coverage on c-span now. ♪ journal" continues. host: joining us is elizabeth shackelford, a former career diplomat with the united states and now a senior fellow with the chicago council on global affairs. here with us to talk about the u.s.'s role in assisting democracies worldwide. good morning.

welcome. guest: good morning. host: a recent piece in the chicago tribune talked about coups happening worldwide, "coups are happening where democracy is failing." why are the numbers of coups growing worldwide? guest: he has been an interesting phenomenon. coups were common and the postcolonial period. over the past 20 years they had been in decline until recently. in the last 18 months, there have been more than in the prior five years combined. there's a couple reasons why. first, to understand what a coup is. it's generally the military seizing power. and what we have seen in miramar a year ago, we saw it in sudan and you whole rash across south

africa. you have weak democracies failing to provide services to their people. and this is leaving an opening for public support for military takeovers. but the other issue is a lack of international pushback to coups. a failure of what we saw a few years ago, when there was a uniform sense across the globe that this was inappropriate behavior. host: we will get into your departure from the state department and a little bit, but you served in sudan, the horn of east africa, so you had an on the ground experience with those countries. why are they more prevalent in that part of the world? guest: interesting question because i believe that coups, we are susceptible to them and places where we have had

long-standing authoritarian governments. in sudan, there was a military overtake of what had been an authoritarian government. west africa, the military takeover was of a fledgling democratic government. any number of governments will be susceptible. one of the problems, particularly in the west african countries, where we have seen it in guinea and mali, has been the international partnership in supporting the fledgling democracies have been reinforcing the leadership of security services over democratic institutions. while we have been trying to help build stability and security, what we have been inadvertently doing is creating a security stake. and that has been in response to the update in insurgencies and terrorist activities. host: yesterday we spent an hour talking about the report from the economist intelligence unit,

the annual report on the state of democracies worldwide, the democracy index they call it. the headline this year as the china -- is the china challenge. is it the case that countries like russia and china are having more influence in places like africa and elsewhere, so u.s. efforts are blunted in terms of supporting democracies there? guest: i think it is less about blunting u.s. influence, it is more in terms of how are we choosing to use our influence. one of the challenges i see in have the u.s. and much of the west, the european union included, is using their influence is rather than promoting democracy, we have been actually promoting security cooperation. and that sounds benign, like it would be something positive, but we have been pushing security sector activities instead of

democratic activities as well. that is where we are losing credibility as a promoter of democracy because we are supporting strong people in different countries, more military driven solutions when what we are failing to address is underlying causes to instability. so we are not addressing it differently than those countries like china and russia. we would be promoting democracy more if we came in with democracy leading the charge in our partnerships. host: you left your position at the state department as a career diplomat in 2017, the secretary of state was rex tillerson at that time, and in your letter you invited him to leave with you. resigning from the state department was part of your concern and what you are seeing now, the u.s. with a lessened role worldwide in supporting

democracies? guest: it was. at the time, and i said it before, when i departed it was during the trump administration. and my view was that i did not feel the decisions we were making in our foreign policy were promoting the u.s. national security interest, and that is promoting democracy, not through military power but by leading -- but through leading by example into supporting strong institutions with respect for human rights. i saw these problems in the prior administration. the u.s. has a tendency to talk well about democracy and human rights, but not always act to fulfill those values. i see this as a long-standing problem and my hope is now, as you see the biden administration talking up democracy, that we will follow through with our actions. host: your book is called "the

dissent channel, american diplomacy in a dishonest age." why is it a dishonest age? guest: what i have seen in my experience inside the state department under different administrations, i have seen is talk a lot about our values and i have seen actions that do not support that. i go back to coups, you really see that pattern. we talk about the need to promote strong democracies, but leading with counterterrorism efforts across west africa, so our actions are not reinforcing democracy, they are reinforcing military leadership in the government. they are reinforcing weak institutions on the democratic side and strong security sectors. the are noty -- they are not

