That would be a great idea if that organization didn't already exist. Really, it would be. At least Francis Fukuyama acknowledges that the group exists and proposes strengthening it; it would be nice if AA did so as well.

I like the idea insofar as it pushes member countries to adhere to some of the core concepts of liberal democracy. Thus, it would provide a forum for criticizing and shaming the wayward democracy that begins jailing the occasional journalist or executing minors. In the US, it seems like the drift away from democratic principles is not just a matter of conservative politics. In many cases, American citizens are simply ignorant of what "freedom" within a liberal democracy actually means. Anything that can re-focus people on what it means to be free would be a good thing...

It would also be of obvious value in terms of shaping the democratic response to terrorism. Is it okay to imprison suspects without trial? Is it okay to torture? Is it okay to snatch terrorism suspects off the streets of countries like Pakistan (where they may be roaming free)? How do you deal with the "worst of the worst" when they are captured? At what point does another nation's threat require a military response? How do you deal with a country's passive tolerance of terrorists in its midst?

I tend to agree that the problem with reforming the UN is that member states are free to resist that reform. The US and its democratic allies can cajole and persuade UN members, but ultimately, reform is a matter of votes. And too many nations will resist any kind of real reform.

Still, the notion of ditching the Security Counsel strikes me as dangerous. For all its ineffectiveness, the Security Counsel forces the major powers to take and advocate for a public position on each conflict. If this goes away, the dealings of the great powers move to the diplomatic back channels, away from the public. This makes me nervous.

I wonder who proofread the final report of the Princeton Project. Stephen Colbert?

On page 61, Appendix A, you've got "The Charter."

Article 4 says the Parties should protect their citizens from "deliberative starvation."

In English, I believe, this would refer not to "deliberate/intentional starvation" but, rather, to what might happen to a Congressman engaged in a filibuster that takes so long he forgets to feed himself.

Now I worry about starving Congressmen as much as the next person but do their eating needs deserve the attention of Article 4 of The Charter?

Ivo

In all likelihood this idea will be discussed in the political or policy realm. I would suggest that some consideration be given to it in the non-govermental realm. Day in day out corporations are crossing borders. Ownership and residency of corporations unites many countries even now. For those who do not read the business pages it is one of the hidden realities of our times. There is a growing unity, even now.

There are forces of growing unity and stability. They largely reside in boardrooms and traders' floors. The growing powers of China, India, Russia and others do not seem sure if they will throw in there lot fully on this side. Then are the areas that seem to be outside the consensus,resented and wish to replace it. I hope there will be some consideration than just political organization and military efforts.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

As an American citizen, I would like my Constitution returned to me. It has been stolen. When it is returned to me, in unbroken condition, then we can discuss this wonderful, pie in the sky stuff.

Thanks.

You may disagree with the idea but stop trying to imply that its advocates are somehow not as informed or smart as you are.

well, why believe its advocates since things in this world are not black and white? yes, women work but now schools must raise their kids instead, etc...

the opinions of think tanks are a dime-a-dozen and, if you ask me, i'd say "it's hard to argue that humans ever made progress."

for example, if you love the environment, it's being sacked by humans as we speak, etc... and theories won't bring it back.

specifically, Kyoto was a great idea but recent ny times reporting demonstrated that nobody lived up to their promises-- words are cheaper than action.

as they say, dieting doesn't work because dieting isn't the problem!

-M

"Concert of democracies" sounds ominous.

A new institution would face such dilemmas like: when a democracy is no more "liberal"? When the leadership is seized by the top bussiness tycoon of the country with legislative agenda having two chief goal: erasing the criminal liability of that tycoon and making his monopolies secure (Thailand, Italy)? When Supreme Court decides elections in variance with normal reading of the law (USA, Pakistan)? When journalists are shot and/or subjected to indefinite detention (Russia, USA again)? When a popularly elected leader extols virtues of decidedly unelected leader (Venezuela)? When a goverment support military coups in other countries?

Moreover, in the context of totally intemperate anti-multilateral rhetoric that is currently employed by the Administration (heaping invectives on UN, on European allies) and other excesses (like an unprovoked and very destructive war), "concert" sounds like the idea that we indeed should dictate other democracies what they should do, except that we should do it competently, like the unprovoked war that should be waged competently.

