How about a League of Democracies?
There's a rather interesting debate under way - just below the radar for now, but attracting increasing attention among foreign policy scholars and analysts - about whether the world needs a more effective institution than the United Nations.
The problem with the UN, according to its critics, is that any old nation can join - and every member has a vote. Yes, including Burma, Zimbabwe, north Korea and sundry other places whose governments don't exactly meet with universal approval.
So why not set up another body, whose members would have to pass certain agreed political standards? The US Republican party's presumptive presidential nominee, John McCain, has been championing the idea of what he calls a "League of Democracies".
This is what he said in March: "If I am elected president, I will call a summit of the world's democracies in my first year to seek the views of my democratic counterparts and begin exploring the practical steps necessary to [create a League of Democracies] ...This organisation could act when the UN fails to act--to relieve human suffering in places such as Darfur, combat HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, fashion better policies to confront environmental crises, provide unimpeded market access to those who endorse economic and political freedom, and take other measures unattainable by existing regional or universal-membership systems."
But he's not the only one toying with the idea - so is Barack Obama, and according to today's Financial Times, so too is the British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, whom it quotes as saying: "You can see the dangers. You don't want to set up something which undermines the ability of the international system to get to grips with difficult issues. Equally though . . . should people with the same values work effectively together? The answer must be yes."
The FT's foreign affairs commentator Gideon Rachman is not impressed. "Almost all of America's closest democratic allies have deep reservations about a league of democracies. The Europeans are committed to the UN and would be loath to join an alliance that undermined it. They are also suspicious of America's democratic evangelism."
And a former British ambassador to the United Nations, Lord Hannay, writes: "The real conversation-stopper, which none of the proponents of the league seems to have addressed, is the improbability that the great democracies of the developing world (India, Brazil, South Africa, and so on) would be prepared to sign up for the journey. A brief survey of the United Nations voting records of the three developing countries I have mentioned would reveal that they are among the most anti-interventionist of all UN members and the most hesitant about authorising the use of force. Have any of the champions of a league of democracies thought to ask the Indians or Brazilians what they think about the idea?"
So is it a non-starter? I'm not so sure. Look at NATO, for example, which expects of its members that they will have achieved what it calls "certain goals in the political and economic fields". These include "settling any international, ethnic or external territorial disputes by peaceful means; demonstrating a commitment to the rule of law and human rights; establishing democratic control of their armed forces; and promoting stability and well-being through economic liberty, social justice and environmental responsibility."
Or take the European Union, which has what it calls "Copenhagen criteria" which need to be adopted by all aspiring EU members: "Membership requires that a candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and, protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union."
So there's nothing all that outrageous about international institutions setting out rules for membership. The big problem with the "League of Democracies" idea, it seems to me, is that it risks once again dividing the world into two blocs of nations, much as it was during the Cold War. In one bloc, you could have much of north and south America and Asia, and nearly all of Europe (not including Byelorus), plus some of Africa; in the other bloc, Russia, China and all of the Arab world, where there isn't a single functioning democracy (Lebanon and Palestine come closest, but neither is in great shape at the moment).
Gideon Rachman says: "The trouble with this idea is that it risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. America's relationships with China and Russia are complicated and ambiguous -- with elements of both competition and co-operation. But the formation of a league of democracies would harden antagonisms and might even be seen as the launching of a new cold war."
For now, the debate is being conducted largely in the US. I wonder how long it'll be before it takes off on this side of the Atlantic as well.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~08~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I think the idea of a League of Democracies, whilst not being a non-starter in that it obviously has potential benefits, could as you say polarise the world. However I would say that the main problem with it is that in many ways it is unnecessary. The European Union is already quite active in helping the developing world by offering reduced tariffs etc I believe. By extension, since the EU and many other democracies are already allied with each other, a League of Democracies would merely institutionalise something that already exists. This institutionalisation would perhaps foster a greater 'them and us' feeling particularly in the Middle East which could exacerbate terrorism on League countries.
In conclusion therefore, a League of Democracies is perhaps unwise and certainly unnecessary.
Complain about this comment
Please, would someone carefully and thoughtfully define what he believes is a generally acceptable definition of "democracy"?
If, as some would like to think, it means "those with a political system like ours", then specify the criteria for membership.
If you duck and say "Western-style" democracies, define your criteria.
Please do this before using the term "democracy" again.
________________
Substantively, the form of government, e.g. "people's democracy", "social democracy",
kingdom, etc., is not material.
Perhaps what is really intended is a set of criteria concerning individual liberties.
[But, be careful, the USA may be among the first to be excluded]
Complain about this comment
I guess Israel would be one of the first ones to be included in this "league", right?
Complain about this comment
It does sound like a very 'whites only' club -a very dodgy idea.
Complain about this comment
The problem with the UN is not that "any nation can join", but that it needs to have additional force through a partial surrender of sovereignty by member states.
The phrase "League of Democracies" is obviously a euphemism or code word for something else.
For journalists, the task is to pin down what is intended by this "something else"!
Complain about this comment
One more dumb idea. One more useless way to waste American taxpayer money. One more self deception of false hope based on naive assumptions. IMO the US should pull out of every existing treaty and organization it is in and only negotiate bi-lateral trade agreements on a basis favorable to itself. It should not agree to defend anyone else, at least not on a signed treaty. And it should make it clear that if it is attacked, the attacker will simply be eliminated completely. I do not see how the involvement of America in the rest of the world's affairs, especially since the end of the cold war has benefitted Americans. Quite the opposite. Let the rest of the world fend for itself. They don't appreciate American help five minutes after they don't need it anymore. By that time it is forgotten anyway.
Complain about this comment
McCain's foreign policy specialist was, very briefly, on NEWSNIGHT.
It seems that McCain's "foreign policy advisor" is as shallow as his boss-
The "League of Democracies" is simply a reprise of the Cold War idea, but with a multipolar (China, Russia, vs USA and friends) instead of bipolar view.
He defines "democracy" as a contrast to "autocracy"- definitely a shallow non-starter.
He sees it becoming active when there is a veto in the UN Security council. (There may be other examples, but the interview was too short to explore the matter).
Complain about this comment
And do these "democracies" include France and Germany who exercised their veto in the UN Security Council when the US and the rest of the world believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs and President Putin warned America he was planning to attack the US on American soil. The EU a democracy? Even a lot of Europeans don't think so. That's why the British government doesn't dare risk a public referendum. So what kind of democracy is Britain if it's government not only doesn't trust its own people but that they are powerless to do anything about it. Gordon Brown will have electionis....when he feels he can catch the voters in a weak moment and not a day sooner.
Complain about this comment
We have clerics in the House of Lords; is the UK a democracy?
Complain about this comment
The whole thing is just a load of Western-centric bollocks really. Is, for example, Serbia a democracy? Based on their electoral system and standards of freedom of speech, etc, the answer has to be yes, but it probably wouldn't be allowed in. What about Palestine? That's a democracy, they have elections and a high standard of criticism and debate. But would they be allowed to join this "league"? Probably not.
This would just be another imperialist organisation dominated by the USA.
Complain about this comment
McCain was one of the few republicans that questioned Blackwater, who are actively campaigning for a peace-keeping role Darfur with over-simplified arguments about the benefits of their cost-effective fast deployment. McCain will be spun into the happy acres home for the demented by mercenary lobbyists who will use this to make even more money.
Blackwater are also playing hosts to “democracies” like Jordan, Egypt, and Tunisia with promises of defense equipment and training.
What of the oil Pipe-line from Azerbaijan to Turkey and the involvement of “democracies” like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan? Surely they and Georgia will want to be included in this new pact.
I don’t get it, it doesn’t add up, the only reason Obama is considering it is because his adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski has some kind of interest in it in oil from the Caspain Sea.
Main Source although may not be correct: Blackwater by Jeremy Scahill.
Complain about this comment
This debate seems to have thrown up 2 interesting questions:
1.Are Wasp countries too prissy,too literalist, too icy in their definition of 'democracy'? If the likes of China at least want to describe themselves as democratic, can't that be a step forward?
2.Is our experience of democracy to be taken as an absolutist rule?
Tentative Conclusion: maybe the UN is Perfect in an Imperfect World.
Complain about this comment
Edit: it should have been 'Perfect for an Imperfect World'.
Complain about this comment
It's an interesting idea but one fraught with problems
1. - Who decides who can join? There would have to be a set of criteria (like those for the EU) but what would those be. If they are too restrictive then a useful country may be barred from joining. Too loose and it may as well be the UN.
