A Demoratic Union?
October 15th, 2006 by Wulf
The United Nations, while not as utterly ineffectual as some pundits would have you believe, has some issues. The often insurmountable deadlocks in the Security Council due to the veto power of a huge communist, non-democratic nation like China undermines any pro-democratic process or resolution that could be adopted. Serious human rights violators like Libya are taking control of the Human Rights commission (held the chair in 2003), and others like the Sudan are allowed to join, avoiding censure for their own violations. We saw the effects of thhis impotence in the years leading up to the U.S. war in Iraq. The UN could not manage to pass one meaningful resolution on Iraq with any teeth in it. If this were not the case, I sincerely doubt that President Bush could have convinced the US Congress to take matters into our own hands.
But what is the solution? A new organization. Not to replace the UN, because I feel that it is important to give democratically challenged states a peaceful international forum and voice, but to supplement it and provide a meaningful way to promote democracy accross the world. To do so, we need to take a page out of the European Union’s book. We should start an organization, spearheaded by the US, made up solely of democratic societies. Such an organization could offer each other, and especially newly developing democracies, special economic relationships for mutual benefit. It could also collaborate on focus groups, studying the best ways to promote democracy and human rights.
Again taking a page out of the EU’s book, we could extend membership only to those who have demonstrated a commitment to human rights. Then we could have a worldwide Human Rights comission that could actually make efforts to extend Human Rights, rather than one that attempts to slap Isreal every time it can.
Having such an organization would also provide incentive for new governments, such as the military that took over by coup in Thailand recently, to quickly adopt democray and take steps to curb human rights violations. If we procide enough economic incentive to join, borderline democratic states would have a reason to work out their questionable practices in favor of genuine democracy.
Of course, it is very common for a nation to claim it is democratic when it really isn’t. Take Saddam Hussein’s claims of elections where he won a victory by a 99% landslide, for example. However, a democratic union could provide a forum for citizens of its member states to voice concerns about election practices, and provide an international, multipartisan Election Supervision Board to investigate such allegations.
As I mentioned earlier, the US would have to lead such an effort, because such an organization would fail without the US as a member. However, it is also important for the US to recognize that it would only be one af several member states. I think it important for no nation to have veto power such as that held by the big five in the UN Security Council.
So what do you think, is it possible? Is it even advisable?
If liberty and equality, as is thought by some are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.
Aristotle
Greek critic, philosopher, physicist, & zoologist (384 BC - 322 BC)
I’d LOVE to see such a thing exist. Sincerely. Hell, I’d love it if the U.N. could become the organization that I thought it was when I was growing up rather than the front it is today . . . Here’s my problem with your suggestion though.
People hate us.
You know it’s true. I have no exact numbers, but you have to admit that a really REALLY huge portion of the world think we’re evil incarnate. Hell, our closest allies (Britain) are chomping at the bit to dispose of their leader because his people feel he’s pulled them too close to us.
Therefore, I think creating any organization which celebrates democracy and yet puts the US as a guiding hand (without any sort of elections) would perhaps make the international ire greater rather than diminish it. It doesn’t matter how committed to betterment an organization is, if the people it is trying to help don’t trust it then nothing is going to come of it . . .
That’s all I really had to say. Like I said, I would LOVE for such an organization to exist which truly helps people all over the world and can stop wars such as this one from happening . . . I just think that from a PR perspective, we really can’t be the ones running such an organization anymore!
~A.
P.S. Hey, do you like how I didn’t even mention our own questionable democracy nor our human rights violations? Yeah, I was kinda proud of that. Call me a bleeding heart liberal hippy all you want, but if we’re talking about starting an organization to stop such practices we REALLY need to not be guilty of them ourselves (and even if we’re not guilty of them, we need the public perception to match that)!
I realize the world doesn’t trust us. That’s why I mentioned a lack of veto power as being absolutely necessary. The reason I say we need to spearhead it, though, is because we are the only remaining superpower (although we may not remain so if we continue to exhaust our armed forces in pointless wars like the one we’re in). Any organization like the one I described would have to have the US as a member in order to succeed. Moreover, the current American mindset is such that we probably wouldn’t get behind something if it didn’t seem like it was our idea. Otherwise, it just looks like foreign intervention into our government, and you know how the conservative sections of our society view that. It’s the same concept that will ultimately make world courts fail.
There are other problems of course. Essentially from what you’ve described you’re thinking of a NATO that included some sort of decision-making body that works to foster democracy, whatever that means.
First, what requirements would you have before the body could act? A unanimous vote among member nations? This amounts to a veto power given to every single member nation. A majority rule? No way will the United States, or any European nation, agree to submit resources to a course of action that they oppose merely because a majority of member nations does not.
Another problem is a lack of any enforcement mechanism. A democratic free trade association would be extremely unpopular in America and probably Europe as well. It was hard enough to get NAFTA done, and that was just Mexico. Further, a free trade arrangement will not be enough of an incentive to authoritarian regimes to democratize. We’ve seen over and over again that telling people that if they give up power their people will be immensely economically advantaged does not do much to incent those regimes to reform.
You can offer a number of financial incentives, but what incentives exactly that aren’t already available to nations that are friendly to the United States and the EU? And with what sort of enforcement? Sanctions? As we’ve seen with North Korea and Kyoto to an extent, an economic program that does not include China and any number of other undemocratic consumer bases will not prove to be an insurmountable burden to an unfriendly regime. Military action? No way we can lose with all of the military might of belgium behind us right? Plus, Europe, with the possible exception of the UK, is extremely reticent to employ military remedies. Heck, France doesn’t even use force when they are directly invaded. Any military response by such a group would essentially be unilateral actions by the United States.
So I think its a nice idea, but I don’t think such a body would be effective both in working within itself and in accomplishing the goals of democracy and human rights.