In actuality, this is probably not the true danger of the proposal. I am more afraid of the following dynamic: more often than not, committees are formed not to spur needed actions, but to delay them by making false appearances of activity. Iraq Study Group, for all earnestness of participants, seems to belong in this category. I see a dire need of new ideas and new goals, and scant need for new institutions.

Environment: we sabotaged Kioto and then, bwahaha, nobody took it seriously. So we gaze at our navels and moan "O no! not a gasoline tax! Republicans will clobber us as soon as we utter these baneful words; perpahs we could instead run a few car on fats that were just outlawed in NYC for human consumption". There is an entire cascade of issues here that indeed liberal democracies should care about, and should exercise some global leadership, but we do not show neither care nor leadership.

Genocide: we really have to figure out if we do give a damn. As it is, we exhibit neither care nor leadership.

Aids, population growth and reproductive freedom: our current chief priority is to decrease condom use, and number two, prevent abortions. (Profit of drug companies are also high on the list of priorities.)

Human rights, torture, freedom of expression: again, do we care? Do we care to give good example?

Meta-question: is there an issue of international importance which requires "concerted action" and on which we, in USA, should not make a total policy change (either a reversal, or having a policy where at the moment, de facto, we have none).

And Jim Lindsay and I will elaborate on our arguments for why we think the democracies should unite...

And what? Pick on China? You better let the folks at Goldman Sachs know what you're up to.  

This idea could probably have thrived in the international climate of the 1990s. Maybe we should be relieved it didn't.

My concerns are the same as Dan K's, that such institutions divide more than they contribute to environmental or military security; but in addition I would like to add that after the diplomatic and international events of 2002-2003, I can't see this vision come true.

I perceive a lacking foundation in terms of both 1/ trust and 2/ (sufficiently strong) common interests among the prospective members who would fear that since America has abdicated from the position as leader of the free (democratic) world, but has not yet internalized that, she would obstruct as much as in the United Nations unless the organization's other members rubber-stamped American whims.

/Tuomas

The US is a country where torture and imprisonment without legal redress is legal. What "Democracy"?

Could it be that what you're really asking is "Should Western capitalist neo-colonial states unite in promoting Zionism?"

This has not started well.

I am really quite surprised at how you have framed the fundamental question - "should democracies unite?" - because, literally, it requires a yes/no answer, when presumably a more involved analysis is what you wish to inspire.

For me, the idealistic essence of liberal democracy is freedom of choice, and the political consequence is that leaders have to persuade - unlike totalitarianism, in which dictators may compel. As a result, the question, "should democracies unite?", apart from its stylistic weakness, appears to be at odds with basic democratic principles. Because even if in your judgement democracies should unite, there's no possibility that democracies will unite unless a (solid?) majority - here and abroad - are in agreement.

Isn't the correct question therefore - "what would cause democracies to unite?" What common identities do we share? What ideals to we all hold? Which mutual values outweigh mutual differences? What can we do to reach out across cultural divides?

Btw, I'm not spitballing here. I'm currently reading "Identity and Violence" by Amartya Sen, a book that cuts to the core of this debate, and thus would appear to be essential reading to anyone seriously engaged in Princeton Project-type issues. The question is surely not "should democracies unite?", but rather, "how might democracies unite?" - because unless there's a common will to unite, we're all wasting our time.

Just finished reading the executive summary of "Forging a World of Liberty Under Law", the final report of the Princeton Project on National Security.

This is possibly the most insane document I've ever read. Neoconservatism on steroids, speed, and crack.

Preemptive war, exclusionary foreign policy, alienation of nations based on OUR evaluation of their form of government, solving our energy problems with ruinous taxes instead of alternative energy sources, on and on. This has it all. All the things to avoid like the plague.

What were these high-priced idiots thinking? It goes way beyond pernicous, it's a textbook prescription for world war and descent into the abyss. Gaaaah!

Sam Thornton

There seems to be an assumption that "democracies" have something in common that makes their joining together in some fashion useful. I fail to see what this might be.

