NationStates Jolt Archive


League of Democracies?

[NS]San Blanco
01-07-2008, 16:42
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OR8DTG0&show_article=1&cat=0

This is somewhat old news, I suppose, but as far as I know McCain hasn't dropped the idea from his platform. Moreover, I find the idea to be the most naively idealistic foreign policy proposal suggested by either candidate, rendering McCain's credentials as the experienced foreign policy and national security expert rather suspect. Is the idea actually possible? Would this new League of Democracies actually be an effective alternative to the United Nations? (Summary at the end for the tl;drs)

It seems not. Let us not forget that there already exists an organization of nations based on common democratic values - NATO. Certainly NATO was founded for the sole purpose of opposing the Soviet Union, but in the absence of this enemy, NATO is largely sustained and driven by the same common democratic values that are supposed to underpin the proposed LoD. Even so, with 26 nations, NATO has not always had an easy time making a decision. NATO's response to the crises in former Yugoslavia illustrated many of the difficulties the organization faces in creating a consensus to act, even in the face of a clear humanitarian crisis and even with similar liberal democratic values among the nations. If the prospects for NATO cooperation are often badly strained, the prospects for LoD cooperation are worse.

If the LoD is built to act based on a consensus model like NATO, decisionmaking will be invariably paralyzed by the dissent of at least one of the participants. Moreover, while democratic nations may have similar values, they will also have divergent aims and priorities, especially since the League of Democracies, unlike NATO, will directly include nations from outside Europe/America/Canada, who do not share the same economic conditions or security concerns.

Perhaps the LoD will not be built on the NATO model; perhaps it will be majority-ruled rather than consensus-ruled. Unless there is some means by which the LoD may compel its members to comply with the majority, the LoD becomes at best a brand name and at worst a paper tiger. Yet there is no reason to believe the LoD will be any better at compelling its members to comply with its dictates than the UN or even NATO. National governments have been loathe to surrender their sovereignty to any international or supranational body, whether democratic or authoritarian. Thus, one can expect that nations opposing the majority will of the LoD will not comply with it even if the LoD tries to require it of them, because the principle of national sovereignty still stands.

Finally, the LoD brings up issues of inclusion and exclusion. What are the criteria sufficient to establish a "democracy" worthy of joining the LoD? It's easy enough to allow in all the wealthy OECD countries which have liberal democratic governments across the board. But the issue becomes more complicated with controversial regimes such as Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, which - though unpopular in the US - have seemingly legitimately elected leaders.* Plus the LoD will have to include nations like "Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Lebanon,
Nepal, Nicaragua, Palestine, or Pakistan," where legitimate elections have strengthened those at odds with or distrusted by the US government.** None of this is to say that a true democracy favors the US by any means, but to emphasize that democracies are in fact a fractious bunch, and that the LoD could expect to include just as much fractiousness and division as the present UN.

Worse, the LoD will intentionally exclude a number of regimes. Saudi Arabia can hardly be classed a democracy, yet most democracies are dependent to some extent on valuable Saudi oil. Russia and China are likely to be excluded to the detriment of relations with them. Iran, already paranoid and probably convinced of an imminent US or Israeli attack, would only find its fears exacerbated if excluded from such a compact (as is likely). One should not expect authoritarian and semi-authoritarian governments to welcome the creation of an organization which could be viewed as overtly hostile to their sovereignty. Perhaps we should not fear the wrath of authoritarian governments, trusting in the righteousness of democracy as a system of governance, but drawing a line in the sand seems only to invite armageddon.

A democratic caucus within the UN aimed at making that body a more able defender of human rights is more feasible and less exclusive, and works within a body whose legitimacy and authority is (nominally) accepted by almost every recognized independent state. UN reform in favor of efficacy and strength, backed by a strong voting bloc of democracies, will do more to protect human rights and reduce international tensions than an alienating but ineffective super-alliance.

For the TL;DR

1 - Democracies don't always agree on everything. Look at NATO in dealing with the breakup of Yugoslavia.

2 - How will an LoD decide to act? By consensus? By majority rule? If consensus, again, consider NATO - if 26 nations cannot easily come to a consensus, more nations with even more divergent interests will be invariably paralyzed. If by majority rule, will the minority be compelled to comply with the will of the majority? If yes, how? Democratic nations hold their national sovereignty as sacrosanct just as much as authoritarian nations do. If no, how is the LoD an effective or necessary body? It's either a brand name (this war sponsored by the Justice League) or an utterly meaningless phrase.

3 - Inclusion - Who gets to be included, and who decides the criteria? Will we be including US-hostile governments who have legitimate elections (i.e. Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Lebanon, Nepal, Nicaragua, Palestine, or Pakistan... one could even argue for Venezuela and Iran)?

