las Elecciones Libres en lo principal aspira, o aspiraba, a una reforma constitucional para lograr comicios abiertos. Pero en subsidio, es una organización con una estrategia política específica, que favorece votar que NO en el plebiscito, trata de promover un candidato y un programa alternativo. ¿No cree usted que el apoyo del NED a dicho comité no es un apoyo neutro a la democracia, sino a una de las posibles estrategias para llegar a ella?

—Nuestro objetivo es apoyar el proceso democrático. Este proyecto nos fue sometido hace mucho tiempo, antes de la evolución que ha experimentado la situación aquí en Chile. Hay muchas maneras a través de las cuales puede llegar a elecciones libres y nosotros no tenemos un punto de vista acerca de cambios específicos a la constitución, ni acerca del plebiscito. Sólo queremos ayudar en forma construktiva a aquello que lleve a un sistema democrático con elecciones libres.

—Hay un sector del país que cree que los mecanismos constitucionales existentes garantizan un retorno a una forma democrática, devuelven la soberanía al pueblo, permiten elegir un congreso, etc... Siendo así, el NED, al apoyar la iniciativa de operación, es visto como haciendo una opción a favor de la operación.

—Estamos apoyando a grupos y personas que nos han demostrado un compromiso auténtico con la democracia. Si alguien tiene una proposición alternativa y desea presentar un proyecto que promueva la democracia en alguna forma al NED estaría dispuesto a considerarlo.

## El 'sí' o el 'no'

—Pero el apoyo a una estrategia a favor del NO puede ser interpretada como que ustedes consideran que la única forma de probar credenciales democráticas es votando que NO.

—Yo no estoy consciente de que el grupo de Molina abague por esa estrategia. Nosotros no apoyamos ninguna campaña a favor de un voto en una dirección específica, ni a favor del SI ni a favor del NO. Sólo queremos apoyar a los grupos que deseen transitar a una democracia. En los próximos 8 meses la atención se concentrará en el voto en el plebiscito, pero después de eso habra muchos asuntos relevantes para la democracia. Nosotros seguiremos comprometidos con los grupos con vocación democrática y partidarios de políticas y programas que la favorezcan. No te-nemos compromiso con ningún grupo específico ni con ninguna estrategia, ni con una línea política. Queremos ayudar a todas las instituciones que, en nuestra percepción, hacen una contribución en cualquier campo —intelec-

Table of Contents

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Page</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Introduction</strong><br>Carl Gershman</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Opening Closed Societies</strong><br>Yuri Orlov<br>Anatoly Koryagin<br>Armando Valladares<br>Leszek Kolakowski<br>Liang Heng</td><td>11<br>13<br>15<br>18<br>22</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Supporting Democratic Transitions</strong><br>Sergio Molina<br>Gloria Rubin<br>Leopold Berlanger<br>Mariano Quesada</td><td>27<br>32<br>36<br>39</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Countries in Crisis: Sustaining Democratic Possibilities</strong><br>Alex Boraine<br>Alvin Guthrie<br>Sabahuddin Kushkaki</td><td>45<br>47<br>51</td></tr><tr><td><strong>State Department Reception</strong></td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Strengthening New Democracies</strong><br>Maria Rosa S. de Martini<br>Hermando de Soto<br>H.E. Clifton Stone<br>Xavier Zavala<br>Leonardo Q. Montemayor</td><td>65<br>68<br>73<br>76<br>80</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Building Democratic Institutions</strong><br>Seymour Martin Lipset<br>Juan Linz<br>Larry Diamond<br>Samuel P. Huntington</td><td>83<br>90<br>98<br>104</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Advancing Democracy: The Challenge Ahead</strong><br>The Honorable Bill Bradley<br>The Honorable Richard Lugar</td><td>107<br>114</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Award Luncheon</strong></td><td>117</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Additional Grantees</strong></td><td>129</td></tr></tbody></table>

All of the photographs in this book were taken by, and are the property of, Ms. Nancy Roth. We would like to express our gratitude for her work.

3

[L.C.]

January 7, 1987

MEMORANDUM

FROM: Carl Gershman

RE: Materials for January 15th Board Meeting

Enclosed are the materials for our upcoming meeting. I would like to call your attention to two specific documents contained in the books: a proposed bylaw change which is included as part of the Board Composition Committee report; and a draft priorities document for FY 88.

The meeting will be held next Friday, January 15th, at the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill, 400 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., in the Columbia A room. Continental breakfast will be available at 8:30 a.m., and the meeting will start promptly at nine and continue through luncheon. I look forward to seeing you on the 15th.

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

Polly Baca
William E. Brock III
Frank J. Fahrenkopt, Jr.
Dante B. Fascell
Orrin G. Hatch
Lane Kirkland

Carl Gershman
President

[10]

PROPOSED AGENDA

ANNUAL MEETING
of the
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY

Friday, January 15, 1988

Washington, D.C.

I. Approval of the Draft Minutes of the
September 11, 1987 Meeting

II. Remarks of the Chairman

III. Report of the President

IV. Report of the Budget and Audit Committee

V. Review of the Draft Annual Report

VI. Re-Election of Directors
 BOARD COMPOSITION COMMITTEE

VII. Other Business

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

Carl Gershman
President

5. Czechoslovak Society of Arts & Sciences

A. Czech Documentation Center

B. Jan Hus Foundation

C. Jan Palach Trust

D. Sixty-Eight Publishers

6. Hungarian Cultural Centre (Freedom House)

7. Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe

8. Polish American Congress Charitable Foundation

A. Fund for Democracy

B. OKNO

C. Polish Helsinki Committee

D. POLCUL

E. Zeszyty Literackie

9. Uncensored Poland News Bulletin (Freedom House)

10. Video Project (Center for Democracy)

11. Atheneum (Freedom House)

12. Crimean Tatars (Center for Democracy)

13. Paraguayan Institute for International & Geopolitical Studies (University of Miami)

14. Radio Nanduti (Freedom House)

15. Citizens' Manuals (Freedom House)

16. La Epoca (Delphi Research Associates)

17. Conciencia (Delphi Research Associates)

18. Universidad de los Andes (SUNY)

19. Cuban American National Foundation

20. La Prensa (Delphi Research Associates)

DEC 2 2 1987

December 21, 1987

MEMORANDUM

FROM: Carl Gershman

RE: Materials for Informal Proposal Review Meeting/
Confirmation of January 15th Board Meeting

Enclosed are the materials for the informal proposal
review meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, January 5th,
at 9:30 a.m. at the Endowment. I look forward to seeing
those of you able to attend.

Owing to the unusually late determination of our FY 88
congressional appropriation, some of the proposal amounts,
particularly for the Institutes, may necessarily change
between now and January.

I would also like to confirm our upcoming Board
meeting, scheduled for Friday, January 15th. We will meet
at the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill, 400 New Jersey
Avenue, Northwest, in the Columbia A Room. Continental
breakfast will be available at 8:30 a.m., and the meeting
will begin at 9:00. We expect to conclude following
luncheon.

On behalf of myself and the entire Endowment staff, I
want to wish you all the best for a happy and healthy
holiday season and New Year to come.

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

John Richardson
*Chairman*
Sally Shelton-Colby
*Vice Chairman*
LeGree Daniels
*Secretary*
Jay Van Andel
*Treasurer*

Carl Gershman
President

NED PROPOSALS FOR JANUARY 15, 1988 BOARD MEETING
(AS OF 12/18/87)

1. (CZECHOSLOVAK SOCIETY OF ARTS & SCIENCES)

A. CZECH DOCUMENTATION CENTER

B. JAN HUS FOUNDATION

C. JAN PALACH TRUST

D. 68 PUBLISHERS

2. HUNGARIAN CULTURAL CENTRE (FREEDOM HOUSE)

3. IDEE

4. (POLISH AMERICAN CONGRESS CHARITABLE FOUNDATION)

A. FUND FOR DEMOCRACY

B. OKNO

C. POLAND HELSINKI WATCH COMMITTEE

D. POLCUL

E. ZESZYTY LITERACKIE

5. UNCENSORED POLAND NEWS BULLETIN (FREEDOM HOUSE)

6. VIDEO PROJECT (CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY)

7. ATHENEUM (FREEDOM HOUSE)

8. CRIMEAN TATARS (CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY)

9. GEOPOLITICO (UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI)

10. RADIO NANDUTI (FREEDOM HOUSE)

11. CITIZENS' MANUALS (FREEDOM HOUSE)

12. LA EPOCA (DELPHI RESEARCH ASSOCIATES)

13. CONCIENCIA [ARGENTINA] (DELPHI RESEARCH ASSOCIATES)

14. UNIVERSIDAD DE LOS ANDES (SUNY)

15. CUBAN AMERICAN NATIONAL FOUNDATION

16. LA PRENSA (DELPHI RESEARCH ASSOCIATES)

17. APD

18. THE CHINESE INTELLECTUAL (CHINA PERSPECTIVE, INC.)

19. INSTITUTE FOR DEMOCRACY IN VIETNAM

20. EXCHANGE (FREEDOM HOUSE)

21. CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE ENTERPRISE

DEC 22 1987

Free Trade Union Institute

1730 K Street, N.W. • Suite 1201 • Washington, D.C. 20006
202/223-5352

LANE KIRKLAND, President

THOMAS R. DONAHUE, Secretary-Treasurer

EUGENIA KEMBLE, Executive Director

December 16, 1987

Mr. Carl Gershman
President
National Endowment for Democracy
1101 15th Street, NW
Suite 203
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Carl:

Enclosed is the Free Trade Union Institute's program proposal for fiscal year 1988, which we would like to have considered at the Board's January meeting. As we have discussed, due to the uncertainty about the funds that will be appropriated to the Endowment, this proposal does not contain specific line item budgets. Once the exact overall budget is determined and before the Board meeting -- we will submit the necessary program budgets.

1988 will be our fifth year of funding and we in labor look forward to many successful and fruitful NED labor programs. The proposal highlights and evaluates the ongoing programs and proposes the beginning of new programs as well. As in the past - we have spent a considerable amount of time going over these programs, cutting them down to the bare essentials and evaluating the activities undertaken over the past four fiscal years.

We come to NED, as in previous years, with a full year's program in a single proposal. This enables you and the Board to appreciate the broad scope of the AFL-CIO's plans in one document. Its consideration at one Board meeting enables us to proceed on the basis of an all-encompassing year-long planning. Also, unique to labor's democracy-building contribution and part of why we are able to make such long term plans, is the fact that we support an extensive field apparatus with country program offices in 40 countries. While maintaining such a presence is expensive, we believe it enhances our ability both to make sound judgements about programs and to monitor their progress.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MARVIN J. BOEDE • IRVING BROWN • SOL C. CHAIKIN • JOHN DeCONCINI • FRANK DROZAK
THOMAS W. GLEASON • JAMES E. HATFIELD • ALBERT SHANKER
TOM KAHN Director, Department of International Affairs, AFL-CIO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

I. General Program Description for Fiscal Year 1988 1

A. Introduction and Purposes 1

B. Priorities and Administrative Practices of
the Free Trade Union Institute in Relation
to the AFL-CIO 4

C. Program Principles 8

D. Program 8

II. Regional Programs 9

Section A. Africa 9

Section B. Asia 26

Section C. Europe 47

Section D. Latin America and the Caribbean 60

III. Administration 83

IV. Institute Management Costs 85

V. Proposed Program Budgets 86

A. African-American Labor Center (AALC)

B. Asian American Free Labor Institute (AAFLI)

C. Free Trade Union Institute (FTUI)

D. American Institute for Free Labor
Development (AIFLD)

[L]

November 16, 1987

NOV 18 1987

MEMORANDUM

FROM: Carl Gershman

RE: Press Clips/Informal Proposal Review Meeting

I am enclosing several items relating to Endowment programs for your interest:

-- A Washington Times piece on CIPE's recent informal sector conference. The conference, which was attended by more than two hundred people from 37 countries, was a great success.

-- Copies of articles from Prospects, the fortnightly series of articles on democracy which we are supporting in South Africa. As you will recall from the September Board meeting, several members expressed an interest in seeing the products of this series.

-- A New York Times report on an Endowment-supported opinion poll conducted by the Cultural Council of the Afghan Resistance.

On another matter, the informal proposal review meeting prior to our January 15 Board meeting has been set for Tuesday, January 5th at 9:30 a.m. at the Endowment. I look forward to seeing those of you who can attend.

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Carl Gershman
President

# ‘Private’ economies discussed

By John McCaslin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

10-27-87

While President Reagan's economic strategists huddled at the White House yesterday, some 250 business, political, government and academic leaders from 33 countries gathered across the street to explore "underground economies."

In a two-day conference ending today hosted by the Center for International Private Enterprise and the U.S. Agency for International Development, the leaders are showcasing a vast and successful underground market that operates independently of governmental authority in promoting economic growth.

In most cases, CIPE reports, the roots of this underground market "can be found in a cumbersome bureaucracy, duplicative regulations, the explosive growth of urban centers and a lack of economic opportunities for the poor majority of the population."

Also known as "informal economic sectors," these markets are often described as "economies of the poor," and in many countries the entrepreneurs who make them up have become the principal suppliers of goods and services.

"These informal sector entrepreneurs are not criminals in the drug trade or other illicit activities," said William T. Archey, vice president of CIPE. "They produce legitimate products outside of the legal framework because they do not have the resources to cope with bureaucratic and financial barriers blocking entry into the legal economy."

Mr. Reagan, in his address last month to the U.N. General Assembly, cited the accomplishments of "underground entrepreneurs" in developing nations, who through their informal economies have developed ways, he said, to bypass "crushing taxation and stifling regulation."

"... By becoming underground entrepreneurs themselves or by working for them, the poor have become less poor and the nation itself richer," said Mr. Reagan, citing scholar Hernando de Soto's book "The Other Path," which attracted worldwide attention for its examination of Peru's informal sectors.

Mr. de Soto was in attendance yesterday and spoke on the potential economic clout of these sectors. He said in Peru, where over 60 percent of the work force is employed in the informal market system, political leaders are increasingly aware of the stability the underground entrepreneurs provide for the economy.

In Lima, the Peruvian capital, the informal economy accounts for the majority of street markets and almost all of the public transportation, Mr. de Soto said. As his researchers concluded in the book, thanks to the economy, "The poor can work, travel and have a roof over their heads."

It's much the same in Argentina, South Africa, Brazil, Tunisia, Paraguay and Kenya, according to CIPE. Studies in these and other nations show that between 30 percent to 60 percent of the work force and gross domestic product are in the underground market.

In Argentina, for example, the Institute for Contemporary Studies reports that citizens have kept some 33 percent of the total wealth that nation has produced since the 1940s out of the legal economy. Today, three out of every five Argentines work full- or part-time in the informal sector and produce up to $42 billion a year in goods and services, or 60 percent of the GNP, the ICS said.

PAGE 8

CITY PRESS, June 21, 1987

# Stood the test of time

## ARTICLE FOUR

### Section One

FULL faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

### Section Two

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.

A person charged in any State with treason, felony or other crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime.

No person held to ser-

vice or labour in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.

### Section Three

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so

construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

### Section Four

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the Legislature of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Article Four of the US Constitution was amended on a number of occasions to ensure the rights of individuals when charged with offencés. The amendments relating to this article were Nos 4 to 11.

They were:

### Amendment Four

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall

THE series of articles on democracy in Prospects have attracted a great deal of interest and readers have been writing to City Press to express their views on democracy.

This is the response the editors of this page was seeking – a discussion with the communities on how they view democracy.

The series contains general articles on the concept of democracy and the values people seek in democratic structures by DENIS BECKETT, editor of *Frontline* magazine.

In addition, Prospects is publishing the full text of the Constitution of the United States of America, because it is a remarkable document that has stood the test of time. It is the oldest written constitution in force in the world today and its precepts have provided models for a number of other constitutions in the world.

Today's issue of Prospects contains Article Four of the Constitution and several amendments relating to it.

This series is being sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington DC.

Write you views about democracy or about the material that is being published to Prospects/Democracy, PO Box 32219, Braamfontein 2017.

not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

### Amendment five

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service, in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecution the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favour, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

### Amendment Seven

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed $20, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

### Amendment Eight

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

### Amendment Nine

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

### Amendment Ten

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the State respectively, or to the people.

### Amendment Eleven

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State.

A joint session of the US Congress in progress.

# Debate getting summery

By DENIS BECKETT

ONE of the more heart-
ening things in South
Africa today is that the
political debate is slowly
shifting to where it
ought to be, which is a
debate about what de-
moscracy consists of
and how to achieve it.

This is quite an improvement. Even in government-type circles, people who once used to take some kind of repressive dictatorship as "obviously necessary," are beginning to think that maybe there is something in democracy after all.

You're even seeing people beginning to realise the hopelessness of that strange animal called "power-sharing", which tries to allocate proportions of power to different "racial groups".

Slowly the idea of de-
mocracy becomes some-
thing with real content,
real meaning. No longer is
it quite so easy to latch
onto it as a nice word that
everybody can consolidate with
out putting any meaning to
it.

The trouble is, as we be-
gin to put real meaning to
the word, so do real con-
flicts about it crop up.

Now, for instance, we
are seeing an increasing
split between "liberal
democrats" and "congress
democrats". Liberal demo-
crats place high emphasis
on freedom and
minority rights.

Congress democrats
tend to say that democracy
means the power of the ma-

THIS week *Prospects* publishes the final four articles of the American Constitution as part of the series on democracy that is being sponsored by the National Endowment of Democracy in Washington.

A general discussion on the principles of democratic institutions, as applied to the South African situation, has been written by DENIS BECKETT, the editor of Frontline magazine.

In subsequent issues of *Prospects* the remaining amendments to the US Constitution will be published with further articles by Beckett.

The discussion on democracy has attracted a number of letters from readers who regard to subject as of crucial importance for the future of the country.

More readers are invited to make their contribution to the discussion by writing to: Democracy, PO Box 32219, Braamfontein 2017.

nority to do what it wants to
tend to be very suspi-
cious of constitutional safe-
guards which purport to
constrain the power of the
majority.

Now let us ask a ques-
tion. Do we have an insur-
mountable conflict here?
Does "majority rule" mean
that minorities get
tramped on?

I would say NO. When
we look at the matter truly,
we see that majority rules
and minority rights are dif-
ferent sides of the same
coin. They are BOTH
served by the SAME
thing, which is the expan-
sion and maximisation of
democracy.

Why is this? For simple
reasons. When the actual
majority of people - ordi-
nary people - are exercis-
ing real, practical powers,
they exercise these powers
in a way which is tolerable
to the rest of society.

It is not "maybe toler-
able", or "with luck toler-
able", or a matter of "wish-
ing" or "hoping" that they
will feel like being nice. It
is a simple fact when peo-
ple have effective powers,
the majority or any people
anywhere make use of that
power in such a way as to
maintain calm and stabil-
ity in society.

People do not vote for
themselves to get into
rows, conflicts or civil
wars. They vote for ways of
having their social and eco-
nomic concerns addressed,
short of getting into a war
about them. That's why de-
mocracy works.

It works, because it pro-
vides a mechanism for the
different interests of dif-
ferent people in society to
be automatically weighed
and balanced and come out
at some reasonable base.

If it comes out violently,
the problem is an absence

of democracy or a shortage
of democracy. If you have
a lot of conflict, then to
control it what you need is
a lot of democracy.

In this light look at the
conflict between the "lib-
eral" and "congres" demo-
crats. They tend to assume
one another. The one lot
says that the power of the
majority is nothing but re-
verse oppression, the other
says that restrictions on
the power of the majority
are nothing but neo-apart-
heid. How do we get past
this quandary?

Well, we return to the
argument I put to you in
the last few columns; the
more democracy there is,
the more power the major-
ity has - the true majority
being millions of diverse
people with different inter-
ests rather than just a 51
percent who put their X

behind a particular party's
name.

The more power the ma-
jority has, the less the mi-
nority has to fear.

What I'm saying is that when democracy is really full - when people are exercising real power over their lives in not just a single five-yearly election, but through a full and thorough process of local and regional and national democratic order, the democratic process necessarily works more democratically.

What is the significance
of this? Firstly: If we could
agree on a truly democrat-
ic form of society, then a
good deal of the conflict
between liberal democrats

and congress democrats
falls away.

Second: By the same
process, much of the heat
of white resistance could
be cooled down.

If the white man envis-ges a real democratic fu-
ture where ordinary people
are making political
choices instead of being
told what to think by com-
missants, the thought of a
non-racial democracy loses
some of its terror.

That's not because the
majority is being cheated,
but because the real major-
ity consists of ordinary peo-
ple to whom peace and
practical progress is more
important than ideology or
revenge.

Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

US Constitution

ARTICLE FOUR
Section One

FULL faith and credit
shall be given in each state
to the public acts, records,
and judicial proceedings of
every other state. And the
Congress may by general
laws prescribe the manner
in which such acts, re-
cords, and proceedings
shall be proved, and the
effect thereof.

Section Two

1. The citizens of each
state shall be entitled to all
privileges and immunities
of citizens in the several
states.

2. A person charged in any
state with treason, felony
or other crime, who shall
flee from justice and be
found in another state,
shall on demand of the ex-

ecutive authority of the
state from which he fled,
be delivered up, to be re-
moved to the state having
jurisdiction of the crime.

3. All persons held in ser-
vice or labour in one state
under the laws thereof, es-
pecially in public employment,
shall in consequence of any law
or regulation therein, be
discharged from such ser-
vice or labour, but shall be
delivered up on claim of the
party to whom the same
service or labour may be
due.

Section Three

1. New states may be ad-
mitted by the Congress
into this Union; but no new
states shall be formed in or
erected within the jurisdic-
tion of any other state; nor
any state be formed by the
junction of two or more
states, or parts of states,
without the consent of the
legislatures of the states
concerned as well as the
Congress.

2. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular

state.

Section Four

The United States shall
guarantee to every state in
this Union a republican
form of government and
shall protect each of them
against invasion; and on
application of the Legisla-
ture, or of the Executive
(when the Legislature can-
not be convened) against
domestic violence.

ARTICLE FIVE

The Congress, whenever
two-thirds of both Houses
shall deem it fit, and
shall propose amendments
to this Constitution, or, on
the application of the legis-
latures of two-thirds of the
several states, shall call a
convention for proposing
amendments, which, in cir-
ther case, shall be valid to
all intents and purposes as
part of this Constitution,
when ratified by the legis-
latures of three-fourths of
the several states, or by
conventions in three-
fourths thereof, as the one
or the other mode of ratifi-
cation may be proposed by
the Congress; provided
that no amendment which
may be made prior to the
year one thousand eight
hundred and eight shall in
any manner affect the first
and fourth clause in the
ninth section of the First
Article; and that no state,
without its consent shall be

deprived of its equal suf-
frage in the Senate.

The last four articles

ARTICLE SIX

1. All debts contracted and
engagements entered into
before the adoption of this
Constitution shall be as
valid as if still in force and
States under this Constitu-
tion as under the Confeder-
ation.

2. This Constitution, and
the laws of the United
States which shall be made
by the judges in their own
judges in every state
shall be bound thereby,
anything in the Constitu-
tion or laws of any state to
the contrary notwithstanding.

3. The Senators and Repre-
sentatives before men-
tioned, and the members of
the several state legisla-
tures, and all executive and
judicial officers, both of
the United States and of
the several states, shall be
bound by oath or affirmation
to support this Constitu-
tion; but no religious test
shall ever be required as a
qualification to any office
or public trust under the
United States.

ARTICLE SEVEN

The ratification of the con-
ventions of nine states shall
be sufficient for the estab-
lishment of this Constitu-
tion between the states so
ratifying the same.

O grips with humanity

are provided a range
dending from private
ment in a variety of

ers section of Prospects
personal attributes
ability of training.
lied by the Education
and is sponsored by the

[LJ]

November 12, 1987

NOV 16 1987

Dear Mr. Kissinger:

Please join us at our next Congressional Seminar on Democracy. We have initiated this series of dinner discussions with the National Endowment for Democracy to explore central issues related to the development and sustenance of democracy. The series was inaugurated in October when former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker addressed the topic of the Latin American debt crisis and its relation to democracy in the hemisphere. We were quite pleased that so many of our colleagues and friends could join us for that event.

Our next seminar will focus on "The Arias Plan and the Future of Democracy in Central America." We are honored to have The Honorable Guido Fernandez, the Costa Rican Ambassador to the U.S., and Eduardo Ullibari, editor-in-chief of the Costa Rican daily newspaper "La Nacion," as our speakers. Ambassador Fernandez is a journalist and lawyer, the former editor-in-chief of La Nacion and for five years the Chairman of the Freedom of the Press Committee of the Inter-American Press Association. Mr. Ullibari is also a professor at the School of Journalism at the University of Costa Rica, and is currently on sabbatical as a Niemann Fellow at Harvard University.

This seminar will be an opportunity to have a frank, off-the-record discussion of the Central American problem led by two distinguished men who have

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

Carl Gershman
President

October 22, 1987

MEMORANDUM

OCT 26 1987

FROM:    Carl Gershman eg

RE:      Legislative Update, Summary Mailing

I am pleased to report that on Thursday, October 15 the full Senate approved the Commerce, Justice and State appropriations bill which contained a mark of $17.75 million for the Endowment's FY 88 appropriation. An amendment was offered to the bill by Senator Bentsen (cosponsored by Senators Hatch, Dole, Kennedy, Cranston, Graham, Kerry, McCain, McConnell and Durenberger) adding $250,000 to the Endowment's $17.5 million mark to support the free press and civic opposition in Nicaragua. The same amendment had been offered in the Endowment's authorization, so we are now awaiting the House/Senate conference on both the authorization and appropriation bills. That debate, enclosed, shows both the favorable attitude toward the Endowment and the breadth of bipartisan support for the civic opposition in Nicaragua. As you will recall, the House had appropriated $16 million for the Endowment, and an across-the-board cut lowered this to $15,616,000.

On another matter, Senator Symms introduced an amendment to authorize $1 million in Economic Support Funds from AID for the Polish trade union Solidarity. This is the same amendment that was attached to the supplemental over the summer and, once again, it is stipulated that the Endowment should administer the funds if they are appropriated.

Copies of proposal summaries received since our last mailing are enclosed for your information.

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

Carl Gershman
President

S 13532

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

October 6, 1987

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote?

The result was announced—yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

(Rollcall Vote No. 304 Leg.)

YEAS—98

<table><tr><td>Adams</td><td>Glenn</td><td>Murkowski</td></tr><tr><td>Armstrong</td><td>Graham</td><td>Nickles</td></tr><tr><td>Baucus</td><td>Gramm</td><td>Nunn</td></tr><tr><td>Bentsen</td><td>Grassley</td><td>Packwood</td></tr><tr><td>Biden</td><td>Harkin</td><td>Pell</td></tr><tr><td>Bingaman</td><td>Hatch</td><td>Pressler</td></tr><tr><td>Bond</td><td>Hatfield</td><td>Proxmire</td></tr><tr><td>Boschwitz</td><td>Hecht</td><td>Pryor</td></tr><tr><td>Bradley</td><td>Heflin</td><td>Quayle</td></tr><tr><td>Breaux</td><td>Heins</td><td>Reid</td></tr><tr><td>Bumpers</td><td>Helms</td><td>Riegle</td></tr><tr><td>Burdick</td><td>Hollings</td><td>Rockefeller</td></tr><tr><td>Byrd</td><td>Humphrey</td><td>Roth</td></tr><tr><td>Chafee</td><td>Inouye</td><td>Rudman</td></tr><tr><td>Chiles</td><td>Johnston</td><td>Sanford</td></tr><tr><td>Cochran</td><td>Karnes</td><td>Sarbanes</td></tr><tr><td>Cohen</td><td>Kassebaum</td><td>Sasser</td></tr><tr><td>Conrad</td><td>Kasten</td><td>Shelby</td></tr><tr><td>Cranston</td><td>Kennedy</td><td>Simon</td></tr><tr><td>D'Amato</td><td>Kerry</td><td>Simon</td></tr><tr><td>Danforth</td><td>Lautenberg</td><td>Specter</td></tr><tr><td>Daschie</td><td>Leahy</td><td>Stafford</td></tr><tr><td>DeConcini</td><td>Levin</td><td>Stennis</td></tr><tr><td>Dixon</td><td>Lugar</td><td>Stevens</td></tr><tr><td>Dodd</td><td>Matsunaga</td><td>Symms</td></tr><tr><td>Dole</td><td>McCain</td><td>Thurmond</td></tr><tr><td>Domenici</td><td>McClure</td><td>Trible</td></tr><tr><td>Durenberger</td><td>McConnell</td><td>Wallop</td></tr><tr><td>Evans</td><td>Melcher</td><td>Warner</td></tr><tr><td>Exon</td><td>Metzenbaum</td><td>Wecker</td></tr><tr><td>Ford</td><td>Heinlaki</td><td>Wilson</td></tr><tr><td>Powler</td><td>Mitchell</td><td>Wirth</td></tr><tr><td>Garn</td><td>Moylanhan</td><td></td></tr></table>

NAYS—0

NOT VOTING—2

<table><tr><td>Boren</td><td>Gore</td></tr></table>

So the amendment (No. 858) was agreed to.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. PELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

## RECOGNITION OF SENATOR PRESSLER

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from South Dakota is recognized for a period not to exceed 5 minutes, after which time the Senate will stand in recess.

## THE NOMINATION OF JUDGE ROBERT BORK

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise to state once again that I strongly support the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Judge Bork was unanimously approved for the court of appeals by this body only a few years ago, and unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee.

Judge Bork has never been overruled while he has served on the court of appeals. Indeed, his voting record is 98 percent the same as Judge Scalia's, who is considered very much in the mainstream on the Supreme Court.

Since my days at Harvard Law School I have read Judge Bork's opinions. I read his 1971 piece in the Indi-

ana Law Journal which I think is one of the most thought-provoking and finest articles produced. It is my strongest feeling that the President of the United States deserves his choice if the judge is in the mainstream of our political thinking; if there is not an ethical question, and if he meets the standards of professional competence. Indeed, when President Carter was in office I supported Abner Mikva for the court of appeals based on that philosophy. I believe that Judge Bork is one of the finest judges in our court of appeals system. He has been given the highest ratings by the American Bar Association. His record is excellent.

Mr. President, I support Judge Bork in part because he is tough on crime. Our Supreme Court has given criminals more rights than victims. Nearly every crime-fighting group in the United States has endorsed Judge Bork. For example, the National Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, and many, many other crime-fighting groups. The reason they have endorsed Judge Bork is because he is needed on the Supreme Court to bring a balance and to give back some rights to law-abiding citizens. Indeed, our Supreme Court has given criminals more rights than victims, and Judge Bork would bring back some balance.

