From the crisis in Darfur to the genocides of Rwanda and Kosovo, the United Nations has repeatedly been embarrassed by its inability to act. Certain member states with seats on the Security Council have managed to block attempts to intervene in instances of genocide and mass murder, with tragic consequences. It is not the multilateral institution that has failed, it is some of its members who have blocked much needed action.
It is that failing that makes the idea of a league of democracies so appealing (promoted recently by John McCain, but the idea has a wider history). The liberal internationalist dream would stand a chance of being realised if a multinational organisation was not hamstrung by illiberal members.
Such an organisation would stand a chance of acting when foreign peoples were in need of intervention. It might be able to act to force Robert Mugabe out of Zimbabwe or for Burmese military junta to open up their borders to aid workers. As Robert Kagan argues, liberal values would finally be embodied in an organisation willing to act against tyranny:
Furthermore, were such a league successful enough it would have a powerful influence on would-be countries. It would act in a similar manner to the EU, whereby candidate countries have a powerful incentive to open up their political systems. The prestige of entering the league of democracies would mean countries clamouring for international approval would have a gold-standard of democracy to aim for and hopefully attain.
It might also embarrass countries into further reform. Countries with false pretensions towards democracy would be have their actual democratic credentials assessed. The embarrassment of failing to enter such an exclusive club would be very public. Like a pauper in borrowed clothes attempting to enter an exclusive member's club and being promptly refused for having insufficient assets, countries would no longer be able to falsely claim to be democracies. Russia, for example, should almost certainly not be allowed into such a league and would have its semi-democratic nature made public for the world to see.
Liberal internationalism has long wished for a multinational organisation able to act on the world stage in the name of democracy and liberty. The League of Nations was unable to act at all and the UN has run into trouble over defending democracy and liberty, concepts some of its Security Council members interpret flexibly.
A league of democracies might lack the global legitimacy of the UN (which still does a lot of good work at lower levels, despite its failings) but it would be a clear pronouncement of liberal values. Expect some countries to scoff at the idea (those that would not get in) or to claim it another attempt at neo-liberal imperialism (those who would not wish to get in and their fellow travellers). However, those fears have plagued every attempt at establishing international organisation and have seldom been realised. Perhaps it is time for an institution that represents not the world but the liberal world, a clear statement of democracy and of liberty in a world that increasingly needs a strong defence of these ideas. Multilateral intervention would finally find an appropriate forum and the liberal West would once again have the confidence to say it believes in democracy and in liberty.
It is that failing that makes the idea of a league of democracies so appealing (promoted recently by John McCain, but the idea has a wider history). The liberal internationalist dream would stand a chance of being realised if a multinational organisation was not hamstrung by illiberal members.
Such an organisation would stand a chance of acting when foreign peoples were in need of intervention. It might be able to act to force Robert Mugabe out of Zimbabwe or for Burmese military junta to open up their borders to aid workers. As Robert Kagan argues, liberal values would finally be embodied in an organisation willing to act against tyranny:
A league of democracies would also promote liberal ideals in international relations. The democratic community supports the evolving legal principle known as “the responsibility to protect”, which holds leaders to account for the treatment of their people. Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, has suggested it could be applied to Burma if the generals persist in refusing international aid to their dying people. That idea was summarily rejected at the United Nations, where other humanitarian interventions – in Darfur today or in Kosovo a few years ago – have also met resistance.While global, the concept would no more supplant the UN than Nato, the Group of Eight or the European Union do. It would grant democracies an alternative to the UN, with its myriad problems with permitting foreign intervention. Democracies (defined, as Mr Kagan suggests, in a similar manner to EU accession requirements stipulate) would be able to stand up for liberal values and defend the rights of peoples the world over, without certain empowered tyrannies preventing them.
Furthermore, were such a league successful enough it would have a powerful influence on would-be countries. It would act in a similar manner to the EU, whereby candidate countries have a powerful incentive to open up their political systems. The prestige of entering the league of democracies would mean countries clamouring for international approval would have a gold-standard of democracy to aim for and hopefully attain.
It might also embarrass countries into further reform. Countries with false pretensions towards democracy would be have their actual democratic credentials assessed. The embarrassment of failing to enter such an exclusive club would be very public. Like a pauper in borrowed clothes attempting to enter an exclusive member's club and being promptly refused for having insufficient assets, countries would no longer be able to falsely claim to be democracies. Russia, for example, should almost certainly not be allowed into such a league and would have its semi-democratic nature made public for the world to see.
Liberal internationalism has long wished for a multinational organisation able to act on the world stage in the name of democracy and liberty. The League of Nations was unable to act at all and the UN has run into trouble over defending democracy and liberty, concepts some of its Security Council members interpret flexibly.
A league of democracies might lack the global legitimacy of the UN (which still does a lot of good work at lower levels, despite its failings) but it would be a clear pronouncement of liberal values. Expect some countries to scoff at the idea (those that would not get in) or to claim it another attempt at neo-liberal imperialism (those who would not wish to get in and their fellow travellers). However, those fears have plagued every attempt at establishing international organisation and have seldom been realised. Perhaps it is time for an institution that represents not the world but the liberal world, a clear statement of democracy and of liberty in a world that increasingly needs a strong defence of these ideas. Multilateral intervention would finally find an appropriate forum and the liberal West would once again have the confidence to say it believes in democracy and in liberty.
2 comments:
I'd definitely back a league of democracies, so long as all countries with fair democratic procedures were allowed in (I wouldn't want a load of countries with only right-wing neoliberal parties as governments, this would be undemocratic).
Democracies are generally more prosperous; beaking down trade barriers between them would give dictators an incentive to liberalise politically.
I think that this could feasibly exist alongside the UN.
It should augment and supercede the U.N., in practical nature.
Post a Comment