The Atlantic recently asked its panel of 40 foreign policy experts about prospects for democracy, publishing the results in March.
One question–do you believe the proliferation of democratic government is inevitable in the long run?–yielded these results:
Skeptics’ comments included these:
- “We seem to have forgotten that democracy is an organic phenomenon–that … it is the outcome of specific histories, cultures, ethnicities, and events.
- “New models quite far from Jeffersonian democracy (China’s ‘Market-Leninism’) could begin to catch the imaginations of transitional societies.”
Someone in the “yes” camp offered this remark:
- “Despite the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, people who are free to choose (as Mrs. Thatcher said) do choose to be free. And the information revolution enables more people to see lives in free countries.”
Image: Racoles (Flickr)
Michael O’Hanlon at Brookings offers an unusual approach to the Darfur issue, one which could be applied to other humanitarian intervention situations: rapidly recruit and deploy a special American division specifically to deployment in Darfur — “a Peace Corps with guns — with individuals enlisting specifically for this purpose.”
Even if somehow this force proves unnecessary in Sudan - an unlikely proposition - there will be other conflicts for which such a force could prove very useful in the future. The notion is this: of all those well-intentioned and admirable Americans rallying to call attention to Darfur and demand action, ask for volunteers to join a genocide prevention division for two years.
The new unit would allow action without much additional strain on overstretched American forces, he argues, though some regular troops would be used to leaven the humanitarian division.
This concept would also address a primary problem of humanitarian intervention: risking lives for optional actions. Enlistees in such a force would have signed up for exactly that.
However, Winds of Change suggests some problems with the idea, and notes some similar proposals from the past.
Writing in America Abroad, Ivo Daalder points out the problems with the new UN Human Rights Commission.
The central problem is a perennial one: human rights abusers end up on the commission. New members include Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, Russia, and Cuba.
The ideal solution would some criteria for membership could be applied. Consider, for instance, the political rights rating from Freedom House. The problematic countries above are rated thus:
- Saudi Arabia — 7 (not free)
- Cuba — 7 (not free)
- China — 7 (not free)
- Pakistan — 6 (not free)
- Russia — 6 (not free)
If the countries with free and high partly free ratings (4 or less) were allowed to serve on a human rights body, they would still constitute a majority of countries, and would not include any of the worst violators.
It won’t happen of course, for any number of reasons:
- China and Russia would use their positions on the Security Council to block such a reform.
- Excluded countries and their friends would decry “cultural imperialism.”
- Many regions would be left with rather few representatives. For instance, the Middle East has only one “free” country — Israel — but it gets a “not free” rating (6, the same as Iran) in the areas it occupies, and would seemingly be excluded on that basis, leaving “partly free” Kuwait to represent everything from Morocco to Iran.
Imperfect mechanisms will have to do for now. Daalder concludes:
It may well be that the new requirement that the human rights activities of all UN members, starting with those elected to the council, be carefully examined provides an opportunity to prove this skeptic wrong. But first indications are hardly encouraging.