A 'Concert of Democracies'

[Adrian II]

The Winter issue of The American Interest contains an interesting plea by Brookings Fellow Ivo Daalder and Strauss Center Director James Lindsay for a 'Concert of Democracies' to replace the United Nations as the focus for effective and legitimate international security cooperation. The plan has many loose ends, but I believe the core is essentially sound:


From the United States and Canada to India and Japan, from Brazil and Argentina to Botswana and South Africa, from Finland and Spain to Australia and New Zealand, the world’s democracies possess the greatest capacity to shape global politics. (..) Harnessing the power that comes from this overwhelming military, economic, political and social advantage would provide the necessary ingredients for effective international action.

Link (http://www.the-american-interest.com/ai2/article.cfm?Id=219&MId=6)

[Pindar]

A concert of stable democracies has always been my view as the only viable alternative for an international assembly with any moral appeal.

The critical flaw of the U.N. is not its impotence, but it's giving participatory power to totalitarian regimes (even to Permanent Membership on the Security Council).

[Papewaio]

I don't think dictatorships should get a vote at the UN. If the dictators deny their people a vote, why should the dictators get one at the UN?

[Adrian II]

A concert of stable democracies has always been my view as the only viable alternative for an international assembly with any moral appeal.I know, and so do I as you may remember. However, loose ends and practical obstacles abound.

My main reason for doubt about such a set-up has always been its possible lack of effectiveness in solving major security issues. As the first Gulf intervention (1990-1991) proved, it is preferable to have non-democratic nations on board, and this can only be achieved by granting them some form of participation. The intervention in Iraq (2003 - ?) on the other hand proved that democracies can fall out, and fall out pretty seriously, over the preferred way to solve an issue - if they agree to acknowledge the issue and its urgency in the first place. As for Darfur and similar minor threats...

[KukriKhan]

So, by 2017, we could easily see interventionist Concert of Democracies vs. state soveriegnicists League of Authoritarian States, with terrorist entities attacking both on the side. Would not the states uninvited to the CoD feel the need to also join hands (and arms) against CoD hegemony?

I can see the practicality of a CoD for problem-solving, but I fear such an organization would still lack legitimacy, even in the eyes of much of its own citizenry.

And, of course the creation of a CoD would lead to a dissolution of the UN, as irrelevant.

This is not an organized rebuttal to the notion - I'm just thinking out loud.

edit: thanks for the great find AdrianII. Thought-provoking material, indeed. :bow:

[Adrian II]

edit: thanks for the great find AdrianII. Thought-provoking material, indeed. :bow:Let's be honest, I'm the village idiot here. I post all the gay crap about realist painting or Aldous Huxley, and then we all just go on blabbering about Iran-gate, Gore-gate, abortion-gate and squid-gate.

Such is life. And I wouldn't wanna miss it for the world. ~;)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It seems like a good idea. Until you consider that once you put the non-democratic nations outside the tent you have no influence over them. It's decidedly undiplomatic to be exclusive on the basis of ideology.

[KukriKhan]

Let's be honest, I'm the village idiot here. I post all the gay crap about realist painting or Aldous Huxley, and then we all just go on blabbering about Iran-gate, Gore-gate, abortion-gate and squid-gate.

Such is life. And I wouldn't wanna miss it for the world. ~;)

Heh. It's 'cause we're more like the debate-society UN here, than a problem-solving CoD.:laugh4:

sotto voce: Note that I think that if the great minds here were actually focused on solving a problem, it could be dispatched quite quickly.

[Pannonian]

Let's be honest, I'm the village idiot here. I post all the gay crap about realist painting or Aldous Huxley, and then we all just go on blabbering about Iran-gate, Gore-gate, abortion-gate and squid-gate.

Such is life. And I wouldn't wanna miss it for the world. ~;)
Ahem. Don't forget lesbian koalas.

Tbh, when I saw the thread title, I was thinking of Song for Europe.

