Atlantic Community:Global Must Read Article "Does the World Need a 'League of Democracies'?"

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:

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

Mon, Jul 14th 2008, 15:17

Heinrich Bonnenberg, Energiewerke Nord
DGAP, Platinum Contributor (358)

I like this comment! What's this?

It is already existing a league of democracies. It is the European Union!

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.

Tue, Jul 15th 2008, 09:37

Gaelle Christine Fisher, Atlantic community, Platinum Contributor (300)

I like this comment! What's this?

To an extent I agree. Of course, the EU can be thought of as a league of democracies (though in my view, it is much more). However proponents of the “worldwide” League of Democracies would argue the EU’s scope is restricted by geography, something the new league is designed to overcome.

Besides, are both structures ( EU/League of Democracies) – one which exists as a highly complex and institutionalised body, and the other which remains, for now, a loosely outlined association – truly comparable?

Tue, Jul 15th 2008, 12:28

Ethan Christian Arrow, Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs, Silver Contributor (52)

I like this comment! What's this?

This article asks if the "league of democracies" proposed by John McCain and supported by political scientist such as Ikenberry and Slaughter, is a sound idea. The 'federalist union" of democracies within the EU is a wonderful development and certainly an improvement for the region, but we could also sing the praise of the US's federalist cohesion of democratic states or even debate Puerto Rico joining the Union, etc. That's not what we're trying to do. The question is, whether a league of democracies on a global scale, in its theory, is a sound idea, and perhaps what its effects will be on large, autocratic nations such as China, or international organizations, such as the UN. Thank you for your comments.

Mon, Sep 8th 2008, 23:15

Nico Segers

I like this comment! What's this?

The principle in itself may be interesting, but the efficiency of this platform will be measured by (1) the scope of the objectives that the League of Democracies (LOD) sets for itself and (2) the degree of compliance of its members on their individual contributions on a mutually consented agenda. The question arises whether this LOD will authorize the use of veto powers or rights of abstention in certain issues. On humanitarian issues, economic & social development, education and so forth, I doubt this League will surpass the UN with regards to effectiveness (in terms of professional-expertise levels) ... Also, efficiency will depend on the instruments allowed within a LOD.

Yet, a LOD might become a popular tool to expedite the implementation of 'emergency action' projects if the agenda is kept at arms' length. The UN is only as 'fast' as its workload and labyrinth of different branches allows it to process decisions. The weight of bureaucratic inertia (which affects the wide stretching UN family of suborganisations) may be the impediment a LOD would try to bypass.

The League should not become an institutionalised way in which the U.S. might seek to form a 'coallition of the willing' to deter 'anti-democratic states' by means of deterrents (both political as economical) or (military) force. A 'we should all agree to this because this is bad for us, democracies' rhetoric should not be part of the League. I suppose McCain intends to use this league in a benevolent way, not as some cloaked form to rally nations around the (US) flag to contain jihadism and threats alike.

National interest and pressing domestic matters will likely operate as filters when it comes to pooling resources and funds for joint action. Hopefully a LOD will not benefit 'just' themselves neither.

Furthermore, introducing a new institutionalized cooperation platform of this LOD as a 'safety valve' or 'Plan B when things in the UN don't get done' towards a common policy environment might further discredit and contest the fungibility the UN. The LOD will likely try to reach consensus and breakthroughs in multiple areas of cooperation. We're not talking about a League for economic cooperation. Because such fora already exist in the form of GATT, ASEAN, NAFTA and so on.

I do wonder, how many democracies would be interested in co-founding or joining this League at this as yet conceptual stage? Do they envision a sustainable way to keep such a platform going and not fall apart? NATO's legitimacy has surely come under fire since the end of the Cold War, and now this organization still aiming to redefine its role in the world. It would be awesome if such a LOD became a sort of stricktly-civil (matters) counterpart to NATO. While a LOD strives for humanitarian, social and economical projects, it leaves
matters of security over to NATO (which also acts on its own sometimes - even without UN mandate or approval). (Of course this entails wide member overlap between either LOD and NATO, but that's already the case with NATO and the EU as well.)

