Latest / Diplomacy and International Relations / Global Democracy under Pressure and Civil Society

Transcript

Global Democracy under Pressure and Civil Society · Diplomacy and International Relations

• 0:00
  Welcome. Welcome back to the Deep Dive.
• 0:02
  You're tuning into a special bonus deep dive today, part of
• 0:05
  the series Diplomacy and International Relations by
• 0:08
  Bastian Freiburg. Great to be here.
• 0:10
  Today, we're tackling a topic that really sits at the core of
• 0:15
  how nations, including nations like Denmark, engage with the
• 0:18
  world. It's that critical and often
• 0:21
  challenging intersection of civil society, international
• 0:24
  diplomacy, and the, well, the global push for democratic
• 0:28
  governance. It's a field just brimming with
• 0:31
  complexity, isn't it? Our mission today for you is
• 0:33
  really to try and peel back some of those layers, right?
• 0:36
  And truly understand how these civil society organizations, CS
• 0:40
  OS how they act as these vital engines of change.
• 0:43
  Yeah, agents of change. We'll explore the often quiet
• 0:47
  but incredibly powerful ways diplomatic visions support them.
• 0:50
  Or sometimes struggle to support them I imagine.
• 0:52
  Exactly. And we'll definitely delve into
• 0:54
  the intricate and, you know, often perilous political
• 0:57
  landscapes they have to navigate.
• 0:59
  Absolutely, and this deep dive will trace the evolution of
• 1:03
  civil society itself, looking at how our understanding has
• 1:06
  broadened overtime. It hasn't always been seen the
• 1:08
  same way. No Devra.
• 1:10
  And I we'll unpack the maybe surprising tools diplomats
• 1:13
  actually have in their arsenal to champion democracy on the
• 1:16
  ground. The tool kit.
• 1:18
  And we'll have to confront the very real, very pressing
• 1:21
  challenges of, well, shrinking civic space around the world.
• 1:25
  It's a worrying trend. It really is.
• 1:28
  We've compiled a truly insightful collection of sources
• 1:31
  for this. We've got a foundational UNDP
• 1:33
  resource guide, some sharp analysis of civic space in
• 1:36
  places like Southeast Asia. OK, that a pretty comprehensive
• 1:39
  handbook for democracy development support that draws
• 1:42
  on case studies from, well, practically every corner of the
• 1:45
  globe. So prepare yourself, then, for a
• 1:47
  journey that's designed to be hopefully enlightening.
• 1:50
  You'll uncover some surprising facts, maybe hear some
• 1:52
  compelling anecdotes that really bring this to life, and
• 1:55
  hopefully gain a much clearer, more nuanced understanding of
• 1:58
  the forces shaping democratic aspirations globally.
• 2:01
  Our aim really is to give you a kind of shortcut to being well
• 2:07
  informed about the how and why behind these international
• 2:12
  efforts to foster open societies.
• 2:14
  It's about seeing those threads, isn't it, Connecting global
• 2:17
  policy directly to what's happening on the ground with
• 2:20
  grassroots activism. Uncisely seeing that connection.
• 2:23
  All right, let's unpack this then, starting right at the
• 2:26
  beginning, the fundamental, vital role of civil society in
• 2:30
  global governance. The Foundation.
• 2:32
  Exactly. Now historically for a long
• 2:34
  time, donors, even forward thinking ones, you know, like
• 2:38
  Denmark's Danida, they tended to have a pretty narrow view of
• 2:41
  civil society, right? Often equating it almost
• 2:44
  exclusively with non governmental organizations,
• 2:46
  NGO's. It was a useful shorthand baby,
• 2:49
  but it really missed a lot of the picture, didn't it?
• 2:51
  It did indeed. That historical perspective was
• 2:54
  quite limited. But what's fascinating is this
• 2:56
  significant shift, and a much needed one that's occurred over
• 2:59
  time. OK, we've moved towards a far
• 3:01
  broader, more inclusive definition of civil society.
• 3:04
  It's much wider now. What does that include now?
• 3:07
  Well, this expanded view embraces a much richer tapestry
• 3:11
  of organizations. You've got community based
• 3:13
  organizations, CB OS which are deeply embedded in local life.
• 3:17
  Right, the grassroots stuff. Exactly.
• 3:20
  Then faith-based groups, huge networks there, labor unions
• 3:23
  advocating for workers rights, even in formal institutions,
• 3:27
  which often operate sort of beneath the official radar but
• 3:30
  can be incredibly impactful. OK, so not just the formally
• 3:33
  registered. Groups, no.
• 3:34
  And divorce networks too, that just don't fit that traditional
• 3:37
  NGO mold. This evolution understanding is,
• 3:40
  for example, very clearly articulated in the 2008 Danish
• 3:44
  Strategy for Support to Civil Society in Developing countries.
• 3:48
  That's a key document in Danish foreign policy.
• 3:50
  And what's truly powerful about this broaden definition, I
• 3:54
  think, is that it's not just some academic exercise, right?
• 3:56
  Not at all. It's a recognition of something
• 3:58
  fundamental, the inherent right of citizens to participate in a
• 4:02
  democratic state. Yes, it acknowledges that civil
• 4:05
  society isn't just a collection of organizations, but it's a
• 4:08
  vibrant space. That's a great way to put it, a
• 4:10
  space. Where people can collectively
• 4:12
  organize, express their views and crucially, hold power to
• 4:16
  account. This is where it gets a really
• 4:18
  interesting for international politics and democratic
• 4:20
  development. Exactly.
• 4:21
  And that recognition, it's been a game changer really.
• 4:24
  It's propelled CS OS into being seen as essential development
• 4:28
  partners, right? Take the UNDP for instance.
• 4:32
  Their strategic plans, their global strategies over the past,
• 4:36
  say, decade or so, have consistently prioritized
• 4:39
  inclusive participation and the building of responsive state
• 4:43
  institutions. They've put a strong emphasis on
• 4:46
  practical support for what they call social accountability
• 4:50
  mechanisms. Social accountability
• 4:52
  mechanisms. OK, that sounds a bit technical.
• 4:53
  Can you give us a concrete example?
• 4:55
  What does that actually mean in practice?
• 4:56
  Yeah, sure. Think of it like this.
• 4:58
  These are the tools and processes that empower citizens
• 5:01
  and Csos to directly engage with state officials.
• 5:05
  OK, so it could be a community group tracking how local tax
• 5:08
  money is actually spent. Right following the money.
• 5:11
  Or citizens using, say, scorecards to evaluate the
• 5:14
  quality of public services they receive.
• 5:16
  Like health clinics or schools? Exactly.
• 5:19
  Or even holding public officials directly accountable for service
• 5:23
  delivery failures. It's about creating channels for
• 5:27
  a genuine two way dialogue between citizens and their
• 5:30
  government. Pushing for more responsive
• 5:32
  governance from within public institutions.
• 5:35
  Precisely from the inside out, sometimes.
• 5:37
  So it's about building a system where citizens have a real voice
• 5:41
  and a way to engage, not just about, you know, delivering aid
• 5:45
  packages. Exactly.
• 5:46
  It goes beyond simple aid delivery.
• 5:48
  And that sounds strategically vital, particularly in countries
• 5:51
  where governments might be, well, let's say, less
• 5:53
  enthusiastic about undertaking fundamental governance reform
• 5:56
  themselves. Reluctant partners, perhaps?
• 5:59
  If the government isn't keen on reform, CS OS become the crucial
• 6:02
  workaround, don't they? A way to foster change from the
• 6:04
  bottom up. Precisely.
• 6:06
  Donors increasingly recognize CS OS as a vital element of their
• 6:10
  strategies in those kinds of challenging contexts.
• 6:13
  Makes sense? And beyond their strategic
• 6:15
  importance, developing country CS OS are highly valued as
• 6:19
  competent direct partners. They offer unique local
• 6:22
  implementation options. They know the local context.
• 6:25
  Exactly. They possess insights into local
• 6:27
  political relations and issues in a way external agencies often
• 6:31
  just cannot match. They have that indispensable, on
• 6:34
  the ground knowledge and, crucially, trust within
• 6:37
  communities. But you mentioned a nuance
• 6:40
  earlier. Yes, it's worth noting that
• 6:43
  while civil society is generally perceived as a force for good,
• 6:47
  there's a growing awareness, A realism perhaps, that it's not
• 6:51
  always the exclusive bearer of all good things.
• 6:55
  Like any segment of society, it can have its own complexities.
• 6:57
  Internal politics, sometimes even challenges, are less savory
• 7:01
  aspects. It's a crucial nuance to keep in
• 7:03
  mind, yeah. Now let's talk about the how how
• 7:06
  do donors actually engage and fund these CS OS?
• 7:10
  Because like you said, it's clearly not just about writing a
• 7:12
  check. No.
• 7:13
  Our sources detail a sort of dual approach.
• 7:15
  Direct support, yes, but also fostering an and enabling
• 7:17
  environment. Tell us more about that.
• 7:19
  Yes, it's very much A2 prong strategy, direct support.
• 7:22
  That's the more traditional stuff, funding for specific
• 7:25
  projects, providing capacity building through training and
• 7:28
  technical assistance, maybe offering strategic advice.
• 7:30
  But just as crucial, maybe even more so in the long run, is that
• 7:33
  indirect support that focuses on cultivating and enabling
• 7:37
  environment for civil society to actually thrive.
• 7:40
  So creating the right conditions.
• 7:41
  Exactly. This means advocating for and
• 7:44
  helping establish adequate legislative and regular Tory
• 7:47
  frameworks, laws that allow CS OS to operate freely, to
• 7:51
  register easily, to receive funding, to speak out without
• 7:54
  fear. The UNDP, for example, has been
• 7:57
  particularly active in this field.
• 7:59
  They recognize that a supportive legal and political landscape is
• 8:02
  just as important as direct financial aid.
• 8:05
  It's about cultivating the ground, so to speak, for civil
• 8:08
  society to grow organically and sustainably.
• 8:11
  And when it comes to the funding itself, the direct support part,
• 8:14
  our sources highlight several key mechanisms.
• 8:17
  Each seems to have its own pros and cons.
• 8:19
  Pooled funding, for instance, seems to be growing in
• 8:22
  popularity. What's the appeal there?
• 8:24
  Pooled funding is increasingly common, yeah, and it offers
• 8:27
  several distinct advantages, which is why donors like it.
• 8:30
  OK, like what? Well, generally it leads to
• 8:32
  better governance structures for the fund itself.
• 8:35
  It's significantly enhances donor coordination, which is a
• 8:39
  big deal, reducing the risk of duplication when you have
• 8:42
  multiple donors tripping over each other in the same space.
