Any intelligent discussion will show that spreading democracy is in the best interest of democratic security. When George Bush and Tony Blair decided to "go it alone" in Iraq against the "OK" of the United Nations, along with fellow democracies, it caused a gaping divide in the international community. Obviously the real issue is how to spread democracy, and those who are against preemption, and see that the violence in spreading democracy as unnecessary or interfering with the process, are not alone. For people who believe in spreading democracy, the flaw of the United Nations is that it is composed of countries who are not democracies and/or have serious human rights issues.

Question:

What are the prose and cons of organizing a "League of Democracies" (constituted only by countries with a solid democratic background and human rights record) whose sole purpose is to uphold human rights and spread democracy in a manner and to whom it feels fit?

Note: This is not a discussion about not spreading democracy, if you have a beef about spreading democracy then start your own discussion thread.

Before I could rightfully engage this conversation, I have to know how you can make the assumption that "human rights" and "democracy" go hand in hand. We, here in America have certainly had our share of human rights violations. The list is long. Our treatment of the Native Americans, slavery here, segregation, women's suffrage, our foreign actions in many countries (I could name several incidents). America paints itself as this glowing bastion of freedom and democracy, but then again, we teach our children that the Pilgrims and the Indians got along. The British certainly have a longstanding history of Human Rights violations. Who are the "countries with a solid democratic background and human rights record" Once you can establish that there exist such Nations, we can talk about the "League of Democracies" that you suggest. I think it's a great idea, but then, so was the UN at it's conception. Communism loked good on paper...

In democracies human rights abuses happen, and are pointed out by their own people and press and organizations. This is less likely to happen in non-democratic societies who do not support free speech or dissent. Think about it, Amnesty International is biased, because if you go through the pages, you would think democracies have more human rights abuses than other types of countries. But the other countries close their selves off to Amnesty International or do not publicly acknowledge their abuses. Would Abu Ghraib make the front page of a North Korean or Iranian news paper if it was their doing? Democracy is the best solution in protecting against human rights abuse- people can rise up and change polices in democracies. Countries like China, North Korea, Iran, Syria all abuse human rights to rule their people and keep them from rising up. Human Rights and Democracy do go hand in hand. Amnesty International does not draw a distinction between a country who commits human rights violations for the protection of its people than a country who commits human rights violations to rule its people. Too many people and organizations do not distinguish that difference and treat both countries the same. Not to say human rights abuses happen for other reasons in a democracy, but in a democracy, its internal workings keep the abuse in check best. So why should Syria lecture the US on Abu Ghraib or cast a vote for punishment? Not like that is something that is happening, but I hope it shows a point.

It would be up to the "League of Democracies" to determine what is acceptable and what is not and so forth when it comes to its own members. The League of Nations failed because of its structure and its acceptance of non-democratic countries.

Suggestions for countries: US, Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Italy, Japan... China.. just kidding! There are more, but I do not want to make the mistake into getting into a grey area by not knowing my countries well enough. I think people can see what I am getting at. Obviously the countries who would start such a group of nations would agree to requirements for membership status... and most definitely human rights should be a big focus point. After all, how a country respects its people, is most likely how a country respects other peoples.

Edit to add: The examples of US human rights abuses above- Native Americans, slavery, segregation, and women's suffrage- were of groups not allowed to vote or were not properly represented in government. Now things are different, and those things came to an end out of respect for those groups. And it says something about the democratic process that somehow those things came to end by freedom of speach and dissent.

What are the prose and cons of organizing a "League of Democracies" (constituted only by countries with a solid democratic background and human rights record) whose sole purpose is to uphold human rights and spread democracy in a manner and to whom it feels fit?


Pros: A possible International human rights protection organization, perhaps capable of military intervention.

It may help to ease the EU/US divide that is developing.

Cons: Another International Agency.

A global division of democracy and non-democracy Nations. I'm not optomistic about the prospect of pitting Democracies against the rest of the world.

More obligations to play "Team America, World Police".

The USA consistently pulls more weight than others, and this would probably be no different.


It's an interesting idea, but I don't see it as a realistic possibility.

It wouldn't have to be democracies against the rest of the world, after all the Netherlands have a good human rights record and is a monarchy, they could be embraced for their good human rights record. The organization could make sure they are rewarded for their good behavior and to keep them in check if they start to waver.

It could be more obligations to play world police for the US but it could also do the opposite.

The "league of democracies" unlike the UN could also hold countries accountable for their treatment of their citizens through actionable force, like economic sanctions... and a military force that doesn't stand around and watch genocide like in Rwanda and Serbia... in the case of Serbia, Europe dragged its feet until the US took action with NATO, maybe the organization could speed up the decision making process by making a better forum for matters to be discussed in.

It could keep nation building in check, as you know the UN pulled out of Iraq because it felt it was too dangerous a theater. And who is going to pick up the slack if the US fails in its effort to stabalize Iraq? The UN is too polluted with human rights abusers to keep Iraq from resorting to its old ways of doing government.

