G what?

The previous blog post discussed the need for a renewed concert of developed democracies. What, in practice would this look like?

Lets start with the existing G7: the US, Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy and Canada. Add in Spain, which today has a bigger GDP than Canada, and South Korea and Australia to take into account rich democratic Asia. Defining 'developed' as a GDP per capita of at least $25,000 per annum by purchasing power parity, and measuring clout by total nominal GDP, and we would thus have gathered together the world's ten most powerful developed democracies. Throw in a seat to represent the EU as a whole and that would leave us with a G11.

Such an arrangement would bring together two-fifths of global GDP and four-fifths of global military spending. Its purpose would be to coordinate policy among developed democracies to give their positions greater weight within the broader multilateral institutions now emerging, particularly in their areas of non-proliferation, But it would leave out developing democracies of increasing significance, most notably Brazil, India and South Africa. Most proposals for a concert of democracies are explicitly designed to bring these emerging powers on board. But this assumes that the foreign policy alignments of developing democracies are informed more by their 'democratic' nature than there 'developing' nature, and this is manifestly false. India, for example, is the world's largest democracy. But its desire to develop trumps concerns over the environment or qualms over support for the brutal regime in Myanmar, and it became the first country to distort its civilian nuclear industry for military purposes in the 1970s. India, looking out at the world, has more in common with autocratic emerging powers than the already developed democracies of Europe, North America or East Asia-Pacific. Then-President George Bush's attempts to tempt it into a new American orientation during his second term in office only succeeded in blurring and damaging the Non-Proliferation Treaty, not in affirming it.

This is not to say that the developed democracies should make any new group they form exclusive, except in terms of clout and goals. Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, India and so forth, should be allowed and indeed encouraged to join if they prove willing to push for non-proliferation, environmental protection and an end to human rights abuses worldwide, but these goals will get lost if such countries are begged to sign up for the sake of democratic-solidarity alone. Agreement on such goals cannot be taken as a simple corrolary of a democratic political system, even if the emerging democratic powers would prove an invaluable asset to their attainment should they use their influence to such ends. Until then, the developed democracies of the world must push such causes alone, and must organise to do so.