No Easy Tolerance of Rightist Regimes : Reagan Policy Shifts on Dictators and Democracy

President Reagan’s conversion to the cause of Philippine President Corazon Aquino reflects a long-brewing shift in his foreign policy, away from an easy tolerance of rightist dictators and toward a more assertive promotion of democratic values around the world.

Five years ago, the newly inaugurated President adopted a blunt doctrine to justify U.S. support for authoritarian regimes in the Third World: However unpleasant a rightist dictatorship might be, it was surely better than the leftist alternative.

Turning his back on the human rights policy of former President Jimmy Carter, Reagan lifted U.S. sanctions against military-ruled countries such as Argentina and Chile, warmed up relations with South Africa and declared new support for authoritarian allies in South Korea and the Philippines.

As late as 1984, he defended the Philippine leadership of President Ferdinand E. Marcos by saying: “We’re better off . . . trying to retain our friendship than throwing them to the wolves and facing the Communist power in the Pacific.”

But last week, with Marcos’ regime crumbling, Reagan put himself on record in favor of democracy, even when it meant abandoning a longtime anti-Communist ally. The fall of Marcos, Reagan said, reaffirms “principles on which America was founded--that men and women have the right to freely choose their own destiny.”

The President’s conversion to the anti-Marcos cause came late and almost reluctantly, but it is more than an isolated instance. In Haiti, El Salvador and Guatemala as well, the Reagan Administration has helped midwife peaceful transitions from pro-U.S. dictators to democratic regimes not always ideologically compatible with Reaganism--but probably more likely in the long run to forestall Communist insurgencies.

“Democracy is on the march,” Secretary of State George P. Shultz, the Administration’s most insistent proponent of the new doctrine, said recently. “The yearning for political freedom, far from being culture-bound, is one of the most powerful forces across the planet. . . . The United States, as the strongest free nation on Earth, is a crucial source of inspiration and support to peoples aspiring to liberty.”

The policy has two sides. Reagan and Shultz also want the United States to help anti-Marxist resistance movements in Nicaragua, Angola and other countries. Such aid, they insist, is of a piece with their support of democracy in pro-American nations.

“We stood for democracy in the Philippines; we have to stand for democracy in Nicaragua and throughout Central America,” Reagan said last week as he argued for military aid to Nicaraguan rebels.

Even some of the Administration’s fiercest critics praise Reagan for putting pressure on Marcos and other authoritarian leaders--and for achieving some success.

Credit From Cranston

“I’m willing to give them a good bit of credit in some areas,” said Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), a liberal member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “I think they’re trying. . . . We have seen impressive progress toward democratic regimes.”

Reagan and Shultz told congressional leaders last week that the Administration is still pressing for democratic reform in South Korea, Chile and South Africa--all U.S. friends with authoritarian regimes to one degree or another.

Some critics charge that the Administration has embraced the idea of global democracy largely as a byproduct of its campaign against pro-Soviet regimes because it makes the argument for aiding the anti-Marxist insurgents more appealing.

But whatever its origin, promoting democracy has become one of the Administration’s major foreign policy themes--to a degree unseen, some scholars say, since the liberal internationalism of John F. Kennedy.

‘Great Cause’ Now

“I think they have accidentally come upon it in their own peculiar way and have found it has benefits they never suspected,” said Prof. Robert W. Tucker of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. “Now they’ve almost made it into a great cause. . . . You are seeing a renaissance of the idea that the United States should lead a crusade for democracy.”

Shultz, especially, has made that idea a major theme of several recent speeches in which he sought to describe the guiding principles of his foreign policy, often in moralistic terms that any of the Democratic presidents of the last 25 years could endorse.

“American foreign policy is driven by positive goals--peace, democracy, liberty and human rights; racial justice; economic and social progress; the strengthening of cooperation and the rule of law,” Shultz said in one major address.

The secretary of state and his diplomats have increasingly exerted pressure for more attention to human rights on the leftist government of Nicaragua, but also on several pro-American regimes.

These targets have included South Korea, where the Administration says it will hold President Chun Doo Hwan to his promise of a democratic transition in 1988; Chile, where the U.S. Embassy has been helping a democratic opposition come together, just as the embassy in Manila did, and South Africa, where the Administration has abandoned “quiet diplomacy” in favor of overt pressure on the white minority regime to give greater political and civil rights to the black majority.

