The
League of Democracies: A Proposed Alternative to the U.N.
Security Council
Executive
Summary
by
John J. Davenport
Professor
of Philosophy, Fordham University;
Davenport@fordham.edu
As the hopes born of
the Arab Spring revolutions in 2011 have faded, the world faces
ever more spillover effects from atrocities and conflicts.
Because the Assad regime has killed over 250,000 Sunnis in Syria
and driven over five million more abroad as refugees, and
democratic nations have bowed to Russian pressure not to
intervene, the ultrafundamentalist
Sunni terror group ISIS has been able to take over large parts
of Syria and western Iraq. Because Vladimir Putin's aggressions
in Ukraine were not met with a strong response, the separatists
that his regime organized and supplied shot down a civilian
airplane and stoked an ethnic conflict in Eastern Ukraine. US
and European weakness emboldened Putin to create an air base in
Syria to support Assad's forces against all rebel groups; less
than 1/10th of their strikes are against ISIS. In north Africa,
Kenya and Nigeria are also threatened by armed Islamic terror
organizations, while in North Korea, millions of people labor
under the heavy hand of absolute tyranny which threatens its
neighbors with nuclear weapons. China, instead of stopping North
Korea's atrocities, is mounting missiles on artificial islands
it has built on reefs in the South China Sea.
The same problem
that prevented protection of a million victims in Darfur
remains: the United Nations Security Council cannot act because
Russia and China care more about national sovereignty and their
financial interests than human rights. We desperately need a
working system of global governance that can address
international threats to security from terrorism and weapons
proliferation, environmental and economic problems that span the
world, and prevent mass slaughter of the kind taking place in
Syria. In 2005, the United Nations endorsed the principle that
the international community has a "responsibility to protect"
people everywhere from mass atrocity crimes: R2P was supposed to
prevent new genocides and mass ethnic cleanings. But the
misguided 2003 war in Iraq has left the strongest democratic
nations less willing to intervene with force when humanitarian
emergencies cry out for a response: only a large coalition of
democracies can provide the assurance of cooperation now needed
for such ventures. Yet western nations and their democratic
allies around the world are still willing to let their hands be
tied by autocrats who want to prevent military interventions to
protect innocents under R2P. The legal structure of our
international system remains largely what it was in 1945.
Everyone agrees that the world now needs something more than a
system of nation-states that cannot coordinate their efforts to
achieve global public goods such as universal rights, an end to
mass atrocities, development with justice, and sustainable use
of our collective environmental resources. But these goods could
never be supplied by the UN; and it can no longer be delivered
by U.S. power supplemented with short-term alliances to deal
with particular crises as they arise.
Both these
alternatives are fatally flawed. More than two decades after the
atrocities in Bosnia and Rwanda during which permanent Security
Council nations did virtually nothing, the UN has again proven
ineffective in Syria and Ukraine, just as it did in the Darfur
region of Sudan. Even in the case of Libya, when Russia and
China bowed to pressure to stop the destruction of Benghazi, the
UN was able to act only through the auspices of a NATO
operation. And there was no reconstruction effort under UN
auspices after the Libyan tyranny fell. That is partly because
American resources are stretched thin today: the U.S lacks
sufficient coordination with other democratic governments around
the world to respond swiftly in humanitarian crises, let alone
to deal with the longer-term problems of military dictatorships
in many African and Asian nations, or the growing threat of
Islamic fundamentalism, or entrenched poverty in the southern
hemisphere. As our
disastrous unilateral approach in Iraq has proven, the United
States cannot operate as world policeman without going broke,
exhausting our armed forces, and appearing as a global tyrant to
the peoples we most need to persuade to adopt peaceful relations
with us and to move towards better human rights records. Only an
organization that is widely perceived as multinational in
sovereignty rather than a mere extension of U.S. power can now
operate with sufficient perceived legitimacy around the world to
be effective in dealing with humanitarian crises and in
promoting human rights and democracy everywhere.