The EU exists because it serves a useful purpose: it smooths trade relations between the members and helps prevent a repeat of the conflicts that have plagued the region for hundreds of years.

All I'm hearing is another rear-guard action by the neo-liberals to salvage America's declining influence in the world. Our empire has peaked, get used to it We still act as if we can force the world to provide raw materials and markets to us on our terms. This is no longer true. Within twenty years China won't need us as a trading partner, they may chose to do so, but their internal and Asian partners will sustain their economy. After all they are currently lending us the money used to buy their stuff. This can't continue much longer.

Great Britain has adapted to being a former empire, by moving into banking and turning the country into a theme park of (imagined) English history. I'm not sure that the Grand Canyon and Disneyland can sustain us in a similar manner. We need to develop a realistic new economic model which allows us to exist with a much smaller global ecological footprint.

This means not only energy and resource efficiency, but a new model not based upon excessive consumerism and unsustainable growth.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

Taking what Daniel said and going with it...

Instead of selectively replicating the UN, maybe progressives should set their sights on more realistic goal of reforming the IMF and WTO. The neocon adventures in Iraq and Afganistan have clearly demonstrated the limits of military power when it comes to influencing Muslim countries. If world finance organizations can be revamped and reformed with more progressive goals, they could create some positive change in a far more predictable way.

For example, IMF loans to third world countries have been tied to liberalization of economic policies. What if this equation was re-jiggered so that loans were conditioned on other criteria, such as school construction, human rights, infrasture like plumbing and electricity, and anti-poverty programs? Seems like a pipe dream, I know, but the Euros would certainly be on board - and the big corporations could be tempted with promises of Pakistani call centers in future decades (since Indian call centers will soon cost too much).

The infrastructure for internationally financed school construction, public works projects, and other socially-conscious improvements is already in place with organizations like USAID, the Asian Development Bank, and the World Bank.  These organizations spend billions of dollars every year leading construction projects throughout the third world.  Seriously, it flies under the radar, but they do amazing things.  Take a glance at their webpages and you'll see all the things the US government should be doing...being done.  Moreover, they provide extremely effective oversight - managing their projects in a way that ensures the work gets done regardless of corruption in the host country's government. 

There's no reason 1/3 of an IMF loan can't be funnelled into World Bank or USAID-managed infrastructure improvements that do cool stuff like give people plumbing and electricity, and building schools that teach more than fundamentalist Islam.  Heck, America's image is about 40% better in Indonesia right now than the rest of the Muslim world for one reason alone: the heroic efforts of the US military in Tsunami relief.  That means less Islamic terrorists in Asia, which is a pretty big deal.  It's really not that fancy: help people in need and they will like you.  If they like you, they won't want to kill you.

Sure, it seems like a pipe dream to radically reform the IMF and WTO so they looks more like USAID.  But is it?  Corporations crave stability and I think a lot of CEO's would see the value in buidling schools for Muslim girls or solving draught problems in Palestine.   The Euros would be on board.  Even the more liberal neocons (Friedman, Zakaria, etc) would get excited.   Most importantly, you're not creating anything new, and unlike the UN, these organizations are distinctly Western and therefore receptive to a sustained political push from the left.

We now know that "leveraging" US military power doesn't work.  What's left?  Leveraging the economic power of the West through globalization.  Figure out how to take the awesome power of capitalism and use it in a positive way, whether it involves influencing Muslim countries or leading a global initiative to battle greenhouse gases.  A major challenge, to be sure, but no more ambitious than a "Concert of Democracies." 

Funny, noblesseoblige. Missed that one. BTW, do you think we're being pranked with this, or is it on the level?

Sam Thornton

I think you're absolutely correct about the metaphor. The problem is, the tunes they're playing all seem to be from the Götterdämmerung.

When you get a chance, give the key document for this modest proposal a once over. Ivo supplied the link, above.

I don't think the problem is with the definition of the term "democracy". The question is whether we're analyzing the problem correctly.

The reality is, democracies will "unite" when both sides recognize the benefits from doing so. But they won't unite simply because they are democracies. Nor should they. If one democracy acts "badly", this should provoke criticism from other democracies, not unity.