4 - Exclusion - This proposed alliance alienates those who view it as a potential arm of US imperialism. Moreover, it may alienate authoritarian governments who view it as a threat, and will certainly insult any controversially-democratic regimes (Venezuela and Iran come to mind).

5 - Solution - Continue to work with existing institutions. Solidify a democratic voting bloc in the United Nations to push for effective protection of human rights and to increase the UN's capacity for governance. The LoD is a grand and glorious scheme, but ultimately unrealistic, even naive.

Man, I have too much time on my hands.

* - IIRC, Iran's last parliamentary election disqualified a number of opposition candidates - hardly the epitome of democracy. However, US-Iran relations were hardly at a high point before this anyway.

** - Source: (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/pb59_carothers_league_final.pdf).
Hurdegaryp
01-07-2008, 16:51
Well, it's just a matter of finding a definition of democracy that allows you to include nations that don't care about individual freedoms at all. Take for example the very name of the German Democratic Republic, which was a communist police state. Mind you, I highly doubt that we'll ever see the rise of this socalled League of Democracies.
Ashmoria
01-07-2008, 16:58
mccain has admitted that he doesnt know much about economics or foreign policy and this shows that he is right.

i hope that if he gets elected this stupid plan goes by the wayside.
Hurdegaryp
01-07-2008, 17:02
Well, an apalling lack of knowledge about how the world works never stopped presidential candidates from gaining popularity.
Lunatic Goofballs
01-07-2008, 17:06
'League of Democracies'(LoD) has the same initials as 'Legion of Doom'. Coincidence?
Yootopia
01-07-2008, 17:07
No thanks, we have one, it's called the EU, and it's either ineffectual when acting in a democratic manner, or extremely efficient when essentially ruled by decree.

Having that on a world scale - nah. The UN is extremely weak in the kind of areas which a "league of democracy" would operate.
greed and death
01-07-2008, 17:09
Everything the Un was meant to be. and might actually work for preventing humanitarian crisis.
Hurdegaryp
01-07-2008, 17:14
Everything the Un was meant to be. and might actually work for preventing humanitarian crisis.

I wouldn't bet money on it. McCain doesn't seem like the type who cares about humanitarian crises outside the States anyway, which probably coincides with the opinions of the people who support him.
Yootopia
01-07-2008, 17:16
Everything the Un was meant to be. and might actually work for preventing humanitarian crisis.
Err why?

Seeing as most of the more lame-arse states which actually have humanitarian crises and can't do anything about them aren't democracies, I don't see why 'disaster prevention' will be anything but a talking shop.

EU :"Eh we should cut down on carbon emissions to reduce ecological damage"
US + Russia + Canada : "Nah"
EU : "COME ON GUYS"
US + Russia + Canada : "Nah, I don't think that's the root cause of the problem"
EU : "Well then what is?"
US + Russia + Canada : "Dunno, God or terrorism or something"
EU : "Oh ffs"

That's how I see it panning out regarding disaster prevention.
Mott Haven
01-07-2008, 17:34
Err why?



That is indeed the question. What would such an organization accomplish that informal or ad hoc networks do not already accomplish?

Would the ISS have more funding if it was an LOD project?

Would there be greater commitments to Afghanistan?

Would there have been more of a response to the Indian Ocean tsumani?

Better cooperation among banks? Police departments? Universities?

Fewer Rhetorical Questions?
Call to power
01-07-2008, 17:36
I didn't know McCain was old enough to have at one point received funding from the league of nations :p

also I double dare someone to trick or treat McCain's house dressed as a Soviet soldier
Yootopia
01-07-2008, 17:39
also I double dare someone to trick or treat McCain's house dressed as a Soviet soldier
:D

"I thought you guys dissolved :("
"NO, YOU JUST HAD NAP CAPITALIST PIG-DOG"
"Ach not again :("
Pure Metal
01-07-2008, 17:44
tl;dr... but it sounds pretty comic-book, while at the same time too close to the dismal League of Nations of the early 20thC.

we don't seem to hear about most of the 'the UN is crap' stuff that you americans seem to get. and now a presidential candidate is proposing a replacement lead by the US? hmm. how about working to change and make better what we already have?
Yootopia
01-07-2008, 17:46
how about working to change and make better what we already have?
IIRC that's Obama's platform :p
Aurill
01-07-2008, 17:47
A League of Democracies is going to suffer the same problems that the UN and NATO face unless it is arranged as a Representative Democracy in some fashion and the organization actually has its own military/humanitarian force.

The reason the UN and NATO face issues is that each nation only gets one vote, and NATO depends solely on the willingness of each nation for its military and humanitarian force.

