by Ron Raskin
For more than a century, people have tried to build a democratic alliance — a kind of confederation of free nations, or what you might call a “league of nations.” But this attempt, in its second edition, better known as the UN, which sought to include every nation in the world, has failed tremendously. The UN has become everything but a representative of truth or a place of genuine cooperation. Its effort to reach out to everyone turned it into just another political player and ultimately made it irrelevant.
A more successful attempt was the European Union. Instead of trying to include the entire world, it began with a few neighboring countries and expanded step by step. Yet, as it grew larger, its unity weakened, its efficiency declined, and tensions rose — culminating in dramatic moves such as Brexit.
Alongside these large federation-style projects, there were also more focused efforts. The best known is NATO, the military arm of the broader Atlanticist idea linking Europe and North America. The relationship between Atlanticism and the EU is particularly interesting: Atlanticism focused on the military sphere and did not compete with the EU in governance, while the EU, until recently, avoided competing with NATO on defense and refrained from building its own army.
Nevertheless, even a highly specialized structure like NATO has recently become fragile. On one side, countries such as Turkey have shifted from being reliable allies to becoming potential threats to Western democracies; on the other, relations between the US and the EU have grown strained. The result has been the emergence of smaller military blocs, such as Weimar+, announced last February in response to shifts in US foreign policy during the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War.
The first attempt to build a truly Western coalition — one that included North America, Europe, and also Oceania, represented by Japan — was the G7. Though informal and lacking real authority, it functions as a kind of “proto-government” of the Western Coalition, a forum where the most influential Western nations can discuss their common strategy across different areas.
When looking at all these examples and their problems, the most natural questions to ask, if we are ever to create a Western coalition of democracies, are:
- Who should be part of this coalition?
- What functions and authority should it have?
- Is it actually possible, or just a dream — and if it is possible, then how do we actually make it happen?
Let me begin with the most obvious question: why would anyone want to join something larger? Each of us should ask this. The price is clear: less independence for one’s own nation. So my answer is that it only becomes relevant when there is external pressure — when there is something much larger than you. For example, if faced with a billion-strong Islamic supernation, unity would be necessary to stand against it.
What makes such unity possible is the degree of similarity among the people in the union — similarity in values, culture, interests, and so on.
That leads us to the next question: who should be part of such a union? Clearly, it cannot be based on language alone. So what would define it? Common history, geographical proximity, shared culture, the same religion? Personally, I believe it should be based on core values such as democracy, freedom, humanity, and the pursuit of knowledge and education.
Why values? Why not religion, culture, or history as the foundation? First, because values are the only true differentiator between Western nations and the rest. Remove them from the equation, and suddenly Russia is “in,” while Japan is “out.” Second, if you base unity on nationalism, you don’t get a coalition—you get fragmentation. Third, values are the only common denominator broad enough to unite a bloc of roughly one billion people, capable of facing the challenges ahead: China with 1.3 billion, and Islam with 2 billion. To see this more clearly, imagine you live in the EU and ask yourself three questions that will clarify your true identity: European, liberal, or citizen of the world
- If you had only two choices—send your son to war with a high probability of death, or move your family to another EU country—which would you choose?
- If the choices were instead between sending your son to that same war, or relocating your family to Japan or South Korea, which would you choose?
- And if the choice were between that war and living under ISIS rule, which would you choose?
The very same questions, of course, could be asked in US, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Israel
The second big question is: what kind of functions and authority should such a union actually have? There are a few different models we can look at. One option is a topic-oriented union, like NATO, which is focused almost entirely on the military. Another option is something closer to the UN, where countries can meet, discuss, and cooperate on almost any subject — but with very limited authority, which also means very limited ability to act. Then there’s the idea of a confederation, where members agree on a formal framework and delegate certain powers to a central body. And finally, there’s the federation model, where the central authority has far more control than in a confederation.
If I had to pick, I would lean toward the confederation model. To me, it looks like the best balance between national sovereignty and effective cooperation. In this setup, only four areas of authority would be delegated to the center: military, law and judiciary, economy, and foreign policy. To give an idea of how this might work: each country would still control its own military but would be obligated to provide support if another member requested it. Each nation could also keep its own legal system, but there would be a shared subset of laws imposed by the central authority. And when it comes to foreign policy — probably the most centralized part — the key question is, of course: who makes the decisions, and by what process?
My view is that any decision should be based on what I call weighted voting. This means that if an issue is more important to one part of the union, that nation’s vote should carry more weight. The way to measure this is through national polls. For example, if one nation supports an action by 90% to 10%, while the rest are split roughly 55% to 45% (in other words, fairly neutral), then clearly the issue is much more important to the first nation. Accordingly, its vote should count for more than just one. An exact formula could be developed later to measure how far a national position is from neutral and to assign weight accordingly.
But before even trying to create such a coalition, one essential step has to come first: aligning the vision and interests of the nations involved. Right now, there are three major rifts dividing the Western world.
- Liberalism vs. Conservatism: On the far left, the vision is a world where people share a single common identity — “citizens of the world.” The ultimate goal here is something like a global league of nations. But every coin has two sides. If people see themselves only as “global citizens,” they stop identifying with their own nations — and that is exactly where the right wing pushes back, promoting conservatism in order to strengthen national identity and the will to defend it. Consequently, far right nationalists tend to prefer a coalition built not on abstract values such as democracy — which they often view as desirable but not an end in itself — but rather on common culture: Christianity, European heritage, and shared traditions. Real support for a values-based coalition comes from the political center, where liberalism is seen in its classic form—working alongside moderate conservatism and standing for democracy.
- How to deal with Islamism: Here the split is also clear. The far left, rooted in the “people of the world” idea, is essentially ready to assimilate — hoping that by erasing differences, they erase the causes of conflict. The political center takes another approach: contain Islamism and wait for it to collapse from within, just as communism eventually did. That’