• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
AI
{
  "authors": [
    "Michael McFaul",
    "Urban Ahlin",
    "Ronald Asmus",
    "Steven Everts",
    "Jana Hybaskova",
    "Mark Leonard",
    "Michael Mertes"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "russia",
  "programs": [
    "Russia and Eurasia",
    "Democracy, Conflict, and Governance"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "United States",
    "Middle East",
    "North Africa",
    "Western Europe"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Democracy",
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

In The Media

A trans-Atlantic plan for democracy

U.S. and European leaders want to see greater freedom, and democracy in the Middle East. Americans see this as the crucial battleground in the war on terror; Europeans want their southern neighbors to be stable and well-governed, to stem the flows of illegal migration and organized crime. Working with local partners for peaceful democratic regime change is the best way to achieve these goals.

Link Copied
By Michael McFaul, Urban Ahlin, Ronald Asmus, Steven Everts, Jana Hybaskova, Mark Leonard, Michael Mertes
Published on Mar 14, 2004

Source: Carnegie

This article represents the views of a trans-Atlantic group sponsored by the German Marshall Fund of the United States. It was written by Urban Ahlin, chairman of the Swedish Parliament's foreign affairs committee; Ronald Asmus, of the German Marshall Fund of the United States; Steven Everts, of the Center for European Reform, London; Jana Hybaskova, former Czech ambassador to Kuwait; Mark Leonard, of the Foreign Policy Center, London; Michael McFaul, of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University; and Michael Mertes, of Dimap Consult, Germany.

American and European leaders have started to talk about the need to promote greater freedom, justice and democracy in the "Greater Middle East." While Americans see this as the crucial battleground in the war on terror, Europeans want their southern neighbors to be stable and well-governed, to stem the flows of illegal migration and organized crime. Both sides have accepted that working with local partners for peaceful democratic regime change today is the best way of avoiding violent revolution or military action tomorrow.

The enthusiasm for reform marks a paradigm shift in policy. In the past, other interests, like securing a steady flow of oil or obtaining cooperation against terrorism, have too often taken priority over political reform. But despite the flourishing rhetoric about promoting democracy, it is still not backed with concrete action plans. If we want a serious strategy, we must do three things: increase support for democrats in the region; create a better regional context for democratic development; and reorganize ourselves at home to pursue and sustain pro-democracy policies abroad.

First, we must recognize the fact that while the West must play a critical supporting role, change must come from within the region. Our task is to design policies to strengthen indigenous political forces pushing for democratic change.

In many countries democratic activists sit in jail because of their commitment to human rights, yet we do little to help them. We should provide them with consistent political and moral support. No senior American or European leader should visit the region without raising the issue of human rights and defending those brave individuals already fighting for democracy.

In practical terms, the West must drastically increase its direct support for local nongovernment organizations and democracy campaigners. The United States now spends nearly $400 billion on defense, but the National Endowment for Democracy has lived on a budget of only about $40 million, a fraction of which is spent in the Greater Middle East. Washington is now doubling that amount, but needs to raise the level of support tenfold, or even more, to make a real impact. The European Union should increase the funding for its democracy promotion program to at least E500 million a year.

This money should be administered at arm's length from government to ensure it is not constrained by diplomatic pressures. A new trans-Atlantic Forum for Democracy Promotion could be created to coordinate all activities in the region, including the bilateral programs pursued by European countries. This could be supplemented by an independent Trust for Democracy in the Middle East to which European countries and the U.S. government could contribute funds and expertise.

As well as working at a grass-roots level, the West should use policies on trade and aid to encourage governments to reform and to enlarge the space for legitimate political action. We need to reward countries that make progress on democracy and governance, and be ready to withdraw privileges from those that do not.

Second, the United States and its European allies need to help create the external security environment and regional context in which democratic change can occur more easily. As well as working to further peace between Israel and Palestine, we must help Turkey succeed in turning itself into a full-fledged democracy that qualifies for EU membership, renew pressure on the Iranian regime for democracy and arms control, and avoid a premature disengagement from the democratic transition under way in Iraq.

Working with moderate Arab states, we can try to create a new regional security regime for the Greater Middle East that is modeled on the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This would mean developing a range of incentives so that Arab countries see the benefits of signing up.

NATO, too, has a role to play. It can provide the peacekeeping capabilities needed to help rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq. And it can help promote more democratic practices in peacetime by extending cooperation to the Middle East under a new version of the Partnership for Peace program. NATO's new role would be to keep the Americans and Europeans together, the aggressors out and the terrorists down.

