Against the League of Democracies
This has obviously gotten pretty lost in the bailout shuffle, but at Friday’s debate John McCain went back to touting his notion that the United States ought to form a “League of Democracies” that, allegedly, could supplant the UN as the major multilateral actor in international crises. CAP Senior Vice President Nina Hachigian did a great post yesterday highlighting the major problems with this idea. I thought, though, that I might also take the opportunity to point out some less-major problems with it:
– Who wants to join? I see no sign whatsoever that major non-NATO democracies have any interest whatsoever in signing up for a venture like this. One could imagine Australia joining and presumably Israel and maybe a few others would. But India? South Africa? Brazil? New Zealand? Argentina? I don’t see it.
– Who decides on eligibility? Some countries are uncontroversially democracies (Norway) and others are uncontroversially not democracies (North Korea) but there’s this vast middle ground. The convention in the United States is that a penumbral case that’s geopolitically aligned with the United States is a democracy, whereas one that’s perceived as “anti-American” in its geopolitical orientation is not, but that hardly holds as a universally applicable standard.
These aren’t the main problems with the LOD concept, but the total failure to think them through tells you something about the intellectual heft behind latter-day neoconservative thinking about grand strategy. Meanwhile, back when I was working on Heads in the Sand I was pretty worried that a number of progressive thinkers seemed inclined to adopt a variant on the LOD idea. One beneficial impact of McCain’s embrace of this idea, is that I think it’s led some folks on the left to rethink their previous positions and move away from this unsound vision.
62 Responses to “Against the League of Democracies”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 30th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Nina Hachigian is the woman of my dreams. Please pass that along.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Not sure how relevant this is but it occurred to me that non-democracies, while don’t have a league, do in fact prop up one another. You can see this in the case of China protecting North Korea, Myanmar, Sudan, Zimbabwe. Russia building a nuclear reactor in Iran and having joint military exercises in Venezuela. China and Russia forming the Shanghai Cooperation agreement. Not sure what this means – perhaps just an attempt at not being marginalized and carving their own spheres of influeces.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
McCain in the debate specifically gave the example of France, Germany and Britain as countries who would like to join his ‘League of Democracies’. Like it would ever happen.
Why is no one calling him on this?
September 30th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
The idea isn’t all bad if, say, you’re only talking about a group that would try to coordinate action and policies among democracies — economic programs, etc. — for the purpose of promoting democracy. Kind of a G8 sort of model. It’s the idea that McCain and the neocons have of making this a recognized instrument of coercive authority a la the Security Council that’s wackaloon.
But then, it’s all about bringing back the Cold War, isn’t it? Maybe with some slightly different alignments? Those were the Glory Days for these old geezers and they long to recapture them.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
MS, Venezuela is a democracy, and Chavez is not a dictator.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Although the idea of a LoD seems dubious, I do look forward to the day when the United States would qualify for membership.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Chavez is not a dictator.
Not for lack of trying, but so far, you’re right.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I think it would be useful to have an organization established specifically to carry moral as well as political force. The United States has deemed itself undeterrable by regular political means, as Iraq clearly demonstrates– and discounted the moral legitimacy of even organizations like the UN due to their universal inclucivity. I think it might be useful to be able to have a hard standard do refer to, when we are in violation of democratic norms.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
The best part of the league of democracies is when the fair elections rules needed to keep Russia, Zimbabwe and Venezuela out are applied to cases like Florida in 2000 and the various Diebold-tainted elections in the US. Good times indeed.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I thought this was originally Anne-Marie Slaughter’s goofy idea that came out of the Princeton Project on National Security. IIRC, its genesis had something to do with the fact that there was no appetite for humanitarian intervention within international institutions post-Iraq, ergo the US needs a league or concert of democratic states to cover/support such interventions. Or some such nonsense.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
The Middle East would be hard to sort out. Saudi Arabia is an important ally, but nowhere close to being a democracy. Iran is close to being a democracy, but an enemy. Israel is a democracy in Israel Proper, but not in the Occupied Territories. The only way to deal with this is to define democracies as being the countries we like. Maybe we just just rid ourselves of the pretense and call it the “League of Countries We Like”.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Again I have to ask why people think foreign policy is one of McCain’s strengths. This idea is so obviously absurd I can’t believe it’s actually being thrown around as a serious proposal. Any chance of getting Russia or China to pressure Iran on nukes is effectively destroyed by this piece of crap; we’d end up alienating the very countries we need to talk to the most. Of course I guess that’s not a problem if you don’t mind having war as your only major instrument of foreign policy, but then why doesn’t McCain just come out and say that…
September 30th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Would Hamas be in? Sarah Palin seemed to think so after all….