2. Even if a country passes the criteria to join could it be "blackballed" from the club for other political reasons and if so how would that play out?
3. Would members be bound to a common foreign and defense policy? Would there be a veto (eg would France have been able to veto the US invasion of Iraq?) If no veto then countries could be placed in the position of being part of a club that has sanctioned a course of action it disagrees with.
4.One has to suspect that this idea (talked of mainly in the US) is simply an attempt to formalise the "coalition of the willing" and that the US would expect (or demand) that it acts to give a blank cheque to US actions that would not find favour in the UN. This would be a more difficult sell to non-US populations.
5. I'm not sure that the type of intervention (eg in Darfur) that this body could consider would still gain the support of the "democracies". The US or European countries could have intervened in the Sudan but decided not to. If this was because of Chinese opposition to the idea than that opposition would still exist and may in fact be increased if china is excluded from international decision making.
6. It would have the effect of creating a" them vs us" world view (something the US needs to justify the socialist part of its economy that supports its military) which could engender conflict.
7. Sooner or later the league would be forced to decide between supporting democracy/human rights and some greater geo-political "great game" type scheme - and will leave itself open to charges of hypocrisy.
8. the league would have to choose which interventions to make (eg if Sudan then why not Zimbabwe) which will again live either over stretch or accused of hypocrisy ("you only intervene when it is in your interest and not to help others so much for all your fancy talk...") or both.
Having said all the above Burma makes a great case for intervention - would this proposed league act in such a case?
You're all doing very well !!
Complain about this comment
I think this idea is not only in the wrong direction but also not smart at all. The fact is that anti-Americanism is at an all-time high amongst people in the Middle East and some places in Asia. The United States and its close friend, Britain, need to show what is the best way of using power. For example, the United States have to rectify some current policies like, closing Guantanamo so that people will not be tortured. In general what we need from a world superpower is tolerance and it even needs not much writ to achieve this aim. Will a proposed League of Democracies promote tolerance? I doubt it will. Will tolerance and communication of great acts lead to more tryannies in the world? I think it will not because Burma, after seeing what has been happening in China, is now accepting aids from the outside world.
Complain about this comment
While America or any other country is the global superpower, it will not go together with "tolerance" or an "ethical foreign policy". Sorry, but that's the truth. Countries' foreign policies don't tend to have moral values, but to be based on pragmatism, alliances between themselves and other countries (for whatever reason, necessity, or because they think they would gain more being in friendly relations with those countries, or historical/cultural links - UK/USA, Russia/Serbia, India/the Tamils in Sri Lanka, UK/Australia, etc...), or a desire to demonstrate power and show to other countries that they shouldn't mess around, or plain and simple expansionism.
I REALLY wish it wasn't like this, but unfortunately it is. Even the Second World War wasn't entered by Britain with the intention of overthrowing Hitler - the original aim was to try and "contain" Germany within its present (greatly enlarged) borders and prevent it challenging the "balance of power" with Britain as the Western European hegemonic power.
I don't know what if anything can be done to change this but I really wish it could, there has to be an end to it somewhere.
Complain about this comment
RE # 16.
Yes, there is a way out and forward.
It is to gradually surrender some sovereignty to a higher (supra-national) entity.
Eventually, the higher entity has exclusive control of the heaviest weapons and control over the lesser entities.
The NeoCons have proposed that the USA be such an super-entity. Perhaps others would favor a UN-type organization with teeth?
Complain about this comment
If only it were that simple.
What accountability would it have? Who would it be led/dominated by? What safeguards would be in place to stop it being dominated by crazy dictators, etc...
Complain about this comment
RE: #18
The creation of Germany is an example of many lesser kingdoms, etc joning together.
Perhaps Great Britain illustrates this also, as does the United States.
The process can start by small steps-
(as might be happening in the EU).
Complain about this comment
Ideological bloc thinking has terrible disadvantages despite its simplistic appeal.
Israel is again urgently calling for an attack on Iran. US politicians make sympathetic noises.
Who is reporting (other than the Christian Science Monitor) that the urban population of Iran greatly favors the USA over the mullahs?
Bloc thinking (and reporting) can block a great opportunity for World peace and a strategic coup for the West.
BBC, where are you?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS