Who Will Sit at the Table?
Rachel: I appreciate your questions, which dovetail with some of the arguments being raised by Ivo Daalder, Bob Kagan and others in relation to a proposed Concert of Democracies. One of the ideas behind the Concert, as I understand it, is that because of their representative character democracies have the legitimacy to defend international legal and humanitarian principles, even when other governments don't agree. The contention is that authoritarian regimes lack moral standing to weigh in on issues, for example, of humanitarian intervention or the protection of human rights, and should therefore not be allowed to get in the way.
My view is that while defensible intellectually, this position is neither politically nor practically tenable. Here's why:
First off, it will be impossible to define who is qualified to sit at the table when decisions get made. As you point out, decisions on who deserves to be in the mix will differ case-by-case: those with legitimacy to take a stand on Darfur may lack the same when it comes to torture. Your own reference to "non-liberal democracies" points to the difficulty of using countries' own political systems as hard-and-fast criteria for participation in multi-lateral decision-making. Countries that are seen to practice what they preach and uphold human rights and the rule of law will, perforce, have more legitimacy in international debates on these subjects. But I don't see how we convene separate sets of qualified sovereign actors for every individual debate.
Second, political weight matters. You question whether, given their own human rights records, Washington should give credence to Beijing or Caracas when they criticize the U.S. on related matters. The reality is, these countries have political sway over regions of the world that the U.S. cares about, such that Washington may not be able to afford to ignore them. Moreover, while their hands may not be clean, that does not mean their critiques are meritless. Sometimes a country with less to lose in terms of bilateral relations may be willing to raise a challenge that others agree with, but are reluctant to bring up for fear of straining relations. Once again, while countries' own track records will always be a factor influencing the authority accorded to their positions, it will be impossible to draw bright lines as to when others get heard.
Third, concepts of moral standing need to be reconciled with the idea of universality. The whole notion behind the human rights movement is that these principles are universal, not made in America or even by liberal democracies. They are the rights and ideals of all individuals, world-wide. The notion that a small group of liberal democracies should hold all the power over how these concepts are implemented in practice conflicts with that concept of universality. The result would be that precious few African and Islamic peoples would be represented on subjects that affect them profoundly. Admittedly, adding authoritarian regimes into the mix does not correct the problem, but the difficulty remains.
Given the US record on human rights under the Bush Administration, I question whether we are in any position to even talk about the issue to other countries. Only when WE have learned to practice what we preach, stop our practices of torture, indefinite detention, violation of privacy laws and government-directed suppression of voting by blocs within our own country, respect international agreements and reject the notion that the Executive is above the law will anyone who is not economically or militarily beholden to us even listen to what we have to say. Your blind spot about what has happened in the US over the past 6 1/2 years is staggering.
June 21, 2007 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter Suzanne Nossel:
Thank you. We blogger peeps been saying that here for months. Perhaps if enough people on the front page start saying it, something will sink in.
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
June 21, 2007 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey cscs, did you notice that the concert of democracies discussion basically killed the America Abroad section of this site? Since the CoD discussion ended in December, there have only been 32 posts in America Abroad--the last one in April. Neither Daalder, Ikenberry, nor Lindsay have written anything for the site since January.
I had a brief (real life) encounter with James Lindsay in which he was still trying to push the CoD. He got angry when I pointed out some of the problems and he made large blanket statements about how people on this site just don't get it. The problem with these people is that the unwashed masses (you and me) can't tell them that they are wrong. They see themselves as elites and they refuse to accept criticism from people without degrees from Harvard.
June 21, 2007 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
sPh
June 21, 2007 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
haha...we "just don't get it."
Well, I guess you really need a seat at the Oxford High Table after all...
:-)
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
June 21, 2007 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. Think you left one thing out:
When we freeze "illiberal democracies" or even dictatorships out of the discussion, we strengthen their most illiberal proclivities. They tend to react by saying "See, the whole world is ganging up on us." Then they declare states of emergency, cancel elections and buy weapons from China. We provide the threat that certain leaders will use to justify oppressing their own people.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
June 21, 2007 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh c'mon Reece. When Superman, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Batman and Robin formed the Justice League of America did they ask non super-powered mortals for an opinion?
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
June 21, 2007 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, it is mighty presumptuous of the United States to refer to itself as a democracy, let alone to then proclaim for itself a right to subjugate other nations on the grounds that they're not democracies, in violation of the fundamental principle of international law (equal sovereignty.)
In most democracies, people vote for their representatives. In the US, the representatives select their voters because in msot states, voting districts are drawn by incumbents — often the majority party — who move boundaries around populations to ensure predictable, non-competitive results that exclude any chance of a meaningful election challenge. They even sometimes intentionally lose to each other rather than to allow a third party to rise up.
