The Korean situation is a great example of the coalition we can build without a formal group of nations.

No it isn’t. The Korean war was a UN mission, voted for by the Security Council. Also most of the UN troops were American so it could be argued that like in Afghanistan today it was a failure in gaining equal numbers of troop deployments.

The League of Nations was created by the Versailles Treaty in 1919-20, with the stated goal of promoting peaceful international cooperation and preventing a future world war (The “War To End All Wars” still being very fresh in everyone’s minds). What most people do not know is that it was only officially dissolved on 18 April 1946, after its member states had reached the conclusion that it had failed in its mission (events from 1932 to 1945 apparently gave them a raging clue, as they say on South Park).

But the United Nations was already established at that time, having been officially created on 26 June 1945. (In fact, the term “United Nations” was first used to describe the alliance against the Axis in January of 1942- see the Wikipedia entry on the United Nations.) It was intended as a confluence of democratic nations to prevent a future war (yet again), and was a direct outgrowth of the wartime alliance between the four great powers of the day; the U.S., Great Britain, France, and the USSR. In retrospect, of course, it can be seen that inviting the Soviet Union in was probably a major mistake, but after Kursk, etc., there was really no way to “disinvite” Uncle Joe.

This seems to me to be the same thing. The creation of, not a “counterbalance” to the UN, but at least potentially a successor to it, reflecting a growing belief that it is a failed and moribund organization that has been hijacked by the very elements it was intended to suppress by “peaceful” means.

To paraphrase Shakespeare (Brutus re Julius Caesar), it could be argued that in this, McCain comes not to praise the United Nations- but to bury it.

cheers

eon

Stop trashing McCain. He is our best hope at fighting terrorism and controlling spending and keeping health care in the free market. Get your act together and cut out the pessimism.

What DaveS said. I don’t see how having this to rely on–and occasionally challenge the UN with–hurts our interests.

see-dubya on May 2, 2008 at 4:31 PM

I would appreciate dismantling the UN and at least kicking it out of the US for its anti-Americanism. Kind of like immigration reform though. . . we’ll work on the future once the border gets secured. We need to get rid of the UN (like Jesse Helms said).

As for ‘what would the harm be’ if the UN and some other mutli-national force disagreed on an international dispute. I can forsee US troops fighting in a civil war in a country like Darfur on BOTH SIDES. The UN would ask for troops for one side and this new league of whatever you want to call it would need troops on the other side – since they disagree and balance out.

I know that sounds stupid, but it’s nearly inevitable if you set up one community to defy the other community. Do away with any ‘league of nations’, ‘united nations’, or any other corrupt union of countries and let our STATE DEPARTMENT handle international diplomacy independently. The Korean situation is a great example of the coalition we can build without a formal group of nations.

How about something like Facebook, but only democracies are allowed to join in.

pedestrian on May 2, 2008 at 4:52 PM

Yes! An online community of nations! Very effectual, and, of course, democratic.

Everyone seems to have a good idea about John McCain, who he is, and what he thinks, but who are the people standing behind him and whispering in his ear?

rockhauler on May 2, 2008 at 5:32 PM

McCain reads and studies widely in foreign affairs. One adviser/author whose work is fairly accessible and very worth taking in in this context is Robert Kagan, whose 2003 book-length essay OF PARADISE AND POWER prevents a very helpful overview of relations between the US and Europe in historical context and going forward. It’s only around 100 pages, and very clear and cogent.

I haven’t read Kagan’s newer book yet, but intend to. Like the other title, it comes with prominent recommendations from McCain himself, as well as from other foreign policy thinkers.

There are several other authors and advisers who can help clue you in on where McCain gets his ideas, but he didn’t start with this stuff yesterday, and he also reads authors “from the other side.” I saw a note earlier this year, at Hugh Hewitt’s blog, that McCain was reading THE COLDEST WINTER – the late David Halberstam’s political-military history of the Korean War. If you can leave aside a few gratuitous paragraphs in which Halberstam leaps ahead to embrace conventional liberal wisdom about Vietnam and Iraq, it’s an extremely interesting and useful look at the formation of US Cold War strategy amidst fierce political and military rivalries, against the background of a fiercely fought yet widely misunderstood war.

The historian Niall Ferguson has sometimes also been mentioned as a McCain guy, though I recall Ferguson himself saying, in effect, that he’s more of a fan than a member of the brain trust. His book THE WAR OF THE WORLD, essentially a history of the 20th Century as a single long struggle defined by the decline of Europe and resultant turmoil, is great and informative, if sometimes deeply depressing, reading.

Update: One other thought. The risk you run by building a potential counterweight to the UN is that it encourages your enemies to build a counterweight to the counterweight, which may have the effect of bringing mostly independent bad actors into closer coordination.

Isn’t that what Chavez and Castro and Dinnerjacket have been doing these past few years? Something about a “3rd world coalition?” Am I remembering that right?

We lost the Soviet Union as an active, seemingly equal enemy to keep “the West” united, and, despite the election of more conservative national governments, the Euros within NATO are still far from being dependable or always very useful allies when conflicts approach. The jury is out on whether they will remain committed long-term to their pacifistic and market-socialist approach to just about everything and anything you can think of.

At the same time, there are numerous countries at the edges of Europe or completely outside of it – like Poland, Japan, India, Australia, South Korea, Israel, even Iraq and Afghanistan sooner or later – who have in common a devotion to democratic capitalism, out-sized economic influence, and a willingness to stand up for themselves and each other. Forces within old Europe – still a nuclear-armed economic powerhouse and not yet ready to be completely written off – could also benefit from an alternative source of influence and validation.

It probably would be better to avoid formalizing such a coalition until and unless a single major challenge drawing them together arose, but there’s nothing wrong with coordination between the countries that work, for all our sakes, or with thinking about what advances our mutual interests.

This is a Soros-backed “League of Democratic Socialists“.

Whether he goes through with it or not, it tells you a lot about McCain, and should be a huge red flag to everyone.

Red Pill on May 2, 2008 at 4:53 PM

This guy has more red flags than Soviet Russia.

Now, however, McCain says the group would not use military force, and would be an informal organization in which democratic nations come together in different groupings, depending on their varying concerns.

Isn’t that what the G8 is? What’s the difference?

Put down the multinationalism and step away.

AbaddonsReign on May 2, 2008 at 4:23 PM

Well put.

I prefer 1:1 alliances, US ally with those who strategically will work with us for mutually beneficial treaties. Does the US have such a formal alliance with India already? But to create a new “club” only begets trouble and stirs up the muddy waters.

So is McCain trying to hyjack Hillary’s claim to being the reincarnated Woodrow Wilson? He leaves the domestic progressivism for her to solve, beginning with socialized national health care. He would remain on the international front, trying to re-do Wilson’s League of Nations. Together they will align the US into the New World Order. The old promo of them being good political buddies is bad news.

McCain backing off his plan for a League of Democracies?
Whew.
May 2, 2008 4:21 PM by Allahpundit

No “whew” about it…it doesn’t change the fact that McCain thought it was a good idea.

This is a Soros-backed “League of Democratic Socialists“.

Whether he goes through with it or not, it tells you a lot about McCain, and should be a huge red flag to everyone.

“It does not envision military action,” McCain told reporters in Dallas on April 11. He said it would “not be a formal organization”

How about something like Facebook, but only democracies are allowed to join in.

sondiehl on May 2, 2008 at 4:28 PM

I agree about sovereignty.

But an alliance is not a bad idea. I’m picturing coordination of military plans, to the extent that other nations have a military worth considering. And a “dorm-room bull session, but for countries!” And a united front to present to non-democratic countries. Public relations, propaganda, another way to support those small and/or poor and/or otherwise disadvantaged democratic countries and/or countries that need encouragement to make the step to democracy.

Who decides the definition of “democratic nations”?

How about “nations with representative governments”? The members could vote whether to allow new members. And, I’m sure, that like the UN, we’d be footing a large chunk of the bill, but unlike the UN, we could/would have the most say in questions like “Who gets to join?” Screw the commies, and screw the barbarians in the ME.

I guess like NATO during the Cold War? But dominated even more completely by the US? The “US and Friends Club.” Clothing our unilateral imperialism with a thin cloak of multilateralism.