Record: 1Section: Essays Minor League, Major Problems The Case Against a League of Democracies THE CALL to establish a "league of democracies" was one of the hottest policy proposals this past election season. Advocates contended that creating a club open exclusively to the world's liberal democracies would enhance the ability of like-minded states to address the challenges of the twenty-first century. Not since the 1940s, when the United States orchestrated the founding of the United Nations and the Bretton Woods monetary system, have voices on both sides of the aisle called for such an ambitious overhaul of international institutions. Influential advisers to both Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) enthusiastically backed the proposal, and McCain explicitly endorsed the idea. "Rarely," as the journalist Jonathan Rauch has observed, "have liberal idealism and neoconservative realism converged so completely." The proposal to launch a league of democracies has its merits. The size and diversity of the UN'S membership hinder the organization's ability to coordinate timely and effective action. And whether the task at hand is containing Iran's nuclear program or stopping genocide in Darfur, China and Russia regularly block action by the UN Security Council. In contrast, liberal democracies are generally prepared to work together to pursue common interests. When it comes to political will, economic resources, and military strength, the worlds democracies constitute a uniquely fraternal grouping of states. Nonetheless, the next occupant of the White House should shelve the idea of establishing a league of democracies. Such a club is not needed to secure cooperation among liberal democracies--they are already regular partners--and it would draw new lines between democracies and nondemocracies, thus compromising their relations just when adapting the international system to the rise of illiberal powers is becoming a paramount challenge. Contrary to the expectations of its advocates, moreover, a league would expose the limits of the West's power and appeal, revealing the constraints on solidarity among democracies, eroding the legitimacy of the West, and arresting the global spread of democracy. With its marginal upsides and dramatic downsides, establishing a league of democracies would not be a wise investment for the next president, whose time and political capital will be severely taxed by an economic downturn at home and abroad and by conflict in the Middle East. Title:Minor League, Major Problems.Authors:Kupchan, Charles A.Source:Foreign Affairs; Nov/Dec2008, Vol. 87 Issue 6, p96-109, 15pDocument Type:ArticleSubject Terms:DEMOCRATIZATION -- International cooperation INTERNATIONAL cooperation ALLIANCES DEMOCRACY DIPLOMACY UNITED States -- Foreign relations -- 2001-2009Geographic Terms:UNITED StatesAbstract:In this article the author examines why establishing a league of democracies would not be a smart decision for the U.S. president that succeeds President George W. Bush. Establishing a league of democracies has few benefits and more significant consequences. The author predicts that the next president will have to devote much of his efforts to repairing the financial crisis and resolving conflicts in the Middle East. The author also argues for why the U.S. and its democratic allies should invest in more extensive partnerships with rising autocracies, such as China, Russia, and the Persian Gulf states.Full Text Word Count:4703ISSN:0015-7120Accession Number:34741596Database: Military & Government CollectionPage 1 of 7EBSCOhost4/6/2010http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?vid=10&hid=107&sid=cf45e2d7-b2ec-4928-beb8-...BIRDS OF A FEATHER THE PROPOSAL to establish a forum open only to the world's democracies is not without precedent. In 2000, the Clinton administration launched the Community of Democracies to support democracy worldwide. Despite holding numerous working groups and four ministerial conferences, the group has remained a debating society and has little to show for its efforts. One of the reasons is that with over 120 members, including the likes of Egypt, Jordan, and Qatar, it does not live up to its name. The initiative's meager results have prompted proponents of a league of democracies to call for more stringent criteria for membership and a much more ambitious set of objectives. Although Republicans prefer to label the proposed institution a "league," whereas Democrats call it a "concert," advocates agree on the broad outlines of the idea. Participating states would take on codified commitments to work together to confront security threats, promote democracy and human rights, and advance economic integration. They would develop common military doctrines and improve collaboration among their defense, police, and intelligence establishments. The league would have a guiding secretariat and clear decision-making rules. Membership would be restricted to democracies that regularly hold free and multiparty elections and that guarantee the political and civil rights of their citizens. According to the political scientists Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay, writing in The American Interest, roughly 60 countries would qualify for membership under these criteria. Advocates of the league argue that, unhindered by obstructionist autocracies, the body would better respond to global challenges than existing institutions. Daalder and Lindsay point out that the world's 20 largest democracies account for roughly three-quarters of global defense spending. With autocracies out of the way, this "smaller group composed of like-minded states," they argue, would possess "the means to act swiftly and effectively." Moreover, its writ would not be restricted by a commitment to the inviolability of sovereignty, as the UN'S is. Accordingly, the league could intervene in states that posed pressing security threats to other states or failed to protect the rights or safety of their citizens. Democrats tend to see a league as a tool for reforming the UN and as an alternative to it only if UN reform fails, whereas Republicans envisage the proposed body as a means of sidestepping a UN they deem irretrievably paralyzed by recalcitrant autocracies. But advocates on both sides of the aisle agree that it is time for the world's democracies to stand up to illiberal obstinacy. The league would not just free up the world's democracies to act but also deepen ties among them.