• 8:45
  Right, less fragmentation. And it provides higher
• 8:47
  predictability in funding, which is great for CS OS trying to
• 8:51
  plan. Perhaps most importantly, it
• 8:54
  creates a critical mass of resources.
• 8:57
  A bigger pot of money can be far more impactful than lots of
• 9:00
  small, fragmented individual grants.
• 9:03
  Makes sense, but you said pros and cons.
• 9:05
  What are the risks? Well, it's not without its
• 9:08
  risks. Pooled funds can have quite high
• 9:11
  initial setup and management costs.
• 9:14
  Getting them going takes effort and money.
• 9:15
  Bureaucracy. A bit, yeah.
• 9:17
  And sometimes their lifespan might be too limited.
• 9:19
  You know, they get set up for three or five years, but really
• 9:22
  strengthening organizations takes longer than that.
• 9:24
  So that can be a real drawback for sustained capacity building.
• 9:27
  It sounds like a bit of a double edged sword then predictability,
• 9:30
  but maybe not longevity. It can be, yeah.
• 9:32
  And what about intermediary agents?
• 9:34
  Our sources mention them as managing a lot of these
• 9:37
  bilateral and joint funding schemes.
• 9:39
  How does that work? Intermediary agents are quite
• 9:42
  prevalent, yes. Sometimes independent management
• 9:45
  bodies are established specifically for a fund, OK, but
• 9:48
  their ownership and legal status can sometimes be rather obscure.
• 9:53
  Which, you know, raises questions about transparency and
• 9:55
  accountability. Who are they really answerable
• 9:57
  to? Good question.
• 9:59
  International Ng OS or Ng OS have also played this
• 10:02
  intermediary role quite often, but according to the surveys in
• 10:06
  our sources, the experience with this arrangement hasn't been
• 10:09
  consistently positive across the board.
• 10:12
  Mixed results, let's say. Interesting.
• 10:14
  What's particularly interesting, though, is that multilateral
• 10:16
  organizations like the UNDP administer only a relatively
• 10:20
  small percentage of these funds, maybe around 7.5%.
• 10:23
  That's quite low. It is, but the sources say with
• 10:27
  fairly good results, which suggests there might be a solid
• 10:29
  basis for expanding their role in this area, perhaps because of
• 10:33
  the established transparency and accountability frameworks they
• 10:36
  often bring. That's a key insight right
• 10:38
  there. Maybe an underutilized channel,
• 10:40
  but then there's the challenge of monitoring an impact if
• 10:44
  you're providing broad programmatic support or core
• 10:48
  funding. Right.
• 10:49
  Not just project funding. Exactly how do you track what's
• 10:52
  actually working? It must be incredibly tough to
• 10:54
  show tangible results sometimes, especially in governance work.
• 10:57
  That's a significant hurdle, absolutely, and you've hit on a
• 11:00
  core tension and development aid.
• 11:03
  Broad programmatic or core support definitely increases the
• 11:07
  need for more advanced, maybe more nuanced, monitoring and
• 11:10
  impact documentation tools. Attribution, figuring out
• 11:14
  exactly what caused a particular outcome, and documenting results
• 11:18
  are particular problems in the complex field of governance.
• 11:21
  Outcomes are often diffuse, they take a long time to manifest,
• 11:24
  and they're not easily quantifiable.
• 11:26
  How do you measure more democracy?
• 11:28
  Right. It's not like counting vaccines.
• 11:30
  Exactly. Methodological developments and
• 11:32
  democratic governance have been limited, frankly making it hard
• 11:35
  to precisely measure the impact of aid in this area.
• 11:37
  And the irony is? Well, ironically, this intense
• 11:40
  focus on measuring immediate quantifiable aid impact, which
• 11:44
  is very prevalent in many donor countries.
• 11:47
  The demand for results. It can actually hamper the
• 11:49
  expanded use of these more flexible, broader funding modes,
• 11:53
  even if those most might be more effective in fostering long term
• 11:56
  sustainable change. So the drive for measurable
• 12:00
  results can sometimes undermine the very goals it's trying to
• 12:03
  achieve. That's quite the paradox.
• 12:05
  It is a real challenge for donors and CS OS alike.
• 12:09
  But let's look at some concrete examples of donor engagement.
• 12:12
  The UNDP has some interesting initiatives that illustrate this
• 12:15
  direct support in action. Absolutely.
• 12:17
  Take the UNDP development marketplace in Albania back in
• 12:21
  2011. This was quite creative.
• 12:23
  It supported projects like 1 called Monitoring Accessibility
• 12:27
  Index of Public Institutions, which was designed specifically
• 12:30
  to assess the transparency and accountability of local
• 12:32
  governments. Very direct.
• 12:34
  And another one was the budget allocation tracking system
• 12:36
  against corruption. Again, a very direct effort to
• 12:39
  combat graft at a local level. Practical tools.
• 12:42
  In Ghana. Then there's the UNDP Civil
• 12:44
  Society Fund in Ghana in 2009. This funded 6 different CS OS
• 12:50
  specifically for advocacy work around oil exploration, a huge
• 12:54
  issue there at the time, including Kite.
• 12:56
  That's the Kumasi Institute of Technology and Environment,
• 12:59
  which ran a project to build capacity for journalists,
• 13:02
  parliamentarians and other CS OS to engage effectively on pro
• 13:06
  poor and sustainable oil and gas management.
• 13:09
  So empowering different actors to engage in that specific
• 13:12
  policy debate. Exactly.
• 13:13
  These examples show direct practical support for CS OS,
• 13:17
  influencing policy and public discourse in very tangible ways.
• 13:21
  And beyond the UNDP, what about other major players like
• 13:24
  regional development banks, Oregon, the European Commission?
• 13:27
  How do they engage? Right, the RDBS, the regional
• 13:29
  development banks, their engagement is almost exclusively
• 13:32
  through dialogue and consultation.
• 13:34
  Not so much direct funding. Less direct funding of CS OS,
• 13:37
  more consultation. Their involvement with civil
• 13:39
  society initially started quite reactively.
• 13:41
  Actually. It was largely driven by
• 13:43
  concerns raised about the social and environmental impact of the
• 13:46
  big infrastructure projects they were funding.
• 13:49
  So CS OS pushed them to engage. In many ways, yes.
• 13:53
  Over time, this is evolved into a more proactive, structured
• 13:56
  form where they regularly consult civil society groups on
• 14:00
  projects and broader policies, recognizing their expertise,
• 14:03
  especially on environmental and social issues.
• 14:06
  OK. And evolution there and the EC.
• 14:08
  The European Commission, on the other hand, has a specific
• 14:11
  thematic program called Non State Actors and Local
• 14:14
  Authorities in Development. Catch your name.
• 14:16
  Yes, but what it does is strengthen the capacities of non
• 14:19
  state actors and local authorities and it Co finances
• 14:23
  diverse actions. These are managed primarily by
• 14:26
  the EU delegations in the respective countries.
• 14:28
  OK. Decentralized management.
• 14:30
  Yes, and a crucial detail for how these funds can be
• 14:33
  structured, particularly relevant for Danish or other EU
• 14:36
  member state engagement, is that the EC can only contribute to
• 14:40
  pooled funds if they're managed by a member state agency, like
• 14:43
  Danita perhaps, or an international organization.
• 14:47
  They can't contribute if it's managed by a private entity.
• 14:50
  OK. That's an important structural
• 14:51
  point for joint funding. It is effects how partnerships
• 14:54
  can be set up. That's a really comprehensive
• 14:56
  overview of the funding landscape, but let's zoom in
• 14:59
  further now and talk about how specific countries approach
• 15:02
  donor support for civil society. This is particularly relevant, I
• 15:06
  think, for understanding international politics from a
• 15:09
  specific national perspective, like Denmark.
• 15:11
  'S absolutely. Let's quickly highlight a few
• 15:13
  distinct national approaches because they do vary quite a
• 15:16
  bit. Australia, for instance, through
• 15:18
  its Small Activity scheme, basically empowers resident all
• 15:21
  side officers on the ground to directly support projects that
• 15:26
  provide immediate benefits to those most in need.
• 15:29
  So very localized decision making.
• 15:31
  Very localized, yes. Focus on things like gender
• 15:34
  equality, children, disadvantaged groups, or
• 15:37
  environmental benefits. A model of sort of hyperlocal
• 15:39
  responsiveness. And Canada.
• 15:41
  Canada, meanwhile, often promotes a multi stakeholder
• 15:44
  approach. They frequently channel support
• 15:47
  through their own domestic Ng OS back home, who then partner with
• 15:50
  CS OS of Brad to get them involved in policy dialogue or
• 15:53
  support development initiatives. CEDA, their agency, had a
• 15:57
  dedicated civil society strategy in the past.
• 16:00
  OK. Using domestic NGOs as
• 16:02
  intermediaries and Speaking of national approaches, Denmark, as
• 16:06
  you mentioned, has a clear commitment to development
• 16:08
  through Denida. How does its strategy stand out?
• 16:11
  Well, Denmark's 2008 strategy for Danish support to civil
• 16:15
  society in developing countries is considered quite progressive,
• 16:19
  partly because of its broad definition of civil society,
• 16:22
  acknowledging everything from formal NGOs to informal
• 16:25
  networks. Reflecting that shift we talked
• 16:27
  about earlier. Exactly, and their 2007 dented A
• 16:30
  good governance strategy further recognizes civil society actors
• 16:34
  specifically for promoting basic rights, the right to organize,
• 16:37
  express views, formulate demands.
• 16:40
  OK. And how is the support
• 16:42
  delivered? A significant aspect of Danish
• 16:44
  international policy in this area is that the majority of
• 16:47
  Denmark support is actually channeled through Danish Ng OS.
• 16:50
  Similar to the Canadian model then?
• 16:52
  Similar in using domestic Ng OS. Yes, these Danish Ng OS are
• 16:55
  actively encouraged, even incentivized to collaborate with
• 16:58
  local CS OS. In developing countries.
• 17:01
  The focus is on partnership, capacity building, sometimes
• 17:04
  even supporting income generating activities for
• 17:06
  sustainability. So Denmark acts as a kind of
• 17:08
  bridge, channelling support through its own well established
• 17:12
  Ng OS to build capacity on the ground.
• 17:15
  That's a good way to describe it.
• 17:16
  It emphasizes partnership and local empowerment, which is
• 17:19
  often seen as a hallmark of Danish development engagement.