September 30th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Maybe we just just rid ourselves of the pretense and call it the “League of Countries We Like”.
“League of the Willing”!
September 30th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Why in the world does Matt think Australia would join? john Howard isn’t PM any more.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
So does the argument for the League of Nations say that the UN Security Council gives too much power to Russia and China, and therefore must be circumvented in order for the US to spread its hot, buttery justice throughout the world’s nooks and crannies?
If so, what happens when democracies like France and Germany don’t support something like an invasion of Iraq in the LoD? That seems to me like it’s the logical follow-up question to pose to McCain.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
This idea is so obviously absurd I can’t believe it’s actually being thrown around as a serious proposal.
Absolutely: if you think about it, McCain’s a child of the ‘good guys’ vs ‘villains’ era, or, to put it another way, the Golden Age of comic books.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Maybe “League of (Democratic) Nations”?
oh wait…
But seriously, I don’t think McCain envisions delegative democracies like Venezuela and arguably Russia being invited. Conversely, I think it is likely that the delegative democracies of Colombia and Georgia would be invited.
Similarly, it is unlikely that Bolivia would be invited.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I had to transcribe speeches recently from some big-time conservative jamboree and this was a point raised by the actual proponents of a Democracy League-style organization. “What if they won’t rubber-stamp whatever we want to do? How can we make sure that whoever we let into the league always backs our play?”
September 30th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
US to spread its hot, buttery justice throughout the world’s nooks and crannies
Sounds more like English justice to me.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I link to this every time the topic comes up, but the Onion really did produce the deifinitive take on this topic a few years ago:
“U.S. Forms Own U.N.”
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27948
September 30th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Duncan,
“Democracy”, like “communism” is a rather meaningless term, in that it refers to an abstraction which is hard to achieve in the real world, so I prefer not to use it to describe actually existing governments. I think “political liberalism” works fine as a description of the kind of government that, say, the United States, England and Germany share.
The government of Venezuela (of which I am a very big supporter) can be said to be a democracy, but it assuredly isn’t a liberal state. For better or worse (I’d say the former) Chavez belongs to the “democratic” tradition of Rousseau and Cromwell, not Locke.
It seems to me like for many countries in the world, other kinds of distinction (Left vs. Right, or Islamic vs. Infidel) count for more than the Liberal vs. Authoritarian distinction. Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador all have different degrees of political freedom in their regimes, but they all consider themselves socialist in some measure, and they have all acted over the last couple years like blood brothers.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
For anyone interested, Bloggingheads had an episode in which AM Slaughter talked about this with Anatol Lieven (”Ethical Realism”) back in 2006.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/115
- g
September 30th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Well of course, I mean, it goes without saying that we’re the good guys and we know what’s best, and even if we screw up, which we won’t, if someone else were in charge they’d only screw up worse. What is so hard to understand about this?
September 30th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Why have a formal group? American presidents from now on will come up with some ad hoc designation for whoever can be strong-armed into supporting our international adventures. The Coalition of the Willing. The Justice League of the Universe. Just assign some PR chump to the task of naming it when the time comes. McCain is wasting his scarce brain resources thinking about such things now.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Lycanther wins thread, though James Gary’s Onion article is, indeed, the final word on this concept – with the form and purpose John McCain has in mind, anyway.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
One thing’s for sure: Spain is sonot invited.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
North Korea is a Democracy in name at least.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
To be more truthful, McCain should name the new organization the League Of Oligarchies (LOO ).
Plus, That will crack the Brits up.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Thanks for reemphasizing this nonstarter of an idea. More of McCain at his best in his strong area.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
There is a LoD already. Two in fact. They’re called the EU and NATO. The fact that the G7 began to meet again recently may mean there is a third. The issue is not whether democracies should cooperate in exclusive groupings but whether it should be global or not.
In my experience, the foreign policy elites in Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, Chile, and elsewhere are open to the idea. Or at least that’s what they say off the record.
On who qualifies. That’s simple– 20 years of Freedom house rankings of 1 or 2.
Does that help?
