“Philanthropy and the American Regime: Is It Time for Another Congressional Investigation of Tax-Exempt Foundations?” by John Fonte, Hudson Institute, November 2004.
“U.S., ‘We Have Different Timeframe for N. Korean Peninsula Policy’,” by Jung-Ahn Kim, The Dong-A Ilbo, http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=060000&biid=2005011990778, 18 January 2005.
Per Baal Shem Ra‘s question…
A policy of…
- Regime Transformation is the challenging of a functional regime.
- Regime Improvement is the support of a functional regime
- Regime Maintenance is the support of a dysfunctional regime
- Regime Revolution, or “Regime Change,” is the challenging of a dysfunctional regime
diplo bs lies-with-style aside, American policy…
- Towards Egypt is regime transformation (they play by the rules, but need to be better)
- Towards China is regime impovement (they play by the rules, and we support their efforts)
- Towards Saudi Arabia is regime maintenance (they support terrorists, but we need them for the present)
- Towards North Korea is regime change / regime revolution (we hate them and they should die)
Regime transformation has been in the news lately. Mostly in the
lie with style diplo-speak of America’s North Korea policy. For example
The remark of Steven Hadley, the national security advisor-designate, was most specific among the U.S. North Korean policies mentioned by dignitaries nominated as the core diplomatic lineup in the second Bush term.
The Korean Assembly delegation, which visited Washington in December last year, quoted Hadley as saying, “The United States demands regime transformation, not regime change of North Korea.”
The closest I have found to a defintion of “regime transformation” is Fonte’s. It’s in a different context, refering to anti-American activities, but I think its still valid
The Regime Chart at the end of the paper suggests four possible relationships of American
philanthropy to the American regime during the period of the Reese Committee in the 1950s
and today. Square 1, Regime Maintenance, in the bottom left hand corner of the chart
suggests philanthropic support for institutions and projects that would strengthen the nation’s
political and cultural institutions and help affirm and perpetuate the regime. Square 2,
Regime Improvement, in the upper left hand corner of the chart suggests that philanthropy
seeks to strengthen the regime through activities that promote improvement and reform. Both
Square 1 and Square 2 are ultimately aimed at perpetuating the American regime and
transmitting it to future generations.
Square 3, Regime Transformation, in the upper right hand corner suggests that the core
institutions and structures of the American Regime are themselves flawed and, thus, the
regime should not be transmitted to future generations, but transformed in an evolutionary
and non-violent manner into a new form of regime. Square 4, Regime Revolution, in the
lower right hand corner posits that the regime is essentially illegitimate and that the only
course of action is revolution.
Being more than a half-century ago, the Reese definition is somewhat dated. But the only substantive change I would make is the assumption that some regimes should be “passed on” and others should not be. A better way to look at it would be Barnett’s direction not speed mantra. “Dysfunctional” or “not-to-be-passed-on” regimes may be better thought of as “backwards-tending” or retrograde.
Or maybe not. That’s a post for another time…