[Soulforged]

The critical flaw of the U.N. is not its impotence, but it's giving participatory power to totalitarian regimes (even to Permanent Membership on the Security Council).
Wouldn't it be better for totalitarian regimes to stay in an unifed global assembly? I think that's the main reason why the law on this regimes has been changing since the creation of the UN, this is in my opinion the main reason why they're changing into something we can consider to be better. Leaving them outside will probably motivate them to create their own club with their own agenda, not to mention leaving them outside of the democratic countries's jurisdiction.

Pehaps leaving them inside will transform them into something more humane, slowly but effectively.

[Suraknar]

I was not aware of this. Thank you really Adrian II for bringing it up!

This is indeed very very intreresting topic.

I have always thought personally, that there should only be one Armed Force upon earth, that of the UN, and all UN member Countries should give up their own armed forces, if we were to have lasting peace upon this planet.

Many countries could have participated financially to maintain such a UN army, at a fraction of the cost that they now invest to their own armed forces. Many companies, world wide, could participate and get the contracts to make the weapons for such an army. The benefits of doing so are numerous of cource for all the peope on earth, immagine how with all the money saved from Military Budges in a world Wide Scale we could slowly solve all those problem that hunt Humanity.

Yet under the current circomstances of the socio-political landscape we live in, this view is was but wishfull thinking on my part.

Untill now maybe. This Proposition here, may have in fact lead to one day to the above in the long term.

Yet, at what cost?

That is in my present view, the ethical dillema that this proposition implies.

I read it all, I am in agreement to its first part that demonstrates the shortcommings of the U.N. these are real problems that many are analysing on a daily basis and try to find solutions to.

I then moved to the second part with demonstrates the advantages of the proposition.

I have to say that the document pits Disadvantages of the U.N against the advantages of the Concert of Democracies.

And so, I am left after reading it, with thoughts as to the Disadvantages of the Proposition which are not brought up.


Although the vast majority of UN members is comfortable with the notion that borders demarcate international no-go zones, this principle of absolute sovereignty is unsustainable in an age of global politics. When developments within one state can profoundly affect the security and well-being of peoples in other states, the only practical way for countries to ensure their security is to interfere into the internal affairs of other states. The fundamental question of how that can best be done is one that the United Nations has so far largely shunned, and that, given its origins and very nature, it is unlikely ever to answer effectively.

I think the fundamental question here is not how to find solutions in Interfearing within what is defined as Sovereignity within the U.N. charter, and International Law.

The fundamental questions are how to respect Sovereign entities and offer them the opportunity to come to par with what us, democratic Countries, perceive as a better way of Life.

We seem to forget that we ourselves had to fight against oppression, dictatorships and monarchies in order to come together and self-realise as a people our way of living in freedom under the premisses of Democracy.

That self-determination has helped most democratic countries to rapidly advance economically and socially, its people to attain new levels of expression in various fields, and jump-start thus a circle of progression within our respective societies.

Yet, this process did not happen over all of the world. The results of it we felft duringthe last II World Wars which also woke us up on a global scale and caused us to create an International organisation such as the UN.

I agree with the Proposition's problematic of the current world, when, we seem to have become unnaware, either by ignorance or by choice, to the growing dangers emanating from internal strife that many other countries still have.

But, that does not mean, that we can just assume that our way is better just because we know its better, and impose our views to people that have not come to this self-realisation on their own. This represents the ethical evuation we face.

If we have fought, bled and died to attain our Democracy, we also learned in the process valuable lessons, which we seem to have forgotten in the form of this Proposal for the creation of a CoD.

How about the practical-realistic evaluation? What measures do we propose to have in place to prevent global or local conflict and intervention based on interests of the constituents of a CoD?

Aswell as some of you have said here, what measures are there in place to prevent non-democratic countries to band together and form an equivalent Organisation as the opposition?

Are we heading towards a Global Cold War? And if we can rely to our fellow Democratic Countrie's Wisdom to prevent any of the CoD constituents from causing conflict out of their own agenda.

How can we be sure that the danger involved of an Opposing Organisation made up of non-democratic countries would have same restraint?

And what if they become confident in their resolve as well and judge right aswell from their perspective and under the excuse of their own security, to act in the internal affairs of some country to cause social and political change in favor with their own stance and view?