The solution is simple, establish rules, or a constitution of sorts for the organization that allows a specific number of representatives per units of population, with a minimum number and a maximum number of representatives being set. Say no less than 2 representatives, with 1 representative for every 50 million people, and no more than 20 representatives per country. This means that countries with more than 1 billion people get no additional representatives, but then countries with less than that have a somewhat descent representation. Additionally, countries that are view as overpowering, like the US, don’t completely rule the organization.

Now you specify that these representatives must be chosen through the countries normal selection process, meaning if you vote for your representatives, these are just additional representatives that you vote for.

As for criteria for membership you must start by requiring a reasonable amount of money from each country as a membership fee. I suggest 1 to ½% of GDP for each country, but the required amount should be low enough that most countries can pay it. Additionally, each country should be required to provide their representatives with reasonable benefits as afforded to domestic representatives of each country, this includes salary, medical, etc. In other words, if the US gives their Senators, and Representatives certain benefits and salary, these LoD representatives must have the same benefits. Include requirements for travel expenses and room and board when traveling or housed abroad and staffers for their representatives

Now, the membership fees should be used to recruit and train military and humanitarian forces that are responsible for carrying out the decisions made by the LoD. These troops should be loyal to the LoD, and all countries should be bound by the decisions made, regardless of whether the majority of representatives from that country agreed.

Obviously, I haven’t come anywhere new working out all of the details, but I am just looking at some of those most obvious to me.

Besides, this is a Grand Idea that will never see the light of day and at no point in time would anyone ever consider anything similar to what I am suggesting.
CthulhuFhtagn
01-07-2008, 17:48
'League of Democracies'(LoD) has the same initials as 'Legion of Doom'. Coincidence?

Well, aside from his hatred of Superman Luthor's a pretty humanitarian guy, so maybe it'd work out.
[NS]San Blanco
01-07-2008, 17:56
tl;dr... but it sounds pretty comic-book, while at the same time too close to the dismal League of Nations of the early 20thC.


Hmmm... perhaps McCain will impose a spandex-only requirement on applicants to the LoD? At the very least, this spandex-reform would encourage more attractive leadership.

What would such an organization accomplish that informal or ad hoc networks do not already accomplish?

Precisely.
Conserative Morality
01-07-2008, 17:59
I didn't know McCain was old enough to have at one point received funding from the league of nations :p

also I double dare someone to trick or treat McCain's house dressed as a Soviet soldier

"Greetings comrade, candy for the proletariat or death from the revolution! Choose wisely comrade!"
[NS]San Blanco
01-07-2008, 18:10
A League of Democracies is going to suffer the same problems that the UN and NATO face unless it is arranged as a Representative Democracy in some fashion and the organization actually has its own military/humanitarian force.


This might be the only way one could guarantee democratically-mandated action without running into as much "national sovereignty"-based resistance. We might still expect nations to refuse to allow their nationals to fight in LoD wars they do not support, but the resistance would likely be less than it would be were the LoD to mandate each member-government to contribute militarily.
Yootopia
01-07-2008, 18:14
San Blanco;13804104']This might be the only way one could guarantee democratically-mandated action without running into as much "national sovereignty"-based resistance.
It would be exactly the same, but with even less legitimacy...
South Lorenya
01-07-2008, 18:38
tl;dr version of the first post: McCain wants another cold war.
Abdju
01-07-2008, 18:42
League of Democracy... FFS, it sounds like something out of some American super hero comic. Will the representatives get to wear spandex?

"General George & The League of Democracies Versus Lord Laden & The Axis of Evil!"

:rolleyes:

McCain pretending he understands foreign affairs and international diplomacy is no more convincing than Obama pretending he actually has genuine conviction and belief in his policies.

All major US presidential candidates = fail
"League of Democracies" = fail

EDIT - See I'm not the only one to notice the similarities to the world of science fiction... Let us just hope McCain does likewise.
Aurill
02-07-2008, 16:52
San Blanco;13804104']This might be the only way one could guarantee democratically-mandated action without running into as much "national sovereignty"-based resistance. We might still expect nations to refuse to allow their nationals to fight in LoD wars they do not support, but the resistance would likely be less than it would be were the LoD to mandate each member-government to contribute militarily.

That is the point of having several representatives per country. In all likelihood except for the smaller countries some of the members from each country may agree with the actions. It would make getting a majority vote more likely.

If the organization has its own military and humanitarian force, then the individual nations have no say so where the organization's individual troops go, whether they are nationals of that country or not. If the majority rules that troops are send in, then all troops go.

Ultimately, it all comes down to how the organization is structured. If done right, it can make the UN and NATO completely illegitimate, as if either actually have any real legitimacy today. If done wrong, it will be another joke, just like the UN and NATO are today.