So, Mr. President, for all of these reasons I support him. It is my strongest feeling that we are facing a political vote here. What is really happening is there is an effort to delay this until a new President is elected in the hope that he or she may be a President of the opposite party. I also believe very strongly that the campaign against Judge Bork has been basically unfair. He has been held to a different standard than other nominees. I support him proudly, and shall vote for him. I hope that this body will confirm him to the Supreme Court.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

## RECESS UNTIL 2 P.M.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will stand in recess until 2 p.m.

Thereupon, at 12:59 p.m., the Senate recessed until 2 p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. DODD).

## FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORI-ZATION ACT, FISCAL YEAR 1988

The Senate continued with the consideration of S. 1394.

### AMENDMENT NO. 859

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas (Mr. BENTSEN), for himself, Mr. DOLE, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. HATCH, Mr. CRANSTON, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. KERRY, Mr. MCCONNELL, and Mr. DURENBERGER, proposes an amendment numbered 859.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 60, line 14, strike "$17,500,000 for fiscal year 1988 to be available only for a grant to the National Endowment for Democracy for use in carrying out its purposes" and insert "$17,750,000, for fiscal year 1988 to be available only for a grant to the National Endowment for Democracy for carrying out its purposes, of which not less than $250,000 shall be used to support elements of the free press and the democratic civic opposition inside Nicaragua which espouse democratic principles and objectives. As is the case with all programs of the National Endowment for Democracy, no employee of any department, agency, or other component of the United States government may participate directly or indirectly in controlling, directing, or providing these funds to the free press and democratic civic opposition inside Nicaragua".

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Mr. DOLE, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. HATCH, Mr. CRANSTON, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. KERRY, Mr. MCCONNELL, and Mr. DURENBERGER.

After many years of fighting and many starts and stops in the negotiating process, I think most of us in this body were surprised when we saw the Central American nations get together and reach a peace agreement in Guatemala City on August 7 of this year. That agreement is not totally as I would have written it or as the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. DODD), with his great interest in Central America, would have written it.

What we saw here was a move by Central American nations coming together, supporting a resolution of the problem as they thought it would fit their particular part of the hemisphere. I think it is one that we should give a try. I have some very deep and serious concerns as to what the Sandinistas are ready to do in the way of negotiating away their power. We are talking here about seeing if they are doing it for real or for show.

I think the best thing we can do under those conditions is to offer some support to the democratic opposition and to assist those organizations. We are talking about things like La Prensa, the newspaper. I recall standing in front of La Prensa with Mrs. Chamorro, looking at the front page of La Prensa nailed to the wall, and all the big holes in the paper-censorship that had happened that day by the Sandinista Government. Now they are talking about letting it print again.

We are talking about providing funds to them if they desire it—it is up to them to request it—to the opposition.

October 6, 1987

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

S 13533

tion political parties, to the democrat-
ic labor unions, and to the business or-
ganizations, to give them the ability to
test and determine the amount of
change that is really taking place in
Nicaragua, to help give them a voice.

I think it is incumbent upon us to
provide the moral support and the fi-
nancial support. We are not talking
about a lot of money. We are talking
about $250,000 to be expended to try
to help the democratic process and the
opposition have a voice. When I think
what it costs to run for the Senate in
my State, when I think what it costs
to run for Governor, and then I look
at this situation—and we are talking
about trying to help them to the
extent of $250,000—it is a small
amount indeed.

I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD at the conclu-
sion of my remarks a list of the mem-
bership of the Civic Opposition de-
scribed in a recent Congressional Re-
search Service report on that subject.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. MIKULSKI). Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

Mr. BENTSEN. Madam President,
the Government of Nicaragua has
committed a pledge that as of Novem-
ber 7, it will be in compliance with the
Guatemala City agreement, and that
includes the requirement that press
freedom be restored, that the state of
emergency be lifted, and that political
pluralism be instituted.

Compliance or noncompliance on
the part of the Sandinista Govern-
ment is going to be moot, however, if
the democratic institutions in Nicara-
gua do not have the financial support
to make their points of view known,
trying to see that they exercise such
rights as may have been restored to
them. This amendment would author-
ize an increased level of support for
that effort sufficient for the next 4 to
6 months, during which time we will
be able to evaluate and arrive at a
better judgment as to whether or not
things have really changed in Nicara-
gua. We could vote some additional
funds later if they were warranted.

This amendment adds a total of
$250,000 to the amount authorized for
the National Endowment for Democ-
acy.

What we have is a situation in which
Mrs. Chamorro at La Prensa, was
closed down, was required to continue
to pay those employees when they
were not allowed to operate. She has
had that drain on her funds. She has
to get that into operation again, repair
the presses, and hire back the staff.
They are receiving some money from
the endowment, but not enough.

This amendment would also provide
funding for the democratic opposition
parties—the eight parties to the right
of the Sandinista government ideologi-
cally. I am not talking about the Com-
munists and others who do not think
the Sandinistas are pure enough in
their Marxism-Leninism. It is for the

unions and the business groups who
organize and print pamphlets and leaf-
lets and test how pluralistic the de-
mocracy in Nicaragua really becomes.
This, too, would expand the existing
grants and would not constitute a new
program.

I am anticipating a question that
might come up. I am informed by the
head of the endowment that they re-
cently have been in touch with the
publisher of La Prensa and that La
Prensa welcomes and needs this kind
of assistance.

I noticed that there was an inaccur-
cy in a Washington Post story that
said last week that the Government of
Nicaragua had closed down La Prensa
after they learned it had been receiv-
ing funds from the National Endow-
ment for Democracy. That was not
correct. That $100,000 grant was made
in 1984. It was a public grant. It was
publicly reported by the endowment.
It was 2 years later that the newspa-
per was closed down. That followed a
vote by the House of Representatives
on an extension of Contra aid.

I know there has been some concern,
as well as my own. I have to satisfy
myself that we were not going to be
hurting our friends in this. We care-
fully considered that kind of problem,
and we have come to the conclusion
that that is not the case.

In the first place, this is not a new
program. Both La Prensa and the
Civic Opposition have already re-
ceived—publicly—financing through
the National Endowment. If the Sandi-
nistas want to use that against these
organizations, they can already do so,
because this kind of program was al-
ready under way. It is a matter of
public record.

The fact is that we need a strong
vote of support for these opponents of
the Sandinistas, and the opponents
need the assistance, and we are asking
for that kind of assistance.

We are not going to force that
money on anyone. They have not
come in and asked for it.

Only those groups that apply for it
will be considered for aid, only that
list that I have attached and inserted
in the RECORD and should the civic op-
position in Nicaragua, should they not
be the ones to determine whether or
not it is going to hurt them, they
make that decision. They do not have
to take these funds. They are the ones
with the best understanding of the
risks and the benefits of that kind of
assistance.

Finally, my staff has been in touch
with the Nicaraguan Government and
they have been informed there is no
impediment to such funding under
Nicaraguan law.

I realize that there are Members of
this body who are not favorably dis-
posed toward the National Endow-
ment. I believe I understand the rea-
sons for these feelings. Let me say
today that this amendment is not
about the Endowment; it is about de-
mocracy in Nicaragua and what we

can do to support it. If we are to pro-
vide this modest amount of assistance
to the democratic civic opposition in
Nicaragua, the National Endowment
for Democracy—established by Con-
gress to do precisely what is being pro-
posed here—is the proper organization
to receive this appropriation.

Madam. President, I understand
that the administration will be submit-
ting a request for additional Contra
aid sometime after November 7. I be-
lieve it is right to wait until then to do
so, because I would not want the
United States to be accused of having
sabotaged and subverted the peace
agreement. After that date, when we
have had the opportunity to see just
how much and how real the Sandi-
nista level of compliance is, then we
can all make up our minds about addi-
tional aid to the contras.

I ask you today not to confuse or
mix the purpose of the funds in this
amendment with that of continued aid
to the Contras. These are separate
issues and should be decided on their
own merits. We have just included in
the continuing resolution an addition-
al $4.5 million in humanitarian aid to
the Contras. In this amendment today
I am asking for a vote of support for
the peaceful, democratic opposition in
Nicaragua.

EXHIBIT 1

NICARAGUAN DEMOCRATIC CIVIC OPPOSITION

POLITICAL PARTIES

Social Christian Party (PSC).

Nicaraguan Conservative Party (PCN).

Social Democratic Party (PSD).

Constitutional Liberal Party (PLC).

Liberal Party (PALI).

Independent Liberal Party (PLI).

Popular Social Christian Party (PPC).

Democratic Conservative Party (PCD).

LABOR UNIONS

Confederation of Nicaraguan Workers
(CTN).

Council for Trade Union Unity (CUS).

BUSINESS

Superior Council of Private Enterprise
(COSEP).

Mr. DODD. Madam President, will
the Senator yield?

Mr. BENTSEN. Yes, I yield to the
distinguished Senator from Connecti-
cut.

Mr. DODD. First of all, let me
extend my sincere compliments to the
colleagues from Texas. I think this is
an excellent amendment. I have
worked with him and with others for
the last several days, and I think this
is a totally appropriate and proper al-
location of funds in the context of
what is occurring.

My colleagues on the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee will remember that,
during the consideration of this bill, I
offered an amendment to increase the
authorization for the National Endow-
ment for Democracy by $2½ million
and argued at that time that part of

¹CRS Report 87-735 F. "Nicaragua's 'Civic' Op-
position: Players, Problems, and Prospects," by
Nina M. Serafino (August 5, 1987).

S 13534

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

October 6, 1987

the additional funding could be used to support the Democratic political opposition inside Nicaragua.

So the amendment by the Senator from Texas is entirely consistent with the views embraced by the committee when we considered an additional appropriation for the NED.

I think this is proper, particularly because La Prensa is the one voice of the media that we are all familiar with and it has received such tremendous attention. Radio Catholic is another one that has received a great deal of attention. There are a number of other media outlets in Nicaragua that are not as well known or not as apt to be run freely or allowed to run freely.

Thus, including in here the general language of the free press and media will cover all those outlets as well.

I commend him for that.

Lastly, I just say, and I would urge my colleagues to express their support of it as well, we need to encourage those political opponents of the Sandinista Government who are today living outside of Nicaragua, whether in Costa Rica or the United States, to return to Nicaragua and to test the sincerity of the Sandinistas.

One of the ways I think they can do that is with the assistance provided by the amendment. They will be far better critics and legitimate as spokesmen if they are speaking from Nicaragua rather than from outside of Nicaragua.

This amendment ought to encourage, it seems to me, those elements to participate in that. I see nothing in this amendment that should in any way be construed as trying to add an element to be disruptive to the Guatemalan peace accords. I think it complments that and I think it is going to assist that process. I am delighted to be a supporter of this particular proposal and thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. BENTSEN. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the distinguished Republican leader.

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from Texas [Mr. BENTSEN] in cosponsoring this amendment—which will provide $250,000 to support the elements struggling to bring a free press, and Democratic opposition parties, to Nicaragua.

Although Senators may differ over the prospects for Sandinista compliance with the letter and spirit of the Guatemala City accord, there is near unanimous agreement that we should withhold our final judgment until the November 7 deadline written into the accord—and, in the meantime, do everything we can to encourage full compliance.

VISIT TO NICARAGUA

Recently, I visited Nicaragua. It was clear to me that, despite years of repression and propaganda from the

Sandinistas, the Nicaraguan people remain thirsty for freedom; and ready to implement it fully—if the Sandinistas give them the chance.

And we in the United States have a responsibility to do more than just express our good wishes. We must find ways to support those forces in Nicaragua who are struggling for goals we share.

During my visit, I met both with Mrs. Chamorro—editor of the recently reopened La Prensa—and with leaders of some of the active opposition parties. In addition to being very brave and determined people, all of them are also very practical—they know it costs money to put out a paper; or organize politically. Especially when you are competing with a vast, powerful and often unscrupulous government apparatus.

The free press and the democratic political parties need our help. Passing this amendment is one very important and concrete way we can help them.

SAFEGUARDS

Let me also add one other point. Care has been taken to insure that provision of these funds will not compromise, La Prensa, any of the political parties or any other organization or group which accepts funds. The money will be provided above board, with no strings attached. Official U.S. Government involvement will be very limited; the money will be provided through private channels. And it will be provided only in response to a specific request—so every potential recipient will be able to make their own judgment on whether receipt of this money is in their own interest.

Madam President, I commend the Senator from Texas [Mr. BENTSEN] for taking the lead on this issue. The broad cosponsorship of this amendment—reflecting all segments of the political spectrum—reflects the soundness of this approach. So I am pleased to join Senator BENTSEN and the other cosponsors in urging overwhelming approval.

Madam President, I am a cosponsor of the amendment. I want to make certain. I think I understand the way the amendment is drafted it covers more than just one publication. It would also cover the Catholic radio station.

We visited with Cardinal LaBraso. They need the money and cannot start up the station without assistance.

As I understand, it covers three elements in the press and will not be limited to one or two or electronic media.

Mr. BENTSEN. The distinguished minority leader has correctly stated the purpose of the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?

SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator BENTSEN in offering an amendment to support the true democratic opposition in Nicaragua. Over the last 6 years, the

administration has supported an opposition created in Langley, VA, that was neither democratic nor popular with the Nicaraguan people. The Contras will never have the support of the Nicaraguan people—and they will never overthrow the Sandinistas.

There is a real democratic opposition inside Nicaragua—not the Contras—but a legitimate group of men and women inside Nicaragua who maintain the support of the population and who are struggling to bring democracy to their country through peaceful, legal means. Together these groups provide the only hope of pressuring the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua into democratic reforms—but that task can only be done through the ballot and not the bullet.

This amendment would begin to shape United States policy toward Nicaragua in the post-Contra era. It would provide $250,000 to the National Endowment for Democracy for support to the free press and civic, democratic opposition inside Nicaragua—including La Prensa and other nongovernment radio stations, newspapers, and television stations, business organizations, and labor unions, and the democratic opposition political parties inside Nicaragua.

The program will be run by the two party institutes of the endowment which have extensive experience in assisting and training democratic elements worldwide. I have worked closely on a number of occasions with the National Democratic Institute and found its work to be invaluable to individuals and groups working to develop more democratic forms of government in their own countries. I have been especially impressed with NDI's work in Northern Ireland, the Philippines and Chile and have no doubt that the progress made in recent years toward democracy in Northern Ireland and the Philippines is due in part to the superb work of NDI. I am hopeful that NID's work in Chile will bring that country closer to the goal of democracy.

The need for support of the democratic opposition is great in Nicaragua. A recent CRS study found that it was "difficult for opposition groups to fund their operations or generate resources internally with which to operate." Because of a shortage of funds, opposition party and union leaders must often work as volunteers; their organizing efforts are plagued by delays and the lack of even the most basic supplies. Spare parts for vehicles, paper and ink are difficult to obtain, and newsletters have been forced to cease publication due to lack of supplies.

The next elections scheduled in Nicaragua are the municipal ones in 1988. If the democratic opposition is to participate in those elections in any meaningful way, it will need access to these basic resources. This amendment will help provide the basic tools of de-

October 6, 1987

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

S 13535

mocracy to the real democratic opposition to the Sandinistas.

