One would be to implement the responsibility to protect, in Darfur and other places. Another would be to impose sanctions on Iran if it continues to resist the demands of the Security Council. A third would be to interdict shipments of nuclear and other proliferation-related materials from North Korea or other proliferating countries (currently the province of an ad-hoc arrangement called the Proliferation Security Initiative).

Well I'm going to be the crazy wingnut here and state the obvious: why would a Concert of Democracies have any better shot at making headway on these problems than the United Nation has?  The simple fact is that all these issues are hard and they intersect with the countries that would make up a Concert of Democracies in different ways.  So it's not at all clear that a Concert could have any more success in achieving consensus than any other grouping of nations that look out primarily for their own interests.

Take the proliferation issue.  Most countries, including non-democratic ones, embrace the idea of keeping nukes out of the hands of rogue regimes like the North Koreans.  Yet doing something about it requires having export controls in place and, more importantly, military assets available to intercept transportation.  Are those assets more likely to be deployed for the purposes of non-proliferation than if the authorization came from existing multilateral agencies? Don't know for sure, but it seems unlikely.

Don't get me wrong - I think a Concert of Democracies is a good idea.  But only as part of a radical overhaul for the UN, not as an additional agency.  The UN needs to be split up into those elements that need global participation and which work well more or less (e.g. WHO, UNDP, IBRD, UNHCR etc.) and those that are dysfunctional and pointless, like the General Assembly.  The Security Council ideally should be replaced by the Concert idea, except that to exclude China and Russia from it is a non-starter, so you're back to square one there.

Perhaps the simplest approach is just to make democracy a prerequisite to be a decision maker in some parts of the existing UN apparatus. The Human Rights Commission is the obvious place to start, but UNDP might be another.

Perhaps the founding principle should not be democracies acting in concert but states joining in order to decide what a democracy is.  That is, begin as a forum that looks for codifiable principles.  A statement of Principles of Democracy like the Declaration of Human Rights would then be the founding document and action plan. It becomes a plan because any idea for action is tested against it.

A public Statement is also offered to the rest of the world for consideration, and the opinion returned is its legitimacy. Because the Declaration of Human Rights is self-contained and free-standing, who was involved in its development is irrelevant. Similarly, a well-designed Statement of Democratic Principles will not be weakened by signatories with questionable credentials.

BTW, seems to me that the determining difference between this and the EU is that the latter starts as a parochial interest group and is only incidentally a group of democracies.

So basically a bunch of self-appointed "concert" members will use the claim of being "democracies" to legitimize the exercise of raw power in furtherance of US goals, contrary to and outside the international legal structure and the UN.

Gotcha.

In simpler form: no nation large/powerful enough to be a meaningful member of a "concert of democracies" will every relinquish enough of its sovereignity to make a meaningful difference in anything difficult.

Setting aside the overall discussion about Iraq, look at the operational situation of the coalition: the US and UK are about as close partners as any two nations can be, and their respective armed forces have worked together since the 1890s. But neither is willing to relinquish complete operational control of their soldiers to the other.

sPh

I am quite pleased (and flattered!) that you have acknowledged my comments, and I owe it you to read the Princeton Project in full. As a result, part of me is disinclined to comment further until I have done that.

But there are certain thing that stick out in your posts that give me real concern that we are fundamentally at odds from the outset. Couple of examples here:

"America is much more likely to act in concert with other democracies to address these kind problems than it is to act in concert with non-democracies."

That's a really strong assumption. I'd like to believe it to be true, but honestly, after the pre-Iraq War diplomatic antics and 2004 GOP election rhetoric (both of which were broadly embraced by millions of Americans), I need a lot of convincing.

However, let's assume it is true. In which case, why the need for a Concert? If we are already automatically inclinded to work in concert with other democracies, does formalizing this condition in fact add much value to anyone? Or worse, would it terminally change and compromise the nature of what is essentially voluntary co-operation at the moment (now NATO has served its Cold War usefulness)?

And:

"they [Americans] are therefore much more inclined to listen and even to defer to these partners than they are to non-democracies or organizations that include all sorts of countries"

Another very strong assumption. Based on what we saw ahead of the Iraq War, again, I have great difficulty taking this at face value.

