League of Democracies or Anti-UN?

[LongTomH]

There's an interesting op-ed piece by former UN Undersecretary Shashi Tharoor on the Guardian UK website: This mini-league of nations would cause only division

The idea: A league of "like-minded democracies," led by the US, who could react to international crises, humanitarian, ecological or military, more quickly that the United Nations.

McCain says he'd establish the league in his first year in office: a close-knit grouping of like-minded nations that could respond to humanitarian crises and compensate for the UN security council's tendency to be hamstrung by the likes of Russia and China when it needs to take decisive action against the world's evil-doers. Neocon guru Robert Kagan, an avid proponent, says: "The world's democracies could make common cause to act in humanitarian crises when the UN security council cannot reach unanimity." The league's strength would be that it "would not be limited to Europeans and Americans but would include the world's other great democracies, such as India, Brazil, Japan and Australia, and would have even greater legitimacy".

Mr. Tharoor sounds several warning notes here:

The world has just, less than two decades ago, come out of a crippling cold war. We are moving fitfully to a world without boundaries, one in which America's biggest potential geopolitical rival, China, is also its biggest trading partner. If we were to create a new league of democracies, who would we leave out? China and Russia, for starters - a former superpower and a future one, two countries without whom a world of peace and prosperity is unimaginable. Instead of encouraging their gradual democratisation, wouldn't we be reinforcing their sense of rejection by the rest? Might the result be the self-fulfilling prophecy of the emergence of a league of autocracies with these two at the helm?

But would all democracies even join such a league? Not if the price were the alienation of vital trading partners, resource suppliers or simply neighbours who happen to be non-democracies. Democracies like India and France have proved prickly in the past about countries like the US or Britain assuming that their internal political arrangements would necessarily govern their foreign policy choices. Many democracies have other affinities that are as important to them. India, for instance, may count solidarity with other former colonies, or with other developing countries, as more important than its affiliation with a league of democracies; southeast Asian democracies might prefer their regional alliance with autocracies in Asean. The American notion that a collection of democracies would inevitably be an echo-chamber for an American diagnosis of global problems is a fantasy.

<snip>

It is also specious to argue that collective action by a group of democracies (when the UN is unable to act) would enjoy international legitimacy. The legitimacy of democracies comes from the consent of the governed; when they act outside their own countries, no such legitimacy applies. The reason that decisions of the UN enjoy legitimacy across the world lies not in the democratic virtue of its members, but in its universality. The fact that every country in the world belongs to the UN and participates in its decisions gives the actions of the UN - even that of a security council in urgent need of reform - a global standing in international law that no more selective body can hope to achieve.

One of the commenter at the Guardian UK site pointed out that a real "League of Democracies" might not legitimately include the US, given the nature of our recent elections and the drift toward fascism.

Conservatives have never liked the United Nations. Throughout the Cold War, there were constant calls from the hard right for the United States to leave the international organization founded by US presidents. The unspoken assumption by conservatives is that this league would be a sounding board for US hegemony. Shashi Tharoor also attacks this notion. Read the rest of the article here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/27/unitednations.usa

[Hydra]

1. Meshes nicely with the problems with the "Missle Defense Shield"

New Cold War coming, and we are drawing the lines.

As for it being a "League of Democracies," history has proven that we are allergic to democratic nations and promptly stomp on them.

[Igel]

2. Has Obama commented on his advisor's call for a

"Concert" of democracies? Ivo Daalder, who issued his call when already an Obama advisor, it seems. His project is at http://www.the-american-interest.com/ai2/article.cfm?Id=220&MId=8 , co-authored with Kagan. Ahem.

Apparently some O. advisor named Lake has called for something similar.

Now, I know that the three aren't connected at the brain stem, but presumably if Daalder was too offensive in his own policy views his advice wouldn't be sought.

BTW, idea's been around for a decade or so, it's original with neither McCain nor Daalder, and has been floated by people in both parties from time to time. Depends on their fairly short-term agenda: If the UN is in the way, it's a good idea; if they like the UN, it's a horrible idea. It's also a horrible idea, some think, if the enemy party is currently in favor of it.