Consider the democratic peace theory. Should the mature democracies (e.g.

EU coun-
tries and the United States) make promoting democracy a top objective of their foreign
policy? Might the spread of democracy actually be harmful to them, or limit their abil-
ities to use military force to achieve their objectives? What costs or difficulties might
they encounter in seeking to promote democracy overseas?

In Wwestern society we have established regimes that have successful democracies in which the
masses actually want that said type of government. This is due to how Western culture has
developed since the formation of the nation-state form of government and its immediate successes
following its implementation. For example, the United Kingdom or the USA which can be
considered the first flourishing democracies, and which have had popular support throughout most
of their nations’ existence. This success in these two nations led to the conceptualisation of Whig
historiography, that everything leads to a greater end, that end being freedom, democracy and
liberty. This theory basicallytheory basically stipulates that other nations must follow this doctrine
to achieve “true freedom and democracy”, and therefore enforcing democracy is justified under the
guise of spreading liberalism. This was seen throughout history as more and more nations became
democracies following the British/American models of democracy and achieving its apex after the
fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, basically achieving the end of Whig history. “The end of history”
had been reached as Fukuyama claims, the world was now going to embrace free trade and live in
peace. Sadly, I think Fukuyama is and was greatly mistaken.

Therefore, to explain why Fukuyama is wrong I’m going to talk about the theory of spreading
democracy overseas called neo-conservatism and why I disagree on this posture., then Then I’ll talk
about the benefits of democracy for foreign companies and western Western nations in comparison
to the native motherland. Fand finally, I will talk about why every nation has a different
perspective on democracy, and which would in the end make spreading democracy futile and costly
as some countries simply don’t have the material conditions for Wwestern style democracy.

First of all, the theory of mature democracies intervening militarily or through coups to establish
and promote democracy, is called neo-conservatism which had developed after WW2 in the USA.
Neo-conservatives advocate for spreading liberal democracy and the de establishment of dictatorial
regimes by any means necessary, as Ted Boettner says: “Neo-conservatives have a strong aversion
to totalitarian regimes that dates back to the rise of fascism in Europe and they tend to equate any
regime that has any socialist or communist tendencies as one step away from turning into tyranny”

This theory of neo-conservatism especially took off after the fall of the Berlin Wall as the US
administrations, and to a lesser extent the Europeans, were emboldened in promoting their theory
abroad, as it seems that the defeat of communism did prove after all that liberalism was “right”.
This is why westerners intervened in the Yugoslav wars and provided peace, which proved
somewhat successful under the pressure of economic and military annihilation for the Serbs. They
also intervened in Iraq and Afghanistan, that which after 20 years was seen as a total failure, in
Libya which led to a 10 year civil war and Syria which is still in a civil war to this day. And to add
insult to injury, the western promotion of democracy during the Arab spring proved to be a
resounding fiasco as more people oppose democracy than endorse it in 2022. Finally, to give a
modern 21st century example we can see the Russo-Ukranian war in which most democratic nations
are supporting Ukraine under the banner of freedom and democracy as they view Ukraine as being
part of the neo-conservariveconservative world view of promoting liberal democracy by any means
necessary (in this case giving as much money as possible to Zelensky’s government). These
examples simply prove the failure of spreading democratic values as a top priority Iin foreign
policy, especially as in the long term the people themselves in these mature democracies become
less and less favourable towards “democratic intervention”. , as This was seen with the electoral
victory of Trump in 2016, the anti-war movements in Europe, or the rise of populist isolationist
parties in Europe.

The question to be asked is whether this is actually helping the spread of democracy, or whether it
is actually hampering the lives of millions or even billions of people in the name of an ideology that
can’t be applied to every nation and culture on planet earth. Is it possible that these “mature”
democracies are only spreading democracy for their own political and economic interests?