So this is my point - let's look at what will unite democracies. Not whether democracies should unite. Conceptually, I see essential problems - both in principle and practice - with the latter.

Corvid

Good point, though I doubt a lot of readers will take it seriously, which is too bad.
.
But consider this: Jimmy Carter was interviewed on NPR (I think on Fresh Air, but I could be mistaken) just before the 2004 elections. He was asked whether his highly respected vote-monitoring operation would ever consider monitoring US elections.
.
He said no, and I expected him to go on to say something to the effect that we have such a mature democracy that any such effort would be unnecessary. But what he actually said was that the US doesn't come anywhere near meeting even the most basic criteria for free and fair elections, criteria that Third World nations routinely meet. These include equal access to media for all candidates, countable balloting and an absence of vote rigging--gerrymandering being one notorious form of such.
.
Having said this, I think a union of democracies might be useful if its first and foremost duty is a cross-national critique of democratic processes. Our system may now be so far gone because we are completely sealed off from any kind of critical scrutiny by others who could, at least potentially, shame us into doing better.
.
Absent such an effort, however, I'd be wary that US membership in such an organization would somehow put an international imprimatur on our "democracy."
.
I understand that a discussion of American democracy itself probably was not Ivo Daalder's intention here, but I do hope others pick up on this particular thread. It is important.

The idea is a good one. As the Princeton Report stated, the idea of a new Democratic Concert would be to provide an alternative to the United Nations (which may be facing insolvency) and, perhaps more importantly, convince borderline Democracies (think Russia) that it would be in their best interest to be a part of it.

The rub, though, is that any new Democratic alliance MUST be willing to enforce its decrees. The United Nations, for all practical purposes, has become an "armchair general" with regard to enforcement. It neither has the will nor the resources to enforce the very resolutions that it passes.

If the new 'alliance' is not willing to walk the walk, then the idea should be shelved immediately. If, on the other hand, substantive action is taken, and if its proclamations are enforced, then it may be an extraordinarily important part of 21st Century politics.

The first, and basically only, thought that comes to mind is "Why?" I don't understand why you would need a new, more limited, multilateral organization when so many others exist. Would it be for conflict resolution? Nonproliferation enforcement? Counter-terrorism? Nation-building? Then why limit it only to democracies, as other nations may not only have an interest in the outcome, they may actually be able to help bring about that outcome.

I think economic integration is going to do more to bring about a "concert" of interests among nations, regardless of their political system. And, because wars, proliferation, and terrorist disruptions can all upset the international markets, I think that economic integration will be a great source of political cooperation in resolving security issues. Not all, certainly, but many. I'd agree with most of the comments about how difficult it would be to define and organize this body, but I can't even get past the first thought of why you would want to establish this body at all.

Bo, you wrote:
"You'll have to start by convincing me why we shouldn't or can't reform the U.N. to serve this function"

I think the answer is that so many nations in the U.N. are the problem. The U.N. is like a police force that lets the Bloods and Crips make policy decisions.
Here are the reasons that a concert of democracies is needed:
Burundi
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Haiti
Iran
Iraq
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Liberia
Myanmar
Pakistan
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sudan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Uzbekistan
Zimbabwe

All member states, and these are only the worst ones. There are dozens of nations like China that don't have the moral authority or respect for human rights that democracies have. This list of countries is a list of problems that an organization like the U.N. should be trying to fix with regime change, not give votes to.

We have learned a few things about democracies by now.
1) Democracies don't attack democracies.
2) In places where there are free elections and a free press there has never been a famine.
3) Totalitarian regimes gave birth to terrorism.

If the entire world had liberal democracies and free markets, planet earth would be much improved. If Totalitarianism is allowed to continue, i.e. the second coming of the caliphate, we may be extinct as a species by the next century.

A concert of democracies doesn't have to use force to do good. The U.N. doesn't use force and it is comprised of dozens of malevlonet regimes. Imagine a U.N. that not only acted on principle, but had the power to enforce those principles?
It sounds great to me.

Tom,
Good points, all.
I have to disagree, however.
I will take your counter points one by one.