promoting inclusivity in these governments or real democracy. host: lines are open if you have a question or comment. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents and others, 202-748-8002. you are with the chicago council on global affairs, what does that organization do? guest: it is one of a number of organizations that was established about 100 years ago in response to isolationism in the u.s. the chicago council on global affairs pushes for the idea of greater american public engagement in what we are doing around the world, ensuring that we are finding ways to communicate to the american people why we need engagement across the world. host: there is a story this morning saying that the eu is trying to tempt africa away from

chinese influence and has pledged $150 billion for major products -- projects in africa. white is it important -- why is it important that the european union be part of this as well, t o partner with american diplomacy? guest: it is interesting to look at this, either through the lens of great power competition, which is what you are referring to -- we should be competing with china across africa. i feel like that is a distraction. we should be partnering with countries or organizations like the european union, working in places like africa to laid the groundwork for a better democracy and more stability. but not because it is competing with china, we should do so because it is in our national interest and in the interest of other democracies around the world to have more places that we can work with, places where we can have a place to trade

with. the european union, which shares our values and interests, should be working with us. i fear we should be doing less of the competition with china and more focusing on wet these countries need in order to be thriving democracies and be good partners with us on the international stage. host: as a diplomat, you served in poland. we asked of yours yesterday about how should the u.s. support democracy in ukraine? obviously, poland is a site where a lot of troops are going to, part of the nato deployment. what is your view of the potential diplomatic solution in this controversy or crisis? guest: i have been interested to watch the way that the biden administration and eu allies have been working together to prevent war and an invasion of ukraine.

it's been a testament to the foreign policy approach of this administration that they have, president biden said at the beginning of his administration that he would reinvigorate our partnership with allies, he would lead with diplomacy and use military intervention as a tool of last resort and only in the interest of our critical national security interests. i think that this crisis is being exemplary at that. look at what we have done, heavy diplomatic lifting with our partners and allies. and i will not make predictions, but it seems to have delayed what we might have seen in terms of an invasion. hopefully by sending troops to nato countries, but going short of sending them into ukraine, we are able to walk that fine line of sticking with our allies and standing up for democracy but without getting into a war. host: we have calls, but first a

question from matt on twitter, who brings it home -- "what does she believe american citizens can do to strengthen democracy in the u.s.?" guest: wonderful question. democracy is not a spectator sport. in the united states, part of the due trend -- part of the trend of declining democracy, we are not above it. everybody has a role to play. so the informed citizens, know what your representatives at the local, state and national level are supporting, and make sure that they hear from you. i worked in offices where we get questions that come through congressional lines, constituents calling representatives and asking questions, and at do with foreign policy. so be an active member of this democracy. call your representatives and

question if they are doing things that are democratic. host: one click article from the new york times about another part of the world, "far from ukraine, putin steps up russia's wooing of latin america." they write that putin in recent weeks has also been trying to expand russia's influence thousands of miles away in latin america. he spoke to david ortega, nicaragua's president, for the first time since 2014. he hosted the president of jin tina -- of argentina and about t -- vowed to reduce the country's reliance on the united states. guest: it is telling the arrivals and the world are reaching out to have strong influence around the world. we are looking at this from an american perspective and you see

putin is trying to influence places you would consider is in our hemisphere and a sphere of influence, but to me that is a reminder for anyone who things the united states were be stronger by focusing just internally that are arrivals, including china, are looking at diplomatic engagements. and a reminder to me that we need to make sure that we are out there building relationships and reinforcing relationships around the world. people may not understand what relationships with smaller countries that might not have a direct impact on the u.s. have to do with them, but this goes to everything inside the united nations, to simply who are trading partners and countries we can rely on. especially if there is an american citizen and trouble in a different country. other countries understand the need to build relationships and have strong partnerships across the world. host: we will hear first from nikki in new jersey on the independent line. caller: actually, that's new

york. host: my fault. caller: you are a bad guy now. [laughter] listen, i have a question about mike pompeo, his support for maria eve on of it, the former ukraine ambassador who was sorely lacking. the question i have for you, do you believe that there was the first bloodless american coup attempted by donald trump and his cronies? the evidence seems to me that it's point being that way, and you cannot have a coup by just donald trump, there are many that the truth will show have been involved in trying to overthrew this government. i would like to hear your comments on those two things.