What then? Are we readilly admitting that we would be willing to engage in a global scale war, to defend principles?

And what if the contrary happens? What if the CoD identifies Terrorist organizations in a given country and decides to act together in order to provoke change inside that country, but the Opposing Organisation does not agree and that disagreement Leads again to Global Wide Conflict.

Have we evaluated such propositions? Or just assumed that everyone will form a lineup to join this newly organisation? I think to assume so is naive at best.

This does merit in one way or another serious thought nevertheless. It is crude at its present form, young in its assumptions and even irrisponsible to some degree in its conclusions. But, it does show an effort to present solutions, and as such it shant be dismissed as an empty proposal. But should not be viewed aither as a clear solution to "fix our problems and permit business as usual". The world is not an enterprise, and its populations are not just employees.

Feel free to comment and offer your own views.

[Pannonian]

It seems like a good idea. Until you consider that once you put the non-democratic nations outside the tent you have no influence over them. It's decidedly undiplomatic to be exclusive on the basis of ideology.
In any case, what people are usually talking about when they say "UN" is the Security Council. The UN as a whole was just meant to be a gathering place for representatives of all countries, so even small countries who couldn't otherwise afford diplomatic embassies could talk with others. OTOH, the Security Council wasn't meant to be indicative of democracy or anything idealistic, it was purely meant to be representative of the military realities at the end of WW2. Why the Big 5 had to be represented thus was because each of them could seriously mess up the lives of the others if they weren't.

Getting rid of the UN just because one is dissatisfied with the balance of power in the SC seems a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Suraknar]

Yes, also, the SC, was based on nuclear capability.

Which now presents a problem, since, with the non-proliferation agreements it pretty much stamped that the 5 would remain there forever, and obviously that does not make everyone happy.

So some countries now seek to get nuclear capabilities, because they perceive that it is the only way to ascend in to SC themselves.

So for sure, there needs to be reorganisation of the SC adhesion, otherwise everyone will continue to seek out the Nuclear solution.

[Devastatin Dave]

Let's be honest, I'm the village idiot here. I post all the gay crap about realist painting or Aldous Huxley, and then we all just go on blabbering about Iran-gate, Gore-gate, abortion-gate and squid-gate.

Such is life. And I wouldn't wanna miss it for the world. ~;)
Are you saying that you want to abort baby squids with nuclear devices provided by the Iranians while Al Gore heats the earth with his flatulance? Not while this red-blooded, non comprehending American still has breathe in him!!! USA!!! USA!!!!:furious3:

[HoreTore]

It seems like a good idea. Until you consider that once you put the non-democratic nations outside the tent you have no influence over them. It's decidedly undiplomatic to be exclusive on the basis of ideology.

I agree completely with that. In addition, they are likely to create a union for themselves. Like the counter to NATO.

Much better to leave the UN as it is, in my opinion. Anyways, the problem with the UN are not the dictatorships, it is the democracies...

[KafirChobee]

Define "democracy", as it has been used by China, Vietnam, Cuba, and even Saddam's Iraq - didn't Hitler call his Germany a democracy too.

Still, over all what has been proposed may sound like a good premise - but, in the end when one group of nations attempt to impose their perfect ideals to the barbarian children ... what exactly is the difference between them then?

The assumption that if all nations of the world were democracys (isn't that Bushy's mantra?), or the world was ruled by the democracys that be, the world would somehow be better? Maybe. It could be argued that democracys have never warred on one another - but wait, democratic nations have infact supplemented another one with a dictatorship (as in Iraq under Eisenhower).
*Nixon and Reagan only supported the dictatorial regimes there.

If we ignore history, the premise sounds sound - utopian. But, democracys spy on one another, have a margin of trust or distrust (glass half empty) towards one another; it has always been a one upmanship world, and it is improbable that being similar or imposing ones will on all unlike nations really means much in the 21st century.