Wed, Sep 17th 2008, 22:19

David Alan Swinford, Lubbock Christian University, (3)

I like this comment! What's this?

This plan seems like a great idea. The question I have is how would such an organization be structured. It seems that a LOD based on common ideals of freedom and peace, particularly given the statements pertaining to the founding of the US, would require equal footing for all member nations.
McCain's speech references the difficulties with China and Russia's veto powers in the UN, so it would appear that he realizes that in order for such an organization to exist, the United States could not exercise such power in the LOD. All nations represented would have equal voice. Every nation would have equal capacity to persuade their colleague nations to join their position, with no nation or small group of nations having total veto power. This is the only way to avoid a US or EU and friends group.
I hope that the world has advanced to the point of which global intersts can outway national interests in most situations, but honestly I don't see it. The "us vs. them" notion of foreign policy cannot be allowed to continue for any real global change.

Sun, Sep 21st 2008, 19:17

Patrick Edwin Moran, Wake Forest University, Platinum Contributor (200)

I like this comment! What's this?

In their "white paper," http://www.csis.org/media/csis/events/080110_grand_strategy.pdf, Naumann et al. give very convincing arguments for such a league.

Wed, Sep 24th 2008, 19:58

Member deleted

I like this comment! What's this?

There are some old problems relating to this issue, welcome as it is. Basic definitional problems as well as problems over the determination modalities. That would immediately make it a natural hierarchy and invite the same problems.

The European Union - yes. But how does one expand it? How does one exist on a same planet and not have the 'atmosphere' over the European Union and elsewhere threatened by nuclear warfare elsewhere and practices that threaten the environment which does not recognize political boundaries.

The idea of a League of Democracies is something that is feasible and workable within the existing United Nations' Organization. Having similar Leagues elsewhere that meets at the UNO does sound like an idea that is immediately attractive and exhilirating.

A League of Democracies that strengthens the UNO would be a welcome idea. But then it also may need to adapt and address certain variations of democracies - that would be workable elsewhere that have different environments - political-social-ideological, etc., without thinning the foundational values. While the UN Human Rights come across as a platform that may be rejected by very few states (the number of states that have ratified it is already large - and perhaps too large to enable effective monitoring and taking into consideration those factors that may not threaten the very foundational values of Human Rights - though they may seem attractive in the tactical sense), the addressing of issues that arise within and the rather very valid reasons states like Singapore may have that may seem a little harsh in the immediate vicinity - makes it a serious issue and a topic that warrants a much larger platform for interaction and exchange of ideas. The only mode of any 'meaningful' exchange/interaction would be that of a pragmatic discussion and not even debates.
Should one have more states capable of entering into an International Pragmatic Discussion capacity, a League of Democracies sounds like a feasible idea. Without that - it almost promises of the rather pessimism that underlies the french expression of "the more it changes, the more it remains (appears) the same thing" (brackets - mine)!

Mon, Sep 29th 2008, 10:45

Linda Turner, none, (3)

I like this comment! What's this?

On paper this sounds like a very good idea; but the question is would it work in reality? Quite frankly I do not believe that the USA would be ready for such a thing as with the laws that have been passed here are not necessarily ones that a true democracy would pass. From seeing the harm that the so called War on Terrorism has done to our people; I feel that such a move would be hypocritical on our part at least until certain laws are changed and all of the rights we are supposed to have are returned to us. Quite honestly I also think that the US would try to run things "their" way and that is not what an LOD should be about. Under this scenario, it is not a good idea. I will admit though that something does need to be done to make this world better for all of us.

July 11, 2008 | 8 comments | Print this Article | E-Mail Pro & Con

Does the World Need a 'League of Democracies'?