This article examines the current state and agenda of democratic recession globally as well as the obstacles to democracy support, specifically focusing on issues related to diminishing civil society space.

The global deterioration of democracy and backsliding of democratization are clearly observable. Such a phenomenon is caused by the long-term erosion of democratic institutions rather than short-term events such as coups. One important consequence is the restriction of civil society space, which has proliferated in various countries since the late 2000s. In countries such as Russia, several stringent measures, including harsh restrictions on foreign funding for civil society organizations, have been implemented.

However, democracy support has faced various difficulties. The Iraq War in 2003 led to the “backlash” against democracy support generally. Furthermore, the decline of Western powers associated with the emergence of China, referred to as a “power transition,” threatens the United States (US)-led liberal international order with negative effects on democracy support. The decline of Western liberal democracy’s appeal damages democratization and democracy support as well.

Consequently, democracy support has been forced to change. The de-politicization of democracy support, which avoids involvement in political arenas, is accelerating. Additionally, democracy support remains a low priority in Western countries’ foreign policies; the growing difference among actorsʼ priorities hinders its international cooperation. The US’ and European Unionʼs responses to the problems of civil society space also reflect these obstacles to democracy support. To improve the effectiveness of democracy support and protect civil society space, the actors should develop a support strategy that is adjusted to the situation of the target country while making stakeholders’ priorities clear and strengthening international cooperation. Simultaneously, the so-called “re-democratization” of Western democracies is required to recover democracyʼs appeal as a political regime model.

This thesis aims to show how America’s Middle East policy began to tilt towards a pro-Israeli stance in the aftermath of the Six Day War by analyzing the Lyndon B. Johnson administration’s reaction to the USS Liberty incident.

On June 8th, 1967, the USS Liberty, a U.S. intelligence ship, was assaulted by the Israel Defense Forces while sailing off the coast of Gaza, leaving 34 Americans killed and 171 injured. Officials for the Johnson administration initially argued as to whether the attack was intentional or mistake, but eventually accepted Israel’s claim that the attack was an “innocent mistake.” This, despite the fact that the officials had yet to receive results from American investigation teams.

While previous studies of the USS Liberty incident principally focused on Israel’s motives for the attack, this study will argue why the Johnson administration swiftly decided to downplay the attack before the conclusion of American investigations. Previous studies of America’s policy toward the Six Day War demonstrated a lack of interest in the USS Liberty incident, perhaps due to its relatively nominal impact on the overall peace process. This author, however, explores the possibility that America’s reaction to the USS Liberty incident was driven by officials’ desire to strengthen relations between the United States and Israel in the wake of the Six Day War.

Consequently, this study will evaluate the USS Liberty incident in terms of considering the process from how the United States began tilting toward a pro-Israeli stance. In relevant literatures it has been clarified that the United States actively displayed a pro-Israeli stance during the period between the Six Day War and the Yorn Kippur War. However, it is not necessarily said when and how the United States expressed its pro-Israeli stance. This study will clarify that the Johnson administration created the watershed to formulate America’s pro-Israeli policy in the aftermath of the Six Day War, by analyzing America’s reaction to the USS Liberty incident.

Furthermore, this author will point out that the Johnson administration did not actively display a pro-Israeli stance, but indirectly dictated policy under pressure which led to the drastic transformation of the Middle East. The administration decided to downplay the attack before Americans gathered all available information. This was because the Johnson administration managed to control the Israelis who were taking an aggressive stance against the Arabs in the peace negotiations. The motive here was to avert the Soviets’ further involvement in the Arab world and to alleviate tensions between Arabs and Israelis. However, in terms of the context of history, the Johnson administration’s policy over the USS Liberty incident deepened the U.S.-Israeli relationship, resulting in the United States’ formulating a pro-Israeli policy in subsequent decades. Although the Johnson administration’s aim was to create peace in the region, the decision of deepening relations with Israel eventuated that the Arabs would resort to seeking assistance from the Soviets, consequently furthering America’s involvement in Arab-Israeli conflicts.