Davos: Clinton/What's up? Whose "Democracy" ?

I slept on it last night, trying to make sense of the "something" I detected Bill Clinton was dancing around in that tape; I remember something I blogged a year ago. (03/20/04)

There was a "brawl" so to speak over the word "Democracy". And then in March 2004, I received word of two different organizations:

Republicans have one, I subscribe to, called: Foundation for the Defense of Democracy

Democrats have one too, called "Council for a Community of Democracies" which of course links to George Soros' Linking the Community of Democracies with Millenium Challenge Accounts


One year ago, Saturday, March 20, 2004 - I blogged snips from a piece written by Jonathan Rauch, a senior writer for National Journal magazine on the matter of a newer organization to possibly replace the dysfunctional UN, named: Community of Democracies -- or commonly, democracy caucus.

"Today, however, more than 60 percent of the world's countries are electoral democracies. Today it is absurd for Burma to vote as the moral and legal equivalent of Belgium; more absurd for Cuba and Zimbabwe to be members in good standing of the U.N. Human Rights Commission; and more absurd still for Libya to chair that commission, as it did last year. "

"To add injury to insult, democracies at the U.N. are disproportionately weak. The U.N. is dominated by a cluster of regional and ideological caucuses. African countries, for example, are pressured to vote together, with undemocratic governments often calling the shots and democracies going along to get along. Tyrants thus routinely exempt themselves from human-rights resolutions, while log-rolling ensures that condemnations of Israel sail through."

"Today, however, more than 60 percent of the world's countries are electoral democracies. Today it is absurd for Burma to vote as the moral and legal equivalent of Belgium; more absurd for Cuba and Zimbabwe to be members in good standing of the U.N. Human Rights Commission; and more absurd still for Libya to chair that commission, as it did last year."

"The Bush State Department then began lobbying Community of Democracy nations in a series of diplomatic lunches..."

Hold it right there. "Bush State Department". Um, which partisan side of the "Bush" State Department is promoting this org? Read the article and it says "Democrat" all over it. Furthermore, how independent Chile continues to exist remains to be seen.

"But consider the long-term potential. By the time the Community of Democracies becomes strong enough to act coherently inside the U.N., it will also be strong enough to act coherently outside the U.N. It will contain most of the world's countries, including most of the strong ones. It will be unencumbered by the vetoes of tin-pot tyrannies. As it gains confidence and skill, it will attract money and authority. It may sprout an aid budget, a relief program, a peacekeeping arm, perhaps treaty powers. "