Why Democracies Need a League of Their Own
By G. John Ikenberry
December 20, 2006
In Forging a World of Liberty Under Law, Anne-Marie and I propose the creation of a Concert of Democracies. This is a very old idea, dating at least as far back as Immanuel Kant’s vision of a league of republican nation-states.[...] In proposing a Concert of Democracies, we are urging the world’s democracies to once again organize, produce, integrate, and work together – and in doing so, collectively provide leadership. Here are our ideas.
First, let’s situate the proposal for a Concert of Democracies in the wider agenda for global governance reform. In the Princeton Project, we propose a general overhaul of global institutions – starting with reform of the United Nations. I dare say that if these other reforms are not also pursued, a league of democracies will not help that much. Indeed, if I had to pick between two reform steps – reform of the UN Security Council and the creation of a Concert of Democracies - I would chose UNSC reform. Read More

US and Europe must learn about alliances
Ivo Daalder and James Goldgeier
December 14, 2006
In recent months George W. Bush has rediscovered the virtues of having allies and working within alliances. In every big challenge confronting the US – from Iraq to Afghanistan, from Iran to North Korea – he has sought to enlist the help of America’s traditional allies. But in many cases the very allies who bitterly complained about the US president’s unilateralism only a short time ago have been reluctant to do their part in helping multilateralism succeed.
Nowhere is this more true than in Europe. Last month’s Nato summit should have been the time for a rousing call for the alliance to act effectively and transform itself into an organisation that would establish partnerships around the world to address common threats. But progress was minimal, because the Europeans were unable to seize the opportunity presented by an America that has realised it cannot solve these problems alone. Even on current multilateral efforts, key Europeans are falling short. Read More

Outside View: The meaning of global NATO
By IRA STRAUS
December 4, 2006
WASHINGTON, (UPI) -- NATO's tag line for last week's Riga summit, "Going Global," is a phrase that invites misunderstanding. It is often taken to mean indiscriminate globalization of NATO. Herewith a primer on its actual multiple layers of meaning.
Alliance Membership. "Going global" means: not to bring in all democracies, as is being urged by some enthusiasts with little grounding in Atlanticism, but only those around that world that fit in as part of the evolved historic Atlantic grouping. Specifically, Australia and New Zealand, which have been a part of Atlantic alliances since 1917; and Japan and South Korea, which for decades have been indirect allies and members of extended Atlantic economic structures such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Group of Eight.
NATO would have welcomed them during the Cold War if they had wanted to join; for diplomatic reasons they couldn't then, and still can't outright, so they will not become formal members at this stage but partners. Read More