Is a League of Democracies a Good Idea?, May, 20, 2008
Influential policy experts on both sides of the U.S. political aisle are proposing a "League of Democracies." However, the proposal rests on a false assumption that democracies share sufficient common interests to work effectively together on a wide range of global issues.
Link Copied
Published on May 20, 2008
WASHINGTON, May 20—Influential policy experts on both sides of the U.S. political aisle are proposing a "League of Democracies" as a way for the next administration to restore the credibility of U.S. foreign policy priorities and put democracy promotion efforts back on track. However, in a new policy brief, Is a League of Democracies a Good Idea?, Thomas Carothers argues that the proposal rests on a false assumption that democracies share sufficient common interests to work effectively together on a wide range of global issues.
Although the proposed "League of Democracies" reflects a useful recognition of the need to rebuild credibility through greater multilateralism, such a league could aggravate rather than alleviate global sensitivities over U.S. democracy promotion and the U.S. global security agenda. Carothers outlines steps the next U.S. president should take to bolster democracy promotion and foreign policy in general.
Recommendations for the next U.S. president:
Opt for more flexible, case-by-case partnerships to fit specific issues and contexts.
Make clear that the United States does not intend to use military force or other means to overthrow governments in the name of democracy.
Reverse policies that produce U.S. abuses of the rule of law and basic civil liberties at home and abroad.
Push not only hostile autocrats, but also autocratic allies such as Pakistan and Egypt, to take serious steps toward greater openness and political reform.
Commit to strengthening existing multilateral institutions that deal with democracy issues, such as the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
"The idea for a League of Democracies reflects a valid concern with the fact that the overall state of democracy in the world is troubled and that alternative power centers with an authoritarian character are gaining in strength. The best way to respond to this new context and to rebuild the legitimacy of the United States as a global actor is not to circle the ideological wagons. Instead it is to make the United States a better global citizen on numerous fronts and get the country's own economic and political houses in order."
Thomas Carothers is vice president for studies—international politics and governance at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. A leading authority on democratization and democracy promotion, he has researched and worked on democracy-building programs around the world for 20 years with many U.S., European, and international organizations. He has written numerous books on democracy promotion including most recently Confronting the Weakest Link: Aiding Political Parties in New Democracies and Promoting the Rule of Law Abroad: In Search of Knowledge.
Next January, the new U.S. president will be confronted with the longest list of severe challenges any president has faced in decades. Prioritizing among them will be even more important than usual. In the third brief in this new series, Foreign Policy for the Next President, the Carnegie Endowment's experts endeavor to do just that. They separate good ideas from dead ends and go beyond widely agreed goals to describe how to achieve them.
The Carnegie Democracy and Rule of Law Program rigorously examines processes of democratization around the world and the U.S., European, and multilateral efforts to promote political liberalization.
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing cooperation between nations and promoting active international engagement by the United States. Founded in 1910, its work is nonpartisan and dedicated to achieving practical results. The Endowment—currently pioneering the first global think tank—has operations in China, the Middle East, Russia, Europe, and the United States. These five locations include the two centers of world governance and the three places whose political evolution and international policies will most determine the near-term possibilities for international peace and economic advance.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
U.S. unpredictability has allowed China to capitalize on its positioning as the “responsible great power”. Paradoxically, the more China wins the perception game, the more likely expectations will rise for Beijing to deliver not just words but to demonstrate with its deeds.
Hanoi and Beijing have long treated each other as distant cousins rather than comrades in arms. That might be changing as both sides draw closer to hedge against uncertainty and America’s erratic behavior.
Across Asia, China is better positioned to withstand energy shocks from the fallout of the Iran war. Its abundant coal capacity can ensure stability in the near term. Yet at the same time, the country’s energy transition away from coal will make it even less vulnerable during the next shock.
Malaysia’s chairmanship sought to fend off short-term challenges while laying the groundwork for minimizing ASEAN’s longer-term exposure to external stresses.
