Who Gets to Play in the Concert?
The good news about the proposed Concert of Democracies is that it provides a target to which other semi-democratic nations can aspire. The bad news? It’s a good target for other countries to criticize.
After 6 years of Bush diplo-phobia, we are all more aware of how other nations view the United States, and the costs of excluding the view of others when we calculate our own strategies. So how would other nations view the Concert?
My hunch is that most of the world would view the CoD as yet another step by the United States to exercise a little more hegemony. This one would be more polite. It wouldn’t be individual pre-emptive, non-UN sanctioned behavior. It would be small-group pre-emptive, non-UN sanctioned behavior. Kind of a post Bush kindler, gentler hegemonic group. Would it advance America’s national interest in a post-Bush era? I am not convinced, though there is the genuine challenge of finding legitimacy for actions that the U.S. judges important enough to act on, but which will fail to get through the UN.
At the same time, finding a way to restore democracy as a credible goal for the international community is a good thing. Now when a U.S. official uses the ‘D’ word, she or he won’t find much credibility. ‘Democracy’ has become tarnished, an American bargain basement bait-and-switch maneuver trundled out as the Iraq war was failing.
So why not think of the CoD as a NED writ large? You recall that the National Endowment for Democracy is America’s semi-official democracy promotion agency, the holding company for four other similar bodies that are funded through the NED. It has a solid reputation for integrity and helping democrats around the world.
Since Jim and Ivo recognize that we might be facing a democracy deficit, I suggest they build on the NED foundation and reach out to other countries’ counterparts and tackle the problem that way, as a kind of super-NGO rather than a competitor to NATO or the UN.
I agree with many other bloggers who have written that for all sorts of reasons putting the sweat, political capital and money into re-building the UN would be a better use of our scarce resources than creating another exclusive international club.
Especially since the Concert of Democracy would be exclusionary at its core. Remember Tom Carothers essay about democracy’s gray zone – there are a small handful of genuinely democratic countries; a bunch of genuinely repressive dictatorships. And most countries fall somewhere in the great big gray zone between dictatorship and democracy. In Year One of the PB (Post Bush) era America should work hard to improve inclusive international institutions, not to create new exclusionary ones.
Comments (15)
"D" for Democracy.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Inigo Montoya
December 16, 2006 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ernest,
I think the big issue that some of the people posting have raised is: China.
China has made Freedomhouse's "worst of the worst" list yet again in 2006, but they are clearly the best bet for the alpha country in the 21st century.
The dilemma is pretty obvious there, but I will frame it anyway.
If we included China in a Concert of Democracies, it essentially defeats the purpose by definition.
If we exclude China, then we send them running into the arms of the countries with dictators, failed states, monarchs, caliphs, etc.
I think China is the biggest practical obstacle to the idea. I love the thought of a U.N. with the ability to enforce its agenda, and a U.N. that doesn't look to Libya for advice about human rights, but excluding China could lead to a disaster.
The only solution would be to work with China the same way the World Bank does. Use the carrot to get them to drop their stick.
That process, even if it proves effective, still might take decades.
The China issue would need to be resolved by someone first. Not to mention solving the problems associated with further alientating countries tetering on the edge of becoming Islamic radical dominated Caliphates (Pakistan, Lebanon, Uzbekistan, etc.)
December 16, 2006 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually the NED does NOT have a solid reputation around the world. Remember, it was used for example to try to undermine Chavez in Venezuela, a president whose democratic credentials are better than Bush's.
The selective nature of the NED's democracy-promoting agenda is also a concern. How hard have they tried to promote democracies in countries ruled by pro-US tyrants? The NED is simply carrying out a function that was carried out by the CIA - regime change. It channels millions of dollars of US gov't money to promote the agenda of the US gov't, and "democracy" is just a pretty word for it.
Anyway, are other nations allowed to combine together in carrying out small-group hegemonic pre-emptive wars, or will this right be limited to the self-annointed "democratic" ones? Isn't this really a case of trying to own the word "Democracy" in order to give legitimacy to the use of force outside existing international laws and norms when they prove to be inconvenient?
December 18, 2006 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ernest
With so many posts about the COD perhaps this has been addressed elsewhere, but what role do you still international corporation playing. Citibank and HSBC are the local bank in many countries. Home Depot just bought a Chinese company. Verizon is looking to lay lots of fiber pipe in China. GE and others are going to be supplying the equipment for Chinese nuclear plants.
All these companies are dependent on the rule of law and stable currencies. However, they are larger than many countries their interests span boundries. When there is a Starbucks and a Wal-Mart in every major city on the globe how will your conception of the COD work? What happens to the countries that outside not the COD but the interest of the global financial powers?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 18, 2006 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Chavez in Venezuela, a president whose democratic credentials are better than Bush's."
Hass, you are wonderful.
December 18, 2006 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
GHaines, I think all Hass was refering to was the fact that, whatever you think of him, Chavez seems to have been legitimately elected, wheras Bush stole the 2000 election.
But in any case, here is cheery news of a step in the right direction, where Venezuela is concerned.
On a separate point, I don't participate much myself in the rating of comments. But since you are new here, you may want to refer to the Cafe guidelines for rating comments. A '1' rating is supposed to be reserved for "offensive or innappropriate comments."
December 18, 2006 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Chavez is to be challenged it is going to be by a concerted effort to use less oil. Perhaps the most corrosive impact is oil wealth. Chavez is able to spread a lot of cash around with little cash. This is obviously a problem in Nigeria and the Middle East as well.
Take awaay the oceans of cash from the likes of Chavez and we will then see how popular he is. It is interestng that both Brazil and Argentina, not to mention Chile have all rejected Chavez. Without them South America does not do too much.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 19, 2006 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Bush stole the 2000 election"
Objectivity is over-rated. Instead of asking me to not get offended by ridiculous claims about Bush vs. Chavez, how about trying harder to not offend me? Does that count for anything?
I guess I am too easily offended by anti-American comments then, huh? Maybe I ought to lighten up.
December 19, 2006 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
An Initials Response: the CoD and the PRC, the NED and MNCs.
So many initials, so little time.
The CoD could be a useful forum, but as a complement and not a substitute for other instruments of American influence and good work. Given the pressing problems and PB (post Bush) tasks that have to be pursued by the next administration, creating a new big body should not be in the top tier of our priorities. Maybe somewhere in the middle.
The National Endowment for Democracy (the NED) could be an important institution to help assemble a community of democratic countries. Does the NED have critics at home and abroad, as some recent posts here have said? Sure. Has the NED helped to protect a lot of local democrats in Africa, Asia, Latin America and East and Central Europe to advance the cause of democracy? Sure again. My point is that we have a NED, and it should continue to work with the relevant bureaus at the Department of State to sustain the democracy conversation internationally. Maybe the initiative should be a Concert of NEDS. (Just beware of the acronym).
On the CoD and the PRC: Everything the US undertakes from this time forward will find the PRC right there in the middle of the path, whether it’s about democracy, trade or defense. We need to get smarter about recognizing that we have multiple interests with the PRC as we do with any large powerful state. Democracy should never be the sole issue with China. Nor should trade or defense. We need to find an integrated approach to the leaders of the Middle Kingdom that encompasses all our multiple entanglements with them. On democracy though: is the PRC political system as transparent, participatory and protected by the rule of law as most Americans would like? No. Is the political system more transparent and participatory than it was a decade ago? Most of my Chinese friends, some of whom can be quite critical of the bosses in Beijing, believe the answer to that question is yes. The US should continue to nudge the leadership more toward democracy, whether there is a CoD or not.
Multinational corporations (MNCs) are engaged in an interesting debate on their Corporate Social Responsibilities (CSR). Much of it is fluff; some of it could be leveraged and given greater democratic meaning in the context of the CoD.
December 19, 2006 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chavez has repeatedly won a far larger percentage of the popular vote in his country than Bush has, and the elections have been certified as free and open. Deal with it.
December 19, 2006 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well I suppose any comments with which we strongly disagree are likely to "offend" our political and moral sensibilities. But the point is that the ratings system, as I understand it, is not intended by Josh and the site's managers to be a tool for downrating political positions with which we happen to disagree.
It is the responsibility of everyone to remain civil toward other participants, and therefore not directly offend others by engaging in personal attacks. But no one is reponsible for not offending you, or not offending me, or not offending anyone else by avoiding the expression of political points of view which the listener happens to find "offensive".
Hass is under no obligation to try harder not to offend you by avoiding claims that you regard as "offensively ridiculous". Nor are you under any obligation to avoid comments Hass regards as ridiculous.
December 19, 2006 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has already gone on way too long, but I will end with this-- a score of 1 is defined as "Unproductive."
If someone says something that is inflamatory, either intentionally (knowing they are being dishonest) or unintentionally (simply not knowing the facts) they deserve a rating that is defined as "Unproductive."
Some statements made by people who post on the blog are patently offensive. Comparing Iran's government to America's in a favorable way is silly and anyone who does it is either being dishonest or tragically misinformed.
That is offensive to me, bottom line. The question is...why doesn't that offend you?
December 19, 2006 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get offended easily. I do get piqued evey day here by all sorts of crazy comments. But my inclination is just to let the commentators have their say, and pass over in silence anything I think is too silly to engage with. And if I do engage with it, I am therby indicating that the comment was at least interesting enough to get a response out of me.
December 19, 2006 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough Dan.
I guess my big issue is that I think we, as Americans, do not stand up for ourselves. We do not believe in our own system or if we do, we do not show it.
People like Osama bin Laden can get people passionately behind his ideas and we can not. Our system is more liberating and empowering and just than any that has come before, and most that will come after, yet we shy away from confronting those that demean it.
To me, that is wrong and it needs to be addressed.
It is easy to blame Bush for his terrible oratory, or to be embarrassed by a few grotesque moves our country made 50 years ago, but I blame us.
I blame us for not defending our own belief system.
You may be taking the high road, but appeasing wrong ideas doesn't sit right with me. Maybe I'm wasting my time, but I think it is worth trying.
December 19, 2006 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're up against a logical block, here. The very system that encourages us to not "get behind it", but rather to nitpick and ask for change, is the dominant political and economic power (albeit faciing competition from China in the latter). How many are emigrating to Waziristan? Last I heard, the fastest-growing religion was not Wahab Islam but Latter-Day Saints.
It is precisely the unfettered creativity unleashed by the lack of taboo that empowers both our economy and our politics. Ironically, Victor Davis Hanson's thrilling book on East-West clashes in history ("Carnage and Culture") emphasizes the Western advantage of disagreement among military commanders, which leads to the best tactics, and the stern civilian control of same, like the Greeks executing commanders that unnecessarily risked soldiers. Ironic because Hanson came out as an Iraq war supporter, in spite of the fact that the argument and dissent he extolled was conspicuously absent in the run-up to invasion, and since.
We prefer to think our leaders are human, not superhuman. We would prefer to think they are as interested in the ordinary things of life as we are. Knocking them with humor is a humanizing move. If the worst Bush has to hear is "dumbass" he's doing OK. (No one is talking about how crooked is johnson is.) And if you go to some other blogs you'll read much harsher words.December 21, 2006 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink