# Would a "concert of powers" strategy be better than "American hegemony"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 29, 2007, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-concert-of-powers-strategy-be-better-than-american-hegemony/405954 "2007-05-29T18:08:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-concert-of-powers-strategy-be-better-than-american-hegemony/405954/1 "2007-05-29T18:08:44Z")
In [this article,](http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/beyond_american_hegemony_5381) commentator Michael Lind briefly expounds ideas that appear in much fuller form in his recent book, [_The American Way of Strategy._](http://www.amazon.com/American-Way-Strategy-Michael-Lind/dp/0195308379/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-9877726-4934363?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180460515&sr=8-1) Lind asserts that since the end of the Cold War presidents of **both** parties have been committed to “American hegemony” – the idea that the U.S. should be not only the world’s strongest military power but the only one that matters, to the extent that potential rivals such as Germany and Japan should be kept visibly under our protective umbrella to discourage them from building up their own independent military establishments. Our interventions in the first Gulf War and in Yugoslavia were essentially “reassurance wars” to show our allies that they can rely on American protection. Lind argues that hegemony is the geopolitical strategy that dare not speak its name. From the article: > [@](#): > > Precisely because the hegemony strategy is so alien to American and international foreign policy traditions, and so potentially costly in its open-ended strategic and budgetary commitments, many of its supporters have suggested that it should be kept secret from the wider American public, since it is so at odds with what most Americans think. In the January/February 2007 issue of The National Interest, Daniel Drezner summed up the general public’s view: > > To be sure, Americans are comfortable with the idea of America as a superpower. This does not mean, however, that the public endorses unilateral American leadership… .In every Pew survey since 1993, fewer than 15 percent of Americans endorsed the idea that America should be the “single world leader”… .Americans do not shrink from uses of force to advance security interests, but it is far from the first resort for the public. When acting abroad, polling demonstrates robust American support for acting in concert with allied countries and, to some extent, multilateral institutions." > > Michael Mandelbaum concedes, in his book The Case for Goliath: How America Acts as the World’s Government in the 21st Century, that the case for U.S. global hegemony might not “persuade the American public, which might well reject the proposition that it should pay for providing the world with government services. American citizens see their country’s foreign policy as a series of discrete measures designed to safeguard the interests, above all the supreme interest of physical security, of the United States itself. They have never been asked to ratify their country’s status as the principal supplier of international public goods, and if they were asked explicitly to do so, they would undoubtedly ask in turn whether the United States ought to contribute as much to providing them, and other countries as little, as was the case in the first decade of the twenty-first century.” > > So he concludes that it may be necessary to keep the American public in the dark because “the American role in the world may depend in part on Americans not scrutinizing it too closely.” > > Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, noted in a recent issue that “America is a global power with global reach and responsibilities” and that, as a result, “the United States inevitably will be called upon to act.” Yet, unwilling to explain the actual reasons for military interventions flowing from America’s hegemonic strategy of reassuring allies, dissuading potential peer competitors and preventing proliferation, American presidents and their allies have relied on misleading public rationales: rogue states, terrorists, WMD and genocide. Lind is by no means a leftist or pacifist, BTW. Another of his books, [_Vietnam: The Necessary War,_](http://www.amazon.com/Vietnam-Necessary-Reinterpretation-Americas-Disastrous/dp/0684870274/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-9877726-4934363?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180460732&sr=1-1) argues for exactly the thesis the title implies. In this article, he goes on to argue that a “concert of powers” strategy would be better in the long run than the alternatives: > [@](#): > > In the long run, however, the rise of China – and possibly other new powers like India – is certain to create a multipolar world. At some point the cost of out-spending all other great powers combined will become prohibitive, if it is not already. At that point the hegemony strategy, always unwise, will be unaffordable, and even its proponents will be forced to seek an alternative. > > One might be a balance-of-power strategy that takes the form of an alliance including the United States in a bipolar or multipolar world. Thomas Donnelly, a neoconservative associated with the Project for a New American Century, suggests that a less expensive alternative to U.S. hegemony would be an alliance of the United States, Japan, India and Britain, which he describes as “the de facto plan of the Bush administration, though officials dare not speak its name.” The inclusion of Britain cannot conceal the fact that this is a plan for a U.S.