• 17:23
  It's interesting how different countries adopt these different
• 17:26
  models. Germany, for example, I
• 17:27
  understand, has quite a unique approach through its political
• 17:30
  foundations. Yes, Germany is quite distinct.
• 17:33
  They primarily channel support through their political
• 17:36
  foundations, known as the Stifto in.
• 17:38
  Right linked to the political parties.
• 17:39
  Exactly. These are independent
• 17:41
  institutions but affiliated with the main political parties.
• 17:44
  They essentially complement Germany's official foreign
• 17:47
  policy by fostering political awareness, building dialogue,
• 17:51
  civic education both in Germany and abroad.
• 17:54
  And churches play a role, too. Yes, churches are also
• 17:57
  significant players in the German context, both Catholic
• 17:59
  and Protestant. They have vast international
• 18:02
  networks and can mobilize civil society worldwide.
• 18:06
  They exert strategic influence, as seen with their important
• 18:09
  part in advocating for the heavily indebted Poor Countries,
• 18:13
  or HIPC to Debt Relief initiative back in 1999.
• 18:17
  It's a fascinating blend of political and religious
• 18:20
  institutional influence. Very different structure and
• 18:22
  quickly other countries, Ireland, Norway, UKUS.
• 18:27
  Sure, Ireland and Norway tend to focus on strengthening
• 18:30
  collective action and supporting marginalized groups, often
• 18:33
  emphasizing and enabling environment.
• 18:35
  The UK and US, as major global players, employ a really wide
• 18:39
  range of mechanisms their agencies like DfE, WAS, and USC.
• 18:43
  It is use everything from long term institutional support in
• 18:46
  country programs to trust funds and very rapid interventions in
• 18:49
  moments of political transition or crisis.
• 18:51
  Like USA's Office of Transition Initiatives, they have multiple
• 18:55
  offices and initiatives targeting different aspects of
• 18:57
  democracy and governance support.
• 18:58
  We have very diverse landscape of approaches then that gives us
• 19:01
  a really detailed picture of how civil society is engaged and
• 19:05
  funded internationally. Now let's shift gears and talk
• 19:09
  about the diplomatic arsenal, the specific tools that
• 19:12
  diplomats actually use on the ground to support democracy.
• 19:16
  This is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak.
• 19:18
  For those working in international politics
• 19:19
  day-to-day. What's the underlying rationale
• 19:23
  for this kind of democratic solidarity?
• 19:25
  Why do democracies do this? Well, the rationale is deeply
• 19:29
  rooted, I think, in a fundamental belief in the value
• 19:32
  of democratic governance itself. OK, Baklav Havel's journey, you
• 19:36
  know, famously from the prison cell straight into the
• 19:38
  presidential palace after Czech Lovakia's Velvet Revolution that
• 19:43
  vividly illustrates this. Yeah, an incredible story.
• 19:45
  He emphasized that in those revolutionary moments, formal
• 19:48
  diplomatic training often takes a backseat to improvisation,
• 19:51
  common sense, personal commitment and determination.
• 19:55
  These were paramount, he felt, more than any central machinery.
• 19:58
  And that rings true with what we saw maybe more recently during
• 20:01
  the Arab Spring, doesn't it? That really challenged a lot of
• 20:04
  old assumptions about certain regions being immune to
• 20:08
  democratic aspirations. It absolutely did.
• 20:11
  Tunisia's revolution in 2010, for example, showed that no
• 20:15
  region is immune to that aspiration for inclusive
• 20:18
  democratic governance. It shattered those old, frankly
• 20:22
  condescending assumptions that the Middle East and North Africa
• 20:25
  were somehow exceptional, somehow immune to political
• 20:27
  change. However, our sources are also
• 20:30
  quite sober here. They advise that getting rid of
• 20:33
  a dictator is often the easier part.
• 20:35
  Right, the fall of the statue is just the beginning.
• 20:37
  Exactly. The long, hard slog that
• 20:39
  follows, building inclusive institutions, nurturing a viable
• 20:43
  civil society, especially in diverse cultural or religious
• 20:46
  environments. That's the far more complex and
• 20:48
  daunting challenge, and it insists on sustained solidarity
• 20:52
  and direct support from the international community.
• 20:54
  It takes time. So it's not about an US against
• 20:56
  them mentality then, it's more about shared values and a belief
• 20:59
  in democracy as maybe the best vehicle we have for human
• 21:03
  progress. Precisely.
• 21:05
  The sources emphasize that democracies aren't engaged in
• 21:08
  some kind of US against them Cold War style divided world.
• 21:11
  They share a community of values, certainly, though
• 21:14
  they're definitely not a monolithic block with identical
• 21:16
  interests. It's encouraging, though, that
• 21:19
  the percentage of the world population living in what's
• 21:21
  classified as free countries has significantly increased from
• 21:25
  about 25% in 1992 to around 43% more recently, according to
• 21:30
  these sources. That's a positive trend despite
• 21:33
  recent backsliding. It is, and the core belief
• 21:36
  underpinning this diplomatic engagement is that democracy
• 21:39
  represents the best vehicle, however imperfect, for
• 21:42
  individual fulfillment and for social progress.
• 21:45
  And, perhaps optimistically, that the long arc of history is
• 21:48
  on its side. The hopeful view.
• 21:50
  Therefore, consistent diplomatic attention to change and
• 21:53
  supporting the legitimate aspirations of people everywhere
• 21:55
  to widen their democratic space is seen as absolutely key to
• 21:58
  long term investment. That's the why.
• 22:01
  But of course, there are always challenges and constraints for
• 22:04
  diplomats on the ground, especially when they're dealing
• 22:07
  with repressive regimes. It can't be easy to push for
• 22:10
  democracy in those environments. No, it's incredibly difficult.
• 22:13
  Authoritarian governments frequently view any responsive
• 22:16
  support to international or even domestic civil society as
• 22:20
  interference in their internal affairs.
• 22:23
  That's the standard line. Right sovereignty.
• 22:25
  Exactly. They may try to confine
• 22:28
  diplomatic activity strictly to official government, to
• 22:30
  government channels, withhold access to civil society figures,
• 22:34
  intimidate activists or embassy staff, or even expel diplomats.
• 22:38
  We've seen that happen. Yes, the sources mentioned
• 22:40
  examples like Iran in 2009 where UK embassy local staff were
• 22:45
  arrested, or Ambassador Harold Edelstam being expelled from
• 22:48
  Chile in 1973. It's a constant tightrope walk
• 22:51
  and sometimes diplomats fall off.
• 22:52
  And another constraint is the time frame, isn't it?
• 22:55
  Change takes time. Absolutely.
• 22:57
  The impact of diplomatic activity, especially in
• 22:59
  democracy support, may not be immediately apparent.
• 23:01
  It takes consistent, sustained effort over years, sometimes
• 23:05
  decades. Patience is crucial.
• 23:07
  But things can also change quickly.
• 23:09
  Yes, paradoxically, gains can also come swiftly.
• 23:13
  Repressive regimes, the sources suggest, tend to implode from
• 23:16
  within their foundations, rotting away beneath the
• 23:19
  seemingly solid surface. So diplomats need to be patient,
• 23:23
  but also ready to act when windows of opportunity open
• 23:25
  unexpectedly. So patience is a virtue, but you
• 23:29
  also have to be ready for rapid change, and I imagine local
• 23:32
  conditions make every situation unique.
• 23:34
  You can't just apply a standard playbook.
• 23:36
  Absolutely not. Local conditions vary wildly.
• 23:40
  Regimes react very differently to embassy connections with
• 23:43
  civil society or direct financial assistance, especially
• 23:46
  if it's going to advocacy groups seen as critical.
• 23:49
  Diplomatic practices must be carefully calibrated to suit
• 23:51
  different locales, different political cultures, all while
• 23:54
  trying to uphold universal human rights norms.
• 23:57
  It's a very fine line between effective support and
• 24:00
  counterproductive provocation that could endanger the very
• 24:03
  people you're trying to help. Sensitivity is key.
• 24:05
  Definitely, diplomats need to be sensitive to unique histories,
• 24:09
  current conditions, local values, ensuring that outside
• 24:13
  approaches don't inadvertently clash with, say, traditional
• 24:16
  religious societies, but still finding ways to advance
• 24:20
  essential issues like gender equality or minority rights.
• 24:23
  OK, let's get into the nitty gritty then.
• 24:25
  The diplomats actual toolkit. We've talked about funding CS OS
• 24:29
  broadly, but how do embassies specifically do this on the
• 24:33
  ground? Right direct support and funding
• 24:35
  from the embassy level. One key tool is establishing
• 24:38
  dedicated funds within embassies themselves.
• 24:41
  So bypassing some of the bigger aid bureaucracy.
• 24:43
  Potentially yes, making it quicker and more flexible.
• 24:46
  The Czech Republic for instance, established a Transformation
• 24:49
  policy unit and fund back in 2002.
• 24:51
  This specifically enabled their embassies to directly support
• 24:54
  small democratization projects, human rights initiatives,
• 24:57
  transition related activities, often without needing host
• 25:00
  government approval or even scrutiny, keeping it low key.
• 25:03
  Useful and sensitive environments.
• 25:05
  Very similarly, Sweden provides its embassies with specific pots
• 25:10
  of funding earmarked for democracy development support,
• 25:14
  and Canada back in the 1980s during apartheid created a large
• 25:18
  embassy administered fund in South Africa specifically for
• 25:22
  direct assistance to civil society, especially victims of
• 25:26
  apartheid. Leveraging that on the ground
• 25:28
  knowledge. Exactly leveraging the ability
• 25:30
  of diplomatic representatives who are right there to identify
• 25:33
  suitable partners and needs quickly.
• 25:35
  So it's really about getting resources directly to the people
• 25:38
  who need them quickly and without maybe a lot of the usual
• 25:41
  red tape. Exactly.
• 25:42
  Fast disbursement of funds is a key feature here, the sources
• 25:45
  mentioned. Czech, Slovak, Danish, Norwegian
• 25:48
  and Swedish embassy funds often operate this way, particularly
• 25:51
  in repressive societies. They offer quick, unencumbered
• 25:54
  support for often modest cash flow requirements, maybe for
• 25:57
  youth movements, independent media outlets needing urgent
• 26:00
  equipment, or immediate humanitarian needs like legal
• 26:03
  fees for activists. Sums that bigger programs might
• 26:06
  miss or be too slow for. Precisely this flexibility
• 26:10
  allows for rapid response to emergent needs which
• 26:13
  traditional, more bureaucratic aid channels might simply not
• 26:16
  permit in time. Beyond funding, though, how do
• 26:19
  diplomats use their unique position, their access to
• 26:22
  convene and connect diverse actors?
• 26:25
  That seems like a powerful, if less tangible tool.
• 26:27
  It's a crucial and often quite subtle aspect of their work.
• 26:31
  Diplomats can serve as trusted conveners, bringing together
• 26:34
  people who wouldn't ordinarily interact or who couldn't safely
• 26:37
  interact otherwise. Like bridging divides.
• 26:40
  Exactly. For instance, the sources
• 26:42
  mentioned Canadian Ambassador John Schramm in Zimbabwe.
• 26:45
  He used to encourage dialogue by hosting private dinners for
• 26:48
  leaders from government, business, academia, the media,
• 26:51
  people from different sides of the political fence, fostering
• 26:53
  networking and maybe some quiet brainstorming on solutions.
• 26:57
  Creating that safe space for conversation, yes.
• 27:00
  Embassies also connect scholars and think tanks.
• 27:02
  There's the famous story of Nelson Mandela after his
• 27:04
  release, requesting help from Canadian PM Moroney to build the
• 27:08
  AN CS economic competence. Embassies facilitate these kinds
• 27:12
  of connections between scholars, dissidents, think tanks.
• 27:15
  And connecting opposition figures internationally.
• 27:18
  That too. Embassies often act as crucial
• 27:21
  bridges for opposition figures, connecting them to NGOs,
• 27:24
  political figures, parliamentarians back in their
• 27:26
  home capitals. This was apparently vital during
• 27:29
  Ukraine's Orange Revolution crisis.
• 27:31
  Polish, US, French, German embassies helped Ukrainian
• 27:35
  opposition leaders make those connections.
• 27:37
  Travel programs for opposition leaders are another tool used in
• 27:40
  places like Ukraine or Cuba. Interesting, it sounds like
• 27:43
  public diplomacy and maybe controlling or influencing the
• 27:47
  flow of information are also really important tools in the
• 27:50
  diplomats kit, especially now in the digital age.
• 27:52
  They absolutely are. Public diplomacy has evolved
• 27:55
  significantly. Canada, for instance, adopted a
• 27:58
  direct diplomacy policy innovatively using social media
• 28:02
  platforms. Like Twitter or local
• 28:03
  equivalents? Exactly.
• 28:05
  On the Chinese platform Sino Weibo, Canadian Ambassador Mark
• 28:08
  McDowell apparently used it to demystify diplomacy, even
• 28:12
  inviting critical comments trying to engage directly.
• 28:14
  A bit risky perhaps. Maybe, but potentially high
• 28:18
  reward. A viral example mentioned is
• 28:21
  former Ambassador David Mulroney's modest Toyota Prius
• 28:24
  limousine being contrasted online with the grand limos of
• 28:29
  Chinese officials sending a subtle but powerful message
• 28:32
  about values. Symbolic diplomacy.
• 28:35
  Yes, U.S. Ambassador Michael Mcfaul also
• 28:38
  engaged in public diplomacy through blogging while he was in
• 28:41
  Russia, aiming to counter misunderstandings about US
• 28:44
  Russia relations using the digital space proactively.
• 28:48
  So using social media to connect directly with the public,
• 28:51
  bypassing traditional state controlled media gatekeepers?
• 28:55
  And what about situations where communications are actually
• 28:57
  blocked or prohibitively expensive?
• 28:59
  In those cases, embassies and cultural centers can provide
• 29:02
  absolutely crucial connections to the outside world.
• 29:05
  The American Cultural Center in Rangoon, for example, during
• 29:08
  repressive periods in Burma, Myanmar, played a vital role.
• 29:11
  How so? By offering access to books,
• 29:13
  DVD's, crucially Internet connections when they were
• 29:15
  scarce or monitored, and hosting seminars.
• 29:18
  Other embassies also provided Internet access.
• 29:20
  It becomes a lifeline to uncensored information.
• 29:22
  A window to the world. Exactly.
• 29:24
  And in the absence of independent journalists,
• 29:27
  democratic missions, the sources mentioned in Australia, the US,
• 29:30
  the UK, in Burma, Myanmar in 2007, 2008, they actually
• 29:35
  reported publicly themselves, feeding information to
• 29:38
  international news outlets. Diplomats as reporters.
• 29:40
  Effectively, yes, and these reports were then played back
• 29:43
  into the country to the local population via exile news
• 29:47
  organizations or shortwave radio acting as a critical source of
• 29:51
  truth and communications when domestic media is gagged.
• 29:54
  That's fascinating how diplomats essentially have to become
• 29:57
  journalists when independent media is suppressed.
• 30:00
  And a more traditional but still vital role is witnessing and
• 30:03
  verifying events on the ground. Isn't it monitoring things?
• 30:06
  Yes, witnessing and verifying is a widespread and critical
• 30:09
  diplomatic practice. Election observation is perhaps
• 30:12
  the most well known example. It's become standard
• 30:15
  international practice. The sources mentioned the
• 30:17
  Japanese mission observing violations in Ukraine's 2004
• 30:20
  Mukachev by election, which kind of foreshadowed abuses in the
• 30:24
  main presidential election later that year.
• 30:25
  Providing independent verification.
• 30:27
  Yes, or in Senegal's 1988 presidential elections,
• 30:31
  Democratic embassies apparently pooled their efforts,
• 30:34
  coordinated visits to polling stations across the country, and
• 30:38
  collectively confirm that the results, despite some
• 30:40
  irregularities, reflected the popular will.
• 30:43
  This provided a common diplomatic position that helped
• 30:46
  maintain stability. And beyond elections, what about
• 30:48
  monitoring trials or even being physically present at protests?
• 30:52
  That seems more confrontational. It can be, but it's a powerful
• 30:55
  tool. Monitoring trials and hearings
• 30:57
  provides independent verification of judicial
• 30:59
  processes or maybe the health and treatment of detainees.
• 31:03
  It's also a powerful gesture of solidarity.
• 31:05
  Showing support. Exactly.
• 31:07
  Prominent historical examples include Nelson Mandela's trial
• 31:10
  in 1963, Vaclav Havel's trials in the 1980s, right up to
• 31:14
  contemporary cases involving figures like DAW Onsen Tsuki and
• 31:17
  Burma, Myanmar, or the human rights defender Oleg Petrovich
• 31:21
  Orlov in Russia. Diplomatic presence at these
• 31:24
  trials signals very clearly to the authorities that the world
• 31:27
  is watching. It demonstrates support for
• 31:29
  fundamental rights and due process.
• 31:31
  And for protests, it's almost like providing a kind of
• 31:34
  protective shield, isn't it, Just by being there?
• 31:36
  Exactly that physical presence at protests sends a clear
• 31:40
  message of support to the demonstrators, and can sometimes
• 31:43
  offer a kind of implicit shield against violent repression by
• 31:46
  the authorities. They might hesitate to crack
• 31:49
  down quite so hard if diplomats are watching.
• 31:51
  Has this been used often? Yes, the practice is well
• 31:54
  established. The sources mentioned Budapest,
• 31:56
  Santiago, Manila, Belgrade, Kiev, Havana, Kathmandu, even a
• 32:01
  gay rights demonstrations in the Balkans, which could be
• 32:04
  particularly risky. U.S. ambassador Mark Palmer was
• 32:07
  apparently groundbreaking in Hungary in 1988 Nineteen 89
• 32:10
  visibly marching with demonstrators.
• 32:13
  It was controversial at the time, but his actions were later
• 32:15
  validated by President George HW Bush.
• 32:18
  More recently, in 2011, U.S. Ambassador Robert S Ford and
• 32:22
  French Ambassador Eric Chevalier's visit to Hama during
• 32:26
  peaceful protest in Syria offered tangible protection, at
• 32:29
  least temporarily. Their presence underscores the
• 32:31
  profound human impact diplomatic solidarity can have.
• 32:35
  Beyond direct support to civil society and witnessing diplomats
• 32:38
  also engage directly with governments of course, how does
• 32:41
  that work in terms of democracy support, especially in non
• 32:44
  democratic contexts? Right Working with the
• 32:47
  government, even authoritarian ones, advising for democratic
• 32:50
  governance is considered a core vocation of diplomatic missions.
• 32:54
  It's naturally easier with transitioning governments, where
• 32:57
  diplomats can act more like partners, offering technical
• 33:00
  assistance or advice on institutional design.
• 33:03
  But with authoritarian regime. It's tougher, but engaging them
• 33:07
  on areas of joint interest, maybe counterterrorism, trade,
• 33:10
  regional stability, can sometimes build a degree of
• 33:12
  confidence that might then open doors carefully for discussing
• 33:16
  human rights and governance issues later on.
• 33:19
  Impartiality is key, though diplomats need to make it clear
• 33:22
  that outsiders are not taking political sides within the
• 33:25
  country's domestic politics. But there's a risk of giving bad
• 33:28
  advice too, isn't there? The sources mention that.
• 33:30
  Oh yes, there's a long and rather depressing record of
• 33:33
  ineffective advice, often delivered by extensive outside
• 33:37
  consultants who lack deep local experience or context.
• 33:40
  Fly in, fly out experts. Exactly, A Russian bank founder,
• 33:44
  for example, famously asked some Western consultants to just sit
• 33:47
  and observe local conditions for a while before offering any
• 33:50
  advice. There's a great quote from a
• 33:51
  Bosnian NGO officer. We waste their money and they
• 33:55
  waste our time. Ouch.
• 33:57
  It highlights the need for donor missions to propose experts who
• 34:00
  have genuinely relevant, perhaps comparative, regional expertise,
• 34:04
  not just generic Western models. So it's about practical,
• 34:07
  relevant advice tailored to the context, not just importing
• 34:10
  theoretical models. And what about more direct
• 34:13
  diplomatic pressure, like demarches the formal protests?
• 34:16
  Demarches are a standard tool. These are formal protests,
• 34:20
  usually delivered through official diplomatic channels to
• 34:22
  identify and protest specific human rights violations or maybe
• 34:26
  restrictions imposed on reformers or NGOs.
• 34:28
  Are they usually public? Usually they're delivered
• 34:31
  privately, precisely to avoid hardening the host government's
• 34:34
  position or making them lose face publicly.
• 34:37
  The aim is to achieve a specific change, not just to condemn, but
• 34:41
  they serve to convey serious messages about potential
• 34:43
  consequences for future conduct. And high level warnings.
• 34:47
  Yes, direct warnings from accredited ambassadors,
• 34:50
  sometimes backed up by messages from capitals warning
• 34:53
  governments not to proceed with specific repressive actions.
