McCain proposal for joint action gains support

[[R_H]]

Yahoo News/AP

WASHINGTON - Gaining ground this political season is a proposed League of Democracies designed to strengthen support for the next president's overseas agenda and ensure a global leadership role for the United States.

John McCain, the virtually certain Republican presidential nominee, has endorsed the concept of a new global compact of more than 100 democratic countries to advance shared views and has discussed the idea with French and British leaders.

"It could act where the U.N. fails to act," he said last month, and pressure tyrants "with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval."

McCain said the League might impose sanctions on Iran, relieve suffering in the Darfur region of Sudan and deal with environmental problems.

Barack Obama, who has a lead in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, has not taken a stand. But Anthony Lake, one of Obama's policy advisers, has spoken in favor of the idea.

Analysts at think tanks in Washington and elsewhere envision a league focused on maintaining peace and limiting U.S. military intervention, such as the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

But missing so far are specific, proposed steps to turn the idea into reality, such as where to have a headquarters, who would finance the league and how its membership would be decided.

"Cooperation is an absolute essential," Ivo Daalder, a national security expert at the Brookings Institution, said Thursday at a seminar.

An originator of the idea, Daalder said it would give democracies a better opportunity to reform the United Nations.

"If there had been a dialogue on Iraq there would have been more rigorous containment of Saddam Hussein," possibly averting war, said Tod Lindberg, a Hoover Institution research fellow, at the seminar held at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

But not all foreign policy experts support the proposal.

Thomas Carothers, vice president for studies at Carnegie, said "the world has no appetite for a U.S.-led league and many countries do not want the U.S. going around the U.N."

In fact, Carothers said, the United States cooperates often with non-democracies in its foreign policy. China's help in trying to end North Korea's nuclear weapons program is just one example, he said.

President Bush's Iraq war policy was bitterly opposed by two leading democracies, France and Germany, among others. But Bush went ahead despite their strong objections.

"It is wishful thinking" that a league of democracies would any more readily approve U.S. military intervention in support of another U.S. president, Carothers said.

And while "some people like Senator McCain imagine it might become a replacement for the U.N., that is not the initial intention," Carothers said in a telephone interview after the seminar.

[CaptainChewbacca]

We should definitely call it the 'United Powers League'.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Strengthen support for the President's overseas agenda, eh? Will they listen to the other countries when they tell the US that invading country X because they don't kowtow to American demands is a bad idea?

[Stuart Mackey]

WASHINGTON - Gaining ground this political season is a proposed League of Democracies designed to strengthen support for the next president's overseas agenda and ensure a global leadership role for the United States.

These people must live in a world of their own if they think that any nation is going to sign up to this. At some point, who ever came up with this idea will have to work out that other nations do not exist to further US interests or US ambitions and certainly not to implement one man's subjective policy, president of the US or not.

[CaptainZoidberg]

So basically a global version of NATO?

[Starglider]

So basically a global version of NATO?

No, that has (or at least, had) a quite specific purpose and is the basis for a lot of military integration (logistics, planning, joint exercises etc). This sounds more like a 'Team America Cheerleading Squad'.

[Guardsman Bass]

You'd have to tie it to some good rewards for those democracies who join to make it worth their while, but I don't think the idea itself is a bad one.

[Stuart Mackey]

You'd have to tie it to some good rewards for those democracies who join to make it worth their while,

What rewards, from whom and for what??

but I don't think the idea itself is a bad one.

What part of it is good? Do you think that it will restrain the US or others from taking any action they deem necessary to secure their interests regardless of the opinion or impact on the interests of other nations, like Iraq? will this idea some how stop Dafur or Rwanda type situations or lead to decisive interventions in existing human catastrophes, when that is not happening now?
This idea will be nothing much short of a means to free the US and like minded nations from perceived restraints on the pursuit of national interests.

[sketerpot]

If this is put in place by McCain and his neocon buddies, then it probably will be just a cheerleading squad for US aggression. But it has potential to be truly beneficial if Obama becomes president and congress is willing to back him up. This is part of the Princeton Plan (PDF warning!), a big plan for the overall direction US foreign policy. One of its two main authors is now Obama's senior foreign policy advisor Anthony Lake, who was mentioned in the article. Check out the report, or at least the executive summary; it's good stuff. Here are some excerpts which talk in much more detail about the kind of thing McCain is proposing:

Building a Liberal Order: The system of international institutions that the United States and its allies built after World War II and steadily expanded over the course of the Cold War is broken. Every major institution – the United Nations (U.N.), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) – and countless smaller ones face calls for major reform. The United States has the largest stake of any nation in fixing this system, precisely because we are the most powerful nation in the world. Power cannot be wielded unilaterally, and in the pursuit of a narrowly drawn definition of the national interest, because such actions breed growing resentment, fear, and resistance. We need to reassure other nations about our global role and win their support to tackle common problems.

However, it is clear that America can no longer rely on the legacy institutions of the Cold War; radical surgery is required. The United Nations is simultaneously in crisis and in demand. Its structures are outdated and its performance is inadequate, yet it remains the world’s principal forum for addressing the most difficult international security issues. America must make sweeping U.N. reform a political priority. Necessary reforms include: expanding the Security Council to include India, Japan, Brazil, Germany, and two African states as permanent members without a veto; ending the veto for all Security Council resolutions authorizing direct action in response to a crisis; and requiring all U.N. members to accept “the responsibility to protect,” which acknowledges that sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from “avoidable catastrophe,” but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the international community.

While pushing for reform of the United Nations and other major global institutions, the United States should work with its friends and allies to develop a global “Concert of Democracies” – a new institution designed to strengthen security cooperation among the world’s liberal democracies. This Concert would institutionalize and ratify the “democratic peace.” If the United Nations cannot be reformed, the Concert would provide an alternative forum for liberal democracies to authorize collective action, including the use of force, by a supermajority vote. Its membership would be selective, but self-selected. Members would have to pledge not to use or plan to use force against one another; commit to holding multiparty, free-and-fair elections at regular intervals; guarantee civil and political rights for their citizens enforceable by an independent judiciary; and accept the responsibility to protect.

The United States must also: revive the NATO alliance by updating its grand bargains and expanding its international partnerships; build a “networked order” of informal institutions, such as private networks and bilateral ties; and reduce the sharply escalating and politically destabilizing inequalities among and within states that result from the generally beneficial process of globalization.

In other words, the UN is broken and we need it badly, so we need to reform it -- and make an alternative to the UN, partly as incentive for reform and partly as a backup plan if reform fails. The goal should be to promote liberal democracy through diplomacy, economic improvement, and not invading semi-random Middle Eastern countries, God damn it.

Yet another reason why Obama needs to win the election.

[Knife]

If this is put in place by McCain and his neocon buddies,

I understand that the subtleties of US politics might be lost on other countries, but to put McCain in with 'NeoCons' is silly. Point of fact, the most abhorant objectors to McCain in the GOP are the so called 'conservative movement' this would include the 'Neocons'.

[quogte]

then it probably will be just a cheerleading squad for US [quoteaggression.

US agreesion has little to do with 'party' as it does with needs. Clinton, a Democrat, invaded no less than two countries. The same as George W Bush.

But it has potential to be truly beneficial if Obama becomes president and congress is willing to back him up. This is part of the Princeton Plan (PDF warning!)[/url], a big plan for the overall direction US foreign policy. One of its two main authors is now Obama's senior foreign policy advisor Anthony Lake, who was mentioned in the article. Check out the report, or at least the executive summary; it's good stuff. Here are some excerpts which talk in much more detail about the kind of thing McCain is proposing:

Honestly a League of Nations Prt II would be interesting.

However, it is clear that America can no longer rely on the legacy institutions of the Cold War; radical surgery is required. The United Nations is simultaneously in crisis and in demand. Its structures are outdated and its performance is inadequate, yet it remains the world’s principal forum for addressing the most difficult international security issues.

Indeed.

America must make sweeping U.N. reform a political priority. Necessary reforms include: expanding the Security Council to include India, Japan, Brazil, Germany, and two African states as permanent members without a veto;

Why?

Considering current affairs, why shouldn't the US government make China and Russia bitches and promote Suadia Arabia and Venezuela permanent members?

ending the veto for all Security Council resolutions authorizing direct action in response to a crisis; and requiring all U.N. members to accept “the responsibility to protect,” which acknowledges that sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from “avoidable catastrophe,” but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the international community.

WTF?

While pushing for reform of the United Nations and other major global institutions, the United States should work with its friends and allies to develop a global “Concert of Democracies”

Who are these friends and allies? And as such, why do they want to?

– a new institution designed to strengthen security cooperation among the world’s liberal democracies. This Concert would institutionalize and ratify the “democratic peace.”

I agree that the old institutions don't work.

If the United Nations cannot be reformed, the Concert would provide an alternative forum for liberal democracies to authorize collective action, including the use of force, by a supermajority vote.

Who the fuck are you kidding? Who is going to make these incursions but the US? When it comes to the greater good, a lot of people will send troops but to what extent? The troop number in excess of a hundred K is still not enough in Irag, pledged by the US.

Its membership would be selective, but self-selected. Members would have to pledge not to use or plan to use force against one another; commit to holding multiparty, free-and-fair elections at regular intervals; guarantee civil and political rights for their citizens enforceable by an independent judiciary; and accept the responsibility to protect.