However, in looking for a unifying thread through your post, I still kind of arrive at the same point I always do in these discussions. In what respect do the issues we would like to see addressed not get broadly covered in the Charter of the United Nations? In short, why isn't the Charter your point of reference, especially as with it you can point to the all the various deficiencies of the UN itself and the member states in meeting the ideals set out in 1945. So whilst I can agree to read the the various literature AA alumni are putting together, I'd still be interested to know what weakness you see in the Charter, and how your ideas might improve matters. (Ps. in my estimation there's one glaring weakness in the Charter, but I'm not keen on throwing you that bone until I am clear on your arguments!)

And finally, geopolitical restructuring as you propose will, in my view, have little effect absent a serious global economic development plan. As I have previously remarked, the Greatest Generation understood this a heck of a lot better than we appear to today. The Marshall Plan, the foundation of the EU (which contrary to an earlier comment was fundamentally, and remains fundamentally, an economic union), the Bretton Woods institutions, were as integral a part of the post-war plans as any of the UN bodies.

So yep, I need to read some more, but I remain unconvinced we either need this Concert or that it can lead to substantial progress; I remain deeply skeptical that we might be able to sell it - either domestically or to other democracies; and I think that absent a "Marshall Plan", it won't affect much geopolitical change.

And finally, I will continue to channel Amartya Sen, for my money currently the most important writer on global socio-economic and political issues. You might begin to sway my views if I can see you're taking cues from him.

BTW, seems to me that the determining difference between this and the EU is that the latter starts as a parochial interest group and is only incidentally a group of democracies.

There may be found many different interests contributing to transnational support for the Coal and Steel Union and its later evolvements, but since the involved countries were democracies - and this not only incidentally - and since their electorates considered tyranny and wars to be their major threats, there can't really be said to be much incidential about the intertwining of a democratic credo into the Union's ideological raison-d'être.

Fair enough that democracy is not incidental to the extent that only democracies would join in this manner. But the goal was not simply the joining of democracies for possible future action; it was for immediate internal efficiencies that make the EU more competitive globally.

This post from Daalder is essentially an admissiont that the new organization would serve no purpose. What does he suggest it would be able to work on?

Specifically:
-- Darfur
-- Iranian Nuclear Program
-- North Korean Proliferation

Generally:
-- Coordinating Foreign Aid
-- Poverty Reduction
-- Responsible Sovereignty

Disregarding whatever the hell is meant by Daalder's conception of responsible sovereignty, there is no current concensus among democracies about action to be taken regarding Darfur, Iran, or North Korea, and there is no good reason to think that a new organization would have the ability to build concensus where the UN and multilateral coalitions have failed. If the liberal democracies of the world don't want to work on Darfur right now, having a new organization isn't going to make them want to work on it.

Fundamentally, if this organization is to function in a manner that Daalder et al want it to function, there is no way the United States would ever sign on to it. It would be a brand spanking new League of Nations, and it would suffer the same fate. Here's why: the US is not going to compromise its sovereignty to support an international organization that it cannot effectively control. For this new organization to function as desired, it would need to be able to issue decisions that are legally binding on its members. The decisions would have to be legally binding because if they were not, individual states that disagreed with the organization would simply go outside of its framework to negotiate individually with problem states. Furthermore, it could not permit some states to have a privileged position within the organization such as the P5 members enjoy in the UN, because its undemocratic and illegitimate. Thus, legally binding decisions would be issued by a majority of the organization in which the US would find itself but one of apparently 60+ states. Sorry, but we're not going to be down with that.

BUT! Daalder argues, "We'll transform the concept of sovereignty in such a way that the US will be willing to compromise it."

To which the rational man responds, "You don't say."

Now that is the problem of this "responsible sovereignty." Look folks, just because you can put words together in a sentence, that does not mean that they carry any meaningful content when so arranged. The concept of sovereignty in its most broadly accepted form is precisely that individual states are not subject to external control or international intervention. In order to have a conception of sovereignty that is "not just as a right to be defended but as entailing real responsibilities toward both their own citizens and the security of those in other countries," one would have to give up the essential aspect of the concept.

And for Daalder et al it is either entirely give up the concept of sovereignty or design a two tiered concept of sovereignty where in-group states get the old sovereignty while out-group states get the new one. That option would be an assertion unseen in and unacceptable to the existing world order.

