Goodbye United Nations, Hello League of Democracies? Not Quite…

Standard

[H/t Don’t trip up]

Stephen writes:

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.

Senator McCain announced his support for a League of Democracies at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution last May (2007). In his speech, McCain argued:

This League of Democracies would not supplant the United Nations or other international organizations. It would complement them. But it would be the one organization where the world’s democracies could come together to discuss problems and solutions on the basis of shared principles and a common vision of the future.

I commend McCain for stating the organization could apply more serious sanctions against Iran and act “without approval from Moscow or Beijing”. I disagree with McCain regarding the need to supplant the U.N. As Stephen notes above, the recent actions of China and Indonesia regarding blocking aid to Burma should make it clear that the organization is impotent to act in the most pressing cases (famine, war, genocide). But somehow the U.N. always finds a way to get together to discuss yet another anti-Israel resolution or to fund another “Zionism = racism” conference.

I am also skeptical about the capacity and/or will (in many cases both) of other democratic countries in the League to use force. As others have noted, besides the U.S., U.K. and Australia, which other democracies are going to volunteer the troops necessary for these operations? Canada? France? Spain? Italy? the Netherlands?

Read More:

U.N. Watch: UN Human Rights Council’s “Pretty Packed Schedule” Has No Time for Myanmar’s Starving Victims.

Robert Kagan: The case for a League of Democracies

Atlantic Review: John McCain’s Leauge of Democracies

Security Dilemmas: How a League of Democracies Could Work

The Economist: League of Democracies

WaPo

Advertisements

One response »

  1. This is something that I consider often, and the Security Dilemmas piece makes a few good points. One issue I consistently come back to is the illegitimacy of regimes that are not democratic, and the way those states are able to interfere in the way organizations like the UN reacts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s