Daniele Archibugi is a director at the Italian National Research Council and Professor of Governance, Innovation, and Public Policy at the University of London, Birkbeck College. His latest book is The Global Commonwealth of Citizens. Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy, published by Princeton University Press.
The General Assembly at the United Nations Headquarters, New York City. Photo courtesy of flickr.com/Luke Redmond.
The Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, has espoused a proposal put forward by specialists in international relations close to the Democratic Party, such as John Ikenberry and Anne-Marie Slaughter. The proposal is to set up a new international organization that can accept as members only countries with a democratic government, a kind of League of Democracies (sometimes also called a Concert of Democracies). Senator McCain did not go into detail concerning the characteristics this institution would have to have. He merely stated that “it could act where the UN fails to act."
Is any need felt for a new intergovernmental organization? Those who propose it are thinking of cases in which the democratic countries feel the need to use force and the Security Council is not in a position to approve a resolution owing to the opposition of China or Russia. In such a situation, it might prove useful to ensure legitimacy through the establishment of an institution comprising only democratic countries. While there is no lack of intergovernmental institutions, none of the existing ones seem to be sufficiently effective: NATO is restricted to the countries on both shores of the Atlantic and does not include important countries like Japan and Australia, while the G7 comprises only a small number of governments.
And yet, the proposal arouses some concern, even among the most enthusiastic champions of democracy. After eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency, seven years of war in Afghanistan, and five years of war in Iraq, many wonder what the consequences will be for the international scenario if a new Republican president is elected. Within the Republican Party there has always been a clash between pragmatists and messianists, above all in the area of foreign policy. If McCain were to become the 44th President of the United States, would he tilt more towards Henry Kissinger’s pragmatism, or would he rekindle the neo-con ideological fervor of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld? Ever since the Party selected its candidate, the internal factions have tended to try and draw McCain to their own side.
The idea of a League of Democracies somehow appears to be a compromise between pragmatism and messianism. On the one hand, it actually suggests that the powerful although not omnipresent United States is prepared to refrain from the use of force in the absence of the consent of the other democratic states. This is an important concession granted to multilateralism and distinguishes McCain from the policies of his party companion, Bush. On the other, it does not mean that the United States must give up the idea of continuing to carrying out their mission of catechizing peoples for freedom and democracy.
It is not surprising, therefore, that a neo-conservative such as Robert Kagan has applauded vociferously. The proposal for a League of Democracies is, however, bipartisan, as it is supported also by several advisors to Barack Obama such as Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay. However, while the proposal can rely on supporters among both the Democrats and the Republicans, there is no lack of resistance to it in both camps. As Thomas Carothers claims, there is some reason to doubt whether a League of Democracies could defend American interests, while it would have the effect of annoying trade partners such as China and many Middle East countries.
A League of Democracies today
The proposed League of Democracies is based on a theoretical assumption, namely that democratic governments share principles that allow them also to harmonize their foreign policy decisions. However, this optimistic theory has been dismantled in various ways by the most influential current of international thinking – the realist current. For realists, all states, whether democratic or despotic, have as their sole aim to increase their power and security. When they play the role of political advisers, realist thinkers become pragmatic and adopt Deng Xiaoping’s logic: “I don't care if it's a white cat or a black cat. It's a good cat so long as it catches mice”.
After the fall of the Berlin wall, those who believe that the nature of the internal regime is capable of influencing foreign policy again plucked up courage. It is never completely clear whether they, labeled as “idealists” in the field of international relations, are the champions of a fact (that is: democratic countries have a more virtuous foreign policy than the despotic ones) or are merely wishful thinkers (that is: democratic countries should have a virtuous foreign policy). And, as we shall see, this ambiguity persists in the proposal for a League of Democracies.
What are the possible effects of a League of Democracies? Let us examine the principal examples of international conflicts over the past twenty years. The 1991 Gulf War, essentially waged by the United States with the military support of the NATO countries, was approved by the Security Council, with the favorable vote of Russia and the approval of China. The humanitarian intervention announced by George Bush Sr. in 1992 in Somalia was applauded by the entire Security Council. The intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 received a unanimous consensus.
This brings us at last to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the event that more than any other split the international community. The war did not receive the approval of the Security Council, despite the huge pressure brought to bear by the United States. For the Republican Party, this was an exemplary case of the United Nations being “unable to act." And yet, the Republicans overlook the fact that it was not only China and Russia that were against the war but also and above all such consolidated democracies as France and Germany. In other words, it was not a split between authoritarian and democratic countries, but also within the democratic countries themselves. The same split occurred inside the United States: one half of public opinion was against the war, especially if it was to be waged without the approval of the Security Council. This split still persists after a good five years of war and the two 2008 presidential candidates faithfully reflect the camps for and against the war.
