Back to Gideon RachmanRobert Kagan fires back at me over the League of Democracies in today’s FT.
He purports to be baffled that I should waste my time writing about the league when there are other more urgent issues to discuss - Georgia, Burma etc…Actually, I’ve written about both of these subjects in the past - and I’m sure I will again. But I think Kagan is too modest. His idea of a League of Democracies is being pushed hard by John McCain, who has a strong chance of being the next US president. So it is surely worth discussing?
Reading Kagan’s commentary today, I’m struck by how much we agree on. (There are also disagreements, which I’ll get onto in a moment.)
Both our columns ended on the same point. This is obviously not an idea that the US can impose. If European and Asian democracies are not attracted to the League of Democracies, then nothing is going to happen. Kagan also makes much of the fact that the idea of an alliance of democracies has got a lot of support among American liberals. Again, this is a point I made - in fact we cite some of the same names.
So let’s get onto the more interesting stuff: the disagreements. I think the most obvious dispute is over whether this is a potentially “dangerous” idea.
Bob Kagan attempts to be soothing on this point. He writes that the idea of a league of democracies producing a ”new cold war” is “unduly alarmist”. But he doesn’t really explain why it is unduly alarmist.
It seems to me that if - as Mr McCain suggests - we chucked Russia out of the G8, and invite India and Brazil to join, while excluding China - that would sharply increase antagonisms between democracies and autocracies. Phrases like a “new cold war” are slippery. But, call it what you will, it would be the deliberate re-introduction of a much sharper, dividing line between two global blocs. And yet - as I pointed out in my original article - we actually need to work with the Russians and Chinese on a whole range of issues from non-proliferation to global warming to the management of the international economy.
It may be that we are fated to have an increasingly antagonistic relationship with Russia and China. But why jump the gun? Why not try and put the emphasis on co-operation rather than confrontation?
Bob Kagan holds out the prospect that a League of Democracies would make it easier to stage humanitarian military interventions around the world, without being blocked by the UN. But would it really? Would this League of Democracies really be willing to invade Burma - right on China’s borders - in the name of disaster relief?
Kagan’s article also attempts to re-assure on the question of the UN. He scorns the notion that the league would try to “supplant the UN”. Well, it depends what you mean by supplant. I don’t imagine that the UN would actually be shut down. But American conservatives have long been deeply suspicious and contemptuous of the UN. There clearly is a strong anti-UN agenda behind the idea of the League of Democracies - at least as set out in McCain’s speeches. Simply denying this, merely raises suspicions among fellow democracies that there is a hidden agenda behind the idea of a democratic alliance.
So is the idea of a League of Democracies doomed for all time? Not necessarily. But I think the league will only take off, if and when the world’s democracies become convinced that they face a common threat that is so obvious and dangerous that it is worth forming a new alliance to confront a League of Autocracies. Fortunately, we are still a long way from that.
This blog covers a variety of topics from US foreign policy to European politics and the Middle East - and whatever else happens to be in the news or catch my attention. I joined the FT as chief foreign affairs commentator in 2006, after a 15-year career at The Economist which included stints as a correspondent in Brussels, Bangkok and Washington. I write a weekly column on foreign affairs, which appears in the paper on Tuesdays. Occasionally my FT colleagues contribute posts to this blog.
Geoff Dyer is the FT's China bureau chief. He has been a correspondent in Shanghai and in Brazil and has also covered the pharmaceuticals and biotechnology industries from London.
Roula Khalaf is the FT's Middle East editor. She has worked for the FT since 1995, first as North Africa correspondent, then Middle East correspondent and most recently as Middle East editor. Before joining the FT, she was a staff writer for Forbes magazine in New York. 
James Blitz is the FT's defence and diplomatic editor. He has been the FT's political editor, based in London, and Rome bureau chief. James is a former Moscow bureau chief for the Sunday Times.
Alan Beattie is the FT's world trade editor. He has previously been economics leader writer and spent two years in Washington DC as chief US economics correspondent. Before joining the FT, Alan was an economist at the Bank of England. 
Victor Mallet is the FT's Madrid correspondent. He is a former Asia editor of the FT, and, in more than 20 years at the organisation, has also worked in Africa, Europe and the Middle East. In 1990 he escaped from Kuwait after being one of the few foreign correspondents there when Iraq invaded. 
Stefan Wagstyl is the FT's eastern Europe editor, co-ordinating coverage of the region. He has also been the FT's bureau chief in Tokyo and New Delhi.