guest: i think you raised a good point, which is in a thriving democracy, a social democracy with the rule of law, individuals cannot overthrew the government. it would require the support of a a lot of different people. it also requires oversight, not just from the government, but also from our own citizenry that we push back on anything that undermines our democracy. it is not just a matter of what we saw with the insurrection, but also looking at legal changes making it harder to vote across the country. there are different people and institutions involved right now in trying to change the nature of our democracy and it is important to stand up and pushback. it takes a long time to build a healthy democracy, but it does not take a very long time, if we are not vigilant, to tear one down. it is important we understand the threat to democracy is

worldwide and we need to make sure that we are calling out our representatives on things that help our healthy democracy thrive and be an active participant for democracy. host: irene from houston on the republican line. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i just have some -- from, well for the guest is active in chicago and at the state department. i was having some thoughts, after i heard the former secretary of state mike pompeo on his response to president biden's speech on the russia-ukraine matter. and i thought, i felt so sad.

almost to tears. i began to think, who are these people who voted for president biden? he is such a weak man. surely, all these 85 million voters are so weak and confused to not elect a man who is intelligent who can lead america, especially when we have so many americans who are truly intelligent, truthful and devoted. that cannot be the best of the best to lead. host: focusing on the ukraine crisis, how do you think the president is leading? guest: sometimes it's harder to see or understand the importance of taking these slower, quieter

steps. diplomacy is a tool that the prior administration did not use particularly effectively. i'm not just talking about setting up a meeting with a counterpart you do not know, diplomacy is the long game. and what we are doing now, what the u.s. government has been working on with our nato allies, it may not be gratifying to see because we are not plunging noses or dropping bombs, but what we are doing with our allies is taking a multifaceted approach. it is harder to see from the outside how much work is being done to address the crisis, but i feel like one thing we have seen over the past 20 years with the war on terror is we cannot bomb our way through, we cannot use hard powered tools to get what we want, so i believe that

the approach of by the biden administration and allies has been deliberate, thoughtful. and i think it has been the right approach so far, and we are reinforcing our nato allies, we have been, you know, signaling that we will use other tools, economic tools, which are very powerful. and we have been continuing diplomatic talks. it may not be as fulfilling to see, as gratifying because it does not seem tough, but the truth is this is the better path to trying to achieve what we are trying to do in the ukraine crisis. host: john in columbus ohio -- in columbus, ohio. caller: good morning. i want to go back to what she said earlier in the conversation about the african nations. as an american, as an african-american, i work around a lot of africans. the eu is a: eyes asian company, ok? africans -- is a colonization

company, ok? in africa, what are we going to do their? african governments are corrupt. they do not care about none of those people. we are going to go over there and do the same thing china is doing. china is building way more stuff over there, hi rails, roads, everything. i'm thinking, what are we going to do? they already have lock and barrel over there. you cannot deal with corrupt people who do not care about their own. they live in the worst conditions. while the cops live in the richest places. the go to europe to their masters, and they are like, we do not care about those blows on those we keep getting our money. host: his assessment of what is

happening in africa, what are your thoughts? guest: my initial reaction is to say that the continent of africa has many countries, some of them far more functional than others and at some have greater protection of human rights than others do, but i certainly see the point. when you look at china's engagement on the continent, for example, you see a complete lack of interest in how they are treating the populations, but an interest in buying support in organizations like the un and able to have a footprint on the continent. the u.s. has influence on the continent as well, but the question is how are we engaging and are we engaging in a way to create more stable and just countries, or are we engaging in a way that undermines that progress. i have to add, yes, it is a generational change in terms of the type of governments you can have there, you cannot build a

democracy overnight, we have learned that. but what the u.s. can do, and what we should be doing more of in africa, is finding ways to reinforce good actors. finding ways to help human rights defenders and civil society organizations. in sudan, you have an inspiring civilian pushback against the military government there. these are people that want democracy and who are giving their lives for democracy and we need to find ways to support them, rather than supporting a strong man in part because it might give us a short-term stability. we have a complicated relationship with different countries on the continent and my hope is we will be shifting more towards questioning the strongmen who are hurting their people, and really trying to reinforce democratic progress there.but it is not something we can do