The third big step in a grand strategy for democracy promotion is to reorganize ourselves to sustain such a course for decades to come. As well as creating a new generation of diplomats and democracy-builders who know the Middle East and its languages, we will need to reorganize our governments to ensure that they maintain their commitment over the long term.

Missions such as building democracy, promoting a political transformation agenda and winning the hearts and minds of millions of ordinary people are buried deep in American and European bureaucracies. As a result, these tasks will never receive the necessary leadership, attention and resources. Our governmental capacity to help build new democratic states must be as great as our capacity to destroy autocratic regimes.

President George W. Bush or his Democratic successor should create a Department of Democracy Promotion headed by a cabinet-level official. The Europeans should appoint a commissioner for democracy and human rights promotion.

As the debate over the Greater Middle East heats up, there is a danger that Europeans and Americans will pursue competing democratization strategies. We must pool the best proposals available on both sides of the Atlantic and coordinate their implementation in a joint endeavor. A trans-Atlantic plan for democracy

Originally published in International Herald Tribune, March 14, 2004

About the Authors

Michael McFaul

Former Senior Associate

In addition to his role at Carnegie, McFaul is Peter and Helen Bing Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and associate professor of political science at Stanford University.

Urban Ahlin

Ronald Asmus

Steven Everts

Jana Hybaskova

Mark Leonard

Mark Leonard is cofounder and director of ECFR. He hosts the weekly podcast Mark Leonards’s World in 30 Minutes and writes a column on global affairs for Project Syndicate. Previously, he worked as director of foreign policy at the Centre for European Reform and as director of the Foreign Policy Centre. He has spent time in Washington, DC as a transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States and in Beijing as a visiting scholar at the Chinese Academy for Social Sciences. In September 2021, he published his latest book The Age of Unpeace: How Connectivity Causes Conflict.

Michael Mertes

Authors

Michael McFaul
Former Senior Associate
Michael McFaul
Urban Ahlin
Ronald Asmus
Steven Everts
Jana Hybaskova
Mark Leonard

Mark Leonard is cofounder and director of ECFR. He hosts the weekly podcast Mark Leonards’s World in 30 Minutes and writes a column on global affairs for Project Syndicate. Previously, he worked as director of foreign policy at the Centre for European Reform and as director of the Foreign Policy Centre. He has spent time in Washington, DC as a transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States and in Beijing as a visiting scholar at the Chinese Academy for Social Sciences. In September 2021, he published his latest book The Age of Unpeace: How Connectivity Causes Conflict.

Mark Leonard
Michael Mertes
Political ReformDemocracySecurityMilitaryForeign PolicyUnited StatesMiddle EastNorth AfricaWestern Europe

Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie India

  • Commentary
    India Signs the Pax Silica—A Counter to Pax Sinica?

    On the last day of the India AI Impact Summit, India signed Pax Silica, a U.S.-led declaration seemingly focused on semiconductors. While India’s accession to the same was not entirely unforeseen, becoming a signatory nation this quickly was not on the cards either.

      Konark Bhandari

  • Commentary
    The Impact of U.S. Sanctions and Tariffs on India’s Russian Oil Imports

    This piece examines India’s response to U.S. sanctions and tariffs, specifically assessing the immediate market consequences, such as alterations in import costs, and the broader strategic implications for India’s energy security and foreign policy orientation.

      Vrinda Sahai

  • Article
    Military Lessons from Operation Sindoor

    The India-Pakistan conflict that played out between May 6 and May 10, 2025, offers several military lessons. This article presents key takeaways from Operation Sindoor and breaks down how India’s preparations shaped the outcome and what more is needed to strengthen future readiness.

      Dinakar Peri

  • Book
    India and the Sovereignty Principle: The Disaggregation Imperative

    This book offers a comprehensive analysis of India's evolving relationship with sovereignty in a complex global order. Moving beyond conventional narratives, it examines how the sovereignty principle shapes India's behavior across four critical domains—from traditional military power to contemporary data governance.

      Rudra Chaudhuri, Nabarun Roy

  • Commentary
    NISAR Soars While India-U.S. Tariff Tensions Simmer

    On July 30, 2025, the United States announced 25 percent tariffs on Indian goods. While diplomatic tensions simmered on the trade front, a cosmic calm prevailed at the Sriharikota launch range. Officials from NASA and ISRO were preparing to launch an engineering marvel into space—the NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR), marking a significant milestone in the India-U.S. bilateral partnership.

      Tejas Bharadwaj

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.