1- "Lacking a consensus definition of democracies let's skip #1"
Many books and article have tackled the question of defining democracies to see if this maxim is true. I think if you take a look at some of these you will be swayed. Even with a very liberal definition of democracy, the maxim is overwhelmingly true with few exceptions.

2-"When there is no famine a free press and free elections are possible."
Amartya Sen figured this out, not me. If you read his work, I think you will be swayed again. Famine exists, then democracy and free press emerge and famine never exists there again.
Those freedoms are like an innoculation. For example, there have been famines in Somalia on and off for decades. If a liberal democracy took root in that country, they would never again have a famine.

3- "Mainly it seems correlated with weak governance"
I stand corrected. Failed states also give rise to terrorism. I was trying to make a point about the modern world, not all of history. My point was essentially that non-democracies (in the Middle East, Central and South East Asia, North and East Africa) are oppressive, and oppressive power gives rise to terror groups. Nasser gave birth to al Qaeda when he hung Qutb, for example.

Just another comment on #1.  GHaines correctly points out that it is a widely accepted maxim of political science that democracies don't attack other democracies, true.  However, it is also a widely accepted tenet of political science that democratizing nations are more likely to attack than any other type of nation.

While the end (democratic countries) is good (no attacks), the path to get there is not without its problems.

Viviane,
I agree with you.
I remember reading a paper about how new democracies are the most violent nations in history.

Citizens in mature democracies have an outlet for their voice.

Citizens in a dictatorship are too isolated and afraid to act out.

Citizens in a fledgling democracy do not get their needs met effectively enough yet, but they have no fear of government repression.

IRA and RAF seem to me to have thrived in democracies.

ETA has continued with terrorrism for decades after Spain again became a democracy.

These three allegedly known factoids seem either wrong or hyper-selective to my eyes.

JM,
I agree that there are exceptions to the rule, but I still feel that terrorism is a response to oppression.
I don't know too much about ETA, but I think the IRA is an instructive case. The Irish felt (some still do) that they were a colony of the English. They felt oppressed by an outsider. If the Irish felt included in the British democracy, the IRA would cease to exist.
I would not say that IRA existed in a democracy, I would say that they existed because the Irish people were outside a democracy.
According to some people, America wasn't a true democracy until women won the right to vote.
That is a debate about oligarchy vs. democracy, which is probably off-topic, but I think it is interesting.

Hi Piotr,
I think those countries deserve a bum rap in this discussion. If Ivo's idea of an expanded NATO is supposed to solve the problem of "bad actors" being on the inside (the current situation in the U.N.) those countries would qualify as part of the problem, not part of the solution.
There are many sources you can look at to find out about these countries. Freedomhouse is a great one to start with.

Haiti is rated "not free." They scored a rock-bottom 7 out of 7 on the political rights and a near the bottom 6 out of 7 on civil liberites.
Here's what freedomhouse says about Haiti:
"Haiti has the lowest life expectancy and highest infant mortality rates in the Western Hemisphere. Haiti's people are among the poorest in the Western Hemisphere and have the lowest levels of human development, including a literacy rate below 50 percent. In the view of many foreign and local observers, Haiti today represents the closest example of a failed state in the Western Hemisphere."
"Citizens of Haiti cannot change their government democratically. Credible charges of irregularities and fraud have beset every election since 1990."

Kyrgyzstan- they just had a revolution there, and they lived under autocratic regimes for most of the 20th century. They just climbed out of the "Not Free" category into "Partly Free" according to Freedomhouse. Since Freedomhouse adjusted their rank, the new government is in danger of being toppled again.
Here's a quote from the freedomhouse report:
"Citizens of Kyrgyzstan cannot change their government democratically. International election observers described the 2000 parliamentary and presidential elections and 2005 parliamentary elections as neither free nor competitive."

Sierra Leone while also improved from "Not Free" to "Partly Free" is far from being a potential agent for positive change around the globe. They have come back from the Hobbesian brink, but that's as far as I'd go with the praise.
Here's a quote from the Freedomhouse report:
"The Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) said in December 2004 that Sierra Leone and Liberia risked sliding back into conflict if the international community did not stay committed-for the next 15 to 25 years-to a fresh approach to restore security and civil liberties."

