A 'Concert of Democracies'

[Adrian II]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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!!!!