I’m rarely inspired by network television, I must say, but the episode of The West Wing where they cooked up a plan to put two Supreme Court Justices up at the same time (one strong talented voice from the far left and one strong talented voice from the far right), to avoid the otherwise unavoidably mediocre choice a split government normally ensures, truly lifted my spirits. I’ve been a big advocate of balance via extremes in government (although I see my role as belonging on the left), as I suspect it can be done well and helps move the country forward carefully and respectfully, with as little division as possible when it comes to the more emotional issues. (Hell, I endorsed John Edwards who I disagreed with on several points because I thought he stood the best chance of uniting the country were he to win the presidency.)
I mention this because, although it’s apparently been all over the blogosphere, I only learned of the proposed “Democracy Caucus” within the UN yesterday via gentle constant OBWi reader and Tacitus co-blogger deputy blogger Bird Dog.
(There’s only so many reading hours in a day, you know.)
Jonathan Rauch has the best description I’ve found of what it is and how it came to be and what it may just succeed in doing:
Imagine a better Washington. Imagine a conservative Republican administration working hand in glove with liberal congressional Democrats on a foreign-policy initiative designed to strengthen the United Nations while simultaneously increasing America’s clout there. Imagine both parties and both branches bringing this initiative to fruition smoothly and unfussily, during an election year. Say, this year. Say, right now.
Pinch yourself. It is happening.
Since 1996, a handful of foreign-policy wonks have been kicking around the idea of a “democracy caucus” at the U.N. Two administrations, first Bill Clinton’s and then George W. Bush’s, took quiet but significant steps in that direction. Now, according to Bush administration officials, the concept will be test-flown at the six-week meeting of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights that began on Monday in Geneva.
It’s far from a sure thing, but it’s ingenious in its appeal. As Rauch writes, “In Washington, a democracy caucus appeals to conservatives who want America to influence the U.N., and it appeals to liberals who want the U.N. to influence America.”
Initial reports from the United Nations Commission on Human Rights’ six week meeting in Geneva where the idea is being advocated don’t offer too many details, other than to say it’s “being pushed by Chile, Poland, South Korea and the United States.” However, in a State Department Press Statement before the meeting, the US made its support clear:
The U.S. is committed to an effective Commission, one that takes concrete steps that result in real improvement for human rights worldwide. This year we will focus on 1) upholding international scrutiny of human rights violators, 2) encouraging the formation of a democracy caucus, 3) encouraging election of members with strong human rights records, and 4) improving procedural mechanisms.
If the Caucus succeeds in becoming a powerful body, there are many possible benefits for the entire world, such as encouraging other nations to speed up their democraticizing process. But perhaps the most important immediate benefit of this effort will be to serve as a domestic roadmap for problem-solving that places a premium on finding those rare solutions that appeal to both extremes. Obviously not all our problems will have such solutions, but the more often we conceive of that as a possibility, the more united the nation is likely to become. As Rauch noted:
Partisanship is nowhere to be seen. The Bush administration, like the Clinton administration, supports the idea, and, said Lantos, “There is not the slightest doubt in my mind, although I haven’t talked to him about it, that John Kerry will be just as enthusiastic.”
Pinch yourself indeed.
I think I just wet myself. This is great news.
… but Chile and South Korea, incidentally, aren’t exactly models of democracy.
… but Chile and South Korea, incidentally, aren’t exactly models of democracy.
Chile’s symbolically important right now because they currently head the Community of Democracies’ steering group. South Korea, well…who knows.
In comparison with North Korea, South Korea is democracy embodied.
I almost posted something on Rauch’s piece. It’s excellent news if they can get it up and running. I wrote about the Democracy Caucus here and sort of here. Members would include those classified as “free” in the Freedom House rankings, for example. Poland, Chile and South Korea are “free”, so they’re in.
P.S. Gentle reader? Darn. I’ve pictured myself more as a Tasmanian Devil type of reader. Maybe I should turn the heat up a little in my comments. As for “co-blogger”, that infers equal standing with Tac, a concept I’m uncomfortable with. I prefer guest-blogger or deputy blogger (Deputy Dog?).
The same is true for Chile compared to Cuba.
Gentle reader…now that I think about it, I think I meant “Constant Reader” ( a la Dorothy Parker…what I get for writing late at night)
As for “co-blogger”, that infers equal standing with Tac, a concept I’m uncomfortable with. I prefer guest-blogger or deputy blogger (Deputy Dog?).
I wasn’t sure what to write there…deputy blogger seems appropriate. Thanks for the heads up.
“For states in their relation to each other,
there cannot be any reasonable way out of the lawless condition which entails
only war except that they, like individual men, should give up their savage
(lawless) freedom, adjust themselves to the constraints of public law, and thus
establish a continuously growing state consisting of various nations (civitas
gentium), which will ultimately include all the nations of the world. But under
the idea of the law of nations they do not wish this, and reject in practice
what is correct in theory. If all is not to be lost, there can be, then, in
place of the positive idea of a world republic, only the negative surrogate of
an alliance which averts war, endures, spreads, and holds back the stream of
those hostile passions which fear the law, though such an alliance is in
constant peril of their breaking loose again.”
Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace
Creating a UN with only good guys is like founding a church where sinners may not participate.
Bob,
Many conservatives are clearly interested in the Democracy Caucus because they believe it can replace the UN altogether (and clearly they reject the notion that sinners are welcome into this “church of nations”), but liberals are interested in it because they believe it will strengthen the UN and help resolve/reform some of its less attractive aspects. Need I say who I hope is right?
Bob Mcmanus wrote:
Actually, I have always thought that by allowing regimes like the PRC and the (former) Soviet Union to sit on its Security Council, the UN was more like the Five Families.
They too had votes.
OK, Sri Lanka is Periclean Athens compared to Myanmar.
What’s your point?
If this democracy caucus is to have meaning, certain criteria need to be upheld. If the intent is merely to build a rival base of power to the Europeans-which is what a “coalition of the willing” caucus looks like to me–then, it has little value in my mind.
I think the distinction between encouraging the sinners to attend church and giving them editorial priveleges in rewriting the Ten Commandments isn’t exactly a fine one. As long as we’re abusing metaphor.
consider the metaphor well abused in that comment, Slarti
…translation: point duly noted.
Coming in late here, but a quick review of Chile with the usual watch groups doesn’t exactly reveal a nondemocratic society: they’ve got political parties running the country, real elections, a strengthening economy and no military rule. Did I miss something recent?