-
Democracies sometimes have a proven track record of working together, as you suggest, but other times can work at cross purposes. France and the US on Iraq? India on Iran? On what issues, specficially, do you think a Concert of Democracies would be cohesive enough to be effective? Also, why would countries like Costa Rica want to join? The Concert would need to offer some club goods, presumably. Is the prestige of internationally recognized democratic legitimacy enough or should we also throw in some economic benefits, etc?
Posted at December 12, 2006 12:44 AM in response to The Case for a Concert of Democracies
-
Thanks for the clarification. I agree strongly with the need for a proponderance of PARR countries, and am optimistic that we will have one for a long, long time. But is that enough? We could say that India is up to PARR, but it is not particularly helpful on Iran or other challenges to the global commons. Europe is certainly up to PARR, but in the eyes of some it does not take enough responsibility for key global challenges, especially security matters (or only does so with US help). The point is that when power is concentrated in one superpower it becomes more easily usable. Getting the US government to do something is a lot easier than getting a coalition of PARR countries to do so. Of course there's a downside; with a concentration of power, the U.S. can do things that are not necessarily for the common good. So besides having a powerful pack of PARRs, we need some legitimate mechanism through which they can weild their power.
Posted at April 27, 2006 9:26 AM in response to Reflections and Reactions 1
-
In case any more proof was needed, this debacle has really given the world a chance to see Bolton's diplomatic skills. He has managed to get himself on the wrong side of the SG, the major human rights groups, and much of the Western world with an ostensibly pro-rights position. Now that takes talent!
Still, I'm with Ivo on this one. Bolton's ineptness (or, as you suggest, his carefully calibrated tactics) aside, having a mushy human rights council is only going to give the UN-haters on the Hill and in the White House fodder for years to come. If Eliasson can use Bolton's obstinancy to wring a few more concessions from the GA, then maybe a strong council can be put forward. If that happens and Bolton still says no, then I'll be reading your colleague's conspiracy theory with interest.
Posted at March 1, 2006 8:16 PM in response to Missing The Forest For The Trees? Bolton and UN Reform
-
Here here. The case against America torturing prisoners could not be stronger. Interestingly, the debate over torture gets at another American value--our love of legal mechanics . As far as I know, no country in the world openly debates how to make torture "legal". The worst torturers--and I say this as someone who lives in China--gush about the Geneva accords and the Convention against Torture even as they privately ignore them. The US, however, is a country obsessed with how the law works; witness the multi-million dollar settlements, the proliferation of lawyer jokes, Judge Judy, OJ, Lacey, Terri, etc. This obsession often makes us lose site of the forest of justice for the trees of judicial workings. It seems Americans often care more about arriving at the right outcome in a high profile case than about providing justice in a deeper sense. The legalistic rhetoric of the torture debate is a perfect example, as if such abominable crimes could be made palatable through a bit of fancy wordsmithing. Thanks for reminding us that the rule of law does not mean the rule of the lawyers.
Posted at October 27, 2005 2:38 PM in response to Degrading Our Soldiers and Ourselves
-
This post certainly produced a flurry of comments, so let me add only one thing--an opportunity for readers to turn their pontification into action, as the Dean recommends. Visit Amnesty International's site to tell President Bush to end the abuses in Guantanamo
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/usa-260605-action-eng
Posted at July 29, 2005 2:20 PM in response to The Dulling of Outrage
-
I think the Dean is on to something--an important something that many of the posters' hatred of Bush/Condi has blinded them to. The Administration's rhetoric on democracy promotion is hard core.
Can you think of anything they talk about more idealistically? Bush clearly believes that democracy is devine. This makes liberals mad because WE are the ones who are suppossed to be thinking about freedom while the nasty conservatives focus on oil, etc.
But what if we've finally convinced them? Sure we differ radically on means (they think freedom comes from invasion, we think that often accomplished precisely the opposite)--but maybe we've finally come together on ends. Maybe the Condi-Obama link isn't so crazy after all.
Liberals should celebrate the new Bush democracy rhetoric, and then hold them to their word. As other posters have mentioned, the gap between rhetoric and reality is always a problem for this administration. But getting agreement on ultimate goals makes our case a lot easier. Liberals should look at Condi's speech as an opportunity--and use it to go for the jugular!
Posted at June 27, 2005 5:22 PM in response to Humility at Last
