BONUS LINK: My entire (so far) grad school notes collection can be found here.
Concert of Democracies as the Answer to the Impotent UN
Kant held that
a “perpetual peace” could only be reached after a long period of attempts and
failure, but emphasized that once realized, it would solidify global “republican freedom” (Doyle in Betts,
140). Fukuyama held the global
triumph of liberal democracy as the evolutionary embodiment of perfection in
international relations (Fukuyama in Betts, 7). The idea of a “Concert of Democracies (COD)” stand as
Ikenberry and Slaughter’s answer, marriage and implementer of Kant’s and
Fukuyama’s philosophical thesis.
The authors charge that ultimately U.S. Strategy is to guard its
citizens and culture by ensuring safety within its borders, a thriving international
economy, and a non-combative cooperative global security environment. (Ikenberry and Slaughter in Betts,
625). The COD achieves this
strategy by bolstering security cooperation between liberal democracies of the
world, effectively creating the framework to codify and implement the
“democratic peace” (I and S in Betts, 627). While Ikenberry and Slaughter’s COD theoretically
appears to be viable solution, in execution it could potentially isolate and
enervate non-democratic allies, worsen the already questionable efficacy of the
United Nations (UN), and discount the critical and rising global role of
non-state actors.
The
merits of a COD fall into the realm of the benefits of collective strength and
security. This concert has already
been done on a small scale with alliance building in the past. There are many examples, most notably
President Bush Sr’s first Gulf War coalition. Although not composed entirely of democracies, the UN
Security Council acted to ensure a collective security through a collective
response (Lauren, Craig and George, 84).
The unanimity of the Western democracies and Japan acting in concert
generated a moral certainty that contributed to the ability of states such as
Syria and Egypt to send large combat units in support of alliance efforts. Additionally, the effect on public
opinion in democracies of an awareness that like political entities share a
common cause cannot be underestimated in facilitating long-term support for a
policy or course of action.
One
drawback of such a concert is that it serves to isolate non-democratic allies
needlessly. While there are few, if any, instances where China and Russia would
be offended not to be included in such a concert, there are allies that might
take offense.
Morocco is one
of America’s oldest allies but is certainly no democracy (although their
diplomatic corps would argue otherwise)—this speaks to a major uncertainty—who
makes the cut? While Ikenberry and
Slaughter state that membership will be “self-selective,” this is not always
possible. In making the cut you
are unnecessarily excluding potential partners with shared interests, but
without liberal democratic forms of government. Perhaps the biggest drawback to a COD is that typically it
will react slowly to a crisis in an effort solidify broad support among its
fellow democratic states. This
sluggish response time only allows a crisis to worsen—and could costs
lives. Furthermore the
susceptibilities of a COD to the vagaries of public opinion make the execution
and sustainment of any decision difficult. This stands in stark contrast to an authoritarian state that
is less constrained and can make quick and unanimous decisions—this is especial
problematic because they are the COD’s likely antagonists. A less evident drawback is that smaller
democratic partners may have a disproportionate voice in the course of the
concert because of the negative perception that could result if the COD appears
to fracture. It is also dangerous
to assume that simply because a nation is a liberal democracy means that they
share our same core interests.
This can lead to the U.S. needlessly entangled with nations that possess
divergent goals.
Perhaps
the largest uncertainty lies with the United Nations (UN). Despite Ikenberry and Slaughter’s
assertions to the contrary, the COD cannot coexist with the UN—at least not
with the U.S. as a member of both organizations. The success of the COD can only be inversely related to that
of the UN. This means that where
the nations of the COD rise, the rest of the world falls. Furthermore, a realist who espouses the
temporality of democracies would have major issues with this concert because it
unabashedly espouses the liberal democratic system as the ultimate evolutionary
state of the global system. They
might further counter such a plan by echoing Lord Palmerston’s sentiment that
“[there are] no eternal allies or perpetual enemies . . . only [national]
interests” (Nye, 66).
Finally, conflicts that may require interaction with or intervention by
the COD will increasingly involve non-state actors and there is considerable
ambiguity with how the COD would interact with them. These non-state actors include ethnic groups, rebel
militias, and multinational corporations, all whose core interests may be asynchronous
or non-tangential to the values of liberal democracies. Finally, the COD
discounts the role of the most important non-state actor, the economy. The rise in importance of the global
economy as an institution/non-state actor rivals that of many nations that
would join this concert. This
rationale is in accord with Fukuyama’s assertion that nations that have
achieved their “end of history” (aka liberal democracies) will focus more
closely on economic relationships than political and strategic ones. (Fukuyama
in Betts, 15).
Ultimately,
one must demand: to what end?
Realists might criticize that such a concert’s merits or detractors are
irrelevant—what matters is the existing balance of power and how such a concert
might affect it. The alienation of
non-democratic allies and the debasement of the UN’s efficacy would not only
throw the realists’ balance of power into disarray but could end up stunting
the spread of liberal democracies.
A COD likely will not make the world free from war, but perhaps may make
the world more prone to “just wars.”
It remains to be seen if the COD could be the progression (or
perfection) of Kant’s “perpetual peace (Doyle in Betts, 140). To even have a chance for success the
COD cannot coexist with the UN but must supplant them—a herculean—if not
impossible, task. Ikenberry and
Slaughter would revel in Doyle’s assertion that “we are lovers of glory,”
(Doyle, in Betts, 139), in the case of a concert of democracies, the liberal
democracies of the world would be reveling too much in the glory of their
“righteousness.”
Bibliography
I don't think a COD discounts the role of non-state actors. It actually provides a stronger mechanism for dealing with them (ie. killing them).
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure a COD and the UN are exclusive. If the goal is "security cooperation", the UN and a COD can exist much as NATO and the UN have. Lets face it, the UN is a complete failure and impotent organization. NATO is actually a pretty big success, so the framework of the COD should be a NATO-type expansion, not another UN-type mess.
Realists won't just worry about the existing balance of power, but how their individual power shifts vis a vis other powers. If joining a COD bolster your standing while diminishing someone else's (like China/NK/Iran) in the zero sum game, they might very well be for it.