The Concert of Democracies is a stupid idea.
August 6, 2007
An op-ed in the Post by Ivo Daalder and Robert Kagan argues that, because the UN Security Council sometimes descends into farce, and because it’s insufficiently subservient to American interests, we should try to replace it with a “Concert of Democracies”, which would magically have the same sort of legitimacy as the United Nations.
But of course it wouldn’t, because it would be (correctly) seen as attempt by the United States to stack the deck, and make sure that our preferred foreign policy can always claim to uphold international law, while no one else would be able to act without our consent.
There’s no way that any replacement for the UN could be both as pro-Western, and as universally accepted by the rest of the world, as the current Security Council. It’s a happy accident of the Second World War that so much power within the UN is currently concentrated in the hands of Britain, France, and the United States. The fact of the matter is that the Security Council is far more pro-American than the world at large, and also far more pro-American than any conceivable replacement.
A serious attempt to change the status quo would result in one of two things: either (1) the entire enterprise would collapse, like the League of Nations, thereby destroying one of the pillars of liberal internationalism that we built after the war, and which has immeasurably increased American influence and power; or (2) there will be agreement on the need to modernize the makeup of the Security Council to more accurately reflect the current geopolitical situation, and we’ll find ourselves either without veto power, or dealing with a much bigger council in which far more states would get a say, and in which the West would have less power.
Neither of those results would benefit us, so from a pragmatic point of view, it seems obvious that we should work to reinforce the existing order: encourage the idea the Security Council is a legitimate arbiter of international law, reject any attempts to expand its veto power, and protect the out-sized influence of France and the UK.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:09 am
The UN was a good IDEA but like alot of good ideas it has failed.
The UN right now is a Joke. name one thing they have done that is good
August 8th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Leaving aside things the aren’t relevant to this discussion — global disease prevention, vaccination programs, peacekeeping missions, the CFC treaty, etc — the UN is a forum for international diplomacy, and for better or worse, it holds the position of respected arbiter of international law.
UN sanction of some military action provides the war legitimacy in the eyes of the world, which is a very helpful thing in terms of diplomacy, alliance-building, and leveraging the results of the war into a favorable political settlement (see, e.g. Bosnia).
It’s not like the UN is the be-all and end-all of international relationships, but it’s a helpful tool for American foreign policy. To be a hegemon acting in the interests of the world community is far more reassuring to the rest of the world than a hegemon with a messianic streak and a penchant for picking fights with people.
So — the UN can provide our foreign policy with the very useful armor of “upholder of international law”. And it is more pro-American and more amenable to our interests than any other conceivable body that would be able to furnish that armor. That combination makes it a good thing.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
How good can an Orginization that has IRAN on the Disarmament committiee, North Korea and China on the Human Rights Counsel be.
like I said the UN is a Joke not to mention they are full of Anti Semitism and hatred for the freedoms of the USA. Like I said the US was a good Idea, and in order for it to work more in our favor we need a very strong Ambassador like we have now with John Bolton.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Yes, the Human Rights Council is a joke, and yes, the General Assembly has passed racist and anti-Semitic resolutions, and yes, many nations have hypocritical foreign policies that claim to be in favor of good things (disarmament, say), while in fact they are only in favor of getting a bigger piece of the pie for themselves.
I don’t disagree with any of that.
But the UN has exactly one group which has any power, and that group — France, Britain, Russia, China, and the United States — is far more pro-American than the world at large, and is heavily weighted in favor of the western liberal democracies. If we were starting from scratch, we wouldn’t get as favorable a organization.
Are you disputing this, or are you disputing the idea that the UN can be a useful foreign policy tool, or what?
August 9th, 2007 at 1:16 am
I am debating that on a whole the UN is baisically Usless and can’t get anything done.
August 9th, 2007 at 10:04 am
I’m not claiming that the UN is especially effective or useful. In some circumstances it is, and in some circumstances it isn’t. It is what it is. But it’s more useful than a Concert of Democracies would be, and it’s more useful than nothing.
August 9th, 2007 at 11:09 am
The problem I have with the UN is alot of people think is should be the final arbitar when it comes to our foreign policy and I think that is totally wrong. If we need to do something in our interests as in National Security why in world should we have to go to the UN first?
August 9th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Oh and for the record I agree with you when it comes to the Concert of Democracies. I mean why in the world do we need another international body when the ones we have don’t work at all except to legitimize a bunch of dictators and Thugs.
August 9th, 2007 at 11:36 am
I can’t name any politican, in either party, who thinks the UN should be the final arbiter of our foreign policy. But goodwill among other nations and an international system that has us at the top, is in our national interest, and the UN is one way in which we can maintain that system.
Of course we ignore the UN if it’s necessary, but as a general point, our national security is enhanced in the long run by having the UN around, even if we are occassionally restrained in our actions.
The UN’s role in “legitimzing dictators and thugs” is minimal: those governments are in power anyways, and their maintenance of power is determined by domestic concerns. But the UN does have an important role to play in building international coalitions to overthrow dictators and thugs when necessary (e.g. Bosnia, or East Timor, or Sierra Leone).
August 11th, 2007 at 1:29 am
What I mean my Legitimizing goes along the same lines as we legitimize them if the President talks to them if you understand what I mean