McCain's "League," and Obama's Debate Dilemma

With the last debate presidential coming up, Barack Obama will have a final chance to take a forceful swing at what is perhaps John McCain's potentially most radical idea: the creation of a "league of democracies" that critics say could effectively subvert the United Nations.

McCain says he intends to create a new international organization, composed of perhaps 100 similarly governed countries, that acts to promote and solidify common values.

He has mentioned the idea in both prior debates. Notably, there's been no direct comment from Obama. And in a presidential campaign, it's a striking thing to have one candidate not take shots at the other's big foreign policy idea.

McCain has said the League would not "supplant" the United Nations, though neoconservatives have suggested with approval that it could do just that. Columnist Charles Krauthammer, who has been advocating such a new coalition for years, has remarked with glee that it could "kill" the U.N. One outstanding question remains whether McCain envisions such an organization having a military role. He has hedged on that one.

One could easily imagine Obama stepping forward and saying, "Blowing up the international order is more Bush cowboyism. Americans are sick of that." Of course, given Obama's surging poll numbers, there may be no need for him to do this. And there's a real risk for him in frontally criticizing efforts at "democracy."

But so far, Obama won't criticize the League idea directly in the debates, and the reasons behind it lead into the quicksand that is the future of American foreign policy.

First of all, several of Obama's top foreign policy advisors have actually advocated a similarly themed "concert of democracies," an organization that would look something like NATO, only perhaps with India, Brazil, Japan, Australia and other serious players involved.

Conceived originally by liberal theorists, a new global coalition composed of the world's democracies has found backers on both sides of the aisle, from Obama advisers Tony Lake and Ivo Daalder, to McCain backer and foreign policy theorist Robert Kagan. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright actually formed an international organization along these lines just before the Clinton administration left office, but it has never really exerted power.

Liberal and conservative foreign policy types disagree about how much a new league or concert of democracies should undercut the U.N. Nevertheless, a new Washington semi-consensus has emerged in the last decade that Russia and China should not be able to veto anything they please at the U.N. Security Council, and creating a way to bypass them is the right thing to do.

Dealing with situations like those in Burma, Zimbabwe, Darfur, or more controversially, Iran, may require severe sanctions or intervention. Given that China and Russia will always oppose such actions, the United States needs to be able to lead an effective coalition that has at least partial global legitimacy. Or so the consensus logic goes.

When in the first debate McCain raised the prospect of a "league" to deal with the Iranian nuclear issue, Obama had only this glancing retort:

"I do not agree with Senator McCain that we're going to be able to execute the kind of sanctions we need without some cooperation with some countries like Russia and China that are, I think Senator McCain would agree, not democracies, but have extensive trade with Iran but potentially have an interest in making sure Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon."

In other words, in the case of Iran, a league of democracies would not be effective, since non-democracies also hold the cards. The Obama team has said that it will be pragmatic and nimble, assembling global coalitions around specific issues, and on Iran it believes apparently that some uneasy bargains with Russia and China will be necessary.

However, the reality is that an Obama administration might very well advocate a league or concert of democracies, as part of a broad tool kit. And it would be easier certainly for a globally popular Obama - with a Democratic Senate to sign off - to assemble a new coalition, than it would be for a more overtly hawkish McCain administration.

Beyond this tactical campaign game, though, is an indication of a very uncertain future for U.S. foreign policy. Whether it's a President Obama or a President McCain, the new commander-in-chief will inherit diplomatic tools and language that have been degraded.

President Bush co-opted the sort of grand-style idealism of spreading democracy voiced by Woodrow Wilson. But with the litany of Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and more attached to "democracy promotion," the coin of the realm has been devalued. Can any U.S. leader now go around the world lecturing about democracy, or assembling causes around democracy, without other countries flinching? That remains to be seen.

Moreover, as Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has pointed out, democracies themselves don't agree on everything, and oftentimes the U.S. gets along better with dictatorships (Saudi Arabia or Jordan, for example) than democracies like Brazil or Argentina. He argues that a League of Democracies "could aggravate rather than alleviate global sensitivities about the close association between U.S. democracy promotion and the U.S. global security agenda."

The very idea of forming a new league or concert is meant to cope with an emerging future, with an ascendant Russia and China. But of course it evokes America's deep past. It's a deliberate echo of Wilson's League of Nations idea.

Almost 90 years ago, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, a political enemy of Wilson's, felt the League's charter gave away too much sovereignty - and was dangerously pie-in-the-sky - and led Republicans in a successful revolt against it.

When McCain first articulated his own vision of a new League in 2007, he said he did not intend it to employ Wilson's idea of "universal membership." Rather, McCain said he wanted to go with "what Theodore Roosevelt envisioned: like-minded nations working together in the cause of peace." So, history is clearly at work here in McCain's mind.

Roosevelt and Lodge were close friends, and the two conspired to destroy Wilson's League of Nations, with Lodge leading the cause as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee and Roosevelt advising from the sidelines. (Joe Biden now holds Lodge's old chairmanship. Imagine a Senate "League" showdown sequel: McCain as Wilson, and Biden leading the "irreconciliables" to destroy it.)

Here we have history turned on its head.