• 34:57
  Examples cited include the US ambassador to Chile in the late
• 35:00
  1980s warning Pinochet's regime or warnings delivered to
• 35:04
  Ukrainian authorities during the 2004 election crisis.
• 35:07
  Boris Pankin, the Soviet ambassador in Prague in 1989,
• 35:11
  apparently gave a crucial warning against using force
• 35:14
  during the Velvet Revolution. Wow, that's significant.
• 35:16
  And linkage policies connecting aid or relations to human
• 35:19
  rights. Yes, the concept of linkage
• 35:21
  policies is important. The EU's more for more or
• 35:25
  conversely, less for less policy is a prime example.
• 35:28
  It explicitly links the depth and quality of the bilateral
• 35:31
  relationship, including aid and trade benefits, to progress on
• 35:34
  human rights and democratic reform.
• 35:37
  This was central to do marches delivered to Russia regarding
• 35:39
  restrictive NGO legislation or US messages to Egyptian
• 35:43
  authorities about crackdowns on civil society.
• 35:45
  And then there's the really controversial tool sanctions.
• 35:49
  How effective are they actually and what are the main
• 35:51
  considerations? Sanctions are indeed highly
• 35:54
  controversial, partly because broad economic sanctions can
• 35:57
  seriously hurt innocent civilians, often
• 36:00
  disproportionately affecting the poorest.
• 36:03
  The US embargo on Cuba is a long running example, and sanctions
• 36:06
  on Iraq in the 1990s were heavily criticized for their
• 36:09
  humanitarian impact. So the trend is towards targeted
• 36:13
  sanctions now. Yes, there's a growing consensus
• 36:15
  that targeted sanctions are generally more effective and
• 36:18
  ethically justifiable. These carefully aim at the
• 36:22
  accounts, assets and international mobility, like
• 36:25
  visa bans of specific individuals or entities
• 36:28
  responsible for oppression or corruption, rather than
• 36:31
  targeting the general population.
• 36:33
  Examples. Examples include EU and U.S.
• 36:35
  sanctions against members of the Burmese judiciary involved in
• 36:38
  political trials or against officials in Zimbabwe and
• 36:41
  Belarus. The US Magnitsky Act, which
• 36:44
  targets Russian officials implicated in human rights
• 36:46
  abuses, is another prominent example.
• 36:48
  But consistency is an issue, isn't it?
• 36:50
  That's the major criticism. Their application can be very
• 36:54
  inconsistent, often seemingly driven more by geopolitical
• 36:57
  interests than by human rights principles alone.
• 37:01
  The sources cite the EU lifting sanctions on Uzbekistan in 2009,
• 37:05
  though Uzbekistan met none of the human rights conditions set
• 37:08
  by the EU itself. That kind of inconsistency
• 37:12
  seriously undermines the credibility and effectiveness of
• 37:15
  sanctions as a tool and contrasts sharply with the
• 37:18
  stance often taken by international civil society.
• 37:21
  That inconsistency certainly weakens their impact.
• 37:24
  Finally, in the toolkit, what about supporting the underlying
• 37:27
  structures, legal and institutional frameworks,
• 37:31
  independent media, even cultural groups?
• 37:33
  These are absolutely foundational for long term
• 37:35
  democracy building. Supporting the rule of law and
• 37:38
  robust independent justice systems is essential for what's
• 37:41
  called horizontal accountability, meaning checks
• 37:44
  and balances within the government itself, like how a
• 37:46
  strong independent judiciary can hold the executive branch
• 37:49
  accountable or how an effective legislature overseas government
• 37:52
  spending. Right, and corruption.
• 37:54
  Combating corruption is increasingly seen as integral to
• 37:56
  this. It's even identified as a
• 37:58
  violation of human rights in the 2010 US National Security
• 38:02
  Strategy. International agreements like
• 38:04
  the OECD Anti Bribery Convention oblige signatory states like
• 38:09
  Denmark to prosecute their nationals for corrupt practices
• 38:12
  abroad. And independent media?
• 38:14
  Crucial, presumably. Absolutely crucial support for
• 38:17
  independent media outlets. Things like training for
• 38:19
  journalists, providing equipment may be helping with alternative
• 38:23
  servers to bypass censorship. This has been consistently
• 38:27
  identified as a successful area of democracy support.
• 38:31
  Beyond just speaking truth to power.
• 38:34
  A free media monitors governance, investigates
• 38:36
  corruption, and catalyzes public discussion.
• 38:39
  Blogs and social media play a huge role here too now.
• 38:42
  And cultural groups? How do they fit into the
• 38:44
  diplomatic toolkit for democracy support?
• 38:46
  It seems less obvious. It might seem less obvious, but
• 38:49
  they play a surprisingly powerful role.
• 38:51
  There's a quote from Elaine Della Trolls in the sources.
• 38:54
  Art is one of the finest forms of resistance to dictators.
• 38:57
  Think about writers, musicians, playwrights, film makers who
• 39:00
  challenge norms, question authority, and preserve cultural
• 39:03
  identity in the face of repression.
• 39:06
  Nigerian artists and writers, for instance, were arguably more
• 39:09
  effective than the formal political class in advancing
• 39:12
  democracy and human rights during periods of military rule.
• 39:16
  Supporting these cultural groups helps expand the space for
• 39:18
  freedom of expression, often in ways that are less overtly
• 39:21
  political but deeply resonant. A.
• 39:23
  Different form of resistance and security forces training them.
• 39:28
  Yes, even working with security forces.
• 39:31
  Exposing military and police personnel to international human
• 39:34
  rights standards and democratic best practices through training
• 39:37
  programs can potentially help prevent harsh reactions to
• 39:41
  protests. Focusing on nonviolent crowd
• 39:43
  control techniques, rules of engagement.
• 39:46
  The role of security forces in a democracy.
• 39:48
  This can apply to both state security forces and in some
• 39:50
  contexts, Training for civil society activists on nonviolent
• 39:54
  resistance techniques. It's a comprehensive toolkit,
• 39:57
  engaging across various societal levels.
• 39:59
  This brings us to a really critical and frankly, often
• 40:02
  quite alarming part of our discussion, the battlegrounds
• 40:05
  where civic space is actually shrinking, and the global
• 40:09
  challenges facing civil society today.
• 40:12
  Our sources paint a pretty stark picture, don't they?
• 40:15
  They do, unfortunately, civic space, which we can define as
• 40:18
  those physical, online, legal and social spaces where citizens
• 40:22
  can gather, discuss their interests, organize and take
• 40:25
  collective action. That space has been rapidly
• 40:27
  shrinking globally in recent years.
• 40:29
  It feels like a reversal of earlier trends.
• 40:31
  It does, and there's little indication of improvement
• 40:34
  currently. This trend is particularly
• 40:36
  pronounced in the analysis of South and Southeast Asia between
• 40:39
  roughly 2010 and 2022. What's driving it?
• 40:42
  It seems to be exacerbated by several interconnected factors
• 40:45
  rising authoritarianism globally, democratic backsliding
• 40:49
  even in established democracies, increasing political
• 40:51
  polarization, and the often divisive impacts of social media
• 40:55
  disinformation campaigns. All this leads to a grim outlook
• 40:59
  for the protection of fundamental freedoms in many
• 41:01
  parts of the world. So it's not just a regional
• 41:03
  issue in Southeast Asia, it's a global phenomenon that directly
• 41:07
  undermines core democratic principles like free speech and
• 41:10
  assembly. Precisely, it directly
• 41:12
  undermines the ability of citizens to dissent peacefully,
• 41:16
  to participate meaningfully in public debate, and to promote
• 41:19
  community interests or hold power accountable.
• 41:22
  Fundamental rights like freedom of assembly, association and
• 41:25
  expression are being systematically violated,
• 41:28
  exposing individuals and organizations to significant
• 41:31
  risk, surveillance, harassment, and in some cases, immediate
• 41:35
  physical danger. And the criminalization of
• 41:37
  activists. Yes, our sources specifically
• 41:39
  document a global trend towards the criminalization of human
• 41:42
  rights defenders using laws, often vaguely worded security
• 41:46
  laws or defamation laws, to silence critics.
• 41:48
  That's a very concerning development worldwide.
• 41:51
  Let's focus in on Southeast Asia for a moment, as our sources
• 41:53
  provide a lot of detail there. It's clearly a regional hotspot
• 41:56
  for these challenges. What about ASEAN's role in all
• 41:59
  of this? Can the regional body help?
• 42:01
  Well, the assessment is rather critical.
• 42:03
  As in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations was not
• 42:06
  really envisioned as a human rights organization from its
• 42:09
  inception. Its core principles are non
• 42:11
  interference and consensus based decision making.
• 42:14
  Which makes tackling rights issues difficult.
• 42:17
  Extremely difficult. It has proven quite challenging
• 42:20
  for effectively addressing human rights issues within Member
• 42:23
  States. While they do have the ASEAN
• 42:25
  Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, AICHR is primarily
• 42:29
  an advisory body. Its effectiveness is
• 42:31
  significantly diminished by that non interventionist stance and
• 42:35
  the sheer diversity of political systems among its members, from
• 42:38
  vibrant democracies to one party States and military juntas.
• 42:42
  So consensus often means inaction on rights.
• 42:44
  Often, yes. Consensus frequently becomes
• 42:47
  more of a political strategy to avoid difficult conversations
• 42:50
  than a genuine integration of human rights into regional
• 42:53
  governing norms. So a regional body that's not
• 42:56
  quite equipped or perhaps willing to handle the human
• 42:59
  rights challenges IS members are facing internally and
• 43:02
  environmental activism seems to be a particular area of concern
• 43:05
  in the region, especially highlighting legislative gaps.
• 43:08
  Yes, that's a key battleground. Civil society groups across
• 43:12
  Southeast Asia are urgently calling for stronger, legally
• 43:16
  binding environmental rights frameworks.
• 43:18
  They want laws that can actually hold businesses accountable for
• 43:22
  environmental damage. Because voluntary commitments
• 43:25
  aren't working. Exactly.
• 43:27
  They view the current reliance on voluntary corporate social
• 43:30
  responsibility or climate commitments as a major barrier
• 43:33
  to real corporate accountability.
• 43:36
  The sources give examples like toxic heavy metals from mining
• 43:39
  in Thailand contaminating the vital Mekong River basin.
• 43:42
  Affecting multiple countries. Yes, and the issue of
• 43:45
  agricultural burning in northern Thailand causing trans boundary
• 43:49
  haze pollution which has plagued the region for over 20 years,
• 43:52
  affecting Laos and Myanmar too. Is there a regional agreement on
• 43:55
  that? There is the ASEAN agreement on
• 43:57
  Trans Boundary Haze pollution signed way back in 2002, but
• 44:02
  it's widely seen as ineffective because it lacks any real
• 44:05
  provisions to penalize countries or companies for non compliance.