-Japanese-Indian alliance against China. As a response to genuine aggression by China, such an alliance might be necessary. But to create an anti-Chinese alliance merely as a response to the gradual growth of Chinese wealth and power, without any provocation on China’s part, would be to launch – if I may coin a phrase – a “cold war of choice.” Britain is no longer an east Asian power, and India, by cultivating ties with China as well as the United States, has shown no interest in the role assigned to it by some American neoconservatives as America’s junior partner in the encirclement of China. > > Another option favored by some realists and libertarians, an offshore-balancing strategy, is unlikely to be adopted and would be unwise. The offshore-balancing strategy would have the United States intervene only at the last moment to “tip the balance” against one side in a contest among Eurasian great powers – China versus Japan, or Russia versus Germany or the European Union. It would be far better for the United States to maintain a role in diplomacy and security in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, in the hope of defusing conflicts and deterring aggressors, rather than to intervene belatedly, as it did in the two world wars. > > The option that seems to be the best way to preserve America’s global leadership without committing the United States to pursue global hegemony would be a concert-of-power strategy. A concert of power is a coalition of great powers that lack deep divisions among themselves and are willing to cooperate to promote shared security and other common interests. The members of a great-power concert need not be warm friends, but they would not view each other as enemies. > > A concert-of-power strategy would permit the United States to continue to play a role in Eurasian power politics, without any need to treat some Eurasian great powers as allies and others as de facto or formally identified enemies. Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, along with thinkers like Edward House and Walter Lippmann, all saw a concert of power as an alternative to recurrent world wars among rival alliances (they did not imagine that U.S. global hegemony was possible). FDR’s hope for a post-World War II concert of the United States, Britain, the Soviet Union and nationalist China was thwarted. But the conditions are more promising today than they have ever been. The conflicts of interest among the United States, China, Russia, Japan, India, Germany, France and Britain are limited, and they share common interests in combating terrorism, anarchy and aggression by lesser states. > > The concert-of-power strategy is not a magic cure for all problems. Some problems cannot be cured, only ameliorated. And aggression on the part of one or more great powers would make a balance-of-power strategy necessary, if only until the aggressor was defeated or changed its policy. > > It goes without saying that the concert-of-power strategy places limits on U.S. discretion. Unlike the UN Security Council, informal regional concerts of power need not be paralyzed by the recalcitrance of one member. Two or more great powers could cooperate in common efforts, even if others chose not to take part. And America would reserve the right to act unilaterally in unusual circumstances. For the most part, however, the United States should prefer to act in partnership with other military great powers. The sacrifice in flexibility this might entail would be more than compensated for by America’s ability to share the burden of international security in regions outside of North America with non-aggressive regional powers that have a far greater stake in the outcome than the United States itself. Even better, the concert-of-power strategy would permit the United States to maintain its role as a major Asian power, a major European power and a major Middle Eastern power, without the need to wage reassurance wars on behalf of allies, to bankrupt itself on unilateral arms races, to dissuade potential rivals or to pursue coercive non-proliferation in the interests of regional U.S. military hegemony by means of invasions, as in Iraq, or air attacks, like a possible strike against Iran. Is this judgement correct? Could we and should we make permanent almost-allies of China and Russia and India? ---