In most other democracies, people get a real choice from parties on a wide spectrum - Communists to NeoNazis. We however have practically no difference between our candidates except on certain hot-button topics (and less there everyday) and debate on even those limited topics simply pose as genuine political debate, when in fact the larger issues are left untouched.
Let us also ask to what extent we have a "free media" when 8 mega-corp arms manufacturers own 90% of our newspapers and tv stations.
Sorry, the level of deception, propaganda, coercion (and now we have Gitmo) that exists in the US would turn any repressive third-world dictator green with envy. We are not a democracy.
June 21, 2007 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I'm not revisiting the CoD either.
But just to clarify.. Bob Kagan... now there's a surname that sends shivers down my spine... should I take that to mean the Neocons warm to the CoD too???
June 21, 2007 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The basic premise of the decent moral standing of democracies is false. The simple example is Europe. In the 20th century Europe as a whole killed over 140 Million people. Most of the countries in Europe were democracies, although most of the killing was by Nazi Germany and The Soviet Union, yet even the minor player in the butchery such as France and Britain had tallied substantial death tolls.
There is absolutely no guarantee that such events will not repeat. Actually, in some sense about a million Iraqis were killed by the US in the last 4 years. This is a massive repetition of the same butchery.
The recent decision of the union of university professors in Britain to boycott Israeli universities shows that the British academic are totally blind to lessons of Nazism. Next think that might happen is that they want to fight Israel. How about ignoring Darfur by all democracies? Why is it that the Kurd don't deserve self determination because Turkey is against it? The latter is probably the most bankrupt moral position that is almost universally held.
The premise is just absolutely invalid.
June 21, 2007 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iam not sure why it should be so hard to decide who sits at the table. The founding members simply decide on a set of standards and abide by them. This is not an exercise of Midieval Doctors deciding issues of theology.
Without international organizations with real teeth and not hamstrung by the anti-Western biases built into the U.N. is there any doubt that more and more the U.S. will go it alone? What is necessary is a series of additional and parallel global organizations that can help bring more countries into liberal democracies.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
June 21, 2007 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe you're misapplying the numbers. There have been approx 180 million deaths in the 20th century at the hands of the communist governments of China and the U.S.S.R.. Neither were democracies.
Would you mind providing a breakdown of the 160 million deaths you attribute to "democracies"? BTW, the German government that was in power prior to Nazi rule, was democratic, but it wasn't democratic after the Nazi takeover. There is also a serious difference between straight democracy and representative democracy, which we have in the US and which is superior and more in aid of equality.
June 21, 2007 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the US we have a representative democracy, which is infinitely better than straight democracy, which only provides an illusion of democracy. As to how we vote here, we do vote for our representatives, and our bicameral congress is vastly better than any regular parliamentary system.
Districts are decided at the state, not federal level, by local representatives elected by the people. The process is open to the people as well, not quite as you attempt to paint it. There are problems from time to time, and they have to be dealt with, but at least here in the US, it's far easier to deal with those problems than it is elsewhere.
I do not consider communists and nazis as any kind of "real choice", why do you?
The only thing third party movements have brought about here, has been the Bush administration. They didn't care about the realities we all knew would come of it. They have zero credibility on the issue of the war, and will never get elected to anything, ever. If that's the European influence, lol, they can keep it. It's the reason they have Hitler and fascism as a legacy. You undermine your claim even understanding what the premise of democracy is about by your rationales.
While it is true that Bush was elected (as fraudulently as it was), we have the ability through our constitution and bill of rights to ensure that we are not stuck with him. Again, our government isn't perfect, but I'd take it over the sham democracies of other countries any day of the week. Bush is a lousy president, precisely because he seeks to govern in an anti-American way. He seeks to govern the same way the despots of the far left and far right always run governments, as totalitiarians.
To label any communist, socialist or theocratic country or regime as "democratic" or even worthy of being part of some congress of democracies is not only idiotic and ignorant, but it shows that you are willing to ignore the human rights violations of those regimes, and it also shows that you would be no better.
Stop attempting to define America with George Bush, because America is not about torture, nor do we have a history of it. In fact, while we have had much to be ashamed of in our past, we, our own people took those issues on and we changed things. That is America. In fact we inspired people around the world to work for change in their own countries.
The concepts of freedom and equality might have been dreamed of in Europe, but it never came to real fruitition until America, if that's problematic for you, it's because you simply have no commitment to freedom and equality.. probably because, like those in Europe, they are more concerned about their own blood for oil program.. ignore the genocide in Darfur to keep the pipelines pumping?