overnight. it will take a long time and we will have to accept the limitations of our influence. host: kent and wisconsin, good morning. caller: i'm taking elizabeth's advice and writing letters to editors. in order for diplomacy tort america, must see itself as -- we could be looked at as a country that sees itself as god's gift to the universe. a country controlling 7000 places around the world, that spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined. and the world was held hostage by a nuclear arms race, not by a country that concludes diplomacy by a threat of using any means necessary. the u.s. dropped an atomic bomb and has 4000 warheads on a hair trigger. it is controlled by a short-term, dysfunctional political system and is unpredictable and a self-serving with a history of by any means

necessary. what if russia made a deal with mexico to install military bases and nuclear weapons, how would we react? not to say there are not bad players out there, but diplomacy can work with more insight. the military-industrial complex is driving our foreign policy, military solutions are not working and are a recent to the bottom -- race to the bottom. host: elizabeth? guest: thank you for your bringing up the hundreds of bases we have around the world in the military-industrial complex. i would like to reinforce your point that diplomacy has a lot less likelihood that accidentally create havoc. it's less costly, less costly to other countries, and i support the idea we should be leading without more and reigning in our decision to lead with the military.

this administration has said that they will leave it to diplomacy and we all need to do our part to hold them to that, if you agree with that perspective. host: two questions, first from joseph who asks "why were you so reluctant to share all of your insight with the new president trump?" lee asks, "under the trump administration the state department was decimated. how long will it take to restore it?" guest: both are good questions. i lasted about a year under the trump administration and did everything i could to influence what we were doing. what i found then, which was different from my experience under the prior administration, was i did not feel as though the leadership or the white house was listening to our career diplomats and folks out in the field, leading our diplomacy from countries around the world. that was different.

i will be honest, i spent a lot of time under the obama administration sharing my views that were rejected frequently. it is not just a matter of leaving when you feel like your views are not being accepted. for me it was more a matter of i felt we did not have the same, my views of what we should be doing in the world to support national security was different from what i felt the leadership at the state department, at the time, was pursuing. so that was the challenge for me, and why i decided to leave at the time i felt i was no longer able to do more good than harm in my position, which was the time that we send a u.s. mission to somalia. the state department took a lot of hits under the trump administration. right now we are watching efforts to rebuild it. you had a lot of career personnel who stayed the course, and i am very grateful for that

and we all should be because they were ready to forge ahead with important diplomacy during this administration. that said, we still need a much more robust state department than we have. our military budget out prices are state department by many zeros. in fact, the budget for lockheed martin alone exceeds the size of our state department and development budget, so how are we supposed to lead with the things that are not military power if we are not empowering the ones who have those other tools at their disposal? now we have had some improvements, some improvements in morale, but it has not gone far enough yet. if you care about these issues, again, reach out to elected officials. host: her book is called "the dissent channel, american diplomacy in a dishonest age." we are talking about the u.s.'s

role in assisting democracies worldwide. 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats, 202-748-8000. all others, 202-748-8002. on the independent line, monty in georgia. caller: thank you for allowing me to speak. and i had to hold for a a while. how are you today? guest: very well. caller: my comment is that -- americans call in every day, we listen to c-span, and it is a blessing to be able to make comments like these. i agree with the guy about the military industrial complex. the u.s. military is pretty much the arm of the elite. people who are more educated to

the true things going on in the world, they know when we speak of africa or bringing democracy to these different countries, we shake our fist at china and talk about china in the media so bad, but when you look at any product that's bought in walmart or any store, look at it and it is made by china. so, where's the leverage that the united states and this democracy that we bring -- the military and democracy, they work together. anybody that has any type of sense of true events going on the way that you use socialism and communism and democracy, those things all work together. and anybody who has a brain, they will realize that even in

the situation with russia, we have talked about russia and they are doing military exercises on their own border and we have -- like the gentleman said about mexico, if china tries to put weapons in mexico, the american people would have a fit. but now we are worried about what is going on with russians. the people that this debate or agreement is about in trying to make this country a part of nato, which is on the border of russia. so that is my comment. host: go ahead. guest: he brings applicable interesting points. i will try to hit a couple. you mentioned the military is working together with all of the other tools in our efforts to