If humanity is to have a bright future,
then, we must now seek a way out of the false dichotomy of U.S.
unilateralism or the UN Security Council. The former
gives us insufficient resources and coordination and is unfair
to other affected nations who get no say in US actions, while
the later is outdated, unjust, and virtually impotent. Since dramatically
reforming the UN is politically impossible (the amendment
process requires consent of all permanent members of the
Security Council), the most viable solution is a league of
democratic states. We should seek a new consensus with our
European allies and democratic friends around the globe:
starting with NATO nations and leading democracies in Asia,
South America, and Africa, we can come together to form a
permanent alliance to function as the sovereign body at
the center of international law.
This new Democratic League would unite the vast military
strength and moral legitimacy of the world's good governments
against rogue regimes, dictatorships, and terrorist
organizations. Operating
at first as a backup, it could eventually replace the Security
Council: the governing body of the League of Democracies would
provide the power to intervene swiftly in humanitarian crises
and the credible threat to deter genocidal aggression and other
crimes against humanity. This
'new deal' at the global level would provide the United States
with the multilateral support it desperately needs to act
effectively for the growth of democratic justice around the
world, while also meeting the legitimate demand of developing
democracies in the global south and EU nations for collective
decision-making that is not unilaterally ordained by any
American administration. Such a league would offer qualifying
democratic nations a chance to be equal partners in leading the
world; it would also pressure Russia to return to a free media
and political liberties, while giving China a huge incentive to
democratize.
This proposal would require compromise on
all sides. To gain the advantages of perpetual alliance, the US
would have to bind itself to abide by the common will of the
Democratic League regarding international security and human
rights (except in cases of direct assault on our homes). However, in stark
contrast to the Security Council, the Democratic Council would
have the legitimacy to deserve this full allegiance from
Americans, because it would be free from influence by tyrannical
regimes and it would be directly answerable to the peoples of
its member states, rather than only to their national
governments. Its design could
balance representation by population with a mechanism for
ensuring that smaller nations retain a sufficient voice. The League's central
executive body ought to be directly elected by the citizens of
the member states, giving it primary sovereignty over its
enumerated functions (not merely derivative sovereignty through
ambassadors or other proxies of national governments). Its
decisions would almost all be made by simple majority, and even
in cases where supermajorities might be required (such as in
votes for armed humanitarian intervention) no nation would
exercise veto power over the actions of the League as a whole.
These changes would solve the problems besetting the U.N.
system.
Such a Democratic League would not be a
'world government,' let alone an empire. It would pursue
peaceful relations with states that did not join it, and allow
certain states to enjoy provisional membership on their way to
full participation pending resolution of internal problems as
judged by the League's ruling Democratic Council. It would
create its own democratic criteria for full and associate
membership, and a clear pathway towards membership for any state
that is interested. Its
functions would be strictly limited to a short but absolutely
vital list of enumerated powers, including first and foremost:
1.
Maintaining a standing armed forces, raised from all
member states proportionate to their populations, to intervene
swiftly under direct
League command when necessary to prevent genocide, ethnic
cleaning, and similar atrocities that constitute humanitarian
emergencies;
2.
Providing a new, firmer foundation for international law
and the operation of international courts, ensuring the
legitimacy of entities like the International Criminal Court,
and making their subpoenas and indictments enforceable;
3.
Enforcing the most basic human rights, including (when
possible) the removal and prosecution of tyrants and warlords,
the punishment of crimes against humanity, and pressure to
democratize and to guarantee equal status for women and the
safety of children;
4.
The defeat of international terrorist organizations and
international crime rings, along with the prevention of nuclear
proliferation and the spread of other weapons of mass
destruction, and the monitoring of all nuclear weapons and
weapons-grade material;
5.
The commonly undertaken and collectively funded defense
of all democratic member states from hostile incursion or attack
by outlaw states or terrorists;
6.
The exertion of unified diplomatic pressure on
non-democratic regimes to democratize;
7.
The nation-building activities and political support
necessary to assure all peoples on Earth a stable democratic
nation-state of their own, with a working legal system free from
corruption of the authorities, a liberal educational system free
from fundamentalist indoctrination, and a decent standard of
living in whatever economic system they choose;
8.