**Author:** ![Trotsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@Trotsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trotsky)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-concert-of-powers-strategy-be-better-than-american-hegemony/405954/2 "2007-05-29T18:12:57Z")
Allies are temporary, and often so are enemies. For now, Japan, Irsael, and Australia seem safe. Perhaps France can come into the fold. The UK seems to be on the verge of falling into a disaster, so that’s about to change soon. With Harper, Canada is coming back a bit from the depths. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-concert-of-powers-strategy-be-better-than-american-hegemony/405954/3 "2007-05-29T18:18:36Z")
[QUOTE=Trotsky] Perhaps France can come into the fold. [/quote] France is **already** our ally, don’t forget. They might not have supported the Iraq War, but they remain in NATO. [QUOTE=Trotsky] The UK seems to be on the verge of falling into a disaster, so that’s about to change soon. [/QUOTE] Hm? What disaster? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-concert-of-powers-strategy-be-better-than-american-hegemony/405954/4 "2007-05-29T18:22:34Z")
> [@BG](#): > > Is this judgement correct? Could we and should we make permanent almost-allies of China and Russia and India? AFAICT, this isn’t the question you meant to ask. Lind doesn’t seem to be talking about how we should pick “allies”, but whether and how we should recognize other nations as fellow “poles” of global power, rather than just continuing to regard ourselves as an ally-supported hegemon in a basically unipolar world. My take: Well duh. Did anybody really imagine that the unipolar world could last forever? It’s not a question of whether we shift to power-sharing, but when. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-concert-of-powers-strategy-be-better-than-american-hegemony/405954/5 "2007-05-29T19:23:28Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] AFAICT, this isn’t the question you meant to ask. Lind doesn’t seem to be talking about how we should pick “allies”, but whether and how we should recognize other nations as fellow “poles” of global power, rather than just continuing to regard ourselves as an ally-supported hegemon in a basically unipolar world. [/QUOTE] This is how I understood Lind’s argument as well. I am also interested in his distinction between a “balance of power” accomodation vs. “concert of power” active cooperation. The latter, in theory, could be accomplished by the UN, but the charter of that institution implicity granted members of the Security Council _de facto_ hegemonic power; in short, it doesn’t provide an incentive for any Security Council member to build a “concert of power”. The need to eliminate the unipolar view is obvious; the “misleading public rationales” for preserving it have grown so egregious over the past two decades that the US is in danger of becoming the Emperor with no clothes. It would be wise to develop a different option before that day comes, but US leaders rightly believe the American public would find the idea so unpalatable that they would be voted out of power, most likely in favor of someone who supports their jingoism. Thus, the question is how to pursue such a strategy, as I don’t believe simply “leveling with the American people” is going to work. Using the G8 economic group as a springboard to common political cause may be the best solution, one that would no doubt bring an emerging China to the table (IMO China and India are essential to any “concert” strategy). However, the G8 hasn’t really accomplished much in terms of their stated objectives (e.g. Kyoto, debt relief), though that is no doubt caused at least in part by foot-dragging on the part of the US. It’s shortsighted IMO, but I would expect nothing else from most US politicians… ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-concert-of-powers-strategy-be-better-than-american-hegemony/405954/6 "2007-05-29T19:35:48Z")
A concert of powers is frightening to me. I don’t think that a major world war can get started without two or more nations having competitive military strength, and I’m not ready to rely on “peace through mutually assured destruction” as a way of life again. American military hegemony doesn’t seem so bad. The world democracies are relatively stable. I’m not too afraid of massive wars that engulf most of the world and end up with millions of people dead. I guess we probably ought to be afraid if America starts to make a habit of throwing its military around against other democracies, but for the first time in history it seems like the balance of military power isn’t more military power from different nations, but rather the citizens of a freely elected government. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-concert-of-powers-strategy-be-better-than-american-hegemony/405954/7 "2007-05-29T20:50:40Z")
[QUOTE=Mosier] A concert of powers is frightening to me. I don’t think that a major world war can get started without two or more nations having competitive military strength, and I’m not ready to rely on “peace through mutually assured destruction” as a way of life again. [/quote] Of course it can. The unipower can start them, or the smaller powers can form alliances strong enough to challenge it. If America were to go theocratic or fascist, how safe would having a unipower world look then ? [QUOTE=Mosier] American military hegemony doesn’t seem so bad. [/quote] Tell it to the Iraqis. It only looks benign on this end of the gun. [QUOTE=Mosier] The world democracies are relatively stable. I’m not too afraid of massive wars that engulf most of the world and end up with millions of people dead. I guess we probably ought to be afraid if America starts to make a habit of throwing its military around against other democracies, but for the first time in history it seems like the balance of military power isn’t more military power from different nations, but rather the citizens of a freely elected government. [/QUOTE] Are you saying the lives of people in non-democracies don’t count ? And what makes you think America **won’t** attack a democracy if it gets more and more imperialistic ? After all, we’ve overthrown elected leaders before. I do think we need a multipower world; power corrupts, and America is becoming more and more corrupted by it’s power. And from a purely self interested view, playing unipower is a major drain without much return; I seriously doubt America **can** remain a unipower without ruining itself - which would remove it’s unipower status anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-concert-of-powers-strategy-be-better-than-american-hegemony/405954/8 "2007-05-29T20:59:20Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > American military hegemony doesn’t seem so bad. Compared to some of the alternatives, certainly not. The trouble is that American hegemony is not magically self-sustaining. We have to expend an awful lot of resources and sacrifice a lot of good will for the sake of not only maintaining our own military superiority, but actively undermining the efforts of other countries to rival us. Moreover, our own citizens are not willing to acknowledge and support our efforts to sabotage potential rivals. As the OP’s linked article points out, our leaders have to create “misleading public rationales” to justify these efforts on different grounds. We like being the global leader, but we are not willing openly to commit to being the global bully who will do whatever it takes to make sure that nobody can seriously compete with us for economic or military leadership. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-concert-of-powers-strategy-be-better-than-american-hegemony/405954/9 "2007-05-29T21:07:03Z")
I like the notion of a concert of democratic powers. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-concert-of-powers-strategy-be-better-than-american-hegemony/405954/10 "2007-05-29T21:11:05Z")
Yeah. I see France as the cello section, don’t you? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-concert-of-powers-strategy-be-better-than-american-hegemony/405954/11 "2007-05-29T21:11:26Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] I like the notion of a concert of democratic powers. [/QUOTE] But what about a concert that includes non-democratic powers such as China and (let’s be honest) Russia? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-concert-of-powers-strategy-be-better-than-american-hegemony/405954/12 "2007-05-29T21:13:45Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] Yeah. I see France as the cello section, don’t you? 😉 [/QUOTE] Nah. French horns. [::d&r::] ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-concert-of-powers-strategy-be-better-than-american-hegemony/405954/13 "2007-05-29T21:23:16Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] Are you saying the lives of people in non-democracies don’t count ? And what makes you think America **won’t** attack a democracy if it gets more and more imperialistic ? After all, we’ve overthrown elected leaders before. [/QUOTE] Of course I’m not saying that people in non-democracies don’t count. I’m just pointing out that democracies seem to be more successful and stable, and that there isn’t a whole lot of fighting going on between successful, stable nations. I’m also not arguing that America should overthrow elected leaders, or that it was ever justified in doing so. However, I think that the fewer massive military machines exist in the world, the better. In the absence of the possibility of _zero_ imperialistic armies, I’d say _one_ is the next best choice. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-concert-of-powers-strategy-be-better-than-american-hegemony/405954/14 "2007-05-29T21:44:44Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] But what about a concert that includes non-democratic powers such as China and (let’s be honest) Russia? [/QUOTE] What I’d prefer is a concert of democratic powers, with an offer of membership open to nations which _become_ democratic (to some acceptable objective standard of democracy, impartially observed). If the “Concert” had a preponderance of world power, this would act as an _incentive_ to other nations such as China and Russia - to adopt the system of goverance I believe to be most benign of those currently available. Those on the outside of the “Concert” would want _in_, and perhaps would, in pursuit of national self-interest, enact reforms. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-concert-of-powers-strategy-be-better-than-american-hegemony/405954/15 "2007-05-29T21:49:20Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] If the “Concert” had a preponderance of world power, this would act as an _incentive_ to other nations such as China and Russia - to adopt the system of goverance I believe to be most benign of those currently available. Those on the outside of the “Concert” would want _in_, and perhaps would, in pursuit of national self-interest, enact reforms. [/QUOTE] Doubtful. Rulers with lots of power typically don’t just go handing back to their people because they’re shown how much better off they would be. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-concert-of-powers-strategy-be-better-than-american-hegemony/405954/16 "2007-05-29T21:56:16Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] What I’d prefer is a concert of democratic powers, with an offer of membership open to nations which _become_ democratic (to some acceptable objective standard of democracy, impartially observed). If the “Concert” had a preponderance of world power, this would act as an _incentive_ to other nations such as China and Russia - to adopt the system of goverance I believe to be most benign of those currently available. Those on the outside of the “Concert” would want _in_, and perhaps would, in pursuit of national self-interest, enact reforms. [/QUOTE] Actually, I think this would be a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-concert-of-powers-strategy-be-better-than-american-hegemony/405954/17 "2007-05-29T21:56:48Z")
[QUOTE=Mosier] Doubtful. Rulers with lots of power typically don’t just go handing back to their people because they’re shown how much better off they would be. [/QUOTE] Not on the _ruler_, no. But the incentive is there and it may exert some influence over a longer time-frame - and on the _ruled_. As in, “we can languish under ‘benevolent’ rule of Mr. Dictator and be _subject_ to the “Concert of Powers”, or, by getting rid of the dictator - we can _join_ them, and get effective protection from national enemies/have a say in major world decisions”. It adds some “reward” to the risks and rewards calculation involved. Which may not be decisive, but is at least a step in the right direction. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-concert-of-powers-strategy-be-better-than-american-hegemony/405954/18 "2007-05-29T22:11:18Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] What I’d prefer is a concert of democratic powers, with an offer of membership open to nations which _become_ democratic (to some acceptable objective standard of democracy, impartially observed). If the “Concert” had a preponderance of world power, this would act as an _incentive_ to other nations such as China and Russia - to adopt the system of goverance I believe to be most benign of those currently available. Those on the outside of the “Concert” would want _in_, and perhaps would, in pursuit of national self-interest, enact reforms. [/QUOTE] But, as it stands now, the democracies do **not** have a preponderance of world power to that overwhelming a degree, and Russia and China are unlikely to join in any concert conditional upon their democratization; we need to take them as they are. ---
**Author:** ![Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a8b319/32.png) [@Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spatial_Rift_47)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-concert-of-powers-strategy-be-better-than-american-hegemony/405954/19 "2007-05-29T22:53:41Z")
I like the idea of this Concert, but I agree with **BG** in that we can’t force every member government to become a democracy. To do so would display the same arrogance our fearless leader is displaying when he says we can “fix” Iraq. Perhaps we could simply require certain quality of life standards as the criteria for joining the Concert? I have in mind things like: -Low crime rate -Low unemployment rate -Compliance with environmental standards -Low infant mortality rate -Low poverty rate Basically if Country X can take it’s x-ocracy (whatever it may be) and make sure the people are well-fed, housed, employed, and healthy, they can be a member of the Concert. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2007, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-concert-of-powers-strategy-be-better-than-american-hegemony/405954/20 "2007-05-29T22:59:17Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] But, as it stands now, the democracies do **not** have a preponderance of world power to that overwhelming a degree, and Russia and China are unlikely to join in any concert conditional upon their democratization; we need to take them as they are. [/QUOTE] I dunno. Russia and China are very unlikely to act _together_, as their traditional interests directly clash. The democracies acting in _concert_ clearly have a preponderance of world power of either one or the other of them. To allow any such nation into the “concert” while not being a democracy would I fear be to undermine the “concert” frim the start - we already have a perfectly good institution that contains all the powers: namely, the UN. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-a-concert-of-powers-strategy-be-better-than-american-hegemony/405954.md?page=2)