June 21, 2007 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Abdul, have you ever heard of the US Senate? A body of elected representatives by state boundary? There are many other political parties in America (including the Communist Party) -- they simply have no political traction.
Your post is so infantile it's not even discussable.
June 21, 2007 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to Suzanne Nossel for a very fine post. I could put the point another way. The Concert of Democracies proposes to reinvent, or replace, the UN with a new NATO, but NATO presumes an "us versus them" after the fall of the Warsaw Pact, and its proponents are having a hard time convincing us of what "them" means, beyond that some countries essential to a peaceful future happen to be unlike America or threaten its leadership. One can see Slaughter's unconvincing "values" post as an effort to get an end run around the problem by boasting of an "us."
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
June 21, 2007 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of using foul adjectives, it pays to read my comment. I realize that I cannot force you to do it. The breakdown can be found in myriad of sources. Although most of the butchery was done by Nazis and Soviets, other countries in Europe have very bloody hands as well. China was never mentioned because, to its credit, it doesn't demand the high moral ground.
The Nazis were elected democratically. Somehow when it is Hamas you all talk about the process, but when the Nazis, long vanquished, are involved it suddenly becomes non democratic.
Let summarize, as far as I can see, there will be very few countries around the table, Luxemburg amd Monaco? and clearly not the US, Britain, France, Norway, Belgium and others.
The basic idea is totally invalid and for it smell of elitism whose twin brother is racism.
June 21, 2007 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it elitist and racist to hold a human rights standard up to bare against China, and it's communist government that has parasitically slaughtered, tortured and enslaved countless millions of it's people and others.
It's not racist or elitist for the US, Britain and other countries committed to democracy and human rights to have a seat at the table, and those undemocratic, fascistic nations who enslave and exploit to be denied a seat. What you rationalize is elitist, hypocritical, racist and exploitative, because it's based on the POV of the slave holder and overseer.
June 21, 2007 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"They see themselves as elites and they refuse to accept criticism from people without degrees from Harvard."
Or to set foot west of the Hudson River.
June 21, 2007 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just as a starting point, I would suggest you ask 100 Chinese, in a safe and anonymous setting, whether they think China should have a "seat at the table" on human rights issues.
If you find even 1 Chinese person who says "no", I would be shocked.
Now consider what the effect will be on the Chinese people's attitude towards the West of trying to shut their government out of international fora. But perhaps we can just ignore the opinions of 1.5 billion people, since they're just ignorant Communists.
Accumulating Peripherals
June 21, 2007 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who gave a self-appointed group the right to rule the world?
June 21, 2007 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give it a break. This "democracy" of ours was conducting medical radiation experiments for decades on unsuspecting patients without their approval, and it arms and trains nun-raping death squads.
Your average voter is an igornamus, your average candidate is bought and paid for. Those are facts. Get over it. This "democracy" of ours is just PR.
June 21, 2007 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh shut the hell up you have no idea what you're talking about. No one said anything about a "straight" versus a representative democracy, and no one said that the Nazis should be considered to be democratic only that there's no vareity in our party system, and only a MORON would pretend that the redistricting issue isn;t a major problem - every sinlge poli sci book on the subject has written about this which proves that you haven't a f--in clue what you're talking about.
Go read a book before you insert your foot into your mouth again. Start with Walter Karp's 1973 classic,"Indispensable Enemies: The Politics of Misrule
June 21, 2007 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah guess why they don't have any political traction? When was the last time that the COmmunist candidate for President was shown on TV on the debates? And guess what? The senate is elected from the members of the two parties too.
Don't presume to lecture me - you have no idea who I am.
And before you call people "infantile" how about educating your moron self a bit so you don't embarrass yourself. Here, start with Walter Karp's book Indispensable Enemies: The Politics of Misrule in America"
June 21, 2007 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, abdul, let's put your theory to the test. Why don't you point out for the board, which of your Constitutionally guaranteed rights you are being denied?
June 22, 2007 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who prohibits any group of states which share common characteristics and interests from getting together to decide on common policies? Why are the Arabs allowed to have a League? Do you have an objection to the existence of the EU, NATO, the Group of 8, the Group of 88 (Non-Aligned Movement)? Liberal democracies have things in common with each other. If they want to decide on some common policies, they have every right to do so. If they don't want to, they won't. What's your big deal?
Accumulating Peripherals
June 22, 2007 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good question.
Though I'd suggest that regional collaborations, trading blocs and security organizations are a bit different than outright pursuing the Concert of Democracies idea, which really does smack of saying "Okay, we're going to make global policy because we're the only legitimate nations in the world."
I guess you could easily counter me by saying that NATO or the G-8 or any number of multinational institutions ae already doing that, they're just not being so blunt about it.
But, appearances matter.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
June 23, 2007 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink