A 'Concert of Democracies'

**Adrian II** · 03-22-2007, 21:01

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

**Pindar** · 03-22-2007, 21:16

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** · 03-22-2007, 21:29

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** · 03-22-2007, 21:36

Originally Posted by Pindar

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** · 03-22-2007, 21:54

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.

**Adrian II** · 03-23-2007, 00:07

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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

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** · 03-23-2007, 00:33

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** · 03-23-2007, 00:44

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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.

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** · 03-23-2007, 02:43

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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.

**Devastatin Dave** · 03-23-2007, 03:55

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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!!!!

**Soulforged** · 03-23-2007, 02:43

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.