The Concert: Not the Main Tune
So I’m keeping with this “tune” metaphor as we continue to debate the Concert of Democracies. Ivo and Jim and others responded to some of the points in my “out of tune” post with good points, but I remain insufficiently persuaded. Not that the Concert doesn’t have some strong points, but that the net assessment doesn’t come out positive for me.
The “not the main tune” is another aspect. Even if we were to agree that the Concert is more positive than not, there’s the question of where it should fit in a new Democratic President’s priorities in 2009. It would take high priority: a frequent theme for Presidential speeches, a main subject in State Dept talking points, spending American leverage, taking up big chunks of summit agendas. Choices have to be made as to which priorities in which to invest presidential prestige, administration resources, piece of the media agenda, etc. I don’t see the Concert as so strong a priority relative to others as to warrant this priority.
I’d rather spend these resource on the likes of establishing a U.S.-China summit akin to U.S.-Soviet summits of the Cold War, dealing not only with immediate bilateral issues (currency value, intellectual property) but also broader global geopolitical issues appropriate to this evolving relationship; pushing on “responsibility to protect” and a definition of sovereignty that gives more recognition to the responsibilities not just the rights of states; and collective action on global climate change.
Comments (1)
It could be expected from the next Democrat president, that issues critical for the humanity's survival get high priority. Climate Change may in that light be a lot more important to focus on than proliferation of nuclear weapons. (Proliferation is not unimportant, but...)
That will be a very tricky issue not the least vis-a-vis China and Indien.
As a European, from the Baltic neighborhood of Russia, I do very much wish that the next U.S. administration (regardless of political color) would transfer the responsibility for European defense and foreign relations with Russia to "the Europeans", which probably would mean the European Union.
The development in Russia is complicated and opaque, and agreeing on meassures will be sufficiently complicated for the neareast concerned nations without interference from Washington. U.S. bilateral relations with Russia ought no more include considerations for Europe.
In all these respects, I believe the proposed Consert to be an obstacle to progress rather than a contributor. The last thing the neighbors of Russia would need, for instance, would be a repetition of the tensed dividing after 1945: This time in democratic countries under American dominance and un-democratic countries under Russian dominance.
December 16, 2006 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink