Democracy and the Trump Election


Newspaper headlines and television pundits are screaming that Donald Trump’s election is a threat to “our democracy.” A strange charge following an election when a clear majority of voters chose the winner. Isn’t that consistent with the very definition of “democracy”?


That does not mean that another Trump turn as president is a good thing. Given what he has promised to do, his presidency is likely to subject our constitutional order to severe testing. The fact is, the United States is not a democracy. That word does not occur in any of our foundation documents. It is not in the Declaration of Independence, or in the Constitution, or in the pledge of allegiance (“to the flag of the United States of America and the republic for which it stands,”) or in the oath of office every federal official takes.


The United States is a republic which at present is controlled by an oligarchy. It is also becoming more authoritarian. The separation of powers among the three branches of government, essential to avoid autocracy, is deeply eroded, To cite two of many relevant examples:


 Congress has given the president the permission to make war without a formal declaration, and to impose sanctions on foreign governments and citizens for behavior not relevant to U.S. security or well being.
 The supreme court has proclaimed the president partially immune from prosecution for violation of laws he is sworn to uphold.


To point out that the United States is not legally or constitutionally a democracy is not just a quibble over dictionary definitions. The United States government—not the American people–has organized much of its foreign policy on the presumption that creation of “democracy” elsewhere is necessary for American security. Successive presidents, from Clinton to Bush, to Obama, to Biden, set the United States up as the sole judge of what is a democracy and what is not and reserved to the United States the right to use military force and economic sanctions to “defend democracy.” Since the end of the Cold War both Republican and Democratic presidents have embraced this fundamentally flawed assumption.


If democracy is, as Abraham Lincoln specified, “government of the people, for the people, by the people,” how can a foreign government create it for another country? Attempts to interfere in the politics of foreign countries will normally backfire because those “democratic forces” we try to support will be regarded as instruments of a foreign power.


In this 21st century the United States fought a war in Afghanistan for more than twenty years, causing the death of well over 100,00 people, then left the country with a more oppressive government than it had when the U.S. invaded. The United Sates attacked Iraq on specious grounds (that it had retained nuclear and biological weapons), removed its entire government on the assumption that all that is required for “democracy” is elections. Yes, elections were held, but nearly 5,000 Americans lost their life; thousands more suffered serious injury, hundreds of thousands Iraqis were killed and the Islamic fundamentalist ISIS suddenly rose to
occupy much of Iraq and Syria. Today Iraq is more friendly to Iran than to the United States.
Currently the United States is feeding—in fact enabling–two horribly destructive wars in the name of “defending democracy” when none of the belligerents we are defending meet the most fundamental requirements of democracy.


Ukraine is one of the least democratic countries in the world today. The current government resulted from a coup d’etat in 2014 that removed an elected president, received votes from only a portion of the territory claimed and has suspended scheduled elections. The Russian government had reason to suspect that the United States engineered the coup that brought the current government into power. How would the United States react to a more powerful foreign government forming an anti-American government in Mexico or Canada? Have we forgotten that President Woodrow Wilson took us into the first world war when he learned that Germany was trying to arrange a military alliance with Mexico?


The other site of extreme violence supported by the United States in the name of “supporting democracy” is in the Middle East. The U.S. is supplying the weapons for Israel to commit genocide in Gaza and to bomb large areas of Lebanon. Yet Israel illegally occupies the Palestinian territory on the West Bank of the Jordan river, has for decades kept the Palestinian residents of the Gaza strip locked in an outdoor prison. The Netanyahu government has violated key provisions of virtually every United Nations resolution that legitimized the creation of the Israeli state in the first place. The Israeli government has consistently followed policies the United States opposed, yet the Biden administration has been enabling crimes against humanity in the name of supporting “democracy.”


Should we aspire to democracy at home in the United States? Well, if the latest election was an exercise in democracy—and who can doubt that it was—I’ll take instead the republic of limited powers our founders created. That republic, whose basic principles have been violated by both our dominant political parties, is what is threatened in America today.

Posted in Articles, Foreign Policy, In the United States, In the World, International Relations | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Biden-Stalin Doctrine

Yesterday President Biden announced extensive economic sanctions against firms and individuals in Russia and in countries trading with them. The cited reason was Alexei Navalny’s death in prison. As of yesterday 29,708 persons have been killed in Gaza with munitions supplied by the United States and the United States has repeatedly vetoed calls by the vast majority of UN members for a cease-fire in Gaza.

Stalin once remarked that a single death is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic. Apparently, President Biden shares that view.

Posted in Foreign Policy, In the World, International Relations, Sanctions, United Nations | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO AMERICA?

