Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

A League of What?

A foreign policy idea tabled by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has received support from a wide variety of camps, including supporters of both remaining presidential candidates. But...

Print Friendly

A foreign policy idea tabled by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has received support from a wide variety of camps, including supporters of both remaining presidential candidates. But the idea is not without its detractors.

McCain’s "League of Democracies" would be a new international organization whose membership is made up of democratic governments that meet certain minimal requirements.

The philosophical basis for the League is German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s idea of "perpetual peace," which argues that democratic governments are less likely to go to war—particularly with fellow democracies rather than autocratic regimes. But democratic nations may be at odds with non-democratic ones.

This is already well underway, according to neoconservative scholar and McCain advisor Robert Kagan, who sees a new "global competition" between democracies and autocracies.

Kagan believes that rising autocratic powers threaten the international order in part by blocking actions by the United Nations Security Council, where "autocratic states," like Russia and China, have the power to veto actions.

The League is intended to give like-minded democracies a multilateral vehicle that could authorize intervention in cases where the Security Council cannot act. Together, they could act on humanitarian crises and security issues without having to convince non-democratic U.N. members to go along.

Those non-democratic autocracies have sometimes blocked U.N. efforts at interventions in crises—such as the violence in Sudan’s Darfur region and the recent blocking of international aid to cyclone victims in Burma—on the grounds that they violate national sovereignty.

The frustration caused by paralysis of the Security Council has also driven some liberal internationalists—notably Obama advisor Ivo Daalder—to support the idea of a League of Democracies. Preferring the moniker of a Concert of Democracies, Daalder and other liberals have written extensively in support of the idea, although Obama himself has yet to take a position on it.

Daalder and McCain agree that the League could serve U.S. interests above all by providing a new multilateral mechanism through which Washington could, with like-minded allies, intervene in international crises that paralyze the Security Council. They cite the example of NATO’s 1999 intervention against Serbia, a Russian ally, in Kosovo as a model.

Moreover, Washington’s reliance on a multilateral forum to authorize action would also help improve Washington’s image, which has been badly battered by the George W. Bush administration’s unilateralism.

But Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, among others, believes that the logic behind a League of Democracies is flawed and potentially dangerous.

Even accepting "perpetual peace," not fighting among themselves does not entail that democracies the world over will necessarily have similar foreign policies based on their democratic values, according to Carothers.

A clear example of this is South Africa’s reluctance—despite its democratic system—to endorse Western foreign policy. South Africa has resisted action against Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe, perhaps because it has been seen as Western imperialism in a part of the world still reeling from colonialism.

South Africa has also ardently resisted U.S. efforts to base its new military command for Africa (AFRICOM) on the continent.

India, the world’s largest democracy, has also been reluctant to enlist in various campaigns, such as isolating Burma or Iran, which Washington and its European allies, among others, have pushed.

"I think there is a serious underappreciation in Washington for how strongly many democracies in the world, especially in the developing world, disagree fundamentally with the U.S. outlook on interventionism," said Carothers at a recent event discussing the pros and cons of a League at the Carnegie.

Carothers sees a wide rift between the United States and developing-country democracies that is not limited to interventionism, arguing that most of the more than 50 developing-country democracies would side with South Africa on key foreign policy issues.

Furthermore, historical evidence supports the notion of a lack of agreement among democracies—particularly over humanitarian intervention. Contrary to Kagan’s argument that autocratic regimes impede the United Nations, democracies have also played a role in blocking key Security Council resolutions.

Under the Bill Clinton administration, the United States held up action in the Security Council against the genocide that occurred in Rwanda—where 800,000 people lost their lives in 100 days in 1994—and the United States has blocked virtually every Security Council with its veto, from Israeli actions against Palestinians in the occupied territories to its bombardment and invasion of Lebanon during its 2006 war with Hezbollah.

Nonetheless, Daalder contends that the League of Democracies will be able to intervene in internal conflicts and with non-state actors in a way that the United Nations cannot because the Security Council is set up to prevent war between great powers—not lesser powers and actors.

Moreover, Daalder said that a League would be able to "socialize" U.S. foreign policy and tame its instinct for unilateral action. A McCain advisor on the panel at Carnegie, Tod Lindberg, added that while it may not have prevented the United States from going to war with Iraq, a league could have tightened sanctions against Iraq in a way that would have satisfied the Bush administration and made the war avoidable.

"I like that approach," Carothers said. But he wonders if supporters of the idea, like McCain, also include in their considerations “the idea of curtailing America’s appetite for certain kinds of assertions of national strength and national security."

Some critics also doubt that creating an exclusive League of Democracies offers a prescription for mending the ills of U.S. unilateralism under President George W. Bush. The very exclusivity of its membership, they say, is both dangerous and likely to make the effort unsuccessful.

"It revives a Cold War mentality that pits the good guys [market democracies] against the bad [autocracies]," according to Ted Piccone and Mort Halperin, who as Clinton administration officials helped form the Community of Democracies—a multilateral forum of democracies that is designed to promote democracy through non-violent means.

Speaking at Carnegie, Halperin dismissed the notion that anyone else—even Western democracies—would be interested in joining a military and security alliance.

"[Other countries] are simply not interested in supplanting the U.N. as the only legitimate forum for the discussion of security questions," Halperin said.

The extent to which a League of Democracies could undermine responses to universal crises seems to be particularly dangerous. Climate change, for example, is a global problem where China has surpassed the United States in emitting greenhouse gases.

"I don’t think China is any less a natural partner on climate change with the United States than India is; in fact, China’s probably more important," Carothers said. "So I’m concerned about this idea of natural partners, given the reality of the configuration of issues and interests that face us."

Ali Gharib writes for the Inter Press Service and is a contributor to PRA’s Right Web (http://rightweb.irc-online.org).

Citations

Ali Gharib, “A League of What?,” Right Web, with permission from The Forward (Somerville, MA: PRA, 2008). Web location:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4925.html Production Information:
Author(s): Right Web
Editor(s): Right Web
Production: Political Research Associates   Latest Comments & Conversation Area
Editor's Note: IRC editors read and approve eachcomment. Comments are checked for content and to a lesser degree forspelling and grammatical errors. Comments that include vulgar language andlibelous content are rejected, as are comments that do not directlyrespond to the published IRC article.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share