While United States policymakers have been obsessed with Ronald Reagan's so-called freedom fighters, the truly democratic elements in Nicaragua have been fighting to preserve the democratic elements of the 1979 revolution. Yet, for the last 7 years, the U.S. Government has been blind to their struggle and deaf to their requests for our assistance. The Nicaraguan people support this opposition, the American people support this opposition and it is time the United States Government supported this democratic opposition.

Let me just review several actions taken by this opposition. In February 1986, a coalition of six democratic parties inside Nicaragua joined together in signing a significant peace proposal to the Nicaraguan Government. It called for a cease-fire, general amnesty for political crimes, abolition of the state of emergency, establishment of civil rights, general elections, and the democratization of Nicaragua. Washington ignored that proposal.

In March of the same year, a group of leading Nicaraguan businessmen issued a strong denunciation of the Sandinistas saying they feared for their lives and liberty. They called on democratic governments to "act vigorously to defend and protect our existence, before you have to lament a sin of omission." But Washington ignored that request.

In July of this year, the National Democratic Institute sponsored a conference in Madrid, Spain, of leaders of seven Nicaraguan political parties who called on the international community to support their demands for the "authentic political democracy" in Nicaragua to bring internal pressure on the Sandinistas by peaceful means. According to these leaders, peaceful democratic reform is the surest path to peace and reconciliation. But Washington ignored that call.

And last August, the five Presidents of the countries of Central America signed a historic agreement to achieve peace in the region. Despite efforts by the administration to scuttle this plan at every chance—devising a competing plan the eve of the signing of the Arias plan and announcing its intention to seek $270 million in additional military aid for the Contras—the countries are making dramatic progress toward implementing the plan. El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua have already named the National Reconciliation Commissions called for under the plan. Negotiations between the insurgents and the Government are beginning in El Salvador and in Guatemala. The Nicaraguan Government has taken a series of steps toward reconciliation, including the reopening of the opposition newspaper, La Prensa.

Compliance of the plan will be mixed on November 7, but substantial progress will have been made toward

establishing a lasting peace in the region. Passage of this amendment will provide a minimal but important amount of assistance to the process of establishing democracy in Nicaragua. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

### AMENDMENT NO. 860 TO AMENDMENT NO. 859

Mr. SYMMS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. PELL. A point of order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island will state his point of order.

Mr. PELL. I thought we were dealing with the amendment of the Senator from Texas.

Mr. SYMMS. That is correct.

Mr. BENTSEN. Is he seeking to amend the amendment?

Mr. SYMMS. To amend the stricken language so it would be a second-degree amendment not amendable.

Mr. PELL. All right.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The Senator from Idaho (Mr. SYMMS) proposes amendment numbered 859 to amendment numbered 858.

Add at the end of the material proposed to be stricken add the following new section:

"Sec. In view of (1) the deteriorating condition of the Panama Canal, (2) the continuing military dictatorship of General Noriega and its involvement in criminal activities, and (3) the refusal of the Panamanian Government to accept the DeConcini Reservation concerning U.S. defense rights upon which Senate consent to the ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty was predicated, it is the sense of the Senate that the Senate ought not to have consented to the ratification of the Panama Canal Treaties whereby the Panama Canal was given away and that such treaties are voidable unless and until Panama formally accepts the DeConcini Reservation and should be voided by the President if such acceptance is not forthcoming within six months of the adoption of this section."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.

Mr. SYMMS. Madam President, the amendment I have sent to the desk is very simple and easy to understand. It is not complicated. It states in plain language the sense of the Senate that in view of the deteriorating condition of the Panama Canal, in view of the drug trafficking of the Noriega dictatorship, and most importantly, in view of the refusal of Panama to accept the DeConcini reservation giving the United States the right to defend the canal after the year 2000—that in view of these circumstances, it is the sense of the Senate that the Senate ought not to have consented to the ratification of the Panama Canal Treaties and that since the ratification itself was irregular, the President should void that ratification unless the Panamanians accept the DeConcini reservation as the Senate intended.

This amendment does not void the Panama Canal Treaties.

I want to repeat that, Madam President. It does not void the Panama

Canal Treaties and does not attempt to rewrite history. It deals with present-day circumstances and with beginning the process of resolving the very real problem we are likely to face in another 10 to 15 years, after the year 2000, when we will have no right to defend the canal unless the Government of Panama accepts the DeConcini reservation.

The amendment is the sense of the Senate only. It does not tie the hands of the President, nor does it instruct him to take any particular action. It merely states the view that the issue of the DeConcini reservation should be addressed by this President. It also states the view that the Senate, in view of the nonacceptance of the DeConcini reservation, ought not to have consented to the ratification of the Panama Canal Treaties in the first place.

Madam President, had I been in the Senate at the time that that happened I would have voted against those treaties with or without the DeConcini reservation, as I was in the other body at that time and was very interested in the issue. But a number of Senators who voted for ratification did so because they felt that the U.S. rights to defense in the 21st century would be protected by the DeConcini reservation. That is what they thought was happening at the time that many of them agreed to vote for it.

Madam President, this is a serious matter because the situation in 1987 in Central America is far different from the situation it was in 1978.

The amendment also, Madam President, has other purposes. The further purpose is to make clear to the people of Central America, and particularly to the people of Panama, that the issue of the Panama Canal continues to be of major importance to the people of the United States. We do have an interest there. We have a commercial interest. The amount of shipping that goes from the east to the west coast alone is a massive amount of our shipping in this country, a high percentage of it, as a matter of fact. After all, Madam President, it is the people and the taxpayers of the United States who built the canal and who, over the decades, have provided the manpower and funds to defend it and keep it open. Americans continue to have a stake in the Panama Canal and a vote on this amendment will certainly demonstrate the degree of importance we attach to the canal in relation to the security of our country.

Madam President, Senators who were in the Senate in 1978 will recall how they were told that the Panama Canal Treaties would solve our problems in Central America and, indeed, in a large part of South America, as well. They were told, and we were told the same thing in the House, that the "intransigence"—and that is not my word, Madam President, but the word

S 13536

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

October 6, 1987

bandied about in this Chamber in the spring of 1978—that the "intransigence" was going to provide fertile ground for the Soviet Union and for the spread of communism in the Western Hemisphere.

Senators were told time and again that a hard-headed attitude against giving away the canal was all that stood in the way of a new era of sunshine and democracy from Panama to Mexico. We were told that if we would just take this one step and give away some sovereign United States territory belonging to the American people, then the Panamanian dictatorship would be replaced with a broad-based democratic system, and that all of Central America would love and admire the United States for its magnanimous wisdom, and that the inroads of the Soviet Union in Latin America would be stopped indefinitely. That is the story that was being reported in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and by many of our colleagues here on this floor that were promoting this giveaway of the United States canal in Panama.

Madam President, much has happened since April 18, 1978, and I believe it is time for the Senate to take account of the gap between the promises which were offered then and the reality of what has happened now.

First, Madam President, Panama is still under a dictatorship. Panama is still subject to military rule by a band of gangsters who are the very successors to the same kind of gangsters with whom they dealt in 1978. Panama still continues to have one of the most corrupt governments in the world—I repeat, one of the most corrupt governments in the world—where they are engaging in everything from selling drugs to passports at high prices on the market, personally enriching some of the leaders of the government at the expense of the people who live there and others in other parts of the world.

The narcotics trade has been targeted against the youth of the United States, which I think is a serious concern to all of us. It was true then, and it is even worse today.

Second, Madam President, within a matter of months of the so-called ratification of the canal giveaway, the Soviet Union seized Nicaragua as a new client state on the continent of North America, or Central America. That regime is still in power in Nicaragua today, has consolidated its dictatorial grip, and relies heavily on the Soviet Union, Cuban, and East German military and intelligence services for its sustenance.

Third, the Soviet Union has attempted to seize El Salvador through a Communist insurgency launched and supported from Nicaragua. Similar insurgencies—more properly referred to as terrorist movements—have also been launched against Honduras and Guatemala.

So the situation has remarkably changed from where it was in 1978.

Fourth, Madam President, again within months after the Senate voted to give the canal away, the then chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, my predecessor in this seat, revealed to the American public that the Soviet Union had at least one full combat brigade stationed 90 miles from the United States in Cuba. We know now, of course, that the Soviet force well could be two brigades or more.

(Mr. MATSUNAGA assumed the chair.)

Mr. SYMMS. But, Mr. President, we have gotten used to that sort of thing and what seemed shocking then seems to be now acceptable today.

For example, who would have thought that the distinguished occupant of the chair's State would be used as target practice for Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles firing close to its shores? What an outrage that is to this country. And yet, that is how emboldened our adversary, the Soviet Union, has gotten in this last 10 to 11 years.

So, Mr. President, my point is that those here in the Senate who voted for the Panama Canal Treaties, or, as some have called it, the United States canal which was given away—but, however you look at it, it was the treaties—how could they have known that following that decision Nicaragua would fall to communism? No one knew that. Or that El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras would all be threatened, that the corrupt Panamanian dictatorship would continue? People did not know that is the way the course of events was going to happen. It is always easier to look out the rearview mirror than it is the windshield, to see where you have been better than where you are going.

Or that thousands, even millions of people would be voting with their feet, fleeing out of fear in Central America by going north and illegally entering the United States; that the Soviets would station combat units in Cuba; that Castro would dump the refuse of his jails and hospitals in the so-called boat lift; and that Panama, even when being given something that did not belong to it and being paid to take it, would still refuse to comply with the DeConcini reservation that was put forth in this treaty?

So I do not know the answer to the question of what would happen in the year 2000; if, in fact, it appeared that the United States needed to defend the canal, what would happen? I do not know the answer to that, Mr. President, but when the Senate votes on my amendment, or even a motion to table it, we will have an answer. We will know the present feelings of those who were here in 1978 and we will know the present judgment of the Senators who were not.

Mr. President, just as a little point of interest on what has happened to

the makeup of this distinguished august group of people since 1978, there were 68 Senators who voted for it; 28 of those 68 remain in the Senate; 32 voted against it. Of the 68 who voted for the treaties, 28 of those remain in the Senate. Of the 32 who voted against the treaties, 16 remain in the Senate. So only 44 remain all together that were here. Of the 56 who are no longer here 23 who voted for the treaties have been defeated. Of the 32 who voted against the treaties, only 2 Senators were defeated.

So it has been an issue that has been polarizing, an issue that American people have been very interested in since most Americans were taught during their childhood years in the schools of the great engineering feat of what happened and the U.S. importance in the area. I think it is a significant issue.

What we would like to do today is just to vote to see how the United States Senate feels about it today, 11 years after the ratification of the treaty; whether we think that we should insist that the corrupt Government of Panama—I repeat, the corrupt Government of Panama—should adhere and respect and conform to the DeConcini reservation that was passed here in the Senate 11 years ago.

I yield the floor.

Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, thank you very much for recognizing me.

I am in a predicament. Neither of these amendments, the underlying amendment by the distinguished Senator from Texas and the second-degree amendment by the able Senator from Idaho, in neither case have I seen the amendment.

May I inquire of the distinguished Senator from Texas if he would accept one small modification? After the words "to support elements of free press" insert ", including free radio."

Mr. BENTSEN. I think that is an improvement. Frankly, that is what I had intended. But I appreciate the clarification and I would be delighted to accept that.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, even though the amendment of the Senator from Texas is not before us, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for him to send a modification to the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has a right to modify his own amendment. If the Senator will send the modification forward.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to send a modification of my amendment to the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.

The amendment, as modified, reads as follows:

S 13538

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

October 6, 1987

and it should not have been, because it was accurate.

We now know that there are at least two Soviet brigades in Cuba and probably more than that. All in all, the giveaway of the Panama Canal was, when you look back on it, an ugly tápety of special interests, weakness of will, and clear defiance of the will of the majority of the American people. As it has turned out, these were the ingredients of disaster, which is precisely what it turned out to be.

Even though I come late to agree with the Senator's amendment, I commend him on it and I hope he will get the yeas and nays so that there can be a vote on it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SYMMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the request for the yeas and nays? There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the underlying amendment of Senator BENTSEN which adds $250,000 to the National Endowment of Democracy, for the benefit of the Nicaraguan opposition.

Mr. President, I know from first-hand experience of my visits to Nicaragua that the present state of the opposition in Nicaragua is indeed weak. For the past 8 years they have been deprived of the basic freedoms which any opposition organization in any country needs in order to function effectively. I believe it is abundantly clear that without United States or another nation's assistance in providing for the material needs of the opposition groups and a free press, there is no way they can make themselves a viable force in Nicaraguan society.

Mr. President, I have a profound admiration for the National Endowment for Democracy, its director and the people who are associated with it. I believe that the National Endowment for Democracy, despite attacks from both right and left, in this body and in the other body, has made enormous contributions to the furtherance of democracy throughout the world, whether it be in totalitarian right-wing countries or in Communist-dominated nations.

Mr. President, under the provisions of the Guatemala City accord, the Sandinistas must provide for freedom of expression by the democratic opposition. I might add that there is no requirement for the Sandinista government to provide the necessary equipment and materials for that opposition to be able to function as an effective body.

Mr. President, I have been to La Prensa in Managua. I visited with Mrs. Violetta Chammorro, one of the most courageous ladies I have known in my

life. On the very day of the last visit, shortly before La Prensa was allowed to open, Mrs. Chammorro had just sold the last vehicle the paper owned because she had to pay for the employees who had been out of work but still on the payroll of La Prensa for the 15 months it was closed.

Mr. President, today La Prensa is delivering their newspapers by private automobile. The staff, once over 200 people, is now reduced to somewhere between 30 and 40. I think it is very clear that one cannot run an effective newspaper, no matter how zealous or dedicated one is, without the kind of material support that the amendment of my colleague from Texas would provide.

I also believe the amendment may serve to encourage other nations throughout the world to contribute to the democratic opposition and the free press in Nicaragua. Those organizations must be functioning by November 7, if peace and democracy are going to be given a chance in Nicaragua.

I express my appreciation to the Senator from Texas for this amendment. I hope it will receive the overwhelming support of this body. The people of Central America and Nicaragua need to know that we support their efforts at democracy and freedom, and that we are willing to support it with more than lip service. They need to know that we are willing to support their efforts with the funds necessary to make the opposition an effective voice for freedom and democracy in that unhappy land.

With that I yield the floor.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to the Senator from Arizona for his comments and great interest in trying to find a solution to the problem in Nicaragua where the democratic process will prevail and his feeling that this particular amendment will assist in that regard. All it does, obviously, is provide some funds to try to give them a chance to voice their views and get the populace to understand them and to interpret them. The Senator's support will be most helpful in the process.

Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PELL). The Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. DODD. I compliment my colleague from Arizona for his comments. Prior to his arrival on the floor, I tried to express, with the same degree of eloquence that he did, the same reasons why I support this amendment. I tell my good friend and colleague from Arizona what we also urge is for some of the people who are outside Nicaragua, who could make up this opposition, to come back to Nicaragua and take advantage of this amendment so they could be credible critics.

I rise, however, to raise some concerns about the amendment offered by my good friend from Idaho. I would like to make just a couple of observa-

tions with regard to this amendment if I could.

