The Community of Democracies

[NGC_6822]

We cannot understand how ill-prepared the United Nations
Security Council is to meet the challenges of modern
humanitarian atrocities and global terrorism unless we
understand the 17thc roots of its charter and the irrelevancy
of those roots today.

The UN charter of today is based on the Treaty of Westphalia
(TOW) signed on 24 October 1618 at the conclusion of the 30
Years War in Europe.  At that moment the entirely new
invention of “National Sovereignty” was established which
bravely, if sadly naïve proclaimed that henceforth all
national borders would be sacred and any transgression of such
borders would be illegal.  This raised the ultimately futile
hope that war would become obsolete.

Even though the principle had been proven an utter failure
after the experiences of WWI and WWII, politicians
nevertheless ceased upon it again, apparently in a fit of
desperation, and made it the corner stone of the new UN
charter.  The charter was signed with great celebration on 24
October 1945 in San Francisco, exactly three years short to
the day of the 300 year anniversary of the TOW!

Please read Chapter 1 (Purposes and Principles), Article 2,
Section 1 of the United Nations Charter below:

 “1.	The Organization is based on the principle of the
sovereign equality of
all its Members.”

This simple one line places severe shackles on the UN to deal
with such obvious problems as emerging, rogue, nuclear states,
and stateless terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda hiding
inside the borders of a weakened nation like a virus that has
overcome the body of a frail animal.

Furthermore, the UN charter shows a shocking omission of any
other principles required for membership.  Consequently, the
moral value of the charter, reflected by the moral value of
its members stands in stark contrast to other large
institutions.  Two examples come to mind:

1)  To be a member of NATO, the applying nation must, among
other requirements, be a democracy, have a market based
economy, and have a military that recognizes the civilian
government as the superior authority.  Poland is a good
example of the latter requirement.  Just coming out of the
Soviet bloc, its application to NATO was put on hold for a few
years until the military finally agreed to accept a
subordinate status to the new civilian government. 
Incidentally, NATO, itself is composed of a civilian
and a military branch.  The latter takes direction from the
former.

2)  To apply for membership in the EU (European Union), a
nation must meet 32 requirements including guidelines such as
national debt, inflation rate, environmental issues, human
rights criteria, military preparedness, and corruption
control.  Every red mark on the list must be erased before the
nation can be approved for EU membership—and then it’s not
guaranteed.

Not one of these principles, nor any other principle, is
actually required of a nation to become a member of the UN. 
The 192 members comprise virtually every nation in the world
including the bloodiest dictatorships known.  To clarify the
point here, individual human rights within a nation, i.e.
individual sovereignty, is not recognized as a pre-condition
of a nation’s membership.  The rights to vote, right to speak
publicly, right to due process of law, etc, are all ignored
for membership entry. The prospective applicant must only
recognize the principal of the sovereignty of other nation’s
borders.  By the way, once a nation has become a member and
then violates the principal, as Iraq did when it invaded
Kuwait; is not grounds for cancellation of membership.

One glimmer of hope is that on paper the Security Council does
have two roads to bypass the national sovereignty wall that a
rogue state can hide behind.  The arch over one road reads,
“Threat to World Peace” (Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran), and over
the other road, “Genocide” (Rwanda and Darfur).  Define one of
these two in the Security Council, and the tanks can roll.

Perversely though, both roads are strewn with so many
obstacles that it is virtually impossible to arrive at the
end.  A typical journey down one of these roads might look
like this: 1) negotiations with the rogue state (at least two
years), 2) discussion and agreement of the threat (six months
to a year), 3) discussion of weak sanctions (six moths to a
year), 4) imposition of weak sanctions (one to three years),
5) discussions of stronger sanctions (another year), 6) 
imposition of the strong sanctions (a couple of years), 7)
discussion of police action (at least a year or two, 8) police
action.

On each leg of the road the rogue state yawns while each of
the five permanent members of the Security Council wrestles
with its own calculation of: a) political instability in their
sphere of influence, b) gain/loss of business influence, c)
access/termination of energy reserves and critical resources,
d) commitment of national military assets, and e) affect on
internal public opinions.  These issues are so consuming that
the Security Council has only arrived at leg eight a couple of
times in its more than half century history, and indeed rarely
ever gets to even leg three.

The UN Security Council talked for a decade without ever
stopping the nuclear bomb development in North Korea.  The
same scenario is now unfolding in Iran.  In Darfur after years
of wrangling, millions of people displaced from their homes,
and 200,000 dead people, the UN finally declared that genocide
was occurring; but Sudan has shouted “national sovereignty”
and forbids the UN to enter the country.  In 1994 between May
and September in Rwanda, 800,000 people were slaughtered in
what was clearly a genocide war by the government.  That was
double the 400,000 Americans that were killed in all the
campaigns of all the years of WWII.  The UN sent about 500
troops with orders not to shoot unless shot at.  They stood by
during the entire episode and watched the government go about
its utterly grisly business.

So what can be done if the UN is incapable of dealing with
these 21st c. rogue states?

Suppose it were possible to impregnate the UN monster mother
with a new age baby?

In fact, such a baby has already been quietly conceived.  It’s
called “The Community of Democracies” and it was inaugurated
at its first biennial ministerial conference in Warsaw on June
25-27, 2000, spearheaded by U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine
Albright, along with seven co-conveners.  Since that date, the
CD continues to grow with enthusiastic bi-partisan support
from the Bush administration and the Republican/Democrat
Parties as well as other countries in the Western world. 
Furthermore, a “Community of Democracies Caucus” has already
taken shape inside the UN itself.  It’s not yet headline
material, but the Italian parliamentarian, Emma Bonino has
been an early supporter; a few brief words from her biography
give a clear sense of the intent:

“…In the crisis of supranational institutions (the UN in the
front row) a strategy was needed to give democracies the
strength to stand up to the assault of fundamentalisms,
terrorism, and the return to the nationalisms of the past
century….”

When the UN Charter was drawn up in 1945, only a handful of
democracies existed; hence, the principal of national
sovereignty may have been the best of some miserable options
for that era.  Now, however, there are between 60 and 120
democracies depending on how you define them.  (Saddam Hussein
held an election.  So did Iran.)  Therefore, the CD must
define its principles carefully and make the qualifications
meaningful for entry into the new club.  These goals have not
yet been achieved, but perhaps the US and other legitimate
democracies can muster enough lawyers and statesmen to give
this baby a healthy delivery.  If it grows strong enough, it
may be the only hope for wrestling down Mom’s other
miscreants.

Otherwise, a rudderless UN ship, carrying a flag of “National
Sovereignty,” with a band of grappling pirates on the
officers’ deck may consign us to Davy Jones’ Locker.  “Ahoy
mates, storm’s a’brewen two points abaft the starboard
quarter.  Brace the mains and douse the top royals, pip, pip,
prepare to launch the long boats!  Egad, we’re goin’ down!!!”

Suggested reference:  http://www.ccd21.org/