Rummaging through my accumulated papers, I just came across the English translation of a speech I delivered in Czech on July 4, 1982, when I was American ambassador in Prague. At that time Czechoslovakia was ruled by a Communist regime imposed by the Soviet Union.

As I perused it, I realized to my dismay that today I could not honestly make many of the statements in this message.

Here are some of the key paragraphs (in bold italic) and my reflections on them today:

I am pleased to send greetings to the people of Czechoslovakia on this 206th anniversary of my country’s independence. It is a day when we Americans celebrate the foundation of our nation as an independent, democratic republic, and a day on which we dedicate ourselves anew to implementing the ideals of our founding fathers. For us, the bedrock of these ideals is the proposition that states and governments are created by the people to serve the people and that citizens must control the government rather than being controlled by it. Furthermore, we believe that there are areas of human life such as expression of opinion, the practice and teaching of religious beliefs, and the right of citizens to leave our country and return as they wish, which no government has the right to restrict.

Can we really say that our citizens “control the government” today? Twice in this century we have installed presidents who received millions of votes fewer than did the president we installed. The Supreme Court has nullified rights supported by a decisive majority of our citizens. It takes far more votes to elect a senator in a populous state than it does in one with fewer citizens so the U.S Senate can be controlled by a minority of the country’s voters. Corporations and individuals are virtually unlimited in the amount they can spend to promote or vilify candidates and to lobby Congress for favorable tax and regulatory treatment. The Supreme Court has, in effect, ruled that corporations are citizens too! Is this not more akin to oligarchy than to democracy?

We are a nation formed of people from all corners of the world, and we have been nurtured by all the world’s cultures. What unites us is the ideal of creating a free and prosperous society. Through our history we have faced many challenges but we have been able to surmount them through a process of open discussion, accommodation of competing interests, and ultimately by preserving the absolute right of our citizens to select their leaders and determine the policies which affect their lives.

Since when have we seen an open discussion and accommodation of competing interests in the work of the U.S. Congress? When in this century has there been a debate on foreign policy? Why has Congress repeatedly authorized violence normally legal only under a state of war without voting a declaration of war as the Constitution requires?


Our society is not a perfect one and we know very well that we have sometimes failed to live up to our ideals. For we understand the truth which Goethe expressed so eloquently when he wrote, “Es irrt der Mensch, so long er strebt”(Man errs as long as he strives.) Therefore, while we hold fast to our ideals as goals and guides of action, we are convinced that no individual and no group possesses a monopoly of wisdom and that our society can be successful only if all have the right freely to express opinions, make suggestions and organize groups to promote their views.

Unless you are a Member of Congress who speaks out in defense of the fundamental rights of Palestinians to live in freedom in their ancestral lands, or students at Columbia University who wish to do the same.

As we Americans celebrate our nation’s birthday and rededicate ourselves to its ideals, we do so without the presumption that our political and economic system– however well it has served us–is something to be imposed upon others. Indeed, just as we preserve diversity at home, we wish to preserve it in the world at large. Just as every human being is unique, so is every culture and every society, and all should have the right to control their destinies, in their own ways and without compulsion from the outside. This is one of the principal goals of our foreign policy: to work for a world in which human diversity is not only tolerated but protected, a world in which negotiation and accommodation replace force as the means of settling disputes.

Unless you live in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Syria, or Palestine…or, for that matter, in Iran, Cuba, or Venezuela.

We are still a long way from that world we seek, but we must not despair, for we believe that people throughout the world yearn basically for the same things Americans do: peace, freedom, security, and the opportunity to influence their own lives. And while we do not seek to impose our political system on others, we cannot conceal our profound admiration for those brave people in other countries who are seeking only what Americans take as their birthright.

Unless they live in Gaza or the Palestinian West Bank.

While this is a day of national rejoicing, there is no issue on our minds more important than the question of preserving world peace. We are thankful that we are living at peace with the world and that not a single American soldier is engaged in fighting anywhere in the world. Still, we are concerned with the high levels of armaments and the tendency of some countries to use them instead of settling disputes peacefully. We share the concern of all thinking people with the destructive potential of nuclear weapons in particular.

At that time the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan and the U.S. was demanding their withdrawal. Subsequently they did withdraw in accord with an agreement the U.S, negotiated. But then, after 9/11, the U.S. invaded and stayed for 20 years without being able to create a democratic society. A subsequent invasion of Iraq, on spurious grounds, removed the Iraqi government and gave impetus to ISIS. Then, the U.S., without a declaration of war, invaded Syria and tried unsuccessfully to overthrow its government (which we recognized) and also to combat ISIS, which had been created as a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
American soldiers are now stationed in more than 80 countries. We spend more on arms than all other budgets for discretionary spending, and now the Biden administration is making all but formal war against Russia, a peer nuclear power.