First of all, let me point out to my good friend from Idaho that this body, over the last several weeks on several different occasions, has expressed, through sense-of-the-Senate resolutions and a variety of other vehicles, but primarily sense-of-the-Senate resolutions, overwhelming support for propositions to condemn the present Government in Panama and what it is doing. In fact, the last resolution which I offered is the last sense-of-the-Senate resolution that I think we will consider. In fact, I would inform my colleague from Idaho that we are scheduling hearings on Panama prior to the consideration of the continuing resolution that will deal with the issue of sugar quotas, economic, and military support. One of my concerns would be, aside from the fact that I happen to oppose his amendment on substantive grounds, but putting aside my differences on substantive grounds, I suspect there are a lot of Members of this body who will have reasons leading them to prefer not to support this amendment. Therefore, you end up with the result, it seems to me, of a divided vote, having once had the Senate only a few weeks ago express its strong outrage about what is going on in Panama, you end up with a closely divided body on this proposition which could send just the wrong signal to the Noriega government at a time when we ought to be united, as we have been.

And I expressed some reservations earlier about some of the propositions because I felt we ought to proceed in an incremental way in dealing with Panama. But I, like many others, have given up on hoping they are going to make any significant changes without some significant action by this Government, our Government, not just the Congress, but the executive branch as well. If we have a vote on the Senator's amendment, we run the risk of wanting to lose the amendment or having such a narrow vote that that seems to me to be seen as a source of some solace to the very people we are trying to send a different message to.

So I urge my colleague from Idaho to consider withdrawing the amendment. We have a very good amendment that was offered by the Senator from Texas, one that I think we can have virtual unanimity, if not total unanimity, in this body on.

I think that is a very important message to be sending at this particular hour to Central America. To have coupled with that an amendment that is so divided, it seems to me, will detract from the effort by the Senator from Texas and others who are cosponsors of this amendment.

I am not suggesting not offering it as a freestanding one and debate it. But it seems to me we are joining issues here. I appreciate his argument on why they ought to be joined, but it

S 13540

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

October 6, 1987

[LQ]

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FOWLER). Is there further debate? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Texas (Mr. BENTSEN).

The amendment (No. 859) was agreed to.

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HELMS. I move to lay that motion on the table.

AMENDMENT NO. 861

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York (Mr. MOYNIHAN) proposes an amendment numbered 861:

At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

SEC. INVITATION TO THE PRESIDENT OF ISRAEL FOR A STATE VISIT TO THE UNITED STATES.

(A) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—

(1) The President of Israel has never been invited to make a state visit to the United States:

(2) President Chaim Herzog is admired by Americans of all faiths, not least because of his courageous fight in the United Nations against General Assembly Resolution 3379, which equated Zionism with racism:

(B) POLICY.—It is the sense of the Congress that—

(1) The President of the United States should, at the earliest date possible, invite the President of Israel to make a state visit.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York (Mr. MOYNIHAN] is recognized in support of his amendment.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this is a simple sense-of-the-Senate resolution, but it addresses a matter which I think is long past due in our affairs. I also believe the President would welcome this counsel—if I may put it thus—from the Senate, and of course particularly from the Committee on Foreign Relations.

The State of Israel, now in its 40th year, has become well-known to our Nation. We have close relations of an extraordinary sort. We have a free-trade zone with Israel, such that our economies are essentially one, as indeed in so many other respects our policies are in harmony and our people are friends. The extent of that harmony and friendship is known to every Member of this body and need not be elaborated upon by me.

However, it remains an anomaly that while the Prime Ministers of Israel are frequent visitors to this country, the President of Israel, who is the head of the state, has never been invited in all the years since Israel's founding. At some level this constitutes a withholding of recognition, of legitimacy, of permanency with respect to that democratic nation.

As the distinguished Senator from North Carolina knows, the resolution adopted in 1975 in the General Assembly

bly declaring Zionism to be a form of racism and racial discrimination was an attempt to delegitimize the State of Israel. Any such factish state is not a legitimate state under the United Nations system. The Soviets played an altogether despicable role in the vote by which this resolution was adopted, over the opposition of nearly every democratic nation on Earth—and many nations which were not so democratic, but which opposed the resolution out of sheer revulsion.

At that time, the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations was Chaim Herzog, the current President. Mr. Herzog is an Irishman of some considerable distinction, having been born in Belfast. His father was an eminent rabbi, the chief rabbi of Ireland and later the first chief rabbi of the State of Israel. During the Second World War, he distinguished himself with valor in endless engagements as a member of the Guards Armored Regiment and earned military decorations of the most notable kind.

It was he who rose in that occasion— where I was present and will not forget—and observed that the resolution was being adopted on November 10, 1975, the exact anniversary of “Kristallnacht,” that infamous occasion on which the Nazi regime sent mobs in the streets throughout Germany to destroy Jewish shops and Jewish homes. He made a most eloquent speech in opposition. Our opposition, of course, failed.

He has since become President, a democratically-elected President, and was the architect of the present arrangement whereby the two major coalitions share power, and the government has gone forward such as it has done.

There is a discussion abroad of an international conference on the Middle East. The leader of one party, the present Foreign Minister, Mr. Peres, has advocated such a conference, the leader of the other party, Mr. Shamir, is opposed. The United States seems to alternate between one view and the other. It seems to me that if there is to be some conference or if there is to be none, the interests of the United States would be served well if, by a simple invitation, the President of Israel could visit our country, and we would establish beyond any question our acceptance of the permanency of that state and the legitimacy of its democratic arrangements.

That is the sole purpose for which I rise, Mr. President, and I hope this amendment will be accepted.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I support the amendment personally, and I know of no Senator on this side who has any question.

I say to the distinguished Senator from New York, my good friend, that if the President is going to entertain

the President of Mozambique, certainly he could justify the President of Israel.

I support the amendment, and I suggest that we adopt it.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I join in support of this excellent amendment, and I trust that it will be adopted.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I withdraw the request.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from New York (Mr. MOYNIHAN].

The amendment (No. 861) was agreed to.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

AMENDMENT NO. 853, AS MODIFIED

(Purpose: Calling for the immediate release of all the children detained under the state of emergency regulations in South Africa)

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have an amendment to be stated.

The Senator from Maryland (Ms. MIKULSKI) for herself and Mr. FOWLER, proposes an amendment numbered 853, as modified.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 111, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following new section:

SEC. 517. POLICY TOWARD THE DETENTION OF CHILDREN IN SOUTH AFRICA.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—

(1) the Government of the Republic of South Africa under its system of apartheid repeatedly has detained black children without charge or trial, and has denied parental access to these children for extended periods of time;

(2) the detainees' parents' support committee of South Africa has compiled information estimating that more than 25,000 people were detained since June 12, 1986, under state of emergency regulations, and approximately 10,000 of these were children, including some as young as age 10;

(3) the Government of the Republic of South Africa has stated on numerous occasions that it has detained children without charge, and that on a certain day in December 1986, 256 children under the age of 16 were in detention; that on a certain day in February 1987, 281 children under the age of 15 were in detention; that on a certain day in April 1987, 1,424 children under the age of 18 were in detention; and that on a certain day in May 1987, 280 children under the age of 16 were in detention; and that as of June 2, stated that eleven children under the age of 16 were in detention; and as of October 69 children under the age of 18 are still in detention; and

(4) human rights groups in South Africa estimate that many more children have been detained under state of emergency regulations.

NED SUMMARY

PROJECT: Support for <u>Archipelag</u> Monthly Publication
SPONSOR: <u>Archipelag</u>
ACTION: Nadia Diuk
REC'D: August 17, 1987

In early 1983, <u>Archipelag</u>, a Polish-language cultural and political monthly, was established in West Berlin by several young intellectuals and journalists in exile who were lacked a suitable medium for political expression. <u>Archipelag</u>, seeking financial assistance to continue publishing, focuses primarily on issues of mutual concern to Poles and Germans. The Holocaust essays of Henryk Grynberg, now in book-form in the <u>Archipelag</u> library, are an example of texts that cover Polish-Jewish affairs. Soviet affairs have also been discussed in published interviews with Andrei Siniavsky and Aleksander Zinoviev, and in other literary and journalistic articles. Apart from the founding group, writers who joined the editorial committee and contribute regularly to the magazine include: Tymoteusz Karpowicz, Maria Kurecka, Wlodzimierz Odojewski and Witold Wirpszsa. Andrzej Wieckowski is the editor and publisher.

<u>Archipelag</u>'s print-run has reached as many as 1,200 copies, 400 of which are brought into Poland. Numbering approximately 100 pages, each issue usually contains historical, literary and scientific essays, as well as poems, short stories, political pieces, book reviews and cultural notes. Occasionally, a special issue will be devoted to a specific theme or to a particular author. Appearing ten times a year with two double issues, <u>Archipelag</u> will have published some 140 authors in a total of 47 issues by September 1987.

DURATION: One year
BUDGET: $55,555

[cc]

NED SUMMARY

PROJECT: Project "History"
SPONSOR: Czechoslovak Society of Arts and Sciences
ACTION: Nadia Diuk
REC'D: August 19, 1987

The Czechoslovak Society of Arts and Sciences is seeking Endowment funding for a project to examine historical inaccuracies and falsehoods in high school textbooks in Czechoslovakia and to evaluate the overall pattern of distortion. One to three non-official historians in Czechoslovakia will be chosen to examine texts on the country's history between 1918 and 1948. Their recommendations will help determine how the period will be divided for further study. Selection of the historical scholars will take place under the supervision and guidance of respected Czechoslovakians, including Dr. Vilem Precan, Director of the Documentation Center for the Promotion of Independent Czechoslovak Literature in West Germany. Funds will be expended only after the historians have been selected, and the Endowment will be informed within 90 days of the beginning of the project as to its feasibility. Administering the project is Jiri Nehnevajsa, President of the Czechoslovak Society of Arts and Sciences, a U.S.-based worldwide organization of scholars, cultural figures, businessmen and others working for a free and democratic Czechoslovakia.

DURATION: ONE YEAR
BUDGET: $3,120

[cc]

NED SUMMARY

PROJECT: Moonfall Publishing Book Project
ACTION: Nadia Diuk
SPONSOR: Moonfall Publishing Corporation
REC'D: August 6, 1987

The Moonfall Publishing Corporation is seeking Endowment funding to publish original non-fictional and fictional works by emigres from Eastern Europe. Manuscripts of lasting literary value that convey experiences unique to Eastern European culture will be published in English and in their original language, enabling Americans to develop a deeper understanding of other nations' histories. In addition to receiving original works from writers such as Vassily Aksyonov, Alexey Suslov and Andrei Codrescu, Moonfall Publishing hopes to contact renowned writers living in Europe and also encourage talented young writers.

Three to five hard cover books will be published during the first year followed by eight titles in the second year. Each book will be printed on high-quality paper in an edition of 500 copies. George Simon-Cinca and Silvia Cinca, both from Romania, are the Managing Director and Senior Editor, respectively. Along with Robert Cinca, Junior Editor, they make up the editorial board and are responsible for manuscript selection in addition to all other stages of book publishing. Distribution and production services such as type-setting and proof-reading will be performed by professional staff.

DURATION: One year
BUDGET: $20,500

[cc]

NED SUMMARY

PROJECT: Design & Implementation for a Program of
Democratic Community Education in the Southern
Region of Haiti
SPONSOR: American University of Les Cayes in Haiti
REC'D: September 11, 1987
ACTION: Barbara Haig

The founders of the American University of Les Cayes (AULC), a nonprofit, apolitical academic institution, are requesting financial assistance from the Endowment to research, design and subsequently implement a program of democratic community education among Haitians in the southern region of Haiti. The University, established in 1983, is an undergraduate and graduate institution providing a general studies program in the fundamentals of social and natural sciences, health, mathematics, and English to Haitians. The majority of the AULC students participate in a work studies program, and will be assigned to assist in the administration and implementation of the project.

The project's main objectives are to establish a broad democratic grassroots movement in the southern region of Haiti which would help to support a democratic system of governance for the whole nation; and to assist Les Cayes in developing community services to provide civic and democratic education and to meet other needs of the agricultural, rural and student populations.

The project will involve a full year of field research consisting of meetings with government, business, party and labor leaders, expert observers, and teachers. After approximately two months, a report identifying the goals, objectives and planned activities of the project will be prepared by three field communicators and a coordinator. The report will determine the areas where the greatest need exists for democratic education and grassroots development and will also incorporate new programs into the existing social infrastructure of the community. Implementation of the project in the southern region will follow immediately after a brief testing of one to two weeks in Les Cayes.

DURATION: One year.
BUDGET: $138,886.

[ljp]

NED SUMMARY

PROJECT: Center for Development Studies
SPONSOR: CONVIVIO
REC'D: July 20, 1987
ACTION: Kate Kauffman

CONVIVIO, a nonprofit cultural and intellectual development
organization established in 1961 in Sao Paulo, Brazil, is
requesting financial assistance from the Endowment to continue
its pedagogical program of training university students in
democratic values. Through its Center for Development Studies,
CONVIVIO offers an independent program of education at four
different levels at universities throughout Brazil. By creating
a forum for the free exchange of ideas at the academic level,
CONVIVIO hopes to encourage democratic leadership skills among
future leaders of Brazil. Course topics include discussion of
human rights, political freedom and free enterprise. The Center
also provides instruction to university teachers aimed at
enriching their participation in Brazilian schools and
universities.

The Center for Development Studies, established in 1968, offers
courses at the introductory level in Sao Paulo and in twenty
other cities throughout Brazil. The advanced courses --
specialized courses on political education, and those aimed
specifically at professors -- are limited to Sao Paulo and three
or four regional areas. Approximately 4,680 university students
and 160 teachers are expected to participate in the proposed
program.

In addition to the Center for Development Studies, other
activities of CONVIVIO include research, studies, publications,
courses, conferences, and local and international congresses.

BUDGET: $35,000
DURATION: One year

[ljp]

NED SUMMARY

PROJECT: Youth Civic Development Pilot Project in Colombia

SPONSOR: YMCA of the USA/International Division

REC'D: July 20, 1987

ACTION: Adelina Reyes-Gavilan

The YMCA of the USA/International Division is requesting financial assistance for a youth civic education pilot project for Colombian youth in cooperation with the YMCA in Colombia. The program seeks to foster among youth a clear understanding of democratic principles and of their rights and responsibilities in a democratic society. Adapted from a successful YMCA project funded by the Endowment in the Republic of Panama, the Colombian program is divided into six phases over a one-year period.

The principal objectives of the project are: 1) to establish 24 Civic Youth Clubs in public and private high schools in the cities of Medellin and Barranquilla; 2) to train 600 high school students in democratic political leadership through the study of the Colombian democratic system, parliamentary procedures, and the formal and informal structures of government; 3) to strengthen youth's understanding of democratic and moral values through seminars on relevant topics; and, 4) to establish voluntary service youth brigades to work in community development projects.

The project will culminate in a three-day "Youth Legislative Assembly" where students who have been elected as representatives of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government will come together to apply the knowledge and skills learned throughout the year.

It is hoped that this program can be instrumental in instilling democratic values and teaching democratic practices to Colombia's youth.

BUDGET: $30,000

DRUATION: One year

[ljp]

PROJECT: Voter's Guide (Colombia)

SPONSOR: Corporation for Community Development (CDC)

RECV'D: August 20, 1987

ACTION: Kate Kauffman

The Corporation for Community Development's Center for Research in Defense of Public Interests (Propublicos) was founded in 1974 to serve and protect the public interest in Colombia. Since that time Propublicos has worked on environmental protection projects and on behalf of the Colombian native Indian population.

Beginning in 1978, Propublicos has been monitoring elections and the political behavior of Members of Congress, and has periodically published reports on Congressional voting records, attendance and participation in the legislative process. This data is compiled and published in its entirety every four years in book form.