As for the UN.
The entire point on the UN is to allow discussion, to attempt to ward off a world war and to have a neutral ground for debate. That there has been an attempt to empower the UN with blunted teeth - well, that lies on Americas unwillingness to allow its troops to serve under a foreign commander, and yet call upon them to back their foreign ventures - or atleast ask them to agree with what ever wild premise we submit (WMDs in trailers, etc). Ergo, few UN-US troops, except by our own intervention.

Maybe we should just go back to the principles of Plato's Republic - and allow a place for philosophers (aside from the Machiavellians presently dominating the world scene) in government. Who knows, it might make a difference - atleast we would have people that could think in government, and outside the normal boxes.

[Adrian II]

Anyways, the problem with the UN are not the dictatorships, it is the democracies...This is so true.

Many, if not most shortcomings of the U.N. stem from a lack of cooperation between its democratic members. As the authors state, the potential for democracies to collectively shape world politics is there. But they fail to analyse why this potential rarely materializes. Their view on the nature of cooperation between democracies borders on the naive:


It works not only because its members have common interests and shared values, but also because they have established procedures for overcoming disagreement in ways that both meet the interests of the members and ensure timely and effective action. Democracies work well with each other, above all perhaps, because their shared commitment to the rule of law and government of, by and for the people enables them to trust one another’s leadership. There is no place for intimidation or coercion in inter-democratic interactions, whereas relations between democracies and non-democracies are invariably infused with suspicion and mistrust.Do democracies have common interests? I think the constant hassle between the U.S. and the European Union over trade policy proves that they don't necessarily have common interests.

Do democracies shun coercion and intimidation? I think that the Iraq episode proves that they don't. The U.S. was pressuring democracies such as Chile into supporting its position in the Security Council, whilst France was intimidating other democracies (such as the new member states of the EU) to give up their support for the U.S. position.

Do democracies share values? Yes they do, in the sense that they share a commitment to the rule of law and government by the people within their own borders. History has shown time and again that democracies are willing to sacrifice democracy elsewhere in the interest of their own freedom, their own autonomy, their own safety and their own economic and diplomatic interests. Democracies are selfish, just like all countries have been throughout history.

[Suraknar]

The problem in the UN is that not all its members always understand the complexity of its mission. Democracies or not.

[Suraknar]

There is something that i dont understand fully, maybe somene from the States can explain?

From that proposal:


By re-striking the bargain the United States once had with its postwar partners, the creation of a Concert of Democracies also gives Washington a way to regain the trust of those countries that matter most to the American people—our fellow democracies. The Bush “revolution” has clearly shaken the confidence that our friends once had in our ability to use our great power wisely. As the recent criticisms of American foreign policy emanating from the British Conservative Party attest (with its new, young leader calling Bush’s foreign policy “simplistic” and its neoconservative foundations a “failure”), even our closest partners are working to distance themselves from Washington. The result is diminished American influence. Unless that trend is checked, the United States will find its overseas burdens growing even as its capacity to shape world events shrinks. By contrast, a Concert of Democracies gives America’s democratic partners in Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America something they have long wanted: an America that again plays by the rules rather than selectively ignores them.

A - Why can't America play by the rules now?

B - Seems like the people who drafted this wish that America regains the trust of the International Community. But trust is not earned by removing those that oppose us from the picture or the equation.

[Adrian II]

B - Seems like the people who drafted this wish that America regains the trust of the International Community. But trust is not earned by removing those that oppose us from the picture or the equation.We shouldn't strive for the trust of non-democratic countries. They should learn to fear us for what we are: a constant, living indictment of their inhumane and illegitimate practices. Let them sweat.

The authors' proposal to start with a select grouping of democratic countries, the D-60, along the lines of the G-8 &cetera, is brilliant. It would allow participating countries to test the waters, develop new procedures and ultimately use their clout as a group to take new, farther-reaching steps.

But some fundamental understanding has to be thrashed out first. One important yet unresolved issue in the CoD is that of state sovereignty. American members may recall that their original, separate states would only accede to the Union on condition that they retained a large measure of autonomy plus the right to equal representation in the Senate, two rules serving as buffers against interference and encroachment by the majority. They may also remember that American interference in the internal affairs of other democracies was not always welcome.

A CoD would need - mutatis mutandis - some similar provisions before it can mature into an effective organisation with leadership roles.

And precisely because the internal organisation of states would be the criterion for accession, the matter of state sovereignty will be very sensitive terrain indeed. Once the principle of interference is accepted, does it apply among democracies, too?

Will a minority of democratic states, in the interest of effectiveness, have to abide by majority decisions even against their will and stated selfinterest? Among other reasons, this question is very important because participating countries may have very different economic systems.

[Brenus]

Interesting readings….
So somebody wants to rebuild the SDN… It is very easy to speak to your friends but unfortunately it is with your enemies you have to talk if you want peace… So, if you exclude the potential enemies, or let say the one you disagree with, what is left? Excluding Germany, Italy or Japan of the SDN resolved nothing… At least, the US pressure obliged North Korea and perhaps Iran to talk. And Putin’s Russia was essential (as China) to do so. Exclude them, and see the result.
More, most of the Democratic nations saw the first George W. Bush election as a coup organised by his brother. Al Gore got more voices but Bush is President because his brother declared the elections valid, even before the end of the count… Imagine the same story in Africa…
So, let’s expel USA from the Concert of Democracy… France, expelled because disagreement with official causes of war and an open will to be independent, as Germany…
No, this can’t exist, because let face the fact: Some link capitalism and Democracy, I don’t. And I want to be able to choose another economical model if I want (and the majority of the French voters as well) and still be in a democracy…

[HoreTore]

Brenus, that is exactly the reason why I'm against the EU. It's a great idea, but I just cannot stand the right-wing(european right, not US) economics. It wants a free market on every single area, and I just cannot accept that. And fortunately for me, neither can my government...

I fully support the idea of helping each other out, however, I cannot accept its hatred for market regulations.

[Scurvy]

Brenus, that is exactly the reason why I'm against the EU. It's a great idea, but I just cannot stand the right-wing(european right, not US) economics. It wants a free market on every single area, and I just cannot accept that. And fortunately for me, neither can my government...

I fully support the idea of helping each other out, however, I cannot accept its hatred for market regulations.

free market for North Sea Oil seems like a good idea to me :2thumbsup:

i agree though..

[Suraknar]

No, this can’t exist, because let face the fact: Some link capitalism and Democracy, I don’t

Yes that is a major major issue, hampering relationships between US and other democracies.

While in the US (and NA as a whole for that matter) Democracy means Capitalism that is certaintly not the case in all democracies. And just because some Countires dont have Capitalist Economical systems it does not mean that they are not Democracies.

even in the proposal we can see this:


Twenty-eight of the world’s thirty largest economies are democracies. The average annual income of people living in democratic societies is about $16,000, nearly three times greater than the average income of those living in non-democracies.

But they dont mention that in places where the average income is lower, rent is also lower, cost of services is also lower, education is free etc etc etc.

Now, about the EU, it is an economical power, at least it started as an economical proposition, it touk years to evolve to more, and it is heading towards more...such as political and military.

If the CoD started out as an economical union at first, without any political and military agenda that could be feasable in time.

But it proposes right off the bat, to be a political and military union with economical sideline. And it proposes for solutions to violate sovereignity. Which conveys teh mesage that there is some kind of intent to do so to any state that does not fit "our" way of doing things.

Concequently this creates an ethical dilema which may have very serious reprecautions.

[HoreTore]

free market for North Sea Oil seems like a good idea to me :2thumbsup:

i agree though..

Actually, there is a free market there already, we simply tax the hell out of them :laugh4:

I was talking about things like gambling, where the EU tried to force us not to have any regulations...