It is for this reason that President Reagan has proposed large reductions of nuclear weapons. … We have also made numerous other proposals which we believe would increase mutual confidence and reduce the danger of conflict. All aim for verifiable equality and balance on both sides. That way, the alliance systems facing each other would need not fear an attack from the other. …

Yes, and by 1991 we negotiated massive reductions in nuclear weapons, banned biological and chemical weapons and limited conventional weapons in Europe. The Cold War ended by agreement, not the victory of one side over the other. But, beginning with the second Bush administration, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from every important arms control treaty and embarked on a “modernization” of the American nuclear arsenal costing tens of billions. Meanwhile, although there was no Warsaw Pact after 1990, the U.S. expanded NATO and refused to negotiate an agreement that insured Russia’s security.

The task ahead for all the peoples of the world to establish and preserve peace is not an easy one, The issues are complex and they cannot be solved by simplistic slogans, but only by sustained effort.

Nevertheless, from the late 1990s the U.S. seemed motivated by a false and simplistic doctrine that the world was destined to become like the U.S. and the U.S. was justified in using its economic and military power to transform the rest of the world to conform with its image of itself (the Neocon thesis). It was, in effect, an adaptation of the failed “Brezhnev doctrine” pursued by the USSR until abandoned by Gorbachev. As with the Brezhnev doctrine, the attempt has been an utter fiasco, but the Biden administration seems, oblivious to the dangers to the American people, determined to pursue it.

Nevertheless, I speak to you today with optimism, since I know that my country enters the 207th year of its independence with the determination not only to preserve the liberties we have one at home but to devote our energies and resources to maintaining peace in the world.

But, today, during the 248th year of American independence :

The US is sending 100 “super-bombs” for dropping on Gaza. The BLU-109 “bunker busters”, each weighing 2,000 pounds, penetrate basement concrete shelters where people are hiding, the Wall Street Journal reported Dec. 1.
America has sent 15,000 bombs and 57,000 artillery shells to Israel since October 7, the paper said. Details of the size and number of weapons sent have not been previously reported.
Also on the list are more than 5,000 Mk82 unguided or “dumb” bombs, more than 5,400 Mk84 2,000-pound warhead bombs, around 1,000 GBU-39 small diameter bombs, and approximately 3,000 JDAMs, the Journal said.
The news dramatically contradicts statements of Foreign Secretary Antony Blinken that avoiding civilian casualties is a prime concern for the United States.
The US also provided the bomb that was dropped on the Jabalia refugee camp, killing 100 people, possibly including a Hamas leader, the Journal said.
Repeated calls by the countries of the world, through the United Nations, for a ceasefire have not been supported by the U.S. and its follower nations.
Military spending makes up a dominant share of discretionary spending in the U.S., and military personnel make up the majority of government manpower.
The weapons are being airlifted on C-17 military cargo planes directly from the U.S. to Tel Aviv.

OH, LORD, WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO US?



Posted in Foreign Policy, In the United States, In the World, International Relations, Musings and Polemics, Nuclear Weapons, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“SELF DEFENSE” DOES NOT LICENSE GENOCIDE

Genocide is a crime—not just a “war crime,” but a crime against humanity. No genuine friend of Israel could support the carpet bombing of Gaza, the order for more than a million Gazans to leave their residences on territory Israel, for decades, has either illegally occupied or isolated as an outdoor prison.

Yes, the Hamas attack on Israel was horrifying atrocity. It has given rise to the most passionate emotions, which we see displayed by the actions and words of the Israeli government and by Palestinians around the world. A true friend would restrain the Israeli government from committing crimes against humanity in retaliation—already thousands of Gazan civilians, many of them children, elderly or infirm, have been killed.

Morality and legality aside, Israel’s current course is going to backfire. The Israeli government has set an impossible goal—to eliminate Hamas. That is going to be an impossible task. The more Palestinians are killed, the more resentment will be stimulated in those that remain, and there are millions in surrounding countries and the West Bank that will make living in Israel a security nightmare. What kind of life will that be?

Obviously, passions on both sides, Israeli and Palestinian, are so high today that immediate reconciliation is quite impossible. The only way to stop the slaughter and to prevent an Israeli crime against humanity would be an immediate cease fire without conditions. (Negotiations over hostages could then proceed.)

This latest atrocity should make clear that Israel will never be safe until it creates conditions for the Palestinians to live in a state that grants them the full rights of citizenship and does not try to force them to leave. That could be one state, two states, or a confederation. That will require a different Israeli administration and a different Palestinian leadership. It will not be easy and, at best, will take a lot of time.