What about Afganistan? We could use more help there, after all no one really argues about our reasoning to be there. Couldn't a theoretical organization relieve some of the burden from a country who was attacked by a country who does not resepect human rights to the degee the Taliban did?

So if it was democracies against the rest of the world, couldn't it be like NATO was to the Soviets? To protect and help defend against 9-11 type scenarios or rogue states with nuclear or biological capabilities?

Would the punished countries form their own league in response, a "League of Screw Your System, We Have Ours!" Wich would be pretty lame because they would only mostly have China for means of economic support and some of the oil rich countries. Actually, that might be pretty entertaining to watch... it would be like puting two chinese fighting fish in the same aquarium and seeing who wins.

I consider this more of a think-tank discussion so any ideas are good ideas.

Interesting topic! I'll certainly check back here in better time. Only a few, quick comments here.



I agree; yet another international organization means overlapping organizations and more money wasted on unnecessary bureaucracy.

However, why not take an existing organization and work with it?

OECD anyone?

I agree; OECD and (some of) its members (Mexico comes to mind) are far from perfect democracies. But I strongly believe that economy and democracy go hand in hand, and money certainly makes a good carrot and even better stick. OECD touts itself as an organization whose members share "a commitment to democratic government and the market economy." It already has the tools, if you like, in place to impose, for example, economic sanctions.

I would still argue, though, that the only international body that has had any kind of success in nation-building is still the good old United Nations. It has the organization in place. More importantly, it has the best human know-how around, the actual knowledgeable, experienced, highly committed people who know how to do it. Hands down, the UN volunteers had to be the best, most unselfish folks around. Who else would volunteer to go into places they go and do the job they do--for free?

The organization would come up with levels of democracy to discern who could be members. It would apply its own definition of what an acceptable democracy is. For now we will use the term "free" to discern what kind of democracies we are talking about. Free democracies that allow dissent and the freedom of speech.

What would make the "League of Democracies" better than the UN is the fact it is made up of free democracies, who know their own like security issues and the problems they face with human rights, such as international bodies not discerning human rights issues from a country whose policy it is to commit human rights violations against its own people, than a country who commits human rights violations to protect its own people.

And because the body of free democracies realize those difference (in theory), it would be a better yard-stick to monitor other countries' improvements.

Also, it would be a forum to reach common ground on such issues like preemption. A good discussion will show that a free democracy is inherently slower to react to a problem, such as going to war, than a country who does not care about other peoples or its own people. In a free democracy, the issue is debated, and as in war, a free democracy looks for the best way to protect its own people, and also the best way to protect its enemy's people to prevent war crimes.. etc.. It is harder for a free democracy to react to an issue and nip it in the bud, before it becomes a problem. It makes a free democracy more vulnerable to being attacked by a country who does not respect human rights and international laws. If the enemy can use preemption to attack us for selfish reasons like gaining money and power, then why can't we use it to protect ourselves? Obviously France and Germany disagreed with that one. Probably on grounds that preemption can be based on wrong information... like weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. But if preemption is a free democracy security advantage, a council of free democratic nations could better determine the situations to use it... and that always would be dependent on human rights abuse. If Iraq did not have the types of human rights abuses it had, the US could not have preemptively invaded just on grounds that they still had WMD's. If the US had done that, then I would buy the fact that we invaded just to get their oil and say the US is on the same moral grounds that Iraq used to invade Kuwait.


OECD is just more of an economic forum for economic cooperation more than an organization who protects its members by military means. But its economic policies could be applied to a theoretical "League of Democracies." Just on an interesting side note, I also believe economics and free democracy go hand in hand. A Free society is more productive than a Fear society. Look at how the Soviets gained power... they had to use spies to design their atomic bomb, they were far behind in computers... and their space shuttle looked an awfully a lot like ours. Look at China, they are technologically advanced, but they are still lagging behind the US, they seem to have gained on us, but none of their ideas are new and have been borrowed from Free societies. Sure sometimes it looks like Fear societies are gaining ground on Free societies, but that is because the Free society has already paved the road for them... but they will never quite catch up. Knowing this, you can stop free trade and watch them slip back to the stone ages as is the case for North Korea and we did that by holding them accountable for their human rights issues. If North Korea was a free democracy with a good record, do you think there would be as big as a fuss over them getting nuclear bombs?

Economic sanctions are not the cure though, a country who does not care about its people, could care less if their people are starving to death from sanctions. When a sanctioned country ignores the physical health of its people, then and only then should a more serious intervention be considered- but action should be taken, instead of ignored like some of the resolutions in the UN.

My argument against the UN is, even though it is in place and has more experience, it is seriously flawed in protecting its own members. Sure, it knows the ins and outs of nation building, but they are not the ones going door to door looking for insurgents, or chasing down a general who is committing genocide. When it comes to nation building, the UN is too passive. That is why the US takes the brunt of the actionable force and when we feel we have to "go it alone" it is too easy to say we were wrong in doing so.

Bottom line is, if a "League of Democracies" gains popular support, less money and effort would be applied to other organizations who are less effective to its members' needs. Eventually, the weaker organizations, would be shut down from lack of support.