[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).
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).