Does the World Need a 'League of Democracies'?
Ethan Arrow
Uncertainty in an emerging "new world order" has brought with it new approaches to the provision of multilateral responses. One concept gaining attention in the US is a ‘league of democracies', an institutionalized body of nations with a strong transatlantic focus dedicated to concerted efforts based on common democratic beliefs. If elected, John McCain has promised to begin discussing the league's formation as early as January 2009.
McCain's Speech to the Hoover Institute on US Foreign Policy in 2007:
"We should go further and start bringing democratic peoples and nations from around the world into one common organization, a worldwide League of Democracies. This would not be like the universal-membership and failed League of Nations' of Woodrow Wilson but much more like what Theodore Roosevelt envisioned: like-minded nations working together in the cause of peace. The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order of peace based on freedom. It could act where the UN fails to act, to relieve human suffering in places like Darfur. It could [to name only one of a multitude of examples] join to fight the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa and fashion better policies to confront the crisis of our environment." For full text click here.
Framing the Debate:
Following this declaration, a heated deliberation on the prudence of such a league ensued. With the rise of autocratic nations, US politicians on the left and the right, as well as several voices in the EU, have expressed their belief that a 'league of democracies' is the best response to today's increasingly multipolar world. However, many fear that a grouping of democracies may nullify the important role of other international organizations such as the UN and EU. The following examines only a few of several foundational, more or less theoretical issues regarding the feasibility and legitimacy of this proposed endeavor.
Values vs. Interests:
Pro: A ‘league of democracies' would provide the mechanism to formally bind nations with common values to act in areas that may not always portray short-term interests. According to ‘democratic peace theory,' democracies are much less likely to begin conflicts with one another, therefore forming a value-based starting point for concerting interests. There are several examples of nations intervening in foreign crises against their own immediate interests in the name of nation building and democracy promotion. Europe's assistance in Afghanistan could be seen as one of them.
Con: The modern era is yet to witness a lasting institution based solely on shared ideological principles. Diplomatic relations among nations are almost always based on tactical considerations. This is why the US has strong relations with Saudi Arabia and weak relations with a nation such as Belgium. Breaking ties with strategic partners because of differing domestic politics is an unlikely scenario. Furthermore, the idea that the US's first foreign policy priority is to spread democracy is a misconception. Under its continuing realistic framework, economic and security interests usually dominate the discussion in Washington.
Consensus:
Pro: Institutions based on common values are more capable of building consensus and cohesion. NATO, for example, is able to respond in areas where the UN is often caught in deadlock; usually due to vetoes levied by non-democratic nations (Russia and China.) During the Balkan conflicts, most democracies supported the former Yugoslavian states' right to self-determination, while China feared that this might set a worldwide precedent of succession approval, which could disrupt efforts to control its own internal separatist movements - an effort that many find undemocratic.
Con: Skeptics argue that selection of members will be subject to America's preferences, forming an "association of America's favored friends," which functions simply as an appendage of America's foreign policy agenda. Furthermore, in international relations, there is little evidence to prove that democracies are able to identify and solve problems more easily than other constellations of political ideologies. Consensus among democracies usually arises out of necessity, not from formal organizations. In this sense, a ‘league of democracies' will do very little to improve the maneuverability of current organizations. Furthermore, many fear that ambitions to forge a union based on ideology may initiate a new 21st century ‘Cold War' between Western democracies and Eastern autocrats, leaving behind nations that are struggling with democratization.
Goodwill:
Pro: A ‘league of democracies' would spur free-market, constitutional governments to act together in crisis areas. More often than not, free democracies are bound by narrow interests, over-stretched agendas, and are lacking the impetus, not the desire, to act in goodwill. National Security scholars, John Ikenberry and Anne-Marie Slaughter argue in their report, that public goods provided by the concerted efforts of the world's democracies (such as counter-terrorism, dealing with climate change, and preventing genocidal conflicts) would benefit all of mankind.
Con: It is a misconception to think that democracies are more inclined or better equipped to jointly act in the name of alleviating human suffering. Rarely has the US acted in areas outside economic and political interest. Contrasting America's level of involvement in Africa with that of the Middle East highlights this point. McCain's idea that a 'league of democracies' could confront global ailments, such as the cyclone victims and Darfur, will only drown out the efforts of existing organizations (i.e. many UN institutions) willing and equipped to assist in these areas.
The Atlantic Community is interested in your opinion on this controversial debate. In light of the coming US Presidential elections, it is important that this issue is thoroughly deliberated by the US and its allies. We welcome you to share your opinion, whether from an ideological or practical standpoint. regarding a league of democracies.
Ethan Arrow is an editorial intern at the Atlantic Community. He is currently an MA student at the Free University of Berlin, studying European Integration within the scope of German Studies.
Related Articles from the Atlantic Community:
- Thomas Carothers: A League of Democracies is Not a Good Idea
- Robert Kagan: The World Divided Between Autocracy and Democracy
- Sonja Davidovic: American Foreign Policy Between Unilateralism and Multilateralism
Mon, Jul 14th 2008, 15:17
Heinrich Bonnenberg, Energiewerke Nord
DGAP, Platinum Contributor (184)
EU is a league of 27 democracies based on values having been developed in Western Europe about centuries. EU has committed itself in the Copenhagen criteria: “Membership requires that candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and, protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union. Membership presupposes the candidate's ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.” And I like to add: EU is a federalist Union of homelands and regions being able to maintain their particularities, it is not a centralized state.
About 500 million people have been organized in EU ensuring social equity and prosperity, as outlook for newcomers, too, and all that is done for small money which each member country has to pay for the organization in Brussels, Strasbourg, Luxemburg, Frankfort and so on, less than 1 % of GNP.
Each country wanting to be a member of this marvelous league of democracies has to fulfill the qualifications of the Copenhagen criteria. For Turkey for example, the acceptance of these criteria is like the second revolution after the first by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, extremely fruitful for occident and orient, and for the whole world, too. Hopefully Turkey will succeed as soon as possible getting qualified to become member of the EU league of democracies. This league of democracies might expand to East and South East in timely manner, and step by step into the Mediterranean region, too; let’s hope so!.
I am extremely thankful to be a citizen of this open EU league of democracies being committed and able to participate with my vote at the direct election of the European parliament, each five years.