Monday, May 19, 2008
A League of the Unwilling
Jackson Diehl, over the weekend, again picks up on the old tired theme of "the authoritarian states" (e.g. Russia and China) blocking "the democracies" from doing good in the world.
He writes:
"Take the past few months: China, helped by Russia, has stopped the Security Council from discussing a humanitarian intervention to rescue the 1.5 million Burmese endangered by the criminal neglect of their government following a cyclone. Strong sanctions against Iran for its refusal to freeze its nuclear program have been blocked by Russia. An attempted U.N. intervention in Darfur is failing, largely because of Chinese and Russian refusal to authorize stronger measures against the government of Sudan."
All true--but only half of the picture, as readers of TWR are aware. "Southern democracies" have joined with authoritarians to defend the principle of state sovereignty--and as we've seen in the case of Burma, the call for pan-Asian solidarity against "Western colonialism" seems to have carried more weight, with ASEAN states arguing they can deal with the junta in Rangoon to get aid delivered, and would the French foreign minister kindly refrain from his remarks.
In the case of Sudan, the West and Asian democracies like Japan and India decry the role of Beijing and Moscow but don't seem to want to push on their own, which they would be perfectly free to do. Even presidential candidates have had investments with funds that provide capital for businesses in Sudan.
What Diehl, Ikenberry, Daalder and others are under an obligation to demonstrate, and in my opinion have NOT DONE, is that 1) countries are prepared to come together in a League of Democracies and 2) they are prepared to take action even when the Security Council is divided. I don't find much evidence, beyond a few countries that were part of the Iraq coalition of the willing, which undercuts the whole notion of the League being a way for the U.S. to be much more multilateral and share burdens. I certainly don't find support for this idea among continental European states (Germany, France, Italy, Spain), as well as other leading democracies like Brazil, Australia, or India.
It is not enough for American academics and policy advisors to declare from the heights of Olympus which states might be invited to join a league or concert of democracies--but to show that governments and populations of said countries actually want to join.
Senator McCain, to his credit, has backed away from describing a proposed league as a new international organization in favor of a body that would bring together the major democracies for consultations on joint action, which is a more realistic and feasible plan.
We have to see the world as it is--and this neat divide between democracies and autocracies just doesn't exist.
Funny, that Diehl doesn't mention the BRIC summit that took place as he was writing his op-ed piece. Doesn't fit into the picture, so best to ignore it.
He writes:
"Take the past few months: China, helped by Russia, has stopped the Security Council from discussing a humanitarian intervention to rescue the 1.5 million Burmese endangered by the criminal neglect of their government following a cyclone. Strong sanctions against Iran for its refusal to freeze its nuclear program have been blocked by Russia. An attempted U.N. intervention in Darfur is failing, largely because of Chinese and Russian refusal to authorize stronger measures against the government of Sudan."
All true--but only half of the picture, as readers of TWR are aware. "Southern democracies" have joined with authoritarians to defend the principle of state sovereignty--and as we've seen in the case of Burma, the call for pan-Asian solidarity against "Western colonialism" seems to have carried more weight, with ASEAN states arguing they can deal with the junta in Rangoon to get aid delivered, and would the French foreign minister kindly refrain from his remarks.
In the case of Sudan, the West and Asian democracies like Japan and India decry the role of Beijing and Moscow but don't seem to want to push on their own, which they would be perfectly free to do. Even presidential candidates have had investments with funds that provide capital for businesses in Sudan.
What Diehl, Ikenberry, Daalder and others are under an obligation to demonstrate, and in my opinion have NOT DONE, is that 1) countries are prepared to come together in a League of Democracies and 2) they are prepared to take action even when the Security Council is divided. I don't find much evidence, beyond a few countries that were part of the Iraq coalition of the willing, which undercuts the whole notion of the League being a way for the U.S. to be much more multilateral and share burdens. I certainly don't find support for this idea among continental European states (Germany, France, Italy, Spain), as well as other leading democracies like Brazil, Australia, or India.
It is not enough for American academics and policy advisors to declare from the heights of Olympus which states might be invited to join a league or concert of democracies--but to show that governments and populations of said countries actually want to join.
Senator McCain, to his credit, has backed away from describing a proposed league as a new international organization in favor of a body that would bring together the major democracies for consultations on joint action, which is a more realistic and feasible plan.
We have to see the world as it is--and this neat divide between democracies and autocracies just doesn't exist.
Funny, that Diehl doesn't mention the BRIC summit that took place as he was writing his op-ed piece. Doesn't fit into the picture, so best to ignore it.