bill democracy, and you are right -- build democracy, and you are right. i worked with them when i was in the state department and we are grateful to have a very powerful and exemplary military around the world. when i talk about the need to lead with diplomacy, it is not about saying that the state department is better or these tools are better, it's to say to respect the service of our military members we should really seek to use them only when we need to, only put them in harm's way when it is essential for national security. in somalia, when i served, because we could not go out and do our job as diplomats, military colleagues were stuck picking up the slack there. i would speak to them and they wished we had the security we needed to go out and do diplomacy because when we could not do that, they were stuck

answering thsoe questions across the country. these are essential for our foreign policy. and they need to be appropriately out there. getting to ukraine and russia. i understand the comparisons to , well, what about the spheres of influence. to start with, ukraine is not on the verge of joining nato by any stretch. that's been talked about by the leadership in the eu. the challenge is we do not want to appease the russians by saying, ok, since you do not want ukraine to join nato we will not do that. i do not think that russia is thinking that ukraine will join nato anytime soon, the challenge is ukraine is a thriving democracy right now. the people of ukraine have chosen that. in 2014, this was evident when

there was a decision point for ukraine to go more in lay direction of russia or to western europe. it is not that the u.s. thinks ukraine should be a democracy, it is the u.s. wants to defend the choice of the ukrainian people to have a say in their government and it checks on their leadership. it is in our interest, this goes back to what i said, we will not develop democracies by guns and bombs. we will not kill our way to democracy. but when you have a country like ukraine that has made such dramatic steps towards becoming a thriving democracy, it is in our national security interest to help them maintain that independence and ability to have a government that is responsive to their people. that interest of ours and of the eu is tempered by the fact it is not in our interest to get into a war over ukraine with

russia. so that is where you have to see the layers in how we engage to promote that democracy. this falls short of us moving troops into ukraine, but it does mean we will use the tools we have to prevent a war. host: do you miss serving overseas? can you see yourself in a diplomatic role in the future? guest: i miss the service of it. there is nothing like representing the u.s. and achieving good things overseas. i am not sure what the future holds, but right now i am enjoying the opportunity to speak to americans about how important it is. host: on the independent line, a caller from new york. go ahead. caller: good morning. hi, good morning. i apologize for not listening for the last hour. i came at the top of this hour.

i was quite taken by the caption there, u.s. helping democracies around the world. here in america, we are at a crossroads right now. and i do believe that the republican party, that they do not believe or abide by democracy. the constitution over the rule of law. if a republican becomes president, i believe that democracy will in fact die here in america. we have a president and a lot of republicans that tried to, on january 6 at the capitol, tried to overturn a free and fair election. and i hope americans understand

the relevance of what may occur here in the near future. but i am getting way too far away. i want to hear your stance on democracy here in america. there are different types of democracies, but we will never have a democracy if we are divided. and we are divided by the republican party not abiding by -- a big dereliction of duty on their part to defend the constitution and rule of law. host: we touched on that earlier. if you want to say more, go ahead. guest: democracy is necessarily nothing, there will always be divisions in the people having a voice. that's not to say that democracy is not the best form of government. i believe it is. but here in the united states we

still have to make the case for that. right now, you have countries like china who are looking out, trying to use the january six events and the messiness of our political system to say, look at that, democracy is not reliable or functional. it is up to us to demonstrate that it is because the alternative, autocracy, is cannot a place where any of us want to live under. i said it before, democracy is not a spectator sport. we need to make sure not only that we are talking to a representatives, but talk to your friends and family about it. have these discussions into make sure that people around you understand the stakes and that we are not immune to the undermining of democracy that we are seeing around the world right now. it is essential that we continue to work for democracy here at home. host: in maryland, caller on the democrats line. caller: good morning.

i will ask you about the previous caller, as he rightly said we cannot have democracy with division. there needs to be -- we need some kind of understanding or agreement between different parties, and there still needs to be a common ground for us to have democracy. the same thing with other countries, also. i wanted to make a couple comments. the first will be a,, the second a question -- comment, the second question. either in european nations or in the united states, when we talk about other countries in africa or asian countries to have democracy, what we always do is trying to impose the western

model of democracy into values on those indigenous societies. instead, we should empower them and they should decide what values they want to live by in their indigenous culture, and not the imposing of the western values on them. and the second point, this is kind of a question, that we have seen -- you earlier talked about civil society. i'm from india. i was born there, then i came to the united states as a kid. but what i have seen is that the framework of a civil society, we've seen tons of money being sent from europe or the u.s. to those nations, like india. we send billions of dollars from

here to u.s. aid or to many other organizations, but they engage in lose nations with those parties that have disagreements with values. and instead of supporting the cause, they are always opposing the civilization of those indigenous societies, and then they break the nation. what do you say about that? guest: i think you bring up an interesting point about the different types of democracies or different ranges of democracy we can have. when i was in somalia, i worked with counterparts in that government talking about how to rewrite their constitution. and i remember people saying, we will adopt a form like the united states, and i was like, are you sure? every country needs to look, and

every civil society needs to look at the particulars of their place. you have ethnic divisions that have to be addressed when you are building up a representative democracy that will ensure the rights of everyone. it is important to look at the different scenarios and tailor what you are doing in building a healthy democracy to the reality of that situation. in terms of support around the world in different manners, it is absolutely right that we need to find a way to have the support we provide through usaid and other efforts to other countries to not undermine civilians in those countries and the people who are fighting for rights, particularly for minority groups and others who are underrepresented. i think these are important things to factor in, both as we work towards helping democracies around the world and even here at home. host: one more call.

roger in north carolina. good morning. caller: having watched the foreign policy of the past seven years, i've noticed that in some cases it seems at the state department and the intelligence community, at least on the surface, need to be working with one another. the state department being more idealistic. and the intelligence community more pragmatic, you deal with what you have. considering that and how in some countries our policies have failed, like iran, and in his eye year -- what do you think is a practical way to deal with the area but dominated countries where the strongman is the primary mode of thinking? guest: it is a good question.

i think we have proven in the past at that we have managed these situations poorly. the first thing we need to do in our foreign policy is reassess what our national security interests are in these places, and then determine what realistic goals do we have. we are not going to turn all these countries into democracies overnight, and that is neither in our interest to do are really feasible. managing our expectations and focusing on not doing harm to our national interests. ensuring our short-term concerns , like stability in the middle east, do not undermine our long-term interest in promoting greater rule of law around the world. sometimes that means we will need to accept instability in places because the alternative, as we have shown in the past, particular with the war on terror, i when we try to force

stability it can backfire on us. the war on terror is a great example because if you look at the number of terrorist organizations and active terrorist movements. 20 years ago, they were dramatically fewer than today, so i do not think we have had success in that matter. but what we need to focus on is looking at long-term views of how we push our national security interests. because we are a democracy and we work on four year administrations, that is really hard to do. getting back to the state department being ideal -- i think the state department is a lot less idealistic than people think on the outside and is much more driven by inertia and what we have done in the past. so to be able to question our assumptions and go and time back what we are deciding based on what our national security interests are.

and we need to be doing that on the intelligence side as well. but i think there is a different nature with the state apartment, intelligent and the military and of the tug-of-war you get between the different perspectives is a healthy thing. we just need to make sure that the balance is invested for our interests. right now, i feel like we are still in a stage where the military kind of outweighs a lot of the other tools that we have. i think that that is changing a little bit under this administration, the. it is hard -- though. it is hard. it is bringing those decisions back to how is this surveying the american people. host: we have been speaking with former diplomat elizabeth shackelford, now with the chicago council on global affairs.

>> the state of the union address on tuesday, march 1 at 8:00 eastern on c-span, c-span.org or the c-span now video app. >> coming up next, a subcommittee hearing looking at engagement. it is about one hour. >> the subcommittee on international development, organizations and corporate social impact will come to order. good afternoon, everyone. goals, priorities and successes. without objection, the chair has authorized the committee at any point and all members will have five days to submit statements and questions for the record. to put something on re