The approval of new states as members of the Democratic
League upon sufficient proof that their highest sovereign
officers are elected by frequent multi-party democratic
processes, including freedom of the press, freedom of speech,
sufficient separation of church and state, toleration of
minority religious faiths, and other basic civil liberties.
In
particular, the Democratic League could operate primarily with
troops from its member nations who specifically volunteer
for the elite divisions devoted specifically to humanitarian
protection and human rights enforcement -- to make good our
repeatedly made (and broken) promise that there will be no more
genocides. The risk to such troops will no longer make
intervention politically impossible when it is really necessary
to stop mass atrocities, because the troops involved have signed
up specially for this kind of mission. In a short time, service
in these divisions could come to be recognized as the highest
military honor in the free world.
In time, if the League worked well, its members could
decide whether they wanted it to assume further functions
enabling global coordination to secure public goods that are
difficult to attain through treaty organizations or the
unregulated interplay of sovereign nations, such as:
9.
Preservation of the world=s environmental
resources, including a treaty for the management of greenhouse
gases, and a global fund to preserve biodiversity;
10. Management
of a global financial system and global currency; setting world
interest rates;
11. Eliminating
tax havens and setting minimum individual and corporate taxes
world-wide, leveling the playing field between nations with
free-trade agreements involving parity in worker safety and
environmental laws;
12. Conducting
anti-trust activities to prevent the formation of overly large
multinational corporations capable of exerting undue influence
on small nations or too much power within the whole global
economy;
13. Taking over management of development funding
through the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, global
health policy initiatives, and food security programs.
But
these functions are all secondary to the primary one that
replaces the Security Council. Creating a new league of
democratic states, would inevitably mean sidelining the Security
Council. But it would not necessitate the elimination of the
entire United Nations. The
General Assembly could remain in place to provide a forum for
global diplomacy and the rest of the U.N. agencies, such as the
WHO, UNICEF, the FAO, the World Food Program, etc. could
continue to function doing what good they are able to, at least
until the Democratic League was long-established and it was
clear that these agencies should be brought under its umbrella.
Critics will no doubt object that such a
Democratic League would divide the world. But the world is
already divided into democratic states that (by and large)
respect basic rights and non-democratic states that do not,
because they are either military dictatorships or Islamic
theocracies. The
Democratic League is needed to unite the will and strength of
the first group of nations in the face of these new fault lines,
just as NATO united us against the threat of Soviet
totalitarianism during the 20th century. Yet it is
clear that this time we need more than a temporary military
alliance for deterrence. The
growing number of democratic nations in the world now have a far
greater share of political, military, and economic power than we
did during the Cold War. As a result, we no longer need the U.N.
Security Council system which gives a strong voice or even
vetoes to some autocratic regimes. We can now afford to trade in
this outdated system for a new one that comes much closer to
ideal justice at the international level. It would be ideal if
Russia could serve as an original member of such a Democratic
League, but to do so the Russian government would have to accept
the basic principle that the most fundamental human rights trump
national sovereignty. Among
the first priorities of the League would also be to encourage
China on the pathway towards full membership, signaling that the
long-run intention is inclusion rather than exclusion. The
League would insist that its full members make the kinds of
democratic reforms that are needed for people to flourish, but
it could also maintain friendly trading status with non-member
states that respect most basic rights even though they have not
yet democratized.
Finally, it is crucial to stress that this
proposal transcends partisan politics. Both eminent Republicans
such as John McCain and Robert Kagan
along with leading Democrats such as Ivo
Daalder, James Lindsey, and
Anne-Marie Slaughter have proposed a league of democracies as
the best way to surmount the endless stalemate that usually
makes the UN so ineffective in stopping mass atrocities. Leading
political philosophers such as Allan Buchanan have come to
nearly the same conclusions in proposing a concert of
democracies to work alongside the UN or act in its stead when
the Security Council is paralyzed. However exactly it is
conceived, some version of this proposal is in reality the only
viable and adequate way forward today.
The innovation proposed here is
analogous to the 1787 move from the Continental Congress
under the Articles of Confederation to a genuine federation
government with some centralized powers of its own as
required for its enumerated functions.