This is why I veritably believe that the Western form of democracy is actually a way to facilitate the
economic needs of Western or “mature” democracies. For exampleexample, In in Africa it must be
interesting to see how liberal democracy, which espouses individual interests and free market
principles has actually hampered Africa economically in comparison to African cultural democracy
which advocates for communal and protectionist principles (clearly values against neo-liberalism
and the looting of Africa’s natural resources by foreign companies). This is exactly why even in
2022 the west has troops in the Sahel region to continue the economic exploitation of African
communities (the French are dependent on Niger’s uranium and Burkina Faso's gold) and secure
European interests and to stop the spread of any other interpretation of democracy. One of the most
well-known examples was the coup in Iran in 1953, in which the Iranian people elected a socialist
leaning PM (Supported supported by communists) who wanted to free Iran from the shackles of
western oppression and make Iran tilt towards the soviet sphere. What ensued was a coup and the
imposition of a “liberal democratic” regime without left-wing opposition that serves the interests of
the west that would inevitably lead to the 1979 Iranian revolution.

Once again this is one of many examples of Western democracies enforcing democracy both
militarily and diplomatically on other nations. It is a fact known to all western Western nations that
democracy helps their economic interests as trade barriers are removed, hence resource extraction is
facilitated in developing nations to satisfy the demand of the highly consumerist market of the West
(and doesn’t necessarily help developing nations).

To understand this dilemma of conflicting interests we need to clarify that I am not advocating for
some perception of moral relativism, democracy is a universal value, as Kumar Sen says: ”the
universal nature of democracy cannot be disposed of by imagined cultural taboos or assumed
civilizational predispositions imposed by our various pasts”

This quote is true, ; democracy is natural to every civilisation but it either has different meanings or
the west cancels each interpretation out as authoritarian or totalitarian. Thus, we should have a look
at different examples of “democracy around the world” to properly understand why western mature
democracies go so far to dismantle different political systems.

One example would be the communist interpretation of democracy as was seen in the USSR. As
Here, as soviet author explains the communist perspective of democracy: “proletarian democracy is
a democracy for the overwhelming majority of the population, a democracy of the workers,
peasants and intelligentsia “

Communism wasn’t the only other ideology which espoused its own version of democracy, in
China, with its pseudo-communist governemntgovernment also claims to be People’s democracy
which works with people’s councils and consultative democracy. As the Chinese government says:
“Democracy as practices in China is rooted in China's history and culture. It fits the country's
conditions and enjoys popular support”
And there are so many other such as African cultural-democracy as is seen in the Yoruba peoples or
the indigenous democracy of the Americas and even Islamic democracy is another form of
democracy simply guided by religion.

These many examples lead me to my next argument:, If there are so many and so diverse
perspectives on democracy why must the “mature” western democracies make spreading their form
of government their top priority? Isn’t it very costly to try to enforce a system unto onto a people
which already had a pre-existing democratic (in their own way) government?

And this is true, spreading democracy is one of the most costly foreign policy decisions to make
toup do date, the most notorious example is being the US-led invasion of Iraq which has cost 2
trillion dollars(this is ignoring the geopolitical consequences and the deaths of thousands who
disagreed with the new “democratic” regime). Another conflict that just disastrously ended,
confirming proving Afghan distrust towards democracy also cost 2 trillion dollars and the
infrastructure loss is insurmountable. Even the most recent punitive campaign of the west against
Russia supporting the Ukrainian cause is reaching levels of economic insanity. Already Ukraine has
received 100 billion in aid and it has been reported that by the time the war finishes helping Ukraine
will cost billions more. Also, the economic loss can already be considered to be in the trillions
because of the sanctions against Russia and the possible recession in the EU. Truly spreading
democracy requires an extortionate amount of money and human lives for the masses and only
economically benefits the elites of these Mature mature democracies.

To sum all my argument up, I clearly do not believe that Western democratic countries should
spread democracy overseas to nations which at present do not have “democratic” governments
established with popular support among the people. Even If we listened to Fukuyama and the
democratic peace theory in a world where everyone lives in a democracy there would still be
winners and losers, the winners always being western democracies. As we have seen with the
examples which I have put forward it clearly demonstrates how democracies are just as bellicose as
non-western democracies and itdemocracies. It seems to me with the evidence at hand that
democracies are even more willing to put up with all the costs of spreading democratic values than
the autocratic states. Hence, I would advocate for “mature” democracies to stay within their own
borders and enhance their own form of democracy. They would and have as a priority an absolutely
neutralof foreign policy to be absolutely neutral. In, that way no costs would ever be incurred on by
the nation itself nor the working masses in addition we would be letting other nations around the
planet earth to fulfil their own destiny free from western imposed values and oppression.