To its shame, the United States has not used its power to prevent the genocide in progress in Gaza. Most of the world is insisting on a cease fire; the United States vetoed such a resolution in the United Nations Security Council and is actually supporting Israel’s genocidal activity. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu—whose policies did much to create conditions that led to the Hamas atrocities—has even refused a temporary humanitarian corridor, a direct insult to America’s secretary of state and the country he represents.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Human Rights, In the World, International Relations, Musings and Polemics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine: Tragedy of a Nation Divided

Just before Russia invaded Ukraine, I drafted a comment on the situation which describes some of the events and factors that contributed to the war that has gone on now for nearly eight months. The Russian invasion and the war itself have changed some of these factors. A solution that might have been possible a year ago may no longer be possible. Yet it should also be clear that Ukraine’s announced goal of restoring the borders it inherited in 1991 is not realistic. Here is some history that needs to be understood:

Interference by the United States and its NATO allies in Ukraine’s civil struggle has exacerbated the crisis within Ukraine, undermined the possibility of bringing the two easternmost provinces back under Kyiv’s control, and raised the specter of possible conflict between nuclear-armed powers. Furthermore, in denying that Russia has a “right” to oppose extension of a hostile military alliance to its national borders, the United States ignores its own history of declaring and enforcing for two centuries a sphere of influence in the Western hemisphere.

Continue reading
Posted in In the World, Musings and Polemics | Leave a comment

When Intelligence Organizations Make Policy …

Last night, when I was casually browsing in a copy of my Autopsy on an Empire that I had taken off the shelf to give a friend, I ran into the following passage on page 175:

Chebrikov’s Xenophobia

Throughout 1987 and 1988, Moscow seemed confused over how to respond to the growing assertiveness of the non-Russian nations. Some things were permitted, some were opposed but tolerated, some were forbidden or repressed. But there was no consistent pattern. Continue reading

Posted in In the United States, In the World, Musings and Polemics | Leave a comment

MUSINGS III … Celebrating July 4

America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” (John Quincy Adams)

It was long a family tradition to read the Declaration of Independence at breakfast on July 4. We found that an appropriate way to start the day of celebration, parades and fireworks. This year I decided instead to read just one long paragraph from a speech delivered nearly two centuries ago: the famous speech John Quincy Adams delivered to the House of Representatives on July 4, 1821. One sentence in it, quoted above, is well known, but one needs to read the whole paragraph to grasp its rationale. Here it is: Continue reading

Posted in In the United States, In the World, Musings and Polemics | Leave a comment

Musings II … The “Intelligence Community,” “Russian Interference,” and Due Diligence

Did the U.S. “Intelligence Community” judge that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election?

Most commentators seem to think so. Every news report I have read of the planned meeting of Presidents Trump and Putin in July refers to “Russian interference” as a fact and asks whether the matter will be discussed. Reports that President Putin denied involvement in the election are scoffed at, usually with a claim that the U.S. “intelligence community” proved Russian interference. In fact, the U.S. “intelligence community” has not done so. The intelligence community as a whole has not been tasked to make a judgment and some key members of that community did not participate in the report that is routinely cited as “proof” of “Russian interference.” Continue reading

Posted in In the United States, In the World, Musings and Polemics | 17 Comments

MUSINGS … “RUSSIAGATE” HYSTERIA

Whom the gods would destroy,
they first make mad.

That saying—often attributed to Euripides, though not found in his extant writings–comes to mind most mornings when I bring in the home-delivered New York Times and read the headlines of the latest “Russiagate” development, often featured across two or three columns at the top of the first page. This is a daily reminder of the hysteria that dominates both the Congress of the United States and much of our “responsible media,” including those that consider themselves chroniclers of record with “all the news that is fit to print.” Continue reading

Posted in Foreign Policy, In the United States, In the World, Musings and Polemics, Politics | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Contacts with Russian Embassy

Our press seems to be in a feeding frenzy regarding contacts that President Trump’s supporters had with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak and with other Russian diplomats. The assumption seems to be that there was something sinister about these contacts, just because they were with Russian diplomats. As one who spent a 35-year diplomatic career working to open up the Soviet Union and to make communication between our diplomats and ordinary citizens a normal practice, I find the attitude of much of our political establishment and of some of our once respected media outlets quite incomprehensible. What in the world is wrong with consulting a foreign embassy about ways to improve relations? Anyone who aspires to advise an American president should do just that.

Yesterday I received four rather curious questions from Mariana Rambaldi of Univision Digital. I reproduce below the questions and the answers I have given. Continue reading

Posted in In the United States, In the World, Musings and Polemics | 7 Comments