League of Democracies?
Shakes mocks it, but I happen to like John McCain's idea of a "League of Democracies".
Apart from some beneficial programs (largely U.S. funded, of course) to combat third world hunger and disease, my contempt for the United Nations is a matter of record. But whenever I assail the U.N. for being a corrupt, ineffectual sounding board for anti-Western dictators and thugs, people always get bent out of shape. They can't defend the U.N. on its abysmal track record, of course, so they stick to defending the idea of the world body: "We need a multinational organization like the U.N. to provide a forum for discussing international problems and staving off international crises."
Fine. Nobody's giving up that idea. Admitting that the League of Nations failed in its goal didn't mean abandoning the idea of a world forum. Likewise, admitting that the U.N. has fallen short in its stated goals need not mean abandoning the idea of a deliberative world body or the principles upon which the U.N. was founded.
To McCain's point, why not restrict voting membership to member nations whose governments are chosen by its people in free and open elections? I think that step alone would go quite a ways in addressing my particular concerns with the current makeup of the U.N., as well as being more in keeping with the body's charter. And where's the downside? It's not like the "people" of (say) Sudan or North Korea would be any more deprived of representation in the General Assembly than they are now. If anything, it would encourage such pariah nations to give their people an actual voice.
Anyway, I think it's an interesting idea. Plus it gave me an opportunity to link to Shakes' new digs.
Comments
A multinational forum may be useful, but the UN actually passes resolutions and attempts to act like a supranational governing body.
It doesn't have to do those things (which is precisely what it has the bad track record in) in order to provide a forum.
Anyway, I agree that I like the sound of a League of Democracies.
Posted by: Adam | May 1, 2007 07:09 PM
A "League of Democracies" that would include Germany, France and Russia, among others...and when they fail to adequately support the U.S., then the L.O.D. will be seen by some folks being a UN-like waste of time and money as well.
Posted by: fred | May 2, 2007 08:58 AM
Of course the problems of the current world body extend far beyond merely "failure to adequately support the U.S." as you well know.
Posted by: BNJ | May 2, 2007 09:13 AM
Of course, and they'd be evident in any L.O.D. Bureaucracies staffed by persons from a variety of nations with varying interests...unless the L.O.D. would be run solely by Wolfowitz, Feith, Kristol and O'Reilly!
Posted by: fred | May 2, 2007 09:59 AM
Yes, it's impossible to imagine any such body without flaws and imperfections, if that's your point. I still think we'd have a *better* organization, not to mention truer it its charter, if we denied a voice to governments that don't, in some sense, reflect the will of their people.
Posted by: BNJ | May 2, 2007 10:08 AM
I admit, I liked the idea of the League of Democracies when it first surfaced several years ago.
But that leads to the question of who can join. Lots of countries hold "free" elections that are rigged, do they get to join? If not, then who gets to decide what country is a "true democracy" and which aren't? Or does the LoD just become nothing more than "League of United States' Interests".
I think we'd do better focusing our funds and efforts on fixing the problems of the UN.
Posted by: CRB | May 2, 2007 11:28 AM
>I think we'd do better focusing our funds and efforts on fixing the problems of the UN.
Perhaps so, but I think one of the biggest problems with the U.N. is that it provides legitimacy to thugs who govern without consent of the governed. If we address that, then the issue of whether the call it a "League of Democracies" or simply the new and improved "United Nations" is one of semantics.
Posted by: BNJ | May 2, 2007 11:50 AM
Please, enough with the name-calling. Bush is not a thug! LOL.
Posted by: fred | May 2, 2007 12:09 PM
Perhaps so, but I think one of the biggest problems with the U.N. is that it provides legitimacy to thugs who govern without consent of the governed.
Not necessarily. Does the DPRK or Iran being members of the UN make their governments more legitimate than they would otherwise be? I don't think so.
What the UN does do is open a line of dialogue with those countries that would be difficult to have otherwise. Which is still a good thing as talking is usually preferable to shooting when resolving a dispute.
Posted by: CRB | May 2, 2007 01:06 PM
Dialog is fine, but should we allow such nations to exercise a vote in the General Assembly or the Security Council? I'd vote for "no," but your mileage may vary.
Posted by: BNJ | May 2, 2007 02:11 PM
Voting is fine, but what matters is what they are voting on. And that goes back to "fixing" the UN.
I believe the UN should exist to facilitate dialog and help prevent war, not act as the world police or a global government.
Posted by: CRB | May 2, 2007 03:58 PM