So, now it seems the proposed organization is not just useless, it is conceptually unworkable.

Re: We are facing real economic troubles which may preclude even the most basic social reforms (healthcare top of list).

If we are facing "real" economic troubles (as opposed to fake or imaginary ones?) then I would say that far from being precluded, major reforms become necessary and, yes, a good deal more politically feasible. The New Deal is an obvious historic case in point (and I doubt we are facing anything remotely on the magnitude of the Depression, or WWII for that matter).

Re: We are facing (particiularly if the Shiites go after those Saudi oilfields, as many are saying they will do) huge price hikes in oil

Highly dubious. The Iraqi Shi'ites can barely defend themselves, the Iranians may have desires for regional hegemony, but lack the military force to obtain it that way, and everywhere else the Shi'ites are a small minority.

Re; something which Democratic majorities may get blamed for BTW

As long as George Bush is in the white House the buck will stop there. Fairly or not Americans hold their presidents responsible for anything that goes wrong in public affairs.

OK...so you were referring to how the world viewed the US pre-Bush and assuming that POV would return post-Bush?  For argument's sake I'll accept that leap of faith Daniel. 

But in many ways the problems we face in the world are because of our continuation of Cold War foreign policy positions even after our Cold War adversary was defeated.  We continue on with an imperialistic policy trying to steer more and more countries into our sphere of influence to the benefit of only us.  We are not the superpower we used to be, granted, but we are still the pre-eminent world power and this CoD seems to be a new vehicle to allow us to try to control other governments like we did in the Cold War only with new justifications.

I don't think we need a CoD.  I prefer to stick with the UN as imperfect as it is.  And when the US shows leadership, like it did in the first Gulf War, the UN can operate fairly effectively...the key is the US showing leadership more than it has in the recent past.

The UN, like the LoN, can not be more than its members want it to be. If an important member, like the U.S., has given up on the UN, it seriously weakens that organisation.

And any such weakening is not reversed rapidly, also if its causes would disappear.

Seemed natural to assume the EU was an outgrowth of the EEC, the European Economic Community. I'll accept being wrong if that's not the case.

Point taken.

I don't think a Concert of Democracies would be able to replicate what the UN already does. It wouldn't do humanitarian relief any better, either, and it would be a wash with regard to legitimacy.

The UN has a function far more important than humanitarian relief. It prevents disputes and incidents from escalating into major world wars. What if there'd been no UN when Russia shot down the airliner? Or when the US did? Or when NATO bombed the Chinese embassy? Or when Russia and China shot down American spy planes? I don't think a Concert would've been able to diffuse situations like that.

No Concert of Democracies is going to make enough people care about Darfur to cause the democracies in question to do anything about it. The sun used to never set on the British Empire, for heaven's sake. Ditto for France, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands. Any one of these formerly imperial nations could handle Darfur all by itself. They choose not to because as they evolved into democracies, stopped fighting one another, and abandoned their former colonies, Europeans became wealthy and comfortable. They don't want to be shipped off to Africa. Some people care enough to join worthy relief organizations like Medecins Sans Frontiers, or whatever. But they don't number enough to change their governments' policies. 

Finally, a word on legitimacy. Politics will always be a struggle among competing interests and legitimacy, whatever that means, will always be in the eye of the beholder. Neither Saddam Hussein nor Slobodan Milosevic nor the Somali warlords were the least bit impressed by the "legitimacy." Superior firepower, or lack thereof, proved decisive. No Concert of Democracies is going to change this calculus either.

All in all, I'd say this Concert idea is a worthy academic effort that's just not going anywhere. 

-- Good people can have honest differences of opinion. Bipartisanship is impossible so long as Republicans are neither.

Daniel...

Why did/does the world like Clinton?  Because Bill Clinton is one of the more charismatic leaders of his time.  And it had very little to do with America and almost everything to do with Bill Clinton.

Somalia and Bosnia are a mixed bag.  Yes the US stepped up and showed leadership.  The efforts in Bosnia were impressively effective and the ones in Somalia were equally not.  I don't view that as a US failing but it does underscore the flaws of the UN in terms of being consistent in their efforts.  But between Kuwait (my lone praise for and only noteworthy accomplishiment of the Bush, Sr. administration), Bosnia and Somalia it shows that the UN can act assertively when the institution operates as intended.  I see this as a case being made to stick with the UN and not one for needing a CoD.

I think Latin America was a problem before 9/11 that was made worse by 9/11.  For far too long the region has been exploited for it's resources by American multinationals under the guise of our Cold War anti-communist policy.  Very few in the region have benefitted while the vast majority of the people have reaped very little socio-economic benefit from their resources.  So there has been a push back and the people of the region have chosen leaders like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and others on the left who want to see the wealth of their nations benefit all the people of their nations more, instead of it being syphoned off and funneled north.  I see this as an issue for the OAS to address and again I do not see a need for a CoD in this case.

I am actually not afraid of another attack even though another one is likely.  The policies and rhetoric of the GWOT are trying to make Islamic extremists a bigger threats then Soviet Communism and Fascist Germany of the 30's and 40's...combined.  We are looking to continue our imperialistic Cold War policies by inventing a new grave threat to our republic and free peoples everywhere.  Islamic extremism is a threat and it should be dealt with by the world vis-a-vis the UN but it doesn't threaten Western Civilization as we know it.  A CoD, which is an exclusive body which will not be representitive of the world community as a whole, will be far less effective dealing with the problem then the UN can and will be if the US will abandon our unilateralist foreign policy and seriously re-engage ourselves in the work of the institution.

When there is evidence of large scale support for American that is only person. When there is evidence of opposition to America that is proof of bad American policy? How did the first Bush put together a virtual global coalition to oust Iraq from Kuwait?

Having watched three thousand poeple murdered people my eyes I am not willing to wait for the U.N. I disagree tht Islamic extermism does not threaten the West but without the power of an industrial nation they are not likely to succeed. Especially as I imagine if the U.S. is attacked again much of the Middle East will cease to exist. Afterall the U.S. being attacked again is less a threat to America than it is to the rest of the globe.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

The whole time I was reading this post and the comments I kept wondering, "Why do we even need a CoD?" (Terrible name, by the way).

The only answer I can come up with is that China won't be in it.

That's not, actually, a bad answer. Everybody's talking about the human rights abuses in Darfur. But there's not enough talk about who's behind it. It's China. They're supplying the petrodollars and are putting up a Dubai style city in Khartoum while the rest of Darfur suffers.

At the moment, China is taking a very realpolitik view of the world. I don't actually blame them for that. They have to do it because they need the resources. But they're investing heavily in Africa while most of the world's attention is elsewhere, China is turning that entire continent into a client state.

Since China has veto power in the UN, the UN is helpless to even regulate China's activities. A powerful and rich international group that doesn't include China might be able to provide a check on China's ambitions. I think we need one of those.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Wait a minute. Here's what you think we'd accomplish through the "Concert of Democracies" (among other things):

More broadly, a concert, whose members would account for the vast bulk of annual foreign assistance outlays, could get serious about poverty reduction and infectious diseases, promote democracy and human rights, and advance a vision of a better and more hopeful world in which countries view their sovereignty not just as a right to be defended but as entailing real responsibilities toward both their own citizens and the security of those in other countries .

The US uses its aid budget to bribe those countries which have a vote in the United Nations security council, giving them 59 per cent more cash in years when they have a seat, according to research by economists... When there is a controversial vote in prospect, the premium for countries with a security council seat is even higher. US aid surges by as much as 170 per cent, bringing in a £23m windfall, while the UN spends an extra £4m... David Woodward, of the New Economics Foundation, who is writing about the paper for a forthcoming edition of the Lancet, said the findings suggest the UN should be radically reformed. 'As long as one country wields such influence, there will always have a degree of control over what goes on, and they will be likely to abuse that.' 'The biggest obstacle, in both the IMF and the World Bank, as well as the UN, is that the countries that now have power can use that power to block reform - and they do.'

Yeah there has definitely been, politically, a leftward in the rest of the Americas Destor.  Some like Chavez are farther to the left than de Silva but most leaders in our hemisphere are politically moving away from where have have been for the last 6+ years.

I respect Chavez too if for no other reason for making a stand about what he feels is in the best interests of his country.  And I have respect of the Venezuelan people when they chose him to lead them again.  The elections there have been free and open as any and Chavez appears to have won fair and square...as long as it is mandated by the people it is legitimate.