CRUSADING FOR DEMOCRACY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00806R000200920002-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 16, 2010
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: May 16, 1983
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/16: CIA-RDP90-00806R000200920002-6
ARTICLE APPEARED
0N PAGE_-2=
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
16 May 1963
Crusading for
democracy
Pi
resdent Reagan's crusade for demon
racy .abroad needs protection from well-
meaning Saracens at home. Almost a year
alter be announced the venture in London, it
faces legislation that would sharply alter the
$65 million Project Democracy designed to
carry it out.
The awns are still to promote liberty and
dc=ocracy through information, confer-
ences, and support of such 'free institutions as
newspapers, labor unions, ;and political par-
lies. But about half of Project Democracy,s
millions would be steered to a "private" non-
profit National Endowment for Democracy. -
The endowment in turn would give this tax-
payers' money to the R ubbcan Party, the
Democratic Party, the ,AY1.CIO, and the
Chamber of Commerce of the United States.
Each of these bodies would choose bow to use
its share of the money to promote
abroad. democracy
.
At first glance the Private enterprise
spread of democracy seems right in time with
Reagan philosophy. And not only Reagan pbi-
losopby. Many American private institutions
have long given support in one way or another
to free institutions abroad. Nongovernmental
sources benefit from not smacking of govern-
ment Propaganda or, as in past CIA activities
in this area, of government interference.
To avoid the liabilities of government
sponsorship, however, the private channels
have to be private all the way, such as US
labor unions supporting their counterparts
overseas. To be truly private the National En-
dowment for Democracy would have to.be
financed by its party, union, and business par-
ticipants, not by government handouts.
For these groups simply to be conduits for
government-money is not only to fly in the
face of free-enterprise philosophy but to risk
suspicions on the part of. recipients abroad
that the US government somehow is pulling
the strings. Indeed, there is.already talk in
Washington of arriving at guidelines on bow
the endowment funds should be spent. As the
Proposed legislation is debated, 1 he closest
presidential and congressional attention is de-
manded to avoid the worst of both worlds.
Endowment backers cite the example ;of..
European political parties that have long sup=' .
ported their counterparts across national bor-
ders. It is noted, for instance, that outside aid
helped to sustain opponents of Spain's dicta-
Europe's parties, however, tend to be
more homogeneous than America's. Ques-
tions are now being raised on boW a recipient-
party or other institution abroad could be ebo=
-sen to satisfy the range of opinion within ef-
'tber of the US parties. And what would a re-
CiMentthink when informed-that.agrant was
not from Democratic or Republican.pockets
but -from the federal government by' way of'
-:tbeUrdled States Information Agency?
The government has shown that it can fos-
ter democratic principles through such
nonpmpagandistic means as the Fulbright
and other exchange programs. But, as we and
many others have said before, the best way
for America to crusade for-democracy is to
provide a shining example of democracy. The
government's most effective role lies in pro-
-testing and enhancing that democracy. When
It chooses to take measures. abroad, the open
approach of Project Democracy is, of course,
preferable to the covert measures exposed in
the Past. Congress's skepticism over this
project may lead to cutting it back; it should
-not lead to substituting a private -program
-that is not really private.
STAT
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/16: CIA-RDP90-00806R000200920002-6