More Effective Tactic

The policy shifts followed several episodes in which the Administration found that democracy was a useful tool for blunting the appeal of leftist insurgents--and also discovered that quiet pressure often had little effect on the behavior of authoritarian strongmen.

Reagan came to office determined to avoid the problems of his predecessor, Carter, who had seen both Iran and Nicaragua turn from friendly dictatorships into authoritarian and anti-American regimes.

But where Reagan initially saw the danger as “pulling the rug” from under unpalatable allies, his State Department has since put the emphasis on helping to support moderate opposition leaders--like Corazon Aquino in the Philippines--to prepare for the inevitable day when the dictator falls.

“I think the lesson here is that with these flawed people, it’s better to dump them early rather than wait until the opposition gets so strong that we have no alternative, like with the shah” in Iran, said California Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove), one of the most conservative GOP members of Congress.

In El Salvador, where military juntas were unable to quell a leftist insurgency, the Administration gradually became convinced that the best way to deprive the rebels of support was to back the elected center-left government of Christian Democrat Jose Napoleon Duarte.

Pluralism, Politics, Money

Then-Assistant Secretary of State Langhorne A. Motley, in a speech titled “Democracy as a Problem-Solving Mechanism,” argued that pluralism produces not only social peace but also stability for investors and support from Congress.

And although Reagan initially insisted that Carter’s public criticism of human rights violators had been a basic mistake, the experience of South Africa, whose regime rebuffed years of quiet diplomacy, persuaded a reluctant Shultz that open pressure is often indispensable.

The Administration’s commitment to promoting democracy in the Third World clearly has limits. The United States is not actively subverting the dictatorial regime in Chile in the same way that it is supporting the contras fighting the leftist government in Nicaragua.

In the Philippines, the Administration turned against Marcos not when he jailed his opponents--which he had done for more than a decade--but when he proved incapable of meeting the military challenge of the Communist New People’s Army.

Also, the Defense Department, and Reagan himself, remain less enthusiastic about the democratic crusade than is the State Department. The President told reporters Friday that he still fears the consequences of withdrawing support from pro-American dictators if there is no pro-American moderate ready to take his place.

‘Grave Mistakes’

“It isn’t a case of choosing authoritarianism as a form of government,” Reagan said. “It is that we’ve also seen some pretty grave mistakes made when, in changing what most people thought was an authoritarian government, we’ve wound up with someone like (Ayatollah Ruhollah) Khomeini.”

Sen. Paul Laxalt (R-Nev.), a close Reagan friend who told Marcos that he had lost the President’s confidence, said he does not believe that South Korea and Chile should expect the same treatment.

Some Democrats also doubt that the Administration will follow through on its rhetoric. “I’m not sure they’ve done much on Chile,” Cranston said.

And other critics worry that Shultz has pushed the principle of promoting democracy beyond reasonable bounds.

“Promoting democracy is a position with which everyone feels very comfortable . . . but it sets out a task for American foreign policy that is very, very difficult,” said Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who first enunciated Reagan’s preference for authoritarian (rightist) over totalitarian (leftist) regimes.

“We’ve always been attracted to the idea of not only making the world safe for democracy, but also making the world a democratic Garden of Eden,” she said. “ . . . I think it’s just not practical as an operational goal.”

Spur to Vietnam Involvement

Tucker, of Johns Hopkins, added that the Administration is mistaken in its assumption that democratic regimes are always more stable and conducive to U.S. interests than other forms of government.

“The idea of leading a democratic crusade around the world was quite instrumental in leading us to Vietnam,” he warned. “We’ve gotten progressively engaged in the Philippines. We’re going to be hard pressed to disengage if they run into military trouble.”

But for the moment, Democrats in Congress have found themselves in the unfamiliar position of praising Reagan’s foreign policy and encouraging him to go further.

“I think that with all the rhetoric, Ronald Reagan is probably acting precisely the same way that (former President Gerald R.) Ford or Carter--two people he greatly criticized in this area--would act,” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said as Marcos fell. “If Reagan were a candidate, he would be critical of President Reagan.”