John McCain has proposed the creation of a global organization he has dubbed the "League of Democracies." In either of the two forms which he has outlined, the concept has raised the hackles of the High Minded for whom the UN is the end all and be all of international organizations.
Credit for the idea has been awarded to Ivo Daalder, an analyst at the Brookings Institution. On this, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jHeyKtCtWClMxihMhSrz5rSgaERgD90VTGH00. Without any discredit to Daalder, the germ of the concept was first advanced by Admiral Lacoste, a former director of the French foreign intelligence service in his book World War IV. The admiral's book came out some fifteen years ago.
The admiral, like Senator McCain (and the Geek), regarded the United Nations as an inherently less than reliable body. Looking forward Lacoste saw the situation on the Banks of the Hudson growing ever more frustrating and futile as Islamism and its violent helpmate jihadism grew in influence and puissance.
On occasion the Lofty Global Entity can lurch into a semblance of effective operation. Those few moments have usually come as a result of a truly egregious breech of the peace and the abject failure of diplomacy. It has also come about as the result of a full court press by the US and its major allies.
The results can be good--the Korean War, or the First Persian Gulf War. The results can be poor--regime change in Iraq.
In these high profile cases, the UN has provided a political-diplomatic fig leaf to cover the American policy genitalia. In short, if the US is willing and able to grab enough countries by their short hairs and if the cause of action is sufficient to provide diplomatic cover, the Security Council or even the General Assembly will authorize action.
Outside of a handful of particularly repulsive acts by noxious governments which resulted in UN action, the Association of the High Minded on the edge of the Hudson has a very spotty record.
It is this spottiness which propelled Lacoste, Daalder and McCain to propose an alternative body. This body would at least share a common commitment to and experience with democracy.
Critics of the proposal (http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blogitics/20023/john-mccain-and-the-league-of-global-antagonism/) accuse McCain of proposing an elitist outfit of exploitative states which would seek to impose its collective (read "American") will on the benighted heathens outside the gates.
The US doesn't need to create another multilateral body in order to pursue its subjective foreign policy interests. There are plethora of these already--including the UN, as history (including that of very recent nature) shows.
Other critics http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/conor_foley/2008/05/fantasy_league.html. argue that McCain and others who look favorably upon the "League of Democracies" notion are simply unaware of the trajectory of regional multilateral entities. They point to the Commonwealth, the Council of Europe, the African Union and the newly created Union of South American Nations as clear evidence that more than enough democratically based regional outfits exist to accomplish McCain's stated goal of constraining tyrants.
Leaving aside the questionable assumption that the Africa Union represents a congerie of stable countries enjoying open, unfettered democracy or the equally dubious assertion that Hugo Chavez and his ilk are champions of the democratic ideal, this criticism is based on less than firm foundations.
What really seems to bother the supporters of the UN is that any effective "League of Democracies" would be able to function without the let or hindrance of Russia or the Peoples Republic of China. Apparently the very thought of doing something, anything, without the concurrence of these two countries turns knees to knocking and stomachs to quease.
Considering that the PRC is a single party oligarchy and is quite likely to remain such for decades if not generations to come and that Russia is well along the road to the same destination, a simple question is required.
The question?
Why should either single party oligarchy despite the trappings of elections be considered a democracy eligible for membership in the proposed "League?"
A pivotal reality of international life is ignored by the critics both in the US and abroad. They need to get a grip.
Get a grip on this. All states pursue self-defined national interests. Insofar as doing such in conjunction with other nations possessing coinciding national interests, they will do so. If it is necessary to push on alone, a country will do that as well.
Self-defined national interest. Keep a firm grip on that reality.
Why?
Several reasons. It is the rock on which the ship of dreams sailed by the High Minded will always founder. It is the reason that the UN talks, agrees, fails to take effective united action.
Even if the "League of Democracies" included only countries such as the US, the UK, France, Germany, the smaller nations of Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, the individual members would be governed by self-defined national interests--including the dictates of domestic politics.
This limits the capacity of the proposed "League" to be much more effective than the UN.