• 44:10
  It highlights that gap between regional agreements on paper and
• 44:13
  their actual enforcement on the ground, which CSO's are pushing
• 44:16
  hard to address through stronger national laws.
• 44:19
  It's clear that legal frameworks are often part of the problem,
• 44:22
  not the solution. They're often weaponized across
• 44:25
  the region. We seem to be seeing similar
• 44:27
  patterns emerge, right In countries like Indonesia and
• 44:30
  Malaysia, laws are being repurposed to control civil
• 44:33
  society. You're absolutely right.
• 44:35
  It's a worrying trend. In Indonesia, for example,
• 44:38
  despite its rising global stature as AG20 member, there's
• 44:41
  actually been a noticeable decline in international funding
• 44:44
  for CS OS. This is compounded by a series
• 44:46
  of laws and regulations, like the controversial ORMUS law,
• 44:49
  that tightly control foreign funding.
• 44:51
  Which hits CSO's hard. It directly impacts CSO's
• 44:54
  reliant on international grants for their survival and work.
• 44:58
  But beyond funding, there's that troubling trend we mentioned
• 45:01
  criminalization and judicial harassment, specifically
• 45:04
  targeting human rights defenders.
• 45:06
  Abuse is cloaked under the guise of legitimate law enforcement.
• 45:09
  In Malaysia. In Malaysia, while the Federal
• 45:11
  Constitution technically guarantees freedom of
• 45:14
  association, the Societies Act of 1966 gives incredibly broad
• 45:19
  discretionary powers to the Registrar of Societies.
• 45:23
  They can approve, reject or deregister societies almost at
• 45:27
  will. Leading to problems.
• 45:28
  Yes, thousands of societies have been deregistered, often for
• 45:32
  administrative reasons like failing to submit reports.
• 45:34
  But there are also concerns about political interference
• 45:37
  with a registrar rejecting registrations of opposition
• 45:40
  political groups or critical NGOs.
• 45:42
  Recommendations for reform include establishing independent
• 45:45
  appeals tribunals. And in the Philippines and
• 45:47
  Thailand, human rights defenders face even more chilling threats,
• 45:51
  according to the sources. Absolutely.
• 45:53
  In the Philippines, the practice of red tagging, publicly
• 45:56
  labeling human rights defenders, activists, journalists as
• 46:00
  communists or terrorists is a grave concern.
• 46:03
  The UN has called it a likely precursor to abduction or
• 46:07
  extrajudicial killing because it basically paints a target on
• 46:10
  their backs for vigilantes or state agents.
• 46:13
  That's terrifying. And legal tools are used too.
• 46:15
  Yes, new regulations under the Anti Money Laundering Act
• 46:19
  automatically classify NGOs as medium to high risk for money
• 46:23
  laundering, leading to stricter bank regulations and frozen
• 46:26
  accounts based often on unfounded allegations.
• 46:29
  And the Anti Terrorism Act of 2020 is particularly worrying.
• 46:33
  It creates A hostile climate and allows a government body, the
• 46:36
  Anti Terrorism Council, to designate individuals or groups
• 46:39
  as terrorists based on a mere finding of probable cause.
• 46:42
  That sounds like a very low threshold.
• 46:44
  Alarmingly low, According to critics, this designation can
• 46:47
  lead to asset freezes, surveillance and even detention
• 46:50
  without judicial warrant for extended periods.
• 46:52
  It's seen as easily weaponized against dissent.
• 46:55
  In Thailand, similar issues. In Thailand, yes.
• 46:58
  Despite official rhetoric positioning Bangkok as a
• 47:00
  regional hub, a Geneva of Asia, authorities have imposed
• 47:04
  significant restrictions on CS OS.
• 47:06
  A draft law on nonprofit organizations sparked widespread
• 47:10
  protests before being suspended. But other laws are used.
• 47:13
  Yes, existing legal instruments like the Computer Crimes Act are
• 47:17
  frequently used to prosecute individuals simply for sharing
• 47:20
  critical content. Online sedition laws are
• 47:23
  increasingly targeting activists, with Muslim activists
• 47:26
  in the South disproportionately affected.
• 47:28
  And crucially, there's documented evidence of digital
• 47:30
  surveillance, including the use of sophisticated spyware like
• 47:33
  Pegasus against activists, academics and NGO members,
• 47:37
  coupled with information operations, or iOS, run by
• 47:40
  military and government agencies to discredit critics online.
• 47:44
  A multi pronged attack on civic space And Speaking of
• 47:47
  marginalized groups, Myanmar is another stark case where
• 47:49
  democratic gains are being reversed, profoundly affecting
• 47:52
  communities like LGBTQIA plus activists, isn't it?
• 47:56
  That's a particularly stark example, yes.
• 47:58
  During Myanmar's brief period of democratic transition from
• 48:02
  roughly 2011 to 2021, LGBTQIA plus organizations gained
• 48:06
  significant visibility in space to operate.
• 48:09
  But the coup changed everything. The 2021 military coup
• 48:12
  completely reversed that. The junta specifically targeted
• 48:16
  LGBTQIA plus human rights defenders, along with many
• 48:19
  others, and introduced a highly restrictive organization
• 48:22
  registration law. It underscores how political
• 48:24
  reversals and crackdowns often disproportionately affect
• 48:27
  already marginalized groups. Are there international
• 48:30
  protections? Well, international human rights
• 48:32
  instruments like the ICCPR and the Universal Declaration
• 48:35
  guarantee freedom of association for all, regardless of sexual
• 48:38
  orientation or gender identity. The Yogi Carta Principles
• 48:41
  specifically address these rights for LGBTQIA plus people.
• 48:45
  Yet despite these norms, UN experts report a global increase
• 48:48
  in laws, policies and practices that limit these freedoms, often
• 48:51
  using discriminatory restrictions disguised as
• 48:53
  protecting public morals or traditional values.
• 48:55
  These regional challenges truly under score the global nature of
• 48:59
  the shrinking civic space. Now let's broaden our lens again
• 49:03
  and look briefly at some other noteworthy case studies in
• 49:06
  democracy development discussed in the sources, starting with
• 49:09
  Russia. It's often described as a
• 49:11
  faltering transformation, isn't it?
• 49:13
  Indeed, Russia's attempt to transform from a totalitarian
• 49:16
  communist system was unprecedented in its scale and
• 49:19
  complexity, but it clearly faltered.
• 49:21
  Significantly, Gorbachev's attempt to humanize communism
• 49:24
  failed, and Yeltsin's early outreach to NATO wasn't
• 49:28
  reciprocated, perhaps missing a key window.
• 49:30
  And economic factors played a role.
• 49:32
  Hugely Western overconfidence, perhaps in the rapid adoption of
• 49:36
  democratic norms, ignored the reality of Russia's ruined
• 49:39
  economy and depleted human capital.
• 49:41
  After decades of communism, the severe economic hardship caused
• 49:44
  by shock therapy reforms devastated the public appetite
• 49:47
  for further political reform, leading to widespread
• 49:50
  disenchantment with democracy itself.
• 49:52
  Alienation from the Western model.
• 49:54
  Yes, the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few
• 49:58
  oligarchs accelerated by flawed privatization.
• 50:01
  Hanford the transition. Yeltsin's increase in reliance
• 50:04
  on presidential decrees bypassing the Duma, increased
• 50:07
  polarization. This disenchantment turned many
• 50:10
  Russians against Western style democracy, with figures like
• 50:13
  Alexander Levit calling it alien back in 1996.
• 50:17
  And under Putin, we've seen a real crackdown on what the
• 50:19
  Kremlin perceives as foreign influences targeting NGOs.
• 50:23
  That's been a defining characteristic of the Putin era,
• 50:26
  especially in his later terms. This deep suspicion, or perhaps
• 50:29
  manufactured paranoia about foreign interference has led to
• 50:33
  intrusive searches, burdensome regulations, the labeling of
• 50:36
  groups as foreign agents, and the forced closure of numerous
• 50:39
  respected international and Russian Ng OS, Human Rights
• 50:42
  Watch, Transparency International, even UNICEF and
• 50:46
  Medicines. Some frontier says expulsion or
• 50:48
  severe restrictions. So what can diplomats do in such
• 50:51
  an environment? It's incredibly difficult, but
• 50:53
  diplomats continue human rights monitoring as best they can.
• 50:57
  Attending trials of human rights defenders like Oleg Petrovich
• 51:00
  Orlov, whose truth telling NGO Memorial earned its officials
• 51:03
  beatings and even murder, is a vital sign of solidarity,
• 51:06
  showing they haven't been forgotten.
• 51:08
  Direct contacts, small conferences, roundtables with
• 51:12
  remaining independent NGOs are essential, even if they must
• 51:15
  operate in a highly constrained and monitored environment.
• 51:19
  Shifting to Egypt, another complex case, our sources
• 51:22
  highlight significant external influence, especially from the
• 51:25
  US, but also deep internal divisions.
• 51:27
  What was the real impact of Western democracy support there
• 51:31
  pre Arab Spring? Western democracies,
• 51:33
  particularly the US due to its long standing military and
• 51:37
  economic relationship with the Mubarak regime, certainly had
• 51:39
  potential influence. But the historical legacy of
• 51:42
  colonialism created a strong nationalist sentiment, meaning
• 51:46
  Egyptian political discourse often vehemently rejected any
• 51:49
  perceived interference in internal affairs.
• 51:51
  So USAID wasn't very effective. USAID ran substantial democracy
• 51:55
  and governance programs, around $250 million between 2004 and
• 51:58
  2009, according to the sources. But their impact was assessed as
• 52:02
  extremely limited, largely because they lack genuine
• 52:05
  support or buy in from the Egyptian government itself.
• 52:09
  You can't easily promote democracy against the determined
• 52:11
  opposition of the host government.
• 52:13
  Did targeted pressure work better?
• 52:15
  Targeted diplomatic pressure on high profile human rights cases
• 52:18
  like the academic Saad and Ibrahim or the politician Aman
• 52:22
  Noor showed mixed results. Direct U.S. ambassador
• 52:25
  involvement initially helped secure Ibrahim's release, but
• 52:29
  his rearrest later led the US to link aid to human rights for the
• 52:32
  first time, withholding some funds.
• 52:34
  US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice famously
• 52:37
  canceled the visit to Cairo in protest of Newer's arrest.
