In his Washington Post article, Jackson Diehl argues that the recent ‘crises’ in Lebanon & Ukraine (two democratic revolution countries) will provide a dilemma for the Bush administration: should the United States continue to promote democracy even when it yields anti-West countries?

The question really boils down to this: were the democratic revolutions about installing pro-West regimes in place of anti-West regimes or were they about installing democracies in place of dictatorships?

Though I think Diehl overestimates the likelihood of Ukraine returning to authoritarianism, his larger point has wide ranging implications. Is America really promoting democracy because democracies are peaceful and the best form of government? Or is America using democracy promotion to disguise more traditional balance of power politics?

I suspect the United States has pursued democracy promotion because, up until now, democracy promotion has been an effective means to its power politics end. Given the recent divergence, Bush will probably have to choose between these two policies.

So, the proof of America’s belief in democracy may very well be in the pudding of Ukraine & Lebanon.