Limits, perhaps. Nullifies? No. The predicate for an organisation of states with a sound, tested and lengthy commitment to the mass of processes collected under the word "democracy" is an equally lengthy, tested and generally accepted dedication to human rights including legal equality, freedom of speech, assembly and conscience, and a jealous protection of the minority from a tyranny of the majority.
Common political and social values, a common understanding of the political compact may not be both necessary and sufficient for effective collective action against a common threat. Not necessary and sufficient, perhaps, but absolutely necessary to provide even the potential for coherent collaborative action.
Any "League" is unlikely to become a pure tool for some future cohort of American neocon ninnies. The "League" probably won't become a bureaucratic institution. It would be an effective way to circumvent the UN.
That's not a bad idea. Given the monolithic and large bloc represented by the Organization of Islamic Countries and the number of microstates with no authentic reason to exist beyond the human tendency to clump together on the basis of shared heritage and language, there is decreasing probability that the UN will be able to deal swiftly and effectively with emerging threats to either international peace or the internal disorder of collapsing states.
The High Minded both in and outside the chattering class may not find reality tasteful, but that doesn't make it any less real.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Even if the "League of Democracies" included only countries such as the US, the UK, France, Germany, the smaller nations of Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, the individual members would be governed by self-defined national interests--including the dictates of domestic politics.
Of course. But don't forget...democracy is very much in everyone's self interest as well.
This limits the capacity of the proposed "League" to be much more effective than the UN.
I can live with that. If the league did nothing more than pipe free internet into the dictatorships, a modern equivalent of Radio Free Europe, that alone would justify it's existence.
I don't really know the details of McCain's plan, but I have given a lot of thought to the idea. Here's my own proposal...
www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org
Any feedback is welcome...
gary
The Geek has taken a look at the provided link. He will make a longer assessment in a future post, but for the moment he confines his response. There are striking similarities between the proposed reformed UN and the outlines of the McCain League of Democracies (version 2).
The sticky point in both proposals is the mode and means of action when confronted with an international breach of peace or the bloodletting of a collapsing state.
But, that is one of the subjects that must await a future post for a fuller exploration.
(Another point is the limits of democracy--particularly in states and societies new to the concept. Democracy does not grow well under hothouse conditions--it's more like a sequoia than an orchid.)
HG,
The sticky point in both proposals is the mode and means of action when confronted with an international breach of peace or the bloodletting of a collapsing state.
I guess I'll have to wait for that future point as this is too vague to give a meaningful response.
(Another point is the limits of democracy--particularly in states and societies new to the concept. Democracy does not grow well under hothouse conditions--it's more like a sequoia than an orchid.)
I couldn't disagree more. Can you site an example of a people who you think aren't deserving of democracy?
gary
Please don't misunderstand the Geekmo. He believes that all humans deserve democracy and the dignity that the system ideally recognises in the individual. If the problem were only as simple as providing people what they deserve as members of the Great Order of the Belly Button, the Geek would be at the head of parade.
Unfortunately the realities of human institutional, social and cultural inertia show clearly that democracy must take root slowly to grow strong and tall. Recall that we've been at it for over two hundred years and haven't got it quite right yet.
Others can and should learn from our failures, but having spent years both practicing and studying interventionary diplomacy, the Geek is all too aware of the limits of haste and overly eager proddings.
Please, Gary, we are on the same side regarding the principle(s) at stake here, even if we are not in tandem on the means. Keep in touch, I'm sure we will both benefit.
Democracy does not grow well under hothouse conditions--it's more like a sequoia than an orchid.
I guess I'm still not understanding this point. Democracy is as simple as voting. Can you please give an example to illustrate your point?
gary
The Geek can't give a full response to such a complex query in the short compass of a comment. (Heck, he has over three hundred books in his personal library dealing solely with democracy from theoretical, historical, anthropological and political science perspectives.)
Voting per se is not the schwerpunkt of democracy even if it is the central act and most visible totem. To make voting a viable component of democracy, a vast web of supporting structures must be in place. Some of these are legal, some procedural and some, perhaps the most critical, are ineffable, matters of belief and orientation, of history.