[Rodion Romanovich]

Dangerous to form a concert of democracies, since it would immediately lead to two things:
1. demonization of countries that have become dictator ruled out of necessity and outside factors rather than anything else
2. forgetting the reasons behind no. 1
3. the concert of democracies would start to look upon itself as morally superior, to such a degree that it would allow the democratic countries that are part of it to let their democracies degrade and devolve into disguised dictatorship. Not only that, but it would also eventually start to consider itself superior to other countries in a way that would make it relax rules of engagement and similar. The final problem, is that from looking upon dictator ruled nations as inferior, it would inevitably and eventually turn into looking upon the people living in such countries as inferior, and suddenly we're back at fascism/19th ce colonialism/roman imperialism/communism again, arising in pretty much exactly the same way as these ideologies and similar ones arose.

Sure it sounds good on the surface and at first sight, but we've been through this too many times to repeat the mistake. Memebership in a coalition calling itself "concert of democracies" shouldn't become the standard way of measuring whether a particular country is democratic or not. You have to earn the title of democracy among the people. Some European and American countries are currently in the process of losing these titles in the eyes of many.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You also have problems of how you define a democracy. Technically the UK, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Holland and others are not true democracies because they are not Republics.

Additionally the UK is currently in the grip of a tyranny which is only now losing it's grip.

Ultimately though you assume that a democracy is always preffereable, which simply isn't true.

[Adrian II]

You have to earn the title of democracy among the people. Some European and American countries are currently in the process of losing these titles in the eyes of many.Which countries would that be? And exactly who are the 'many'?

[Suraknar]

3. the concert of democracies would start to look upon itself as morally superior, to such a degree that it would allow the democratic countries that are part of it to let their democracies degrade and devolve into disguised dictatorship. Not only that, but it would also eventually start to consider itself superior to other countries in a way that would make it relax rules of engagement and similar. The final problem, is that from looking upon dictator ruled nations as inferior, it would inevitably and eventually turn into looking upon the people living in such countries as inferior, and suddenly we're back at fascism/19th ce colonialism/roman imperialism/communism again, arising in pretty much exactly the same way as these ideologies and similar ones arose.

Yes, it may look good to the average eye, but in reality its a step back not a step forward.




We shouldn't strive for the trust of non-democratic countries. They should learn to fear us for what we are: a constant, living indictment of their inhumane and illegitimate practices. Let them sweat.

The authors' proposal to start with a select grouping of democratic countries, the D-60, along the lines of the G-8 &cetera, is brilliant. It would allow participating countries to test the waters, develop new procedures and ultimately use their clout as a group to take new, farther-reaching steps.

But some fundamental understanding has to be thrashed out first. One important yet unresolved issue in the CoD is that of state sovereignty. American members may recall that their original, separate states would only accede to the Union on condition that they retained a large measure of autonomy plus the right to equal representation in the Senate, two rules serving as buffers against interference and encroachment by the majority. They may also remember that American interference in the internal affairs of other democracies was not always welcome.

A CoD would need - mutatis mutandis - some similar provisions before it can mature into an effective organisation with leadership roles.

And precisely because the internal organisation of states would be the criterion for accession, the matter of state sovereignty will be very sensitive terrain indeed. Once the principle of interference is accepted, does it apply among democracies, too?

Will a minority of democratic states, in the interest of effectiveness, have to abide by majority decisions even against their will and stated selfinterest? Among other reasons, this question is very important because participating countries may have very different economic systems.

Sorry Adrian I missed this one :)

If the unifying point of the "Democratic Countries" is Soveregnity and Human Rights then such an organisation is not required, because it already exists.

The UN has already these two principles in its Charter. Albeit maybe not as enforced.

So instead of trying to undo it, and propose a new solution, why not work from within an existing organisation and put forth reforms and new proposals to ammend its Charter?

Some people on this planet chose Democracy as their way of life, they came to it through a certain journey. Some others havent completed that journey. (And I am using jurney here instead of strugle).

But just because some have attained Democracy it does not mean that they can assume to hold the keys of happiness and Impose this happyness to those that havent completed that journey yet.

It would be undemocratic to do so.

Hence the paradox of the situation. I would say it would be better if the non-democracies respect the democracies rather than fear them. It would be better for the non-democracies to want to become democracies rather than be obligated to become democracies.

And that takes time, patience and active participation, not passive participation.

[Kralizec]

Did someone say concert?

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/clinton_saxophone.jpg