It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Since C. K. Streit wrote Union Now, the established democracies have indeed developed substantial institutions for managing their common affairs and meeting their responsibilities in the world at large. The postwar U.S. strategy of integrating an initial group of democratic countries led, as we know, to the institutionalization of the Atlantic Alliance through NATO and its Parliamentary Assembly, and to support for other emerging inter-democracy institutions, such as the OECD, EU, International Energy Agency, G8, and others. These institutions, in keeping with the Union Now concept, worked as a magnet, attracting other countries to democratize and join.
The world’s established democracies still have – as when Union Now was published – the greatest power and influence in the world when working together. As citizens of these democracies we continue to bear great responsibilities: to strengthen our joint institutions and thus stabilize the international system – to promote common human concerns more effectively and consistently, at both regional and global levels.
Originally posted by National_Insecurity
i would like for someone to inform me as to the pro and cons of these sort of unions such as the "nau" and league of democracies. why do we have such a strong negative view to this here on ats ?
Originally posted by starwarp2000
reply to post by BetweenMyths
Please oh please don't let it happen LOL
All jokes aside do you really think America will give up their sovereignty to join a "Union" with Europe?
Who would lead and who would follow?
Both have their own ideas of what democracy is and both are incompatible.