Like NATO or UN or any other treaty in the fucking world.

The United States must also: revive the NATO alliance by updating its grand bargains and expanding its international partnerships; build a “networked order” of informal institutions, such as private networks and bilateral ties; and reduce the sharply escalating and politically destabilizing inequalities among and within states that result from the generally beneficial process of globalization.

Why? Holy fucking shit why? NATO was designed to fight the USSR. Where is the USSR? Come on, where?

FUck NATO. It's outdated and not in the US or any other countries interest to be a part of, unless you want to make a big deal of east europe's history to play us.

In other words, the UN is broken and we need it badly, so we need to reform it -- and make an alternative to the UN, partly as incentive for reform and partly as a backup plan if reform fails. The goal should be to promote liberal democracy through diplomacy, economic improvement, and not invading semi-random Middle Eastern countries, God damn it.

Meaningless unless you have an inetity that compensates for you.
Might as well say you have a group who can beats another groups ass.
Yet another reason why Obama needs to win the election.[/quote]

[Shroom Man 777]

Who are these liberal democracies? Friends and allies? These definitions shift on an almost day-by-day basis. Russia and America were cool in the 90s when Russia was an economically emasculated shell of its former self, then the Russians liberally and democratically elected Putin and Russia got some balls back, and now they're evil.

Or, I don't know. Maybe Russia and Eurasia aren't evil. Putin is one of Bush's buddies. But didn't Hillery say that Putin was a soulless something-something (from the future?)?

Concert of Democracies is a load of shit. When a bunch of gooks or sand niggers or untermenschens democratically elect someone America (or at least the rich old white mangs) doesn't like, then they're a problem that needs a solution to.

It's a sad joke and if Biff McCain does end up as President and there is this "Concert of Democracies" and such loyal and friendly nations like Saudi Arabia get to join the fun club, well... it'll be the saddest joke ever in a long line of ever saddening jokes.

And considering Biff McCain's track-record, he'd probably inaugurate this Concert of Democracies while simultaneously authorizing Operation Middle Eastern Freedom and invading Bakalakadakistan the next morning. Just like torture and stimulated drowning.

[Shroom Man 777]

Um. For clarity's sake, and so no one thinks I'm a racist, I was just saying that this Concert of Democracy is just another smokescreen in the same tune as "freedom" (in the American context) to basically allow them (your American politicians) more power that will allow them to screw over people from other nations that they view as worthless. Incidentally, these people who'll eventually be screwed over are always of different ethnicities.

Maybe your rich old white man with political power gets conscious when the consequences of his actions are broadcasted on CNN in the form of grieving white people. But if CNN is showing rubble and mourning crowds of "different people" from "savage lands", well, it's less comfortable and allows the leaders of the Only Superpower to sleep easy.

[Man, to think that this attitude which began in Europe when it was all colonial still exists to this day...]

Of course, whatever ploy these people will do will always be done in the name of "freedom" and "democracy" and "liberty" even though at the same time, they're actually screwing over nations that are democratic. Didn't the US' Greatest President Ever, Ronald von Reagan, do that?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I see the usual need for a boogey man as a form of sustenance for one's ego and pride has never quite disappeared.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

Yet another reason why Obama needs to win the election.

Oh come on, do you seriously think that this 'concert of democracies' will become anything other than some kind of fig leaf for US policy when the UN wont do as its told, regardless of the party of the presidential incumbent? Moreover what do you think will be the reaction of those nations, led by China and Russia and other thuggish nations, who are not democratic?

[General Zod]

Why? Holy fucking shit why? NATO was designed to fight the USSR. Where is the USSR? Come on, where?

I hear McCain thinks Iran is the new USSR.

[Stuart Mackey]

Why? Holy fucking shit why? NATO was designed to fight the USSR. Where is the USSR? Come on, where?

I hear McCain thinks Iran is the new USSR.

He thinks? or pandering to those uneducated who do think?

[Pelranius]

I hope he's pandering (surely no one that stupid could have qualified to become a naval aviator?)

But Joe Lieberman of all people had to correct him about the Sunnis and Shias on the Iraq junket, so who can really say?

[Stuart Mackey]

I hope he's pandering (surely no one that stupid could have qualified to become a naval aviator?)

But Joe Lieberman of all people had to correct him about the Sunnis and Shias on the Iraq junket, so who can really say?

Yeah, being a pilot does not automatically mean he has studied anything other than being a pilot, and he is a politician after all.

[Ender]

I'm failing to see the difference between this proposal and the G8 except in scope and it wants America as a fixed head. The latter isn't going to happen, and there is already a push to expand the G8 to another 5 countries. In fact, this seems more like "We don't like the fact that the EU effectively heads the G8 by virtue of half the members belonging to it, so we want more power."