• 52:40
  So pressure could yield results sometimes.
• 52:42
  But it wasn't a magic bullet, and the underlying structures
• 52:45
  remained unchanged, leading to the later turmoil.
• 52:48
  And post Morsi, the society remains deeply divided.
• 52:51
  And China presents perhaps the ultimate challenge for diplomats
• 52:54
  balancing deep state to state economic and security interest
• 52:58
  with supporting civil society and human rights values.
• 53:01
  How did diplomats navigate that incredibly sensitive space?
• 53:05
  China's rapid economic growth and global influence create a
• 53:08
  uniquely complex diplomatic tightrope walk.
• 53:11
  Balancing profound state to state interests, trade,
• 53:14
  investment, climate change, security with supporting civil
• 53:17
  society is exceptionally difficult.
• 53:20
  The Chinese government is absolutely resolute in its
• 53:23
  hostility to what it perceives as foreign interference,
• 53:26
  especially regarding human rights or political reform.
• 53:28
  Is the Internet a factor? Yes, despite the government's
• 53:31
  massive investment in the Great Firewall to restrict Internet
• 53:34
  access and sensor content, the sources note, the ingenuity of
• 53:37
  China's next generation of technology savvy citizens often
• 53:40
  finds ways around it. Blogs and social media posts,
• 53:43
  though heavily monitored and censored, are prolific and can
• 53:46
  sometimes shape public discourse or expose local issues.
• 53:49
  So how do diplomats find openings?
• 53:52
  It requires careful tea leaf reading to understand the opaque
• 53:55
  political environment. Diplomats look for opportunities
• 53:58
  where maybe business interests aligned with Space for Progress.
• 54:01
  For example, Ambassador Carroll suggesting freer media could
• 54:05
  actually help with environmental reporting, which might serve the
• 54:08
  government's own stated goals on pollution, finding those narrow
• 54:12
  points of alignment. And high level agreements.
• 54:14
  Summit agreements like the US China Rule of Law Initiative
• 54:18
  from 1997 can provide a degree of legitimacy and political
• 54:21
  cover for longer term projects and support for Chinese Ng OS
• 54:25
  working within the system, perhaps on legal aid or specific
• 54:29
  social issues. What about direct pressure?
• 54:31
  Both closed door demarches and public diplomacy are used.
• 54:35
  High level interventions have occasionally secured the release
• 54:38
  or permission to leave China for high visibility individuals like
• 54:41
  Rubia Kadir or Chen Guancheng, though sometimes frustratingly,
• 54:45
  people are released only to be rearrested later or placed under
• 54:49
  house arrest. And convening.
• 54:50
  Embassies still serve a convening function, carefully
• 54:53
  bringing together Chinese scholars, activists, lawyers,
• 54:56
  journalists, sometimes even reform minded officials for
• 54:59
  discussions or events. the US embassy played this role after
• 55:03
  Tiananmen and Saida. The Canadian agency supported a
• 55:06
  conference connecting Ng OS with government officials working on
• 55:09
  similar issues. Support for nascent civil
• 55:11
  society groups perhaps working on less politically sensitive
• 55:14
  issues like the environment, migrant workers rights or
• 55:17
  disabilities. Helps with public lobbying
• 55:19
  skills, organization, and capacity building.
• 55:22
  And trial monitoring. Yes, diplomatic presence at
• 55:25
  politically sensitive sentencing hearings like that of Nobel
• 55:28
  Peace Prize laureate Lucia Hobo in 2009 demonstrates crucial
• 55:32
  international support and solidarity, potentially
• 55:35
  encouraging domestic courage, among others.
• 55:37
  Shifting again to Burma, Myanmar, it's been described as
• 55:40
  having a very uncertain transition marked by the longest
• 55:43
  lasting military dictatorship under the Tatmada.
• 55:46
  Burma. Myanmar was indeed under direct
• 55:49
  military dictatorship for an exceptionally long time, making
• 55:52
  it very isolated. The military even shifted the
• 55:55
  capital to Napita, partly to further isolate diplomats from
• 55:59
  the population and centers of dissent in Rangoon.
• 56:01
  Sanctions were heavily debated. There weren't.
• 56:03
  They Yes, the effectiveness of sanctions was constantly
• 56:06
  debated. Arms embargoes were in place,
• 56:08
  but broad economic sanctions were controversial.
• 56:11
  Some argued they hurt ordinary people without significantly
• 56:14
  impacting the regime, which seemed indifferent to isolation.
• 56:19
  Aung Zuki herself called for a tourism boycott.
• 56:22
  But others argue that non official tourism actually helps
• 56:25
  support civil society and provided contact with the
• 56:27
  outside world. It was a real dilemma.
• 56:29
  And regional dynamics. Russia and China typically use
• 56:32
  their veto power at the UN Security Council to block
• 56:35
  concerted international pressure.
• 56:36
  Russia has also been a major arms dealer to the junta.
• 56:40
  ACN's policy of constructive engagement was often criticized
• 56:43
  by Western governments and human rights groups for not yielding
• 56:46
  tangible results in terms of democratic reform or human
• 56:49
  rights improvements. So what could diplomats do?
• 56:52
  Diplomats faced very limited access, especially outside
• 56:55
  Rangoon, but they focused on supporting the beleaguered civil
• 56:58
  society as much as possible. Japanese diplomats often claimed
• 57:02
  more influence to maintaining dialogue even with the regime.
• 57:05
  Truth in communications was vital given the heavily
• 57:07
  restricted media landscape. Embassies like the UNDP office
• 57:11
  in Rangoon during the 2007 Saffron Revolution provided
• 57:15
  crucial information access via independent satellite systems.
• 57:18
  When the Internet was cut, Czech diplomats even engaged with
• 57:22
  Burmese dissidents living in refugee communities in Thailand,
• 57:25
  discussing potential post transition issues.
• 57:27
  And cultural centers. Yes, the American Center and the
• 57:29
  British Council Libraries were vital resources, offering books,
• 57:33
  Internet a safe space. The Czech Embassy even
• 57:35
  translated books on the Czech democratic transformation
• 57:37
  experience into Burmese, offering comparative lessons,
• 57:41
  all highlighting diverse forms of support.
• 57:43
  Even during the period of supposed reform under president
• 57:45
  theme sign, amending the military drafted constitution
• 57:49
  remained a huge challenge, ultimately proving
• 57:51
  insurmountable before the 2021 coup.
• 57:54
  What about Zimbabwe, described in the sources as an African
• 57:57
  tragedy? Zimbabwe's post colonial history
• 57:59
  is deeply troubled, including the Goku Rahundi massacres in
• 58:03
  Montebello land in the 1980s. Later, the controversial land
• 58:07
  reform program became highly politicized and often violent,
• 58:10
  contributing to economic collapse and hyperinflation
• 58:13
  under Mugabe. And election.
• 58:15
  The 2008 presidential runoff election was widely condemned
• 58:18
  internationally as a violent sham.
• 58:21
  Even regional bodies like SADC acknowledge it didn't reflect
• 58:24
  the popular will. The EUUS and others applied
• 58:28
  targeted sanctions against the regime elite.
• 58:30
  What was the diplomatic role? Western embassies consistently
• 58:33
  showed solidarity with civil society groups, human rights
• 58:36
  defenders, and the independent judiciary, often in the risk of
• 58:40
  antagonizing the increasingly paranoid government.
• 58:43
  Embassy funds provided crucial support for CS OS and help keep
• 58:46
  the judiciary functioning. Humanitarian aid dwarfed
• 58:49
  democracy aid, but was also vital diplomatic outreach.
• 58:53
  Like Canadian Ambassador John Schramm's dinners trying to
• 58:55
  encourage dialogue across divides or leveraging Norwegian
• 58:58
  mediation experience also occurred.
• 59:00
  Did. Diplomats face risks.
• 59:02
  Yes, absolutely. Diplomats themselves faced
• 59:05
  physical intimidation and attacks from security forces or
• 59:08
  party militias. The sources mentioned a specific
• 59:11
  incident where a convoy of US and British diplomats
• 59:14
  investigating political violence was stopped, their tires slashed
• 59:18
  and they were threatened with being burned alive in their
• 59:19
  vehicles. Very real dangers.
• 59:22
  Truly harrowing accounts. Let's touch on Cuba, another
• 59:25
  long standing dictatorship where change has been very gradual, if
• 59:29
  at all. Cuba's history is shaped by
• 59:31
  Batista's pre 1959 dictatorial violence which paved the way for
• 59:35
  Castro's revolution. the US initially supported Batista due
• 59:39
  to anti communism, a complex legacy.
• 59:42
  The Castro regime maintains pervasive social supervision
• 59:45
  through the neighborhood watch committees.
• 59:46
  The comity, the defence de la Revolucion political control
• 59:49
  remains extremely strong. Have economic reforms led to
• 59:53
  political change? Not really.
• 59:54
  Despite some piece meal economic reforms like permitting limited
• 59:58
  private enterprise in certain sectors, significant political
• 1:00:00
  change remains elusive. Elections are single party
• 1:00:03
  affairs with pre approved candidates.
• 1:00:05
  How do diplomats support dissent there?
• 1:00:07
  It's incredibly sensitive diplomats.
• 1:00:10
  Direct contact or financial support for opposition figures
• 1:00:13
  can easily trigger crackdowns and increase the vulnerability
• 1:00:17
  of local activists. Diplomats need to know when to
• 1:00:20
  keep their distance to avoid causing harm.
• 1:00:23
  Respected opposition figures like the late Oswaldo Paya
• 1:00:26
  acknowledged that real change must ultimately come from Cubans
• 1:00:29
  themselves. Is technology making a
• 1:00:31
  difference? Internet access for young people
• 1:00:34
  is increasing, which opens up new possibilities for
• 1:00:36
  information flow. The prospects for genuinely free
• 1:00:39
  information remain unclear. Under state control, embassies
• 1:00:42
  often coordinate their efforts carefully, sharing information
• 1:00:45
  and sometimes adopting an informal division of Labor to
• 1:00:47
  support victims of political persecution or provide small
• 1:00:51
  scale assistance without unduly exposing activists.
• 1:00:54
  And Ukraine, a complex story of achieving independence, a
• 1:00:57
  dramatic revolution, and then significant regression before
• 1:01:00
  the full scale invasion. Yes, Ukraine journey has been
• 1:01:03
  tumultuous. The international community
• 1:01:05
  played a significant and largely successful role and helping
• 1:01:08
  ensure the 2004 presidential elections were ultimately free
• 1:01:11
  and fair, leading to the Orange Revolution.
• 1:01:14
  How is that coordinated? G7 countries, EU members, Canada
• 1:01:18
  and the US coordinated their efforts closely.
• 1:01:20
  The Canadian ambassador, Andrew Robinson, apparently chaired
• 1:01:23
  monthly meetings of key ambassadors to share information
• 1:01:26
  and align strategies. Diplomats actively connected
• 1:01:30
  Ukrainian civil society leaders to political figures and NGOs in
• 1:01:33
  their home countries, facilitating support and
• 1:01:36
  exchange. Embassy grants were also enabled
• 1:01:38
  for civic activists supporting election monitoring and voter
• 1:01:41
  education. But then things went backwards.
• 1:01:44
  Yes, post Orange Revolution there was significant democratic
• 1:01:47
  regression, particularly under President Yanukovych from 2010.
• 1:01:51
  Increased attacks on press freedom like the independent
• 1:01:53
  Channel TV being removed from cable networks, politically
• 1:01:56
  motivated tax rates on opponents and serious electoral
• 1:01:59
  irregularities marred the 2012 parliamentary elections.
• 1:02:03
  Freedom House downgraded Ukraine back to partially free during
• 1:02:06
  that period. Did the EU use leverage?
• 1:02:09
  Yes, the EU explicitly linked the finalization of the crucial
• 1:02:13
  EU Ukraine Association Agreement to democratic conditionality,
• 1:02:17
  including the release of political prisoners like former
• 1:02:20
  Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, a clear example of linkage
• 1:02:24
  policy in action. And finally, Belarus often
• 1:02:27
  called Europe's last dictatorship.
• 1:02:29
  Belarus under President Lukashenko represents a
• 1:02:31
  sustained authoritarian system. He systematically marginalized
• 1:02:35
  the opposition following a controversial 1996 referendum,
• 1:02:39
  dissolving the legitimate parliament and consolidating
• 1:02:42
  power in the presidency. Elections have been consistently
• 1:02:45
  deemed not free and fair by international observers like the
• 1:02:48
  OSCESODIHR since he took office. What's at the role for
• 1:02:52
  Democratic embassies there? Democratic embassies try to
• 1:02:55
  assist Belarus's sovereignty and independence while
• 1:02:57
  simultaneously supporting democratic forces.
• 1:03:00
  A key activity is monitoring the trials of political prisoners
• 1:03:03
  and human rights defenders. The sources mentioned German and
• 1:03:06
  French ambassadors visiting professor Yuri Bendiszewski,
• 1:03:09
  jailed apparently for his inconvenient research on the
• 1:03:11
  Chernobyl disasters, health effects while he was briefly
• 1:03:14
  furloughed. Small gestures, but important
• 1:03:16
  signals. Has pressure led to releases?
• 1:03:19
  Sometimes Some high profile prisoner releases have
• 1:03:22
  occasionally led the EU to temporarily suspend visa
• 1:03:26
  sanctions against officials, hoping to encourage broader
• 1:03:29
  reforms. But the overall grip of the
• 1:03:32
  national security state remains extremely strong, making
• 1:03:35
  significant Democratic progress very difficult.
• 1:03:39
  That's a profound overview of the diverse challenges and the
• 1:03:42
  diplomatic tools used across these very different contexts.
• 1:03:46
  Now, as we begin to wrap up this really detailed deep dive, what
• 1:03:49
  are the key lessons emerging from the front lines?
• 1:03:52
  What are the main takeaways about successes, setbacks and
• 1:03:55
  the path forward for supporting democracy globally?
• 1:03:58
  I think one of the most critical lessons repeated throughout the
• 1:04:00
  sources that democracy development isn't something you
• 1:04:03
  can just export or install. It's fundamentally a function of
• 1:04:06
  process of building sound institutions and, crucially, of
• 1:04:10
  changing political behavior and culture.
• 1:04:11
  Not just a technical fix. Exactly.
• 1:04:14
  It cannot be simply transferred as a technique.
• 1:04:16
  It requires immense time, patience and hard, consistent
• 1:04:19
  application. Therefore, outside support, if
• 1:04:22
  it's to be effective, must be sustained over the long term.
• 1:04:26
  It's definitely not a quick fix. So it's less about imposing a
• 1:04:29
  model from the outside and much more about nurturing a long,
• 1:04:32
  often slow, organic process from within.
• 1:04:36
  What about local agency? How important is that element?
• 1:04:39
  Local agency is absolutely key. The sources stress this
• 1:04:42
  repeatedly. The most critical resources for
• 1:04:45
  successful democracy development are always the human capital,
• 1:04:48
  the commitment, the resilience of individuals within the
• 1:04:51
  countries concerned. The people themselves.
• 1:04:53
  Yes, civil society in all its diverse forms, from formal NGOs
• 1:04:57
  to informal networks and protest movements, truly forms the
• 1:05:00
  fundamental building blocks of democratization.
• 1:05:02
  External support is most effective and most legitimate
• 1:05:05
  when it empowers and amplifies these local voices and
• 1:05:08
  initiatives rather than trying to lead or supplant them.
• 1:05:11
  Partnership is crucial. And accepting that every
• 1:05:13
  situation is unique, requiring A tailored, nuanced approach.
• 1:05:17
  Precisely. There's no one-size-fits-all
• 1:05:20
  model. Each country, each situation is
• 1:05:22
  different, with its own unique history, political culture,
• 1:05:25
  social dynamics and current challenges.
• 1:05:28
  This demands A varying mix of policy tools and strategic
• 1:05:31
  emphasis from external actors like diplomats.
• 1:05:34
  Sensitivity again. Diplomats must be highly
• 1:05:37
  sensitive to these unique national histories, current
• 1:05:40
  conditions and local values. For instance, as mentioned
• 1:05:43
  before, trying to impose purely Western secular political
• 1:05:47
  approaches on deeply traditional religious societies can be
• 1:05:50
  counterproductive or even offensive.
• 1:05:52
  The challenge is to find ways to support universal democratic
• 1:05:55
  aspirations in ways that resonate culturally and locally,
• 1:05:58
  while still upholding core universal human rights norms.
• 1:06:01
  It requires significant adaptability and nuance.
• 1:06:04
  That sensitivity sounds absolutely vital for sustainable
• 1:06:06
  success. And finally, what about the
• 1:06:08
  enduring power of solidarity? We've heard so many examples of
• 1:06:11
  it today, from trial monitoring to just showing up.
• 1:06:14
  It might sound intangible, but demonstrable gestures of
• 1:06:17
  solidarity by Democratic diplomats are consistently
• 1:06:21
  highlighted as incredibly reinforcing for local Democrats,
• 1:06:25
  activists and human rights defenders who often feel
• 1:06:28
  isolated and under immense pressure.
• 1:06:29
  It shows they're not alone. Exactly, it sends powerful
• 1:06:32
  messages to the authorities too that the world is watching.
• 1:06:36
  An informal division of Labor among like minded embassies can
• 1:06:39
  also enhance effectiveness, allowing for coordinated yet
• 1:06:42
  flashable responses. One embassy might focus on
• 1:06:45
  funding, another on public diplomacy, another on quiet
• 1:06:48
  demarches. Playing to strengths.
• 1:06:50
  Yes, and while the overall record is clearly mixed, there
• 1:06:54
  are numerous setbacks, disappointments, and daunting
• 1:06:57
  challenges ahead, especially with franking civic space.
• 1:07:01
  The overall story presented in these sources is 1 of persistent
• 1:07:04
  efforts, remarkable courage from local actors, and many inspiring
• 1:07:07
  individual actions by both activists and diplomats.
• 1:07:10
  Democracy may not be some inevitable historical end stage
• 1:07:14
  as some perhaps once believed, but the core belief remains that
• 1:07:17
  it is, as the sources conclude, the best vehicle for the
• 1:07:21
  fulfillment of individual lives and for social progress.
• 1:07:24
  That persistent hope, that belief in democratic values
• 1:07:28
  despite all the difficulties, continues to drive these vital
• 1:07:31
  efforts. We've taken a truly monumental
• 1:07:34
  deep dive today, haven't we, exploring this complex, vital
• 1:07:38
  and, as we've heard, often dangerous world where civil
• 1:07:41
  society and international diplomacy intersect in the
• 1:07:44
  global push for democratic aspirations.
• 1:07:46
  And there's a huge topic. From the nuanced funding
• 1:07:49
  strategies of international donors like Danida, which are so
• 1:07:52
  central to Danish foreign policy and its engagement with the
• 1:07:55
  world, to the incredibly challenging frontline efforts of
• 1:07:58
  ambassadors and embassy staff and repressive regimes, Yeah,
• 1:08:01
  it's abundantly clear that the journey towards more open,
• 1:08:04
  accountable societies is a long, winding and profoundly human
• 1:08:09
  one, deeply embedded in the realities of international
• 1:08:12
  politics. And perhaps here's a final
• 1:08:14
  thought for you, our listener to take away, especially you
• 1:08:17
  consider your own role as a well informed citizen interested in
• 1:08:20
  international relations in this constantly evolving landscape.
• 1:08:23
  OK. Think about how the digital age
• 1:08:25
  and social media present this paradox.
• 1:08:28
  On one hand, they offer new tools for authoritarian control,
• 1:08:31
  surveillance, sophisticated information operations,
• 1:08:35
  censorship, dark side. But on the other hand, they also
• 1:08:38
  offer unprecedented opportunities for civil society
• 1:08:42
  to connect across borders, to mobilize locally much faster
• 1:08:46
  than before, and to expose truths that regimes try
• 1:08:49
  desperately to hide. That interplay is key.
• 1:08:52
  How will this interplay continue to shape global politics and
• 1:08:56
  what role can you play just by being a well informed citizen,
• 1:08:59
  understanding these dynamics in this evolving landscape?
• 1:09:03
  It's a question that connects us all, I think, How we engage with
• 1:09:06
  information, how we support efforts for openness.
• 1:09:08
  If this deep dive has sparked your curiosity, maybe giving you
• 1:09:11
  some valuable insights into international relations and how
• 1:09:14
  countries like Denmark engage on these issues, we really
• 1:09:17
  encourage you to follow Diplomacy and International
• 1:09:19
  Relations by Bastion Fry Board wherever you get your podcasts.
• 1:09:22
  Please do, and if you enjoyed what you heard today, if you
• 1:09:25
  found this detail exploration useful, please consider leaving
• 1:09:28
  a five star rating. Your support genuinely helps us
• 1:09:31
  reach even more listeners and continue having these important
• 1:09:34
  conversations about diplomacy and the forces shaping our
• 1:09:37
  world.