Liberia is another state that just recently stopped being a complete disaster.
Freedomhouse said:
"Societal ethnic discrimination is rife. Ethnic groups fought one another during the civil war. Tensions exist between the Krahn, Gio, Mano, and Mandingo ethnic groups."
"Police, mainly at checkpoints, occasionally extort money and goods from citizens."
"Many women continue to suffer from physical abuse and traditional societal discrimination, despite constitutionally guaranteed equality. During the civil war, women and girls were often abducted as laborers and sex slaves, while others joined rebel groups or militias to protect themselves."

Both Liberia and Sierra Leone have massive amounts of teenaged children that fought in the civil wars as 8, 9, 10 year olds. Many have been on both sides of sexual and other physical abuses, and these former child soldiers and prostitutes will make up the leaders and workers of their respective countries in the next decade.

The point is that these countries are the kinds of places that make up the U.N., and that is a disaster. Ivo's idea of a Concert of Democracies is much wiser in my opinion.

GHaines,

You make a good case that the presence of basket case countries in the UN limits the effectiveness and wisdom of that body. However, that is no argument in itself for a Concert of Democracies. There are a number of countries that have questionable democratic credentials, but which are well-organized internally and conduct their state affairs in a coherent, rational non-basket-case manner.

For example, given the degenerative condition of the global nuclear nonproliferation regime, now would be an excellent time for the US, Russia, China, England and France to announce a collective decision to dismantle a certain portion of their nuclear arsenals and cancel some ongoing nuclear projects. This could be accompanied by an invitation to other nuclear states, and states with nuclear programs, to reciprocate in various ways.

Similar cooperative initiatives should be undertaken in the areas of reductions in energy use, global resource management, environmental improvement targets, global poverty alleviation etc. Institutions and coalitions should grow out of treaties and compacts.

What is needed at the present time is decisive action by a coalition of mature, powerful states that generates momentum, exerts pressure and invites broader cooperation. Given the global nature of the problems, the coalitions needs to be global as well, and not limited to liberal democratic states.

Piotr,
You said:
"many countries in UN are desperatedly poor"
If you look at the list, ask yourself why are these countries poor? Overwhelmingly it is because of their own government's mismanagement. That is the whole point. There is no reason for Uzbekistan to be as poor as they are.
If they were a liberal, free market, constitutional democracy, they could be the a leader in Central Asia, but they aren't.

Piotr,
You said:
"opulent democracy attacks a poor one (say, Israel attacking Lebanon"

You bring up a few very good points here. I think these are exceptions to the rule, and bad examples of democracies, however.

Lebanon is not even close to being a democracy. Hizballah (an armed militia operating in a failed state) attacked Israel (a democracy). That case is an example of what happens when countries are allowed to remain failed states or evolve into dictatorships. Maybe if we had stuck around in Lebanon in the 80s, they could be a role model in the Middle East, not a festering wound.

Guatemala was over 50 years ago, so it bears little weight on the post-cold war world of 2006, but to answer the claim- they elected a communist government, which essentially ends the democracy. This is one of the purest examples, however, of a democracy attacking another democracy. It may be one of our biggest disgraces as a nation.

Haiti was an (still is) a failed state, so they are not simply a poor democracy. Secondly, we simply helped resolve a violent rebellion, we didn't overthrow the government-- the thousands of armed Haitians rioting in the streets did that. His election in 2000 was not a free and fair election. It was reported that Aristide’s soldiers refused to fight the rebels and may have helped them secure some towns. America actually tried to negotiate a settlement with the armed rebels to help keep Aristide in power, but the plan was rejected.

Iran-Getting rid of Mossadegh was certainly a questionable move based on faulty intelligence, but when push comes to shove, Iran was a monarchy. Mossadegh resigned and was appointed by the Shah, which is a dynamic that does not happen in democracies whether he was popularly elected or not.

You also said:
"At the very least, it would be nice to undermine the solidarity between struggling democracies and adject dictatorships"
On this point I completely agree with you. More upsetting to me than pulling someone like Aristide out is our relationships with Islam Karimov, the Saudis, etc.