Propublicos is now preparing its 1986-1990 edition and is requesting NED funding for this purpose. The book will be examined of six elements:

1. Attendance - both full session and committee meetings

2. Participation - resolutions, proposals and projects discussed by Congress.

3. Bills drafted - a list of bills according to origin (executive or congressional) and their current status.

4. Trips - a list of trips taken by Congressmen, the costs involved and an evaluation of the trip's importance.

5. Regional assistance - a listing of those favored by Congress for government contracts.

6. Resumes - Congressmen's past positions, programs established during tenure, publications, etc.

DURATION: Two years

BUDGET: Approx. $10,000

PROJECT: Chilean Educational Theater

SPONSOR: Chamber Theater Group

REC'D: July 21, 1987

ACTION: Kate Kauffman

The Chamber Theater Group of the "Teatro Abril" in Santiago, Chile was founded in 1978 by a nonpartisan group of actors dedicated to bringing the theater back to life in Chile. The Group concentrates on productions that have never before been performed in Chile and that have strong humanist and Christian values.

Through this proposal, the Group hopes to stage twelve plays that would be adapted by the actors themselves for young audiences. Each performance would be followed by a discussion group on the values portrayed in the piece.

Chile has historically had a strong theater, developed mainly under the democracy that flourished following WW II. With the imposition of an authoritarian regime the theater has suffered greatly, as its creativity has been sharply restricted and its productions controlled. In addition, theater-going has become an activity only for the wealthy. In light of these problems, a new theatrical form was developed, "street theater" (teatro callejero), which not only deals with subjects familiar to the common people but also is performed in the streets, thus avoiding official sanction.

What this theater group proposes is a combination of traditional and street theater. While the group will cooperate with the Ministry of Education in order to obtain authorization for the project, its productions would require no set or costumes, and it would follow the medieval troubadour style of a different show from the repertoire every day. Only well known works by living authors, either Chilean or foreign, would be produced. The shows would be held in a centrally located theater during school hours, so that high school students could attend with their classes.

DURATION: One year

BUDGET: $38,000

SPECIAL
EDITION

SEPTEMBER 1987
Volume 1, Number 7

America and
the World:
A Bicentennial
Reflection

The Peace Perplex
The Centrality of Freedom
Questions of IS and
OUGHT
Novus Ordo Seclorum:
A Few Cautions

AMERICAN
PURPOSE

A Report and Commentary on the Peace, Freedom, and Security Debate
from The James Madison Foundation.

AMERICA AND THE WORLD:
A BICENTENNIAL REFLECTION

THE BICENTENNIAL OF THE CONSTITUTION of the United States affords us the opportunity to reflect on many things: the "miracle at Philadelphia" by which thirteen squabbling mini-states managed to forge agreement on an instrument of national governance; the fact that the instrument created during that muggy Philadelphia summer has stood the test of two centuries and is now the world's oldest constitution; the ongoing, and often rancorous, debates over what the Framers intended and what that might mean in modern circumstances. The tone that has been set for the constitutional bicentennial is, properly, one of gratitude; the Framers indeed "built better than they knew," as John Carroll, the first Catholic bishop of the United States, once put it.

For our purposes here, though, it is important to recognize that the Constitution has become more than an admirable framework for the national government. In its public meaning, ever-contested as that may be, it has become the embodiment of the American experiment. That phrase, "the American experiment," is now emblazoned on two banners inviting visitors into the National Archives in Washington, D.C. The formulation "American experiment" suggests, as many wise observers have noted over the years, that this thing called the United States of America is a never-finished business. The governmental framework proposed two hundred years ago is the architecture, if you will, of a social, cultural, and civic (in the classic sense of the term) exploration of whether a free people under a limited government can, as Lincoln would have it, "long endure." The United States is, in principle, never finished. The testing of the American experiment is an ongoing enterprise. In that sense all Americans, of whatever generation, are Founders and Framers.

Over the past ninety years or so the testing of the American experiment has involved the great question of the right role for the United States in world affairs. We are, by geography, history, and cultural inclination, a people perennially disposed toward isolationism. It is by no means a publicly settled issue whether the United States ought to take an active role in shaping world politics. Many of our deepest national instincts warn against such an effort. Traditional isolationism taught that entanglement in the affairs of the world would inevitably spoil our own experiment in democracy. Contemporary neo-isolationism teaches that a racist, sexist, imperialist United States is too dangerous for the world. But whether the appeal is to American virtue or American vice, the message is the same: beware foreign adventures, crusades, and imbroglios.

For good or for ill, and often for both, that counsel has been rendered less than persuasive by the facts of life in the contemporary world. One cannot, on the one hand, urge that this is an "interdependent" world and, on the other, urge the withdrawal of American power and influence from the contest for the world's future. The voices of interdependence are correct about the basic structural fact of international life today: Economically, culturally, and strate-

AMERICAN PURPOSE

gically, the modern communications and transportation
revolutions have created a world in which what hap-
pens on the tiny Pacific island of Vanuatu will, sooner
or later, have something to do with what happens in
Peoria.

Which suggests that the crucial question in the
American third century is not whether, but how, the
United States will act in the world. What ends shall
we serve? By what means shall we seek to advance
those ends? Under what constraints—physical, psy-
chological, moral—does this "nation with the soul of
a Church" (as Chesterton once said) go about its in-
ternational business?

In this bicentennial season it occurs to us to ask
what the experience of the Constitution, not simply as
an instrument of national governance but precisely as
an embodiment of the American experiment, has to
say to this question of the right role for the United
States in world affairs. For that reason we depart in
this issue from our regular format and offer in its
place a more extended reflection on American purpose
and American interests in a persistently hostile and in-
extricably interconnected world. The bicentennial
question to which we want to return here can be put
thus: While the Father of the Constitution was not a
theorist of international relations, is there a Madison-
ian sensibility that might shed light on the interna-
tional strivings and doings of the United States?

# 1. The Peace Perplex

With all due regard for the very real dangers of
chauvinism one can argue the case that the United
States is a watershed community in world history.
Pluralism, the basic cultural given of the world in
which we now live, was the native condition of our
experiment. The world has always been "plural," of
course. But that plurality takes on a distinctive politi-
cal weight in a world of Boeing 747s, micro-chips, and
fiber-optic telephone calls. The world has had to learn
to do politics amidst pluralism over the past two or
three generations. We've been doing it for centuries.

In that sense the American experiment is a micro-
cosm, if you will, of the world problématique
that presents itself, inexorably, in each day's head-
lines. Can human beings build political community
across the boundaries of race, language, ethnicity, and
religion? Can there be community amidst the multiple
conflicts that are endemic to pluralism?

There are, of course, hundreds of reasons, many of
them weighty, for answering those questions in the
negative. But the American experience and experiment
caution against too easy a realism.

For the fact remains that, with one terrible break,
the United States has formed and sustained political
community amidst luxuriant plurality for over two
centuries. We are a multi-racial people. On the street
corner of any major city and most sizable towns one
finds several churches, a synagogue, and, latterly, a
mosque. We are conservatives and neo-conservatives,
liberals and neo-liberals, radicals, and agrarian popu-

lists. We disagree, often passionately, on anything and
everything from abortion to the funding of the local
zoo. We live in, and wish to be accountable to, many
communities: family, religious community, political
party, voluntary association. Yet we are, in the midst
of it all, a political community that has settled its argu-
ments about the public ordering of our lives, loves, and
loyalties without organized mass violence since 1865.

This is no mean accomplishment. One might almost
say, again with all due caution, that the American ex-
perience and experiment have been a miracle in hu-
man history. Imagine a parallelogram three thousand
miles wide and two thousand miles deep; then try to
superimpose that box on a map of the world from
which borders have been expunged. Where, save here,
can one say that within
that box, and amidst
divers peoples, the
problem of war—the use
of organized mass vio-
lence to settle the fun-
damental public argument
over who rules—has been
solved for well over a
century? There is no other
such place. And whether
one deems this American
experience of public
peace a providential
or accidental reality of history, a reality it remains.
The American ex-
periment is a micro-
cosm, if you will, of
the world problé-
matique that pre-
sents itself, inexor-
ably, in each day's
headlines.

> The American ex-
> periment is a micro-
> cosm, if you will, of
> the world problé-
> matique that pre-
> sents itself, inexor-
> ably, in each day's
> headlines.

The American experience under the Constitution thus teaches a first and crucial practical lesson to those who would work for peace: peace in this world is a matter of political community. The world will remain plural and conflicted. But that stark fact—the secular meaning, if you will, of the doctrine of original sin—does not necessarily imply the impossibility of political community. The American experiment is a living refutation of the notion that political community requires a numbing uniformity or is impossible amidst pluralism.

*Work for peace,* as that term is now understood in
these United States, rarely takes account of this dis-
tinctively Madisonian experience. In church and syna-
gogue basements, in union halls, in board rooms, and
at meetings of physicians, educators, architects, and
local government officials "for social responsibility,"
one hears a different tune being sung. Or, rather, two
different tunes.

In those communities which take work for peace as
a religious imperative peace is sometimes defined sim-
ply as a right relationship between the individual and
God—an important meaning of peace, to be sure, and
perhaps the most important meaning, but an under-
standing that throughout history seems to have had
little to do with resolving the problem of war. That
“wars will cease when men refuse to fight” is a per-
sistent theme in the religious community. But it is also
a prescription for wars without end.

In the contemporary American peace movement
peace is typically understood as a world free of con-

50 AMERICAN PURPOSE

September 1987

flict: a secularized version of the biblical condition of *shalom*, in which the lions lie with the lambs and swords are beaten into plowshares. Whether, in modern secular terms, this condition of blessedness is thought to be made possible by better communications, people-to-people contacts, or mass psychotherapy, the basic teaching is straightforward: wars will cease when conflict is expunged from the human family. Conflict, in other words, is not quite real: it is epiphenomenal, the result of an improperly adjusted psyche or a defective ideology or that greed which, it is supposed, is the dominant cultural characteristic of market-centered economies. The impacts of the American therapeutic culture, especially the third force or personalist psychology of Carl Rogers and his disciplines, and the themes of the vulgarized Marxism that entered the American public square during the heydays of the New Left have been enormous here.

There are elements of truth embedded in this otherwise unpersuasive body of thought: it is surely true, for example, that an open communications process in the world would serve the cause of peace, as well as the cause of human decency. Those who do not believe this should consult the men and women who struggle to hear the Voice of America, Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe, the BBC World Service, or Deutsche Welle through the maddening scratchiness of jamming. But the basic concept here—that ours can be a world free of conflict—is utopian in a damaging way.

Why? Because conflict and peace—the peace of free political community—are not antinomies. Conflict can be creative rather than destructive. Conflict can be conducted and resolved through orderly, democratic structures of law and politics without the use or threat of mass violence. Those are important lessons of the American experience and experiment. Those lessons are part of the Madisonian sensibility that ought to inform debate about peace. They rarely do today.

Therefore, we may hope that the bicentennial of the Constitution can be the occasion to re-politicize peace.

Once that conceptual move is made, other cautions must be immediately engaged. To recognize that peace is a matter of politics—a matter of political community—ought not lead one to imagine that the world can become “like us” in the twinkling of an eye by a great act of national will. Modernity’s two great attempts to build world order through political organization—the League of Nations and the United Nations—are, or ought to be, sobering in the extreme. One cannot create effective structures for the peaceful resolution of conflict without a base of community on which to build. That community did not exist in 1919 nor in 1945. At the macrocosmic level it does not exist today.

But elements of it do. The world's democracies, for example, form a nascent political community, a zone of peace if you will, that now extends from the iron curtain west to Australia. Attempts at building international and/or transnational structures within that zone are themselves immensely difficult as the experience of the European Community has amply demonstrated.

But the zone exists. Within it, it is difficult if not impossible to conceive of a war. That is surely something.

World order is thus more than a pious phrase to be invoked over cocktails at the Aspen Institute. It is a reality. The issue, one might reasonably argue, is not whether the world is going to be organized and ordered, but how: by what values, through what structures, answerable to what authorities? One might further argue that a truly Madisonian test of American purpose in the third century of the Constitution is the degree of wisdom we shall bring to this ongoing and unavoidable task of ordering the world. We know, or ought to know now, how it cannot be done. That does not absolve us from responsibility for answering the question of how it might be done better.

Thus the first constitutional lesson for the debate over the right role for the United States in world affairs: peace is a matter of politics. Peace is a matter of dynamic, rightly ordered political community.

## 2. The Centrality of Freedom

That last cluster of adjectives and adverbs is important: *dynamic, rightly ordered* political community. Here is where we distinguish the American or Madisonian experience of peace from the pseudo-peace that prevails in a particularly efficient totalitarian state—Albania, let’s say. There, there is no dynamism, for there is no conflict—or no public conflict at any rate. And the order that prevails is hardly a right order, judged by any humane set of values. Peace is not, then, merely the absence of war: it is the absence of war because of the fact of rightly ordered and dynamic political community.

The American experience and experiment is based on a core moral claim—that “all men are created equal.” The Founders and Framers did not think of this as a particularistic claim. They thought it could be understood, and thus honored, by all people of good will because it was rooted, not in sectarian dogma but in human nature. And they further thought, which is to say Madison further thought, that making this claim real in public life was a matter of institutions, not assertions.

Peace, in other words and to continue the discussion above, is thus a matter of *institutions of freedom*.

Just as there has been a flight from the political meaning of peace in those circles most visibly identified as the peace movement, so has there been a parallel flight from the linkage between peace and freedom. The reasons for this are understandable, if not finally compelling. The terrible fact of nuclear weapons and the potential for world-historical damage that they represent weigh heavily on any sensitive soul. That the chief threat against which we maintain nuclear weapons is a military superpower guided by an ideology at fundamental cross-purposes with the values that undergird our own experiment further complicates the picture. That we find ourselves, surely without willing it, in a state of chronic, low-intensity conflict with that Leninist, nuclear-armed superpower

Volume 1, Number 7

AMERICAN PURPOSE 51

is a nerve-wracking business. The temptation to denial
can be irresistible. And the point of least resistance is
often on the peace-and-freedom linkage.

Thus it is that Americans who genuinely think they
are advancing the cause of peace put themselves in the
anomalous position of denying a basic fact of their
own political experience: that peace and freedom go
together. They deny, as one prominent and publicly
celebrated Seattle activist recently did, that psychiatry
is politically abused in the Soviet Union. They con-
duct exchange programs that deliberately ignore hu-
man rights issues for the sake of "lowering the tem-
perature" of U.S./Soviet relations and thereby, puta-
tively, serving the cause of peace. They ignore the
counsel of a man like Andrei Sakharov, who has per-
sistently argued that the pursuit of a measure of hu-
man freedom in his unhappy country is an essential
component of work for peace.

In the third century of the Constitution one may
hope that this uncoupling of peace and freedom will
be reversed. The insistence of dissident intellectuals
like Czechoslovakia's Vaclav Havel, Poland's Adam
Michnik, and Hungary's Georg Konrad that working
for human rights and for peace are inseparable (re-
ported in our March 1987 issue) will have its impact.
But so will history. Thus we should turn our focus for
a moment from the sometimes distorting prism of
U.S./Soviet relations and nuclear weaponry to the
Third World.

Here the linkage between peace and freedom is be-
ing actively rebuilt.

That there is a democratic revolution in the Third
World is one of the salient facts confronting those
who would think about American purpose in this bi-
centennial season. In the Philippines, in South Korea,
throughout Latin America and, even, in Eastern
Europe men and women are working with courage
and persistence to build structures of public life that
are accountable to the people. In the hardest cases,
such as the countries of the Warsaw Pact, this takes a
minimalist form: rebuilding a measure of that civil so-
ciety that can stand between the individual and the
megastructures of the totalitarian state. The building
blocks of that civil society can take different forms.
There is the jazz musicians' union in Czechoslovakia.
There is Solidarity in Poland, a phenomenon that, af-
ter the Pope's June visit, can no longer be dismissed
as moribund. There is the Catholic Church in Lithua-
nia. There are the Baptist Pentecostals in Siberia.
There is the Moscow-based "Group to Establish Trust
Between the USSR and the USA," an independent
peace movement, relentlessly harassed by the authori-
ties. Support for all of these brave attempts to create
some living space in the suffocating climate of the
Leninist state serves not only the cause of freedom
but the cause of peace. Or so insist the men and
women who daily are putting their lives on the line in
that struggle. They may never have heard of James
Madison. But they are working on the same intuitions
that guided the Father of the Constitution.

Then there is the revolution of truly democratic po-
litical structures in the Third World. These are fragile
experiments to be sure. But it now seems clear that
there is an option in the Third World between more or
less benign forms of authoritarianism and the siren
songs of Marxism-Leninism. Men and women like
Raul Alfonsin in Argentina, Vinicio Cerezo in Guate-
mala, and Corazon Aquino in the Philippines have, in
their own ways, taken to heart the Madisonian notion
that freedom is not protected by "parchment
barriers" but by living institutions of democratic gov-
ernance. At this writing in the summer of 1987 it
would seem that similar understandings have been let
loose in the Republic of Korea. In the Philippine,
Guatemalan, and South Korean cases the linkage be-
tween freedom and peace is being severely tested, not
merely among democrats but between democrats and
totalitarians. But would anyone argue now that a re-
turn to authoritarian rule would make it more likely
for the Philippines and Guatemala to resist success-
fully Marxist-Leninist insurgencies? How much more
likely will a democratic, as well as an economically
thriving, South Korea be to stand fast in the long
struggle against its Stalinist neighbor to the north?

The Latin American theologies of liberation have
made a commonplace of the phrase, the "preferential
option for the poor." The stylistic inelegance of the
formulation aside (Peter Berger once called it a bad
English translation of a bad Spanish translation of a
clumsy German neologism), there is a truth here that
most reasonable people recognize. But the experience
of the democratic revolution in the Third World sug-
gests that there is a complementary option to be con-
sidered in the American third century: a "preferential
option for freedom," if you will.

The two options bear on each other. Successful eco-
nomic development, as in the "four little dragons" of
East Asia, creates pressures for democratization;
South Korea is the most recent example. It is a safe
bet that similar pressures will sooner or later change
politics in Singapore and Taiwan. Conversely, the rule
of law—one basic characteristic of democratic or even
pre-democratic states—would seem a crucial compo-
nent in the project of empowering the poor because
the rule of law gives a country's underclass, often its
dominant class, institutional protections lacking under
caudillos or generals in uniform or in three-piece suits.

This suggests that we ought to reconceive the rela-
tionship between peace and justice. The relationship is
typically understood in grand, maximalist terms
among contemporary American activists: there can be
no peace without justice. In this view this usually
means distributive justice, which usually means, in ef-
fect, that all quarrels over a just distribution of
wealth have to be settled before there can be peace.
So, of course, there will be no peace this side of the
Kingdom of God or whatever secular equivalent
thereof we might imagine.

The democratic revolution reminds us that there are
many forms of justice, and some have more to do

52 AMERICAN PURPOSE

September 1987

[10]

with building the peace of rightly ordered, dynamic political community than others. In the classic understanding there were three forms of justice: *commutative justice*, which has to do with contracts and what I owe you as an individual in a just personal relationship; *distributive justice* which, as noted above, has to do with the allocation of economic goods; and *legal justice*, which has to do with the structures of public life. Which of these forms of justice is most relevant to the pursuit of peace?

All are relevant; but the American experience and experiment and the democratic revolution in the Third World suggest that *legal justice*—the creation of just structures for determining who rules—is the most crucial of the three. In some cases, questions of distributive justice have to be settled, or at least vigorously addressed, so that just legal and political structures can be built. Think, for example, of the relationship between land reform and democracy in El Salvador and the Philippines or, in a longer time frame, in Japan.

But the key ingredient would seem to be the structural one: the question of legal or, as your editor prefers to call it, *constitutional justice*. Those structures having been established and confirmed by the consent of the governed, the perennial arguments over distributive justice can be engaged in ways that strengthen rather than fracture nascent democracies. The “preferrential option for the poor” and the “preferential option for freedom” both dictate active American support for the building of democracies throughout the world. That is a task that will, undoubtedly, involve much of the American third century and, quite likely, beyond. But to take up that task, as is being so ably done, for example, by the National Endowment for Democracy, is to engage in a policy that is thoroughly in tune with the Madisonian sensibility and what it suggests about the right role for the United States in the world.

Such activity also advances the cause of peace. Owen Harries, an Australian who served as his country's ambassador to UNESCO, is the editor of *The National Interest* and a man keenly attuned to the bitter realities of international public life. Yet in a recent issue of his journal, he refuted certain dogmas of the foreign policy realists about national interest, as follows:

> "...For a free society freedom itself is an interest. It is so in the obvious sense that a free society wants to preserve the freedom that it enjoys. But it is so also in the sense that—other things being equal—its own freedom is made more secure insofar as freedom is established elsewhere. For the historical record shows that while free democratic societies have their differences, they go to war with each other very rarely. All

> The United States needs a new debate over morality and foreign policy that combines Madison's realism with Jeffersonian idealism.

the major wars of this century have been fought either among authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, or between democratic countries on the one hand and authoritarian or totalitarian ones on the other. As an illustration of the point, contrast the state of the long border between the United States and Canada with that between the Soviet Union and China. On one there are no military forces; on the other over a hundred divisions. Even more striking, consider the state of the border between France and Germany now that they are both democracies."

Thus the second, Madisonian lesson: peace and freedom are inseparable and both must be protected by just institutions and not merely by the "parchment barriers" of documents and treaties.

### 3. Questions of IS and OUGHT

Jefferson's foundational claim was a moral claim. From its inception the American experiment has been a matter of *ought* as well as of *is*. This has had its impact on our great domestic controversies, of which the civil rights revolution of the 1960s is the most impressive contemporary example. But it has also affected the American approach to world politics. As the distinguished commentator Charles Krauthammer put it, "Our nationalism is unlike others, in that our very nationhood is bound up with and is meant to give expression to the idea of freedom." The question of the U.S. role in world affairs is thus ethical as well as structural. We speak, quite naturally, of the *right* role for the United States in world politics and economics. This is not a formulation that occurs with equivalent ease in Whitehall or on the Quai d'Orsay, much less in the counsels of the International Department of the Soviet Communist party's central committee.

The question of right role and the arguments that have swirled around it have often been a source of frustration and, it must be admitted, the occasion for inept policy. It has made a great difference, for example, that it was Woodrow Wilson who first articulated a moral case for an American assumption of the responsibilities of a great power in history. For Wilson was the living expression of a very particular and distinctive style of American moral enterprise, what we can call with justification American Protestant moralism.

That moral sensibility had a number of distinguishing characteristics, but for our purposes its most important features were its individualism and its subjectivism.

By *individualism* is meant its tendency to conceive social and political ethics as a function of the ethics of interpersonal relationships. To put it crudely but accurately, one thought morally about dealing with another country the way one thought morally about dealing with Aunt Tilly. "Open covenants, openly arrived at" would be one classically Wilsonian formulation of this tendency.

By *subjectivism* is meant the notion that intentions are what count, morally. A striking example of the ef-

Volume 1, Number 7

AMERICAN PURPOSE 53

fects of this morality of intentions can be found in the deliberations of the Carter administration during the last days of Anastasio Somoza, as chronicled by Pulitzer Prize-winner Shirley Christian in *Nicaragua: Revolution in the Family*. The administration had been asked, indeed begged, by the democratic members of the anti-Somoza coalition to get the dictator out of Nicaragua before he was brought down in a civil war, after which the Sandinistas would enjoy a monopoly of military power in Nicaragua. But, on the advice of National Security Council staffer Robert Pastor, President Carter finally decided not to cajole, bribe, or force Somoza out. Pastor's winning argument was that, whatever the possibly damaging consequences of inaction, the United States could not be seen to intervene yet again in a Central American country. The administration clearly wanted an end to the Somoza dictatorship but was so single-mindedly focused on the purity of its intentions, which it feared would be sullied by even nonmilitary intervention, that it booted an extraordinary opportunity. The results of that decisions are all too evident today.

In its third century the United States needs a new debate over morality and foreign policy. That debate would be enhanced by coupling a Madisonian sense of moral realism with Jeffersonian idealism. The United States needs a social ethic capable of providing policy wisdom in the pursuit of peace and freedom.

Such a social ethic would recognize the distinctiveness of moral reasoning in politics, not confusing social ethics with the ethics of interpersonal relationships. Allies and adversaries are not to be considered as the moral analogy of next-door neighbors or relatives. Social ethics has its own norms, methods, and integrity.

Such an ethic would recognize that national interest is a central policy consideration but would draw the line at Realpolitik's *raison d'état* as a policy criterion. There are some things that we just would not do: selling police equipment that can be used for torture comes to mind as something that should be absolutely proscribed. If others wish to do so, let them.

The United States needs a social ethic that would not be squeamish about power—which is, after all, simply the ability to achieve common purposes—but would know the moral difference between power and sheer violence. This ethic would relate the limited and careful use of armed force to the pursuit of peace, security, and freedom.

A social ethic capable of guiding wise policy would reject the too-easy application of biblical texts to messy policy situations. It also would recognize that prudence—the virtue which teaches how to apply moral norms to complex public choices—is the key political virtue.

Moral reasoning on matters of peace and freedom is thus, as your editor put it in *The Washington Quarterly*, not “... a set of how-to-do-it instructions that might be followed by any dolt.” Rather, it is “... a matter of endless argument, research, reflection, more argument, and empirical testing.”

Such a reform of moral argument over the right role of the United States in world affairs would involve the revitalization of just-war theory and the transformation of American pacifism.

Just-war theory suffers from the defects of its name. It is not, as the Catholic bishop of Richmond put it in 1981, “... an excuse to go to war, mental gymnastics, casuistry of the worst sort.” On the contrary, just-war theory begins with a moral presumption in favor of peace. St. Thomas’s discussion of the theory began with the question, “Is it always wrong to go to war?” The theory then asks about the conditions under which the presumption for peace may be overridden. Moreover, the classic theory has also insisted that peace is the final end to be sought, even in the last-resort use of armed force. In short, a concept of peace—as rightly ordered political community— is implicit in the moral criteria contained in just-war theory.

To be honest, the just-war theorists over the past generation have not made this clear.

Therein lies part of the public relations problem of just-war theory. Virtually all scholars of the tradition know well that the theory is ordered to the peace of political community. But that crucial fact is largely unknown to the general, or even to the attentive public. Just-war theorists, especially in a nuclear age, stand under a heavy obligation to make clear that theirs is a peace ethic, not an anti-ethnic blessing indiscriminate violence. Recent work by James Turner Johnson of Rutgers, discussed at a James Madison Foundation/Woodstock Theological Center seminar, bids fair to redirect the scholarly debate along these lines.

American pacifism has been, these past twenty years or so, an increasingly influential voice in the debate over the country's right role in world affairs. It has also been, in the main, a voice for neo-isolationism, for utopian schemes of human perfectibility, and for anti-anticommunism.

But it doesn't have to be.

There is a truthful and publicly important role for a witness pacifism that stands, deliberately, outside politics and that lives as a reminder that all works of our hands are under judgment. This has been the traditional role of the historic peace churches: the Menonites, Quakers, and Brethren, for example. But many within those communions now chafe at what they consider—mistakenly, in our view—such a delimited role. They wish to enter politics; they want to make a public difference in the normally accepted sense of that term. Pacifists should be welcome participants in the debate over peace and freedom. But they will act according to their own best instincts and tra-

> Pacifists and just-war theorists can work together at the politics of peace and freedom: if both recognize that these goals of U.S. foreign policy involve institutions of freedom.

54 AMERICAN PURPOSE

September 1987

ditions when they act as nonviolent agents of demo-
cratic change within and among nations.

Pacifists ought, that is, to recognize and act on the
fact that democratic law and politics are the world's
most successful examples of the nonviolent resolution
of conflict. A pacifism ordered to democracy, at
home and abroad, can thus contribute to the reconsti-
tution of a Madisonian perspective on American
world responsibilities.

And thus both pacifists and those committed to a
just-war ethic can work together at the politics of
peace and freedom if both recognize that these large
goals of our action in the world are matters of institu-
tions of freedom.

4. Novus Ordo Seclorum: A Few
Cautions

There are dangers in thinking about the multiple
problems and prospects of U.S. foreign policy
through the prism of the American experience and ex-
periment. These have to be acknowledged, and the
cautions they pose have to be brought into any policy
calculus that seeks to advance peace and freedom.

The classic American temptation to an indiscrimi-
nate universalism has to be checked. There were par-
ticular conditions—cultural, historic, geographi-
cal—which gave rise to our experiment, to this “new
order of the ages” (novus ordo seclorum), as the
Great Seal of the United States puts it. Those condi-
tions may not be, in fact are not, replicable in a world
as culturally, religiously, and ideologically diverse as
this one. The world won’t become Connecticut over-
night, and furthermore much of the world doesn’t
want to be Connecticut.

But a necessary realism about the distinctive histori-
cal and cultural character of the American experiment
should not blind us to the possibilities that exist for
advancing peace and freedom—or that can be created.
Democratic forms of law and governance are not, on
the available evidence, a North Atlantic cultural curi-
osity. There are Japanese, South Koreans, Czechs,
Lithuanians, Zulus, Filipinos, Argentines, Chileans,
Salvadorans, Nicaraguans, Poles, Hungarians, and
many others who wish to live in free societies gov-
erned by consent rather than coercion. Their cause is,
in the broadest sense, our cause. The structures they
evolve to make freedom real may not be our struc-
tures. But the “preferential option for freedom” is
being asserted in an impressively cross-cultural
way in the modern world, and that fact ought to
be a central consideration in the foreign policy
of James Madison’s political heirs.

The American temptation to utopianism must also
be acknowledged and checked. Wilsonian moralism
taught that the United States had a mission in the
world, which many understood to be divinely author-
ized. Such an assertion does seem an imposition on
God, and in any event history teaches that it makes
for wreckage in the policy process. To paraphrase that

familiar line from Lord Acton, utopianism corrupts,
and nationalistic utopianism based on a sense of di-
vine mandate corrupts absolutely. And gets a lot of
people killed in the process, be it added.

But to recognize that there is no divinely mandated
American mission in the world is not to argue that
there is no American *purpose* in world politics. If
moralsim leads to a sense of mission, then perhaps the
kind of tempered moral reasoning suggested above
can lead to a renewed sense of American purpose.
Mission hints of a short fuse: now is the time of sal-
vation; now is the time for decision; the day of the
Lord (or the secular equivalent thereof) is at hand.
Purpose, on the other hand, suggests a more meas-
ured sense of time. A purpose can be pursued in and
out of season; it can suffer defeats and gather itself
again for action at a latter date.

Moreover, the phrase *American purpose* does not,
or should not, bespeak lassitude. Nicaragua would be
a rather different place today, as would El Salvador,
had American policymakers exhibited a bit more ur-
gency in their approach to reform in Central America
in the late 1960s and early 1970s. We seem to have
learned something from this, as the early results in the
Philippines and South Korea suggest. We shall see
what we have learned, yet again, in Chile over the
next several years. But be these discrete situations as
they may, the welcome cautions that realists raise
against a return to Wilsonian world evangelism ought
not mitigate against the reconstruction of a publicly
persuasive and politically sustainable concept of
American purpose in the world.

That reconstruction is threatened, it must be ad-
mitted, by more than the facts of plurality in the
world, compounded as they are by the world-histori-
cal impact of such universalisms as Leninism and the
form of Islam propounded by the Ayatollah Kho-
meini. Gathering a sense of American purpose in the
world that reflects in a sober and wise way our na-
tional experience over the past two centuries is made
even more difficult by the civic condition of our for-
eign policy debate today—a condition that in the nor-
mal course of events will be exacerbated during the
coming presidential campaign.

That condition, in brief, is one of deep division.
James Rosenau of the University of Southern Califor-
nia has described it as “fragmegration”: the pre-Viet-
nam foreign policy consensus has not only fractured,
but shards of it have been re-integrated into hard-and-
fast positions at the poles of the contemporary de-
date. Thus the picture that presents itself in this bicen-
tennial season is of a debate shaped like a barbell:
two dense, thick clusters of opinion, passionately held
at the poles of the argument, with very little by way
of mediating argument in between.

The situation is further complicated in that the pol-
icy disagreements symbolized by Rosenau's barbell in-
volve other, deep cultural chasms. They reflect the
post-Vietnam class conflict between the two American
establishments: the older elite with its roots in the
business community and the "new class" elite in the

Volume 1, Number 7

AMERICAN PURPOSE 55

symbolic knowledge industries of the media, the universities, the entertainment world, and the leadership of much of the religious community. There are partisan divisions at work here, too; and as the great contest for power in a post-Reagan United States is engaged, one looks long and hard for the contemporary equivalents of Dean Acheson and Arthur Vandenberg: men who can agree on the broad contours of American purpose across partisan lines.

Twenty years of division and acrimony are not going to be resolved in a year, much less in an election. But there are some hopeful signs that there is movement in the debate, not so much creating middle ground between the poles as new ground ahead of today's arguments.

The American Federation of Teachers' Education for Democracy project represents such movement, challenging both establishments to a concern for transmitting the values of democracy to the next generation.

The National Association of Evangelicals' Peace, Freedom, and Security Studies Program is working to create a new debate in the religious debate over the right role for the United States in world affairs. The degree of unease the program has raised among the guardians of the reigning orthodoxies at the poles of the present argument suggests a recognition that there is, indeed, a new game in town.

After considerable travail a broad bipartisanship now sustains the work of the National Endowment for Democracy, pointing to the possibility of agreement on an active American role in world politics, ahead of today's polarizations. That the role undertaken by the Endowment is thoroughly Madisonian indicates how the perspective outlined in this essay can, in fact, gather rather than further divide. When liberal Democrats and movement conservative Republicans can work together in support of the world's democrats—and when the argument for such bipartisanship can be, as it occasionally has been, put in terms of work for peace—then something worth not only preserving, but expanding, is at hand.

To note the good news here is not to deny the reality of the bad. No one familiar with the contemporary American whirlpool in which various isolationisms, rank partisanship, cultural warfare, and ideological confusions now interact can doubt that we are in for a long haul of it. But the good news, to alter Ben Wattenberg, is that the bad news isn't all the news there is. No one is going to be elected president of the United States next year who does not, in one form or another, place himself or herself squarely on the side of peace and freedom. And even with all due discounting for the rhetorical sleights-of-hand that such affirmations will involve from the sundry supplicants for our votes, there is an important truth lurking beneath the surface here: our society has not become tone deaf to its heritage.

The United States could commit itself again, in this bicentennial season, to the great task of building peace and freedom in the world. And that is a cause to which “we the people” can pledge anew “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

George Weigl

## SOURCES AND REFERENCES

On democracy and development: Peter L. Berger, *The Capitalist Revolution*, Basic Books, 1986.
Owen Harries, Principle and Circumstance, *The National Interest*, Summer 1987. Charles Krauthamer, Isolationism: A Riposte, *The National Interest*, Winter 1986-86. On land reform and democracy: Roy L. Prosterman and Jeffrey M. Riedinger, *Land Reform and Democratic Development*, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987.
Shirley Christian, *Nicaragua: Revolution in the Family*, Random House, 1985. George Weigl, Exorcising Wilson's Ghost, *The Washington Quarterly*, Fall 1987. James Turner Johnson, *The Quest for Peace: Three Moral Traditions in Western Cultural History*, Princeton University Press, 1987.
*Education for Democracy: Guidelines for Strengthening the Teaching of Democratic Values*, available from the American Federation of Teachers, 555 New Jersey Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001.
*Guidelines for the National Association of Evangelicals' Peace, Freedom, and Security Studies program* available from the NAE, P.O. Box 28, Wheaton, IL 60189.

## AMERICAN PURPOSE

George Weigl, *Editor*

Evron M. Kirkpatrick, *Publisher*

James Madison Foundation
Regional Associates:

Robert Pickus, Berkeley
M. Holt Ruffin, Seattle
Robert Woito, Chicago

James Madison Foundation

Senior Fellows:

Joshua Muravchik
David Satter

## HELDREF PUBLICATIONS

Helen Strang, *Production Manager*

Carol Wingfield, *Art Director*

Joanne Reynolds, *Typographic Director*

AMERICAN PURPOSE is a project of The James Madison Foundation. Editorial offices are located at 733 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005.

AMERICAN PURPOSE (ISSN 0891-446X) is published ten times a year (January, February, March, April, May/June, July/August, September, October, November, December) by Heldref Publications, a division of the nonprofit Helen Dwight Reid Educational Foundation, Evron M. Kirkpatrick, president. The annual subscription rate is $18, plus $7 for subscriptions outside the United States. Foreign subscriptions must be paid in U.S. dollars. Single copies are available at $2 each. Bulk rates for school and organization use are available on request from Heldref Publications. Claims for missing issues will be serviced without charge only if made within six months of publication date (one year for foreign subscribers).

Beginning with Volume 1, AMERICAN PURPOSE is available in micro-form through Heldref Publications, Micro-pUBLISHING Division, 4000 Albemarle Street, NW, Washington, DC 20016. Reprints (orders of 100 copies or more) of articles in this issue are available through Heldref Publications, Reprint Division.

Permission to photocopy items for internal or personal use of specific clients is granted by the Helen Dwight Reid Educational Foundation for libraries and other users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service, provided that the base fee of $1.00 per copy is paid directly to the CCC, 21 Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970. Copyright is retained where noted. ISSN 0891-446X/87$1.00.

Copyright © 1987 by the Helen Dwight Reid Educational Foundation. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to AMERICAN PURPOSE, Heldref Publications, 4000 Albemarle Street, NW, Washington, DC 20016.

Heldref Publications does not accept responsibility for the views expressed in articles, reviews, and other contributions that appear in AMERICAN PURPOSE.

THE JAMES MADISON FOUNDATION

56 AMERICAN PURPOSE

OCT 2 1987

September 30, 1987

MEMORANDUM

FROM: Carl Gershman

RE: Legislative Update/Lipset, Diamond and Linz preface to study

I am pleased to report that on Tuesday, September 22, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee approved a mark of $17.5 million for the Endowment's FY 88 appropriation. Although Subcommittee Chairman Hollings had not included NED in the bill, Senator Bob Kasten offered an amendment to provide the $17.5 million for the Endowment. This amendment passed by a voice vote with only Senators Hollings and Bumpers voting against. Present and voting in favor of the Endowment were Senators Kasten, Chiles, Hatfield, Inouye, Lautenberg, and Rudman.

The following day the full Appropriations Committee marked up the bill and there was no discussion of the Endowment. We do not have an indication of when the bill will go to the Senate floor, but it may be within the next two weeks. The efforts of many Board members had a lot to with this significant success. Your help is deeply appreciated.

On another matter, I'm enclosing for your interest a copy of the preface to the Lipset/Diamond/Linz study on "Building and Sustaining Democratic Government in Developing Countries." The full study will appear next year and is likely to be considered a landmark in the study of democratic development.

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

John Richardson
Chairman
Sally Shelton-Colby
Vice Chairman
Louis Martin
Secretary
Jay Van Andel
Treasurer

Polly Baca
William E. Brock III
LeGree Daniels
Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.
Dante B. Fascell
Orrin G. Hatch
Lane Kirkland

Carl Gershman
President

PREFACE

This comparative study of democracy in developing countries -- encompassing this and three other volumes -- was undertaken at a time of tremendous democratic ferment in the developing world. The movement toward democracy which witnessed in the mid-seventies the toppling of Western Europe's last three dictatorships, in Greece, Portugal and Spain, then moved on through Latin America. In the ensuing decade, most Latin American military dictatorships collapsed or withdrew, defying predictions of a longer reign for the "bureaucratic-authoritarian" regimes. Democratic progress was apparent in East Asia as well, in the Philippines, Korea and even to some extent in Taiwan. In the old British South Asian raj, both the more authoritarian states of Pakistan and Bangladesh and the democratic ones, India and Sri Lanka, were facing recurrent tensions and conflicts which could lead to a restoration or revitalization of democracy, or to deeper crisis.

Among the states of Africa, which found it difficult to establish new nationhood and democratic regimes, there are also some signs of democratic emergence or renewal. Uganda, for example, is struggling to put an end to decades of anarchy, tyranny and civil strife, in order to fulfill its hopes for democracy and human rights. Despite intense repression, the black and colored peoples of South Africa continue their struggle for a non-racial democracy through an increasingly powerful trade union movement. In Nigeria and Ghana, debate proceeds under military regimes over the constitutional structure for new attempts at democratic government.

These and similar dramas in Asia, Africa and Latin America form the

1

backdrop for renewed political and intellectual concern with the conditions for democratic government. To be sure, there is no guarantee that the recent and ongoing democratic progress will not be reversed. If the past is any guide, many of the new democratic and semi-democratic regimes are likely to fail. Indeed, a number appear to be perched precariously on the precipice of new breakdowns into one-party or military rule, or even chaos.

But the 1980s have seen an unprecedented growth of international concern for human rights -- including (prominently) the rights to choose democratically the government under which one lives and to express and organize around one's political principles and views. As torture, disappearances and other grave human rights violations have become more widespread but also more systematically exposed and denounced around the world, there has developed a renewed and deeper appreciation for the democratic institutions which, with all their procedural messiness and sluggishness, nevertheless protect the integrity of the person and the freedoms of conscience and expression. The growth of democratic norms throughout the world is strikingly evidenced in the degree to which authoritarian regimes find it necessary to wrap themselves in the rhetoric and constitutional trappings of democracy, or at least to state as their goal the eventual establishment of democracy.

The great competing ideologies of the twentieth century have largely been discredited. Fascism was destroyed as a vital force in World War II. The appeals of Marxism-Leninism have declined with the harsh repressiveness, glaring economic failures and loss of revolutionary idealism of the existing Communist regimes. More limited quasi-socialist or mass mobilizational models -- the Mexican, the Yugoslav, the Nasserite -- have also lost their

2

aura. Military regimes almost universally lack ideological justification, and legitimacy beyond a temporary intrusion to correct political and social problems. With the important but still indeterminate exception of the Islamic fundamentalist state -- for that large portion of the world from Indonesia to West Africa where Islam is a major or dominant religion -- democracy is the only model of government with any broad ideological legitimacy and appeal in the world today.

Studies of the Conditions for Democracy: A Brief Intellectual History

An important element of this new global zeitgeist is the renewed proliferation of intellectual concern with the conditions of the democratic order. Beginning perhaps with the four-volume work on *The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes* in Europe and Latin America, edited by Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan,¹ one can trace a growing efflorscence of academic literature on transitions to and from democracy, and the sources of democratic persistence and failure. Studies have focused on varying themes, such as the means for accommodating ethnic or other sectional cleavages within a democratic framework,² the role of political institutions and political violence,³ and the place of competitive elections in the development of democracy.⁴ This outpouring of intellectual interest has recently produced a new four-volume study of transitions to democracy,⁵ the most prominent in a rich new harvest of literature on the subject. On the more theoretical level of the definition of democracy and the debate surrounding its concepts, relationships and forms, a stream of stimulating new work is appearing, of

3

[L.C.]

which the recent two-volume contribution of Giovanni Sartori should be
considered an essential reference.⁶

Of course, intellectual concern with the social requisites, correlates
or conditions for democracy and other types of political systems has a long
tradition, dating back at least to the classical Greek thinkers. Aristotle
argued that democracy is more likely to occur where the middle strata are
large, oligarchy and tyranny where the population is overwhelmingly poor.
The Renaissance political theorist, Machiavelli, also placed an emphasis on
class distribution in specifying the sources of political systems. The
subsequent writings of Hobbes and Locke and Montesquieu heavily influenced
the founding fathers of the American democratic experience in their emphasis
on the restraint of state powers through the institutionalization of checks
and balances. Turning to the young American republic for clues to the
development of democracy, the rule of law and personal freedom, Alexis de
Tocqueville emphasized in his writings the impact of voluntary associations
as mediating institutions and contervailing forces to the central
government; the division of powers in a federal system; and the relative
socioeconomic equality that fostered political participation. In different
ways, the role of the middle class in fostering liberty and democracy was
also emphasized by the laissez faire disciples of Adam Smith and the
Marxists.

However, while democracy slowly took root in much of northern Europe,
as well as North America and Australasia, attempts in southern, central and
eastern Europe as well as Latin America were generally less successful.
These abortive democratic openings unleashed levels of political and social
mobilization that alarmed established interests such as the aristocracy, the

4

landed elite, the church and the military. As these groups, often allied
with a weaker bourgeoisie, formed reactionary coalitions, the prospects for
democracy dimmed. These various trends culminated during the 1920s and 30s
with the establishment of communist dictatorship in the Soviet Union,
fascism in Germany and Italy, a host of other rightist dictatorships
throughout Europe, and populist autocracies in Argentina, Brazil and Mexico.

The pessimism about democracy and free institutions occasioned by the
events of this period was inverted by the victory of the allied powers in
World War II. Democracy was imposed on Germany, Italy and Japan, and
surprisingly took hold and endured. Beginning with India in 1947, a host of
new nations in Asia, Africa and the Middle East which had been colonies of
the western democracies were granted independence under constitutions and
following election procedures modeled on those of their former colonial
rulers. The wave of excitement and optimism about the prospects for
democracy and rapid development in these newly independent nations spawned a
new generation of scholarly thinking and research.

More extensively than ever before, theory and empirical research in
political development examined the world outside the West. Employing a
multi-dimensional, functionalist framework, *The Politics of the Developing
Areas* (1960) was (to quote its co-editor, Gabriel Almond) "the first effort
to compare the political systems of the 'developing' areas, and to compare
them systematically according to a common set of categories."⁷ There
followed a wealth of case studies of emerging political systems in the new
nations, as well as comparative studies (both single and multi-authored).
Almond and Verba's *The Civic Culture* was the first scholarly attempt to
apply the methods of modern survey analysis to the comparative analysis of

5