Comments:
<< Home
I told you guys all of this 5 years ago - you are trying to resurrect the White Man & His Burden. Ain't going to fly...
You are just raising hackles (sic ?) among the non-European people of this world while gaining nothing since you cannot afford the monetary costs of these various policies that you advocate.
Peace of Westphalia is the only durable principle that can maintain stability and peace on this planet. Pursuing misguided policies of imposing Justice will inevitably lead to war and more war.
You are just raising hackles (sic ?) among the non-European people of this world while gaining nothing since you cannot afford the monetary costs of these various policies that you advocate.
Peace of Westphalia is the only durable principle that can maintain stability and peace on this planet. Pursuing misguided policies of imposing Justice will inevitably lead to war and more war.
# posted by 
: 1:48 PM
: 1:48 PM
Anonymous 1:48--you aren't in Washington, are you? You can't get anywhere with that line.
And no one here really listens to what people tell them in Brasilia, New Delhi, Berlin, Paris, etc.
And no one here really listens to what people tell them in Brasilia, New Delhi, Berlin, Paris, etc.
# posted by : 2:02 PM
: 2:02 PM
Nikolas,
So you are of the opinion that dictatorships should set world policy on an equal footing with representative democracies? I actually like the idea of favoring democracy on the global scale. Clearly the dysfunctional make of the current UN hasn't stopped nuclear proliferation, brought peace to the middle east, stopped genocide in Darfur, and pretty much everything else wrong in the world. I think we need change and favoring democracy sounds like a great idea to me.
gary
So you are of the opinion that dictatorships should set world policy on an equal footing with representative democracies? I actually like the idea of favoring democracy on the global scale. Clearly the dysfunctional make of the current UN hasn't stopped nuclear proliferation, brought peace to the middle east, stopped genocide in Darfur, and pretty much everything else wrong in the world. I think we need change and favoring democracy sounds like a great idea to me.
gary
Hi Gary,
What you or I may like is, to be frank, irrelevant. China gets a seat with the U.S. in determining a lot of what happens in the world whether you or I like it or not. And my point is that many states in the world don't follow or accept this division of democracies and autocracies when setting their policies. We can favor India as a democracy but when it comes to climate change and energy policy India lines right up with China and not with us.
If the democracies of the world wanted to band together and do the list you put forward, great. As I've been asking, please show me the evidence that the other major democracies want to do these things. UK Foreign Secretary Miliband today said the way forward in the Middle East is through the quartet--which includes Russia and then brings in the UN--he didn't say, the U.S. and European democracies should move ahead on their own. My point is not that "democracies working together" is a bad idea but that the bulk of the world's democracies show no inclination to do this. So my end result is that I'd rather hold my nose and deal with all sorts of states, and get whatever cooperation we can--rather than hold out for the mirage that a LOD is on the horizon.
What you or I may like is, to be frank, irrelevant. China gets a seat with the U.S. in determining a lot of what happens in the world whether you or I like it or not. And my point is that many states in the world don't follow or accept this division of democracies and autocracies when setting their policies. We can favor India as a democracy but when it comes to climate change and energy policy India lines right up with China and not with us.
If the democracies of the world wanted to band together and do the list you put forward, great. As I've been asking, please show me the evidence that the other major democracies want to do these things. UK Foreign Secretary Miliband today said the way forward in the Middle East is through the quartet--which includes Russia and then brings in the UN--he didn't say, the U.S. and European democracies should move ahead on their own. My point is not that "democracies working together" is a bad idea but that the bulk of the world's democracies show no inclination to do this. So my end result is that I'd rather hold my nose and deal with all sorts of states, and get whatever cooperation we can--rather than hold out for the mirage that a LOD is on the horizon.
Hi Nikolas,
What you or I may like is, to be frank, irrelevant.
Not true! I get to vote in my country. And I'm allowed to post whatever I want on the internet. You must have me confused with someone living in China.
We can favor India as a democracy but when it comes to climate change and energy policy India lines right up with China and not with us.
Even democratic nations make wrong decisions. Forming a coalition of democracies isn't about always getting it right. It's about following the will of the people rather than dicators. So an example of India doing something you don't agree with proves nothing.
As I've been asking, please show me the evidence that the other major democracies want to do these things.
I don't see much evidence. But again, this does not in any way disprove the concept. It only means that vested interests have more power than the people. And that includes existing democracies as well.
UK Foreign Secretary Miliband today said the way forward in the Middle East is
He's wrong. Sorry about that.
So my end result is that I'd rather hold my nose...
No, please don't do that. Instead use your creativity and make the world what you want it to be. The internet has given you and I more potential for change than ever in history. So we owe it to our children to try. Wish me luck!
gary
www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org
What you or I may like is, to be frank, irrelevant.
Not true! I get to vote in my country. And I'm allowed to post whatever I want on the internet. You must have me confused with someone living in China.
We can favor India as a democracy but when it comes to climate change and energy policy India lines right up with China and not with us.
Even democratic nations make wrong decisions. Forming a coalition of democracies isn't about always getting it right. It's about following the will of the people rather than dicators. So an example of India doing something you don't agree with proves nothing.
As I've been asking, please show me the evidence that the other major democracies want to do these things.
I don't see much evidence. But again, this does not in any way disprove the concept. It only means that vested interests have more power than the people. And that includes existing democracies as well.
UK Foreign Secretary Miliband today said the way forward in the Middle East is
He's wrong. Sorry about that.
So my end result is that I'd rather hold my nose...
No, please don't do that. Instead use your creativity and make the world what you want it to be. The internet has given you and I more potential for change than ever in history. So we owe it to our children to try. Wish me luck!
gary
www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org
Gary:
Precisley because of their democratic nature, the populations of these states will be reluctant to pay the costs of what you envision.
If US is attacked by Muslims, what that has got to do with me, a Spaniard? Or an Irishman? Why should Fionia & Jos die in Somalia, or Iraq, or Iran, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan?
Precisley because of their democratic nature, the populations of these states will be reluctant to pay the costs of what you envision.
If US is attacked by Muslims, what that has got to do with me, a Spaniard? Or an Irishman? Why should Fionia & Jos die in Somalia, or Iraq, or Iran, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan?
# posted by : 7:07 AM
: 7:07 AM
Anonymous,
Precisley because of their democratic nature, the populations of these states will be reluctant to pay the costs of what you envision.
Memership should be optional, so no problem there.
If US is attacked by Muslims, what that has got to do with me, a Spaniard? Or an Irishman? Why should Fionia & Jos die in Somalia, or Iraq, or Iran, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan?
It's increasingly a small world. Attacks one place (especially nuclear or biological) can easily affect you even if you're not in the US. Clearly it's your choice, but if you're neighbor's house is on fire, would you help him?
gary
Precisley because of their democratic nature, the populations of these states will be reluctant to pay the costs of what you envision.
Memership should be optional, so no problem there.
If US is attacked by Muslims, what that has got to do with me, a Spaniard? Or an Irishman? Why should Fionia & Jos die in Somalia, or Iraq, or Iran, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan?
It's increasingly a small world. Attacks one place (especially nuclear or biological) can easily affect you even if you're not in the US. Clearly it's your choice, but if you're neighbor's house is on fire, would you help him?
gary
Gary:
It all comes down to costs.
Your neighbour's house - Mexico - has been on fire for at least a decade economically and now there is a low intensity drug war there as well. I do not see your country doing anything to help Mexico.
As for attacks using WMD to which you have alluded; it was your country (and UK) that did her very best to prevent the complaint of Iran against your allie Iraq's use of chemical weapons in 1980s to reach the UNSC. Surely you must recall that?
It all comes down to costs.
Your neighbour's house - Mexico - has been on fire for at least a decade economically and now there is a low intensity drug war there as well. I do not see your country doing anything to help Mexico.
As for attacks using WMD to which you have alluded; it was your country (and UK) that did her very best to prevent the complaint of Iran against your allie Iraq's use of chemical weapons in 1980s to reach the UNSC. Surely you must recall that?
# posted by : 10:04 PM
: 10:04 PM
Anonymous,
You have completely misjudged my position. I am as frustrated with my country's foreign policy as you are. The US has done more to cause misery around the globe in recent years that I care to contemplate. Trust me...on this we completely agree. I am by NO means pointing to the United States as a model of democracy.
The point of a group of democracies is not just to encourage the end of dictatorships, but also to improve EXISTING democracies.
Here's my version of how it should look...
www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org
gary
Post a Comment
You have completely misjudged my position. I am as frustrated with my country's foreign policy as you are. The US has done more to cause misery around the globe in recent years that I care to contemplate. Trust me...on this we completely agree. I am by NO means pointing to the United States as a model of democracy.
The point of a group of democracies is not just to encourage the end of dictatorships, but also to improve EXISTING democracies.
Here's my version of how it should look...
www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org
gary
<< Home
