91Èȱ¬

There's a rather interesting debate under way - just below the radar for now, but attracting increasing attention among foreign policy scholars and analysts - about whether the world needs a more effective institution than the United Nations.

The problem with the UN, according to its critics, is that any old nation can join - and every member has a vote. Yes, including Burma, Zimbabwe, north Korea and sundry other places whose governments don't exactly meet with universal approval.

So why not set up another body, whose members would have to pass certain agreed political standards? The US Republican party's presumptive presidential nominee, John McCain, has been championing the idea of what he calls a "League of Democracies".

This is what he said in March: "If I am elected president, I will call a summit of the world's democracies in my first year to seek the views of my democratic counterparts and begin exploring the practical steps necessary to [create a League of Democracies] ...This organisation could act when the UN fails to act--to relieve human suffering in places such as Darfur, combat HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, fashion better policies to confront environmental crises, provide unimpeded market access to those who endorse economic and political freedom, and take other measures unattainable by existing regional or universal-membership systems."

But he's not the only one toying with the idea - so is Barack Obama, and according to today's , so too is the British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, whom it quotes as saying: "You can see the dangers. You don't want to set up something which undermines the ability of the international system to get to grips with difficult issues. Equally though . . . should people with the same values work effectively together? The answer must be yes."

The FT's foreign affairs commentator is not impressed. "Almost all of America's closest democratic allies have deep reservations about a league of democracies. The Europeans are committed to the UN and would be loath to join an alliance that undermined it. They are also suspicious of America's democratic evangelism."

And a former British ambassador to the United Nations, , writes: "The real conversation-stopper, which none of the proponents of the league seems to have addressed, is the improbability that the great democracies of the developing world (India, Brazil, South Africa, and so on) would be prepared to sign up for the journey. A brief survey of the United Nations voting records of the three developing countries I have mentioned would reveal that they are among the most anti-interventionist of all UN members and the most hesitant about authorising the use of force. Have any of the champions of a league of democracies thought to ask the Indians or Brazilians what they think about the idea?"

So is it a non-starter? I'm not so sure. Look at , for example, which expects of its members that they will have achieved what it calls "certain goals in the political and economic fields". These include "settling any international, ethnic or external territorial disputes by peaceful means; demonstrating a commitment to the rule of law and human rights; establishing democratic control of their armed forces; and promoting stability and well-being through economic liberty, social justice and environmental responsibility."

Or take the , which has what it calls "Copenhagen criteria" which need to be adopted by all aspiring EU members: "Membership requires that a candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and, protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union."

So there's nothing all that outrageous about international institutions setting out rules for membership. The big problem with the "League of Democracies" idea, it seems to me, is that it risks once again dividing the world into two blocs of nations, much as it was during the Cold War. In one bloc, you could have much of north and south America and Asia, and nearly all of Europe (not including Byelorus), plus some of Africa; in the other bloc, Russia, China and all of the Arab world, where there isn't a single functioning democracy (Lebanon and Palestine come closest, but neither is in great shape at the moment).

says: "The trouble with this idea is that it risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. America's relationships with China and Russia are complicated and ambiguous -- with elements of both competition and co-operation. But the formation of a league of democracies would harden antagonisms and might even be seen as the launching of a new cold war."

For now, the debate is being conducted largely in the US. I wonder how long it'll be before it takes off on this side of the Atlantic as well.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The UK is ready to support "any and all" United Nations action to help the people of Burma. So said foreign secretary David Miliband in the House of Commons.

But what does that mean in practice? Well, it seems it includes - at least in theory - the possibility of using military force to get help to the many thousands of people who desperately need it after the devastating cyclone 10 days ago.

I spoke to him at length yesterday for a special edition of The World Tonight in which we undertook a detailed examination of British foreign policy: what it is, and what it should be.

I asked him about the newly-adopted United Nations doctrine known as the "responsibility to protect" - or R2P in the jargon - which lays down that the international community has a responsibility to act to protect people who are at risk of genocide or ethnic cleansing. But might it also apply in cases of natural disaster?

"It certainly could," said Mr Miliband, "and we have been absolutely clear in New York over the last 12 days that all instruments of the UN should be available."

So I asked about sending in military escorts for aid convoys, even without the consent of the Burmese authorities. You could try it, he said, but don't forget that the Burmese army is something like 400,000 strong. "No one should think that there is an easy or quick answer to this ... but all options are being looked at."

The Miliband vision of what Britain's foreign policy should be based on is made up of four distinct elements, which he labels (i) counter-terrorism; (ii) preventing and resolving conflicts; (iii) encouraging a transition to a high growth, low carbon economy; and (iv) reforming international institutions.

We discussed them all - and you can hear the programme by clicking here.

I'd be interested to know what you think.

UPDATE: There's an interesting contribution to the Burma intervention debate by Martin Jacques on The Guardian's Comment is Free blog .

UPDATE: There are FCO transcripts of my conversation with the Foreign Secretary and .

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

BALI -- It may surprise you to learn - there again, it may not - that from time to time we journalists like to get together and think for a day or two about what we do and how we do it. And that's what I've been doing this week, so I hope you'll forgive a rare bout of navel-gazing.

It's more than just narcissism, of course. Because for better or for worse, we journalists can influence how you think of the world we live in. The stories we choose to report, the words we use to report them, the pictures we choose to broadcast - all play their part in shaping your perceptions of what's going on.