September 30th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
<iOn who qualifies. That’s simple– 20 years of Freedom house rankings of 1 or 2.
Freedom house is a joke. It’s actually the perfect example of why no one outside of the U.S. would take this idea seriously.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
PT,
The ‘foreign policy elites’ in Mexico might favor it because Mexico is currently governed by the pro-U.S. National Action Party. If the Democratic Revolutionary Party wins in 2012, which is fairly likely (especially if there is an economic crisis) I suspect that would change right quick.
Given that Freedom House considered South Africa, when it was ruled by the Nazi-Klansman apartheid regime to be a ‘free country’, I believe their priorities speak for themselves.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Screw you guys, I’m joining the Evil League of Evil.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Re: One thing’s for sure: Spain is sonot invited.
Bloody effete Islamophiles.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
If we do establish a League of Democracies, wouldn’t McCain start calling those without membership The Legion of Doom? Vladimir Putin can play the role of head baddie and Sarah Palin can play the role of Wonder Woman. She can fly her invisible jet to intercept Putin whenever he rears his head over American airspace.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
But seriously: McCain’s plan for a ‘League of Democracies’ has zero chance whatsoever of ever happening. The countries he gives as an example (France, Germany, Britain) don’t want to join this thing and weaken the UN.
Similarily, Georgia won’t join NATO any time soon no matter who wins the election. That is the reality, yet both candidates claimed in the debate they “support” inviting Georgia in the organization.
Why aren’t journalists grilling them on these ‘pro-democracry’ fantasies? Or are political pundits completely clueless in foreign policy, and they think Georgia joining NATO is something possible?
September 30th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Isn’t the ideal really to sort of shuffle Israel into NATO in a way that the NATO countries will find difficult to object to?
September 30th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
This idea is going to get a lot more talk come 2009. Daalder is publishing a book entitled Concert of Democracies. Fortunately, the book isn’t coming out until afterthe election, which means it won’t be a centerpiece of the debates, but it is worth noting that several of Obama’s advisers have signed on to the idea.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
The acronym LOD is already taken. It stands for the Legion of Doom, a group of supervillains led by Lex Luthor.
How about calling it the “League of Warmongers” or LOW?
September 30th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
McCain addressing LOD: “My SuperFriends…”
September 30th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Now, just how is it that the US qualifies as a “Democracy”? And Russia and Iran and Venezuela do not?
September 30th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Rea,
“Democracy” = “Client state of the United States.”
In the parlance of our times.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
One way to easily separate democracies from non-democracies in a LOD organisation would be to make sure each representative assigned to this new institution was directly elected by popular vote.
If a national government is willing to see their state’s representatives directly elected by the people, then they’re a democracy. If not, they’re not.
Simple.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
sjk: you mean, like Mugabe?
Zimbabwe had a contested election lately, and what was then the opposition won majority in the parliament. Results were actually less predictable than in Russia or Florida.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
As a previous poster stated, we already have one. It’s called NATO. And look at how effective that has recently been in Afghanistan and Georgia. The problem with the L.O.D. is that it would be open only to those who are already our allies anyway. And it still wouldn’t solve the major obstacles to “humanitarian” intervention. Namely, that we don’t have any leverage whatsoever in those places that most need our help. Another Sideshow John McCain classic.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:11 am
The fact that Australia’s listed as a no-brainer for inclusion in the group is an unfortunate legacy of the Howard era. Howard’s long gone and our new PM’s got a much stronger focus on Asia (being an ex-diplomat who has served in China and speaks pretty solid Mandarin).
While Australia will always stick pretty close to the US on foreign policy, our politicians know that it’s Chinese demand that’s keeping our economy surprisingly healthy at the moment. They’re unlikely to sign us up to any group that would be so offensive to China (as well as a lot of other Asian countries with which we do a lot of business) and would bring so few real benefits in return.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:32 pm
piotr, the institutional design of the zimbabwe political system means that executive power resides with the office of president, not parliament. As a result, opposition parties, even if they control parliament, have little to no recourse in the face of a belligerent president.
On the other hand, in a FOD organisation, national leaders like Mugabe would have little to no power over the directly elected representatives of their country. Moreover, if he tried to rig the vote, other member states of the FOD would simply reject the Zimbabwe representatives.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:21 am
viagra
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:45 am
levitraGreat site. Good info
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:02 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:08 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:07 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:17 am
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!! viagra