Cost of war.
https://www.militarytimes.com/opinion/commentary/2020/02/06/the-iraq-war-has-cost-the-us-
nearly-2-trillion/
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2021/human-and-budgetary-costs-date-us-war-
afghanistan-2001-2022

Chinese democracy:
http://hu.china-embassy.gov.cn/hu/xwdt/202109/P020211112677638245568.pdf
Iran coup:

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthrew-irans-democracy-in-four-days

Democracy and free trade:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3877880#metadata_info_tab_contents

Democracy as a universal value:

https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/democracy-as-a-universal-value/

Ukraine funding_:
https://www.devex.com/news/funding-tracker-who-s-sending-aid-to-ukraine-1028

Biden uses democracy as a weapon: https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-12-14/How-has-Western-

democracy-become-a-weapon-of-mass-destruction--15ZhL5QDm8g/index.html

Democracy is a tool;: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/western-style-democracy-in-

africa-is-just-a-way-of-pushing-the-neoliberal-agenda/

communism

https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/DofP.pdf

Arabs and democracy

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-62001426

neo-cons
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24913452.pdf?refreqid=excelsior
%3Ad18ff1980a479189dea7d562089324b5&ab_segments=&origin=

beacon of democracy. In many respects, the debate will echo that of the 1930s: How much of the
nation's resources are required to care properly for the folks at home? What are America's vital
interests; how may they be protected best, against what threat? Are there any principles for which
this nation should stand? But neoconservatism as such has nothing to offer. Neoconservatism died
when many of the men and women who angrily separated themselves from others committed to
liberal democracy aban doned their own faith in both liberalism and democracy and merged with
the Republican Righ

Neo-cons and spreading democracy:

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1115&context=thesis
page 15

Promotign democracy: https://stanleycenter.org/publications/other/FukuyMcFaul07.pdf

Rise of democracy: https://ourworldindata.org/democracy

Americans and spreading democracy

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/03/02/americans-put-low-priority-on-promoting-
democracy-abroad-2/

Meaning of democracy varies in states:

https://time.com/5590236/what-defines-worldwide-democracy/

What democracy means for some and for others:

https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/DofP.pdf

Maybe Isolationism is the way forward?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/virtue-isolationism/616499/

Page 11, on Britain spreading human rights

https://publications.aston.ac.uk/id/eprint/37418/1/renewed.pdf

lefist wanting democracy: That war [Bosnian war] in the early 1990s changed a lot for me. I never thought I would see, in Europe, a full-
dress reprise of internment camps, the mass murder of civilians, the reinstiutution of torture and rape as acts of policy. And I didn't expect so many of
my comrades to be indifferent - or even take the side of the fascists. It was a time when many people on the left were saying 'Don't intervene, we'll
only make things worse' or, 'Don't intervene, it might destabilise the region. And I thought - destabilisation of fascist regimes is a good thing. Why
should the left care about the stability of undemocratic regimes? Wasn't it a good thing to destabilise the regime of General Franco? It was a time
when the left was mostly taking the conservative, status quo position - leave the Balkans alone, leave Milosevic alone, do nothing. And that kind of
conservatism can easily mutate into actual support for the aggressors. Weimar-style conservatism can easily mutate into National Socialism. So you
had people like Noam Chomsky's co-author Ed Herman go from saying 'Do nothing in the Balkans', to actually supporting Milosevic, the most
reactionary force in the region. That's when I began to first find myself on the same side as the neocons. I was signing petitions in favour of action in
Bosnia, and I would look down the list of names and I kept finding, there's Richard Perle. There's Paul Wolfowitz. That seemed interesting to me.
These people were saying that we had to act. Before, I had avoided them like the plague, especially because of what they said about General Sharon
and about Nicaragua. But nobody could say they were interested in oil in the Balkans, or in strategic needs, and the people who tried to say that - like
Chomsky - looked ridiculous. So now I was interested.”
― Christopher Hitchens ç

“Americans owe nothing to any man, they expect nothing from any man; they acquire the habit of always considering themselves as standing alone,
and they are apt to imagine that their whole destiny is in their own hands. Thus democracy throws [a man] back forever upon himself alone, and
threatens in the end to confine him entirely within the solitude of his own heart.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

Iraq war: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/04/iraq-invasion-slow-burn-intro.html