Aha. interesting link.
Albright's argument is fundamentally an idealist inversion. The US is hegemonic because it has "democracy". Russia is poor because it is not really a democracy.
The spread of bourgeois democracy in the world is because of the inspiring example of the USA, not because it is more suited to the economic base of a complex finance capitalist market economy.
People must go on plugging away at democracy, and the US should intervene in all other countries in the name of democracy.
The fact that the laws of capitalism dictate the uneven accumulation of capital on a world scale must either
a) be ignored
b) be attributed to the poor countries failing to follow the democratic ideals of bourgeois democracy and bourgeois right [for plutocrats].
Chris Burford
London
text follows
_______
Let me begin by responding to the words in our program inquiring about America's role in the world. To me, this is not much of a mystery. The Pew Center recently asked Americans to rank the reasons for our country's success in the 20th Century. Three factors topped the list: our Constitution; free elections; and the free enterprise system.
Clearly, America's global leadership cannot be divorced from the reasons our own people give for our country's accomplishments. We are first and foremost a democracy. The fundamental message we convey to the world is that human progress depends on human liberty -- on the ability of people to choose their own leaders, express their own thoughts, be rewarded for their own efforts, and shape their own lives.
This is not a complicated message. But its power has transformed the world.
One hundred years ago, the number of countries with a government elected competitively and on the basis of universal suffrage was zero. Today it is 120. Over the past half century, we have seen nation after nation gain its freedom: in Asia and Africa, from colonialism; in Latin America from military dictators; in Central and Eastern Europe from Communism; and in South Africa from apartheid.
Yet as we enter the new millennium, we are not complacent. For we understand that true democracy is never achieved; it is always a pursuit. And we know that if we who love liberty grow weary, those who love only power will one day sweep liberty away.
Moreover, we are concerned that in many countries, the arrival of electoral democracy has been accompanied by economic expectations that are, as yet, unfulfilled. Over the past decade, for example, daily life has gotten harder, not easier, for many people in the former Soviet Union. A majority of citizens in these countries have come to equate democracy with inequality, insecurity and the unraveling of the social fabric.
Such frustrations raise the risk there and elsewhere that public confidence in elected government will erode -- and support grow for failed remedies from the past, including protectionism and authoritarianism.
We can do much to meet this challenge by helping more people in more countries become full participants in the global economy. And that is why the Clinton Administration has worked hard to expand trade and investment in Africa, the Caribbean and Southeast Europe; to lift the crushing burden of debt that hangs over many poor countries; and to bring new members into the WTO and help them acquire the expertise and technology needed to meet their commitments and take advantage of liberalized trade.