To be full and effective, democracy depends not simply upon institutions and forms. It depends even more upon the faith and belief of its citizens.
Take for example the experiences of Wiemar Republic Germany or the Third and Fourth Republics of France. The withering away of Wiemar, the stasis of the Third and Fourth Republics came as a result of citizens having lost faith in two concepts: the future and the existence of a commonweal.
Admittedly, both concepts are abstract. Admittedly, both require that the individual citizen think beyond his self-interest and that of his primary affinity group(s).
Nonetheless, faith in these two ideas is the prerequisite for a successful democracy. Consider for a moment the "Revolution of 1800" in this country. The election campaign between John Adams the incumbent and Thomas Jefferson was vitriolic at best. Doomsayers predicted the collapse of the American experiment.
It didn't happen. Power was transferred peacefully between bitterly opposing parties (or factions as they were called back then.) Why? Why were the doomsayers, the Gang of 500 of two hundred eight years ago, so wrong?
The answer is found in the newspapers, letters and writings of the time. The American electorate (admittedly confined to the property owning white male minority) had a faith in their commonweal and a certain belief in the future. The faith and belief transcended factional and sectional differences.
Even in the final run-up to the War Between the States, the majority of Americans, both North and South, evidenced a faith in a commonweal and a belief in the future. True, it took a relative handful of "extremists" in today's terminology, (Southern Nationalists to use a more accurate description) to start the process of Secession.
It is interesting to note that the Southern Nationalists used the same language to justify their secessionist aspirations as the Colonial Patriots had used to explain their violent divorce from Great Britain.
Arguably the War Between the States was the most important lesson the Americans could have learned regarding the necessity to avoid extreme positions and to under gird the common faith in both commonweal and future.
History--that is, the record of human changes intellectually, socially, politically and economically--shows that humans and their institutions both material and immaterial have inertia. We are slow to accept radical change in the basics of our collective life.
As a result incremental changes, improvements, in our democracy including the extension of the franchise to women and then to Blacks as well as shifts in the processes of democracy including the rise of the electronic media were incorporated without erosion of the collective history-based faith in commonweal and the future.
The important fact is that the process took time.
Where sufficient time does not exist or exogenous factors prevent the development of faith in the commonweal and belief in the future, the result is seen in the Wiemar experiment (never forget that the Nazis came to power through election) as well as the collapse of the Third Republic and the rejection in the streets of the prematurely senile Fourth Republic.
If time is not allowed for both the development of faith and belief and the growth of institutions insuring fairness and transparency of the democratic process the result can be like those seen in Zimbabwe or Kenya. The structures of democracy must be developed, tested, refined and, most importantly, believed in.
Belief and faith have allowed the American democracy to survive even momentary loss of belief in structures such as was the case with the palpable vote fraud that gained Illinois (and perhaps, Texas) for JFK in 1960 or the US Supreme Court's short circuiting of the vote count in Florida in 2000.
It is belief and faith that allow the US democracy to survive disastrous presidents and loonie Congresses. But, then, we've had the time to develop and test our faith.
In other countries (and the Geek is sure you can list them in your mind) fragile democracies have made bad electoral choices. Parties have gained power under false flags; presidents have proven insatiable in ambition for unchecked power and so on. Quite often the response has been internal instability, violence and the emergence of a strongman.
Voting always invokes the law of unintended consequences as the future cannot be foretold. The test of a democracy's strength is how it deals with the results.
The development of strength and resiliency takes time. Development of faith in the future and belief in the commonweal take time.
Time is of the essence in democracy.
Thanks for the reply. This is clearly a subject dear to your heart.
While I agree that democracy isn't really as simple as voting, I would also say that there's a strong motivation to speed up the process wherever possible. We're entering a very dangerous time in history because of the failure to halt nuclear proliferation. Solving legitimate grievances in the world can only help.
If you had to bring your analysis down to a list of actionable items, what would you recommend? How would you improve or replace the UN?
gary
Post a Comment