The conference I've been at had as its theme "Ethical journalism in extreme conditions" - and it was attended by more than 130 of us from 60 countries, all the way from Afghanistan to Venezuela. And what I found most interesting was listening to journalists from countries which are or have been mired in conflict - Sri Lanka, Kenya, Israel/Palestine, and in Aceh, here in Indonesia - about how they cope with living and working in "extreme conditions".

What does a journalist do when his own government (Sri Lankan in this case) denounces him for having "raped the truth" and published "reportage most foul" about military casualties in a recent battle? How does he react when he is accused of playing a "feverish role in the terrorist propaganda machine" and when armed men have burst into his home?

What do Kenyan journalists do when their country is engulfed in post-election violence and they know that what they publish could exacerbate the tensions? The choice, said one of them, was information, or inflammation: so were they right not to publish the tribal/ethnic identities of the victims and perpetrators of the violence? Did they short-change their readers? Maybe, but was it for a greater good?

And how did Indonesian journalists react during delicate and secret peace talks designed to end a bloody secessionist war in the province of Aceh? When they got hold of some secret documents, but the government said the talks would be derailed if the material was published, what should they have done? Publish and be damned? Or accept the government's judgement that something greater than an exclusive story was at stake?

None of these is an easy question to answer - but for these journalists, they were real, immediate dilemmas that they had to decide under great pressure and at a time of great tension. No journalist expects sympathy - after all, we all choose to do what we do with our eyes open - but I thought you might be interested in some of the issues that go beyond our more parochial British concerns.

The conference was co-sponsored by the Norwegian and Indonesian governments, and in his introductory address, the deputy Norwegian culture minister Wegard Harsvik quoted Albert Camus: "The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance."

He went on to say: "Good journalism can help us understand. It can help us understand conflicts, both near and far. And good journalism can help us understand precisely which conflicts really are far away and which are closer than they seem. It can help us understand which conflicts we are part of ourselves and which we are not - because sometimes we are not even aware that we are part of a wider conflict. But local actions can have global effects, as illustrated by the [Danish] cartoons controversy, climate change, and increasing food prices."

And it's not only conflicts, of course. Good journalism should help us understand the world we live in, why it is as it is, the factors that shape it. Conferences rarely solve problems, but they do sometimes help identify them. And sharing experiences is never a bad thing to do, especially in a place as beautiful as Bali.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

If you've read anything at all following the Democratic party primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, you will know that the universal consensus among the punditocracy is that Barack Obama is now all but assured of his party's nomination.

But if you've been paying close attention to my occasional US Election Survival Guides, you may just recall that way back in February - which by the standards of this year's campaign, is equivalent to when dinosaurs roamed the earth - I predicted that the Democrats would win the presidential election in November.

So, if I'm going to stick to my guns, that must mean that I now expect Senator Obama to be the next President of the United States.

Do I?

Yes.

Here's why (and I confess my reasons have as much to do with my finely-honed political instincts as with any detailed numbers-based analysis):

1. The Iraq situation is not good, and may well be worse by November. That is not good news for Senator John McCain (nor for the Iraqis, of course), who has consistently backed the Bush administration's strategy.
2. After eight years with a Republican in the White House, I have a strong feeling that many American voters are ready for a change. That's not an easy sell for a 71-year-old Republican.
3. The Obama campaign has raised huge amounts of cash - and just as important, has acquired an enviable data-base of supporters, activists and voters. That will be invaluable as the election approaches.
4. Despite the internal divisions that inevitably emerged during the interminable Obama-Clinton primaries slug-fest, there is a grass-roots enthusiasm for Obama which McCain will find it hard to match.
5. Obama has improved immeasurably as a candidate over the past six months; McCain has had little to do since February. If they were boxers, you'd say Obama had simply done a lot more training.
6. And, oh happy coincidence, if, as everyone expects, Barack Obama does win the nomination, he will deliver his acceptance speech at the party convention in Denver on 28 August. Which just happens to be the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. Watch this space ...

And if you really want some numbers, of the last six published opinion polls, four suggest that Obama would beat McCain in November, although admittedly all but one of them showed his lead as being within the margin of error. (Five out of the six showed that Clinton would beat McCain too, but again, all within the margin of error. And as per above, a Clinton-McCain fight is now looking increasingly academic.)

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I'm far from convinced by the theories going around that the Josef Fritzl incest case tells us something deeply disturbing about Austria.

Is it its Nazi past? Its supposed penchant for secrecy? A small-town cosiness between local businessmen and government officials?

Or is it just that unfortunately there are people who do appalling things, regardless of their nationality or hometown?

Did the Fred and Mary West case tell us something about Gloucester? (They were accused of torturing, raping and murdering at least 12 young women in that otherwise unremarkable English town.)

Did the Marc Dutroux case, who was convicted of similar offences in Belgium, tell us something about that country?

Did the recent removal of more than 400 children from a cult commune where they are alleged to have been abused tell us something about Texas?

Not far from where I live in London, a serial killer called Dennis Nilsen murdered 15 men at his home in the late 1970s and early 1980s -- does that tell us something sinister about my north London suburb?

Nowhere did neighbours raise the alarm or express concerns; nowhere did the local authorities step in. Perhaps Austria is no different from anywhere else.

I understand the desire to try to find explanations for such horrors. But I do wonder if the real, perhaps unpalatable, truth is that sometimes there are no explanations.

What do you think?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?