The new Teddy Roosevelt, McCain, is reprocessing Woodrow Wilson's idealism into what he claims is the "truest form of realism." Obama, the more proper heir to Wilson, is showing a little Lodgian realism. And given all this talk of new leagues and concerts, the U.N. - the fulfillment of the original League of Nations dream - must be worried about an eviction notice at its New York headquarters.

Comments

[johnwinner]

The "League of Democracies" is intended to ressurrect Christendom in Europe for a generations long campaign against Islam. The idea has been a favorite among a group of pundits in the National Review for the past year. I am dismayed that progressives are so dismissive of these loonies that they don't recognize how deeply they have been embedded in the Bush Administration and in rightwing commentary. For the sake of Christ wake up to what's really been happening the past eight years!

[EbonBear]

cont...

The problem is that for decades, the US has asserted it's right to effectively rule the world while being actively hostile to engaging with that world. The approach of the conservatives isn't a conversation, it's a lecture. Hopefully, a President Obama would understand that international cooperation requires give-and-take on both sides, not demand and threats. American exceptionalism is a trait that will have to be erased. You are not unique, you are not special and you do not have a God-given right to lord it over the rest of the world.

If you wish to have some cooperation in the world, or at least less nations hating you, try treating the rest of the world as equals instead of pawns.

[EbonBear]

"a new Washington semi-consensus has emerged in the last decade that Russia and China should not be able to veto anything they please at the U.N. Security Council"

And yet, unsurprisingly, Washington has no problem at all with the USA vetoing anything it feels like. The US has unilaterally vetoed more resolutions than any other member of the Security Council and the veto was designed in the first place to allow big nations to run things their way. Kofi Annan wrote at great length in his memoirs concerning how the USA through it's veto, lobbying and economics, effectively owns the UN anyway (Iraq may seem to defy that but actually proves it).

Outside of the USA and your cripplingly nationalistic media, virtually everyone can plainly see that the only reason conservatives have any problem with the UN is that the UN doesn't always do what it's told. The situation the conservatives are seeking is one where the US states it's preferred response and the rest of this "league" backs them up. In other words, a diplomatic cover for global domination such as PNAC espoused.

cont...

[RRonin]

Oh, please, do NOT utter McCain's name in the same breath as Teddy Roosevelt's! The two have NOTHING in common beyond being war heroes and Republicans. T. R. was against monopoly capitalism (advocate of the "Square Deal"; meaning a level playing field for average citizens and Big Business) and an early conservationist and environmentalist!

[ProudAmerican23]

Having spent time working with (for) the UN during my time in the army in the 90's (Macedonia & in Bosnia) I can tell you that its a defunct organisation that is best described as a self licking ice cream cone. They cant pass a resolution since so many members are doing business deals with countries who are supposed to be under sanctions. Even if they could actually pass a resolution, they still cant enforce it so why bother passing resolutions? I wont even mention that we Americans pay 85% of the bill for the UN.

[Lagrangian]

Where exactly is the bar for "democracy"? Would Pakistan count? At what point would the USA no longer qualify?

[brizzle]

League of Democracies? League of Bullies, more like.

With all the REAL problems in the world, the best that John McCain can do is try to reorg the UN?

What a sham idea. What a distraction. What a complete waste of column space and TV time.

We don't need a reorg...what we need is to open up to the world and start talking to everyone. Treat other countries and their governments with respect and understanding. Get down off our high horse and join the community of human beings.

League of Democracies? What a complete waste of time and money...

[Maimonides]

1. Under today's test for Democracy under the UN , the United States would not qualify on two counts: participation by percentage of population in elections and provisions of the HomelandSecuroty Act.

[larry278]

You can call McCain's idea "a Leak of Nations".

[Doofus]

Wouldn't this so-called League have to exclude
Saudi Arabia as well as Russia & China? Wait,
doesn't Russia have elections - so they must
be a democracy!

Main thing is, though, if we are 'mean' to China,
Saudi Arabia, Russia, who's going to lend US
the Big Bucks? Let's think this through, ok?
It's not a time to get to 'all mavericky', really.

[Maimonides]

What's really funny is that Lebanon, the PLO would qualify.

[Doofus]

As would Iran, of course.

Probably have to include North Korea, also,
as we are making nice with them. But it
would certainly exclude Cuba, no?

[cdub1991]

It took 50 years to get rid of the Iron Curtain and McCain wants to build another international wall between groups of nations. Real smart. Good thing most of those other "democracies" will probably want to have nothing to do with it. After all, it's not like the US has shown much reliable leadership of the free world over the last 8 years.

America needs to focus on rebuilding its credibility and not waste time on gimmicks like this.

[Stephanie71]

The problem here is that McCain's idea of a League of Democracies is really just a re-name of Bush's Coallition of the Willing. Because really its a "League of Demaocracies that Agree with Me". I am certain that a good portion of democracies will be left out in the cold.

[RevDr]

Isn't that called NATO? The other thing is that if we ask Russia and China to give up veto power then we havd to give it up to. No one is going to settle with giving theirs up if we don't. Yet, I'm not sure that is a bad thing. Maybe no one should have veto power. One vote for every member nation of the security council. Gee, that almost sounds democratic!