The U.S. Empire: Is Any Sovereign Nation Safe After the Russian and Belarus Democracy Acts?

AuthorClaire M. Diallo
PositionJ.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law
Pages05

Claire M. Diallo: J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2005. With heartfelt thanks to Professor Alexander Domrin for the idea and inspiration, and to my husband, Ahmed, for his comments and support throughout this process. Page 675

I Introduction

"The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within."1

A Imagining The "U.S. Democracy Act"

The citizens of the United States have been misled by their President and its Administration. Their fears were preyed upon in order to draw them into an unjust war with Iraq; civil liberties are being taken away with legislation like the Patriot Act, and in the wake of the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the American people are letting it happen. Democracy in the United States is being undermined. The media is being consolidated into monopolies and there are no longer any independent voices. The presidential election of 2000 was neither free nor fair. In our burgeoning democracy, it is in our best interest to aid the citizens of the United States in taking back their society, demanding answers from their government, and fighting for their country to regain respect in the international community. It is necessary for the Russian Federation to provide aid not to the U.S. Government that has squandered away its money on an unnecessary war, but to the citizens. Providing financial support at the grass-roots level is imperative for democracy in America to continue, and will keep Russia safe from any additional attacks by President Bush in which he sees fit to exert his influence or take over another nation. We will provide the equivalent of $50,000,000 to educate the people, to set up "Russian Centers," where our own democratic experience will be taught, and to teach people to make an independent examination of truth.2

Imagine the State Duma of the Russian Federation ("Russia") making these statements, and then imagine the response of the United States. Reasonable responses could surely include indignation, shock, disbelief, outrage, and perhaps a desire for action. Notwithstanding the veracity of any of these statements, United States citizens would be appalled. What right do Russians have to try to regulate the very foundation of our nation? How can they get away with undermining the U.S. Government and turning its people against it? Very natural responses, indeed . . . but has anyone read the Page 676 Russian or Belarus Democracy Acts?3 Has anyone looked at the legislative history and the condescension of the U.S. Congress in passing the Acts? How did it go unnoticed that the U.S. Congress was focused on democracy in Russia and Belarus and intent on spending millions to support grass-roots groups? Why did the international community not respond more vociferously? Is the United States beyond reproach, or do other nations just assume that the United States will ignore any rebuke under the current administration?

There is something palpably wrong with the mere titles of these Acts. Even if one may not be able to articulate it initially, one can intuit that these Acts violate certain commonly shared beliefs about the nature of government and democracy. These instinctive ideas are recognized in international law and have a name-sovereignty. These Acts represent a growing tendency of the United States to impose itself on other nations in innumerable ways.4 Perhaps these Acts are not noteworthy in what they purport to do, but rather in their lack of subtlety in infringing upon other nations' sovereignty. As the only remaining superpower, the United States must believe subterfuge is no longer necessary. But these Acts beg the ever- heated question: who made the United States the world police and protectorate?

B The Reality: The Russian And Belarus Democracy Acts

Not surprisingly, Russians did read the Russian Democracy Act,5 and they expressed their distaste for it by reiterating that Russia and the United States are "two absolutely equal, great democratic states."6 The statements of Congressman Tom Lantos, who introduced the bill, are representative of the United States' lack of respect for this equality: "When I first introduced this legislation two years ago, democratic forces in Russia were in retreat. This landmark legislation will help ensure that civil society in Russia thrives."7Representative Lantos modestly believed that the legislation he introduced would shape another sovereign nation's political future. Russia is not a developing country, which might be used to such treatment by the United Page 677 States. Russia, a member of the U.N. Security Council, and until recently, one of the world's last major superpowers, was not prepared for these statements. What about sovereignty and the duty of non-intervention? Doesn't providing money to Russian citizens for democracy and not to the Russian Government sound like providing aid to the people of Nicaragua to overthrow a leader that the United States dislikes?8 Isn't the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA") usually tasked with such missions, and not the United States Congress?9

The Belarus Democracy Act10 raises similar concerns and goes even further in its condemnation of the current situation in that nation. Perhaps Belarus, as a smaller and economically weaker nation, was less surprised by this Act. Nonetheless, after witnessing the U.S. Government start an expensive and deadly war in Iraq based, at least in part, on its feelings about Saddam Hussein, Belarus had reason to worry about the Act's characterization of President Lukashenka. In introducing the Belarus Democracy Act, Senator Helms called President Lukashenka "the dictator controlling this country, [who] stole through intimidation and repression, the presidential elections that took place on September 9[, 2001]."11 Is Belarus part of an "axis of evil" of which we have not yet been informed? Is this the beginning of another Bush campaign to impose "freedom" on other nations? The international community, as well as Americans, surely will not stand for an expansion of the Bush doctrine.12

This Note contends that the Russian and Belarus Democracy Acts are violations of international law and of any sensible foreign policy. With the recent military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq under the auspices of the war on terror, these new violations of international law have gone largely unnoticed. This Note does not address the legitimacy of forcible intervention, but rather that of non-forcible intervention, although there are many parallels. This Note considers the arguments for and against the Page 678 illegitimacy of these Acts, as well as their possible justifications in international law.13

Part II of this Note explores the roots and varying conceptions of sovereignty over time. Part III considers the actual provisions of the Russian and Belarus Democracy Acts, as well as original drafts of the Acts. Part IV addresses the changing norms of sovereignty and human rights,14 with the conclusion that these concepts can and must be reconciled. Part V briefly discusses the existing human-rights situations in Russia and Belarus. Finally, Part v. concludes with an emphasis on the illegality of these Acts under current international law, along with the hope for more clearly outlined principles of international law in the future.

II Sovereignty In International Law: Is It No More?
A The Birth Of Sovereignty

"[I]t is doubtful whether any single word has ever caused so much intellectual confusion and international lawlessness."1516 One source defines sovereignty as "the basic international legal status of a State that is not subject, within its territorial jurisdiction, to the governmental, executive, legislative, or judicial jurisdiction of a foreign State or to foreign law other than public international law."17 The renowned international law scholar Louis Henkin summarizes the concept of sovereignty as: Page 679 the essential quality of a state, the basic entity, abstract but real, of the international political systems. "Sovereignty" is used to describe the autonomy of states and the need for state consent to make law and build institutions. "Sovereignty" is used to justify and define the "privacy" of states, their political independence and territorial integrity; their right and the rights of their peoples to be let alone and to go their own way.18

The concept of sovereignty is believed to have emerged during the sixteenth-century power struggle among the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Empire, and feudalism.19 French jurist Jean Bodin articulated this early conception of sovereignty, which was rooted in social contract theory, as the absolute power over a people by a sovereign.20 The 1648 Peace of Westphalia marked the end of the Thirty Years War. Consisting of the Treaties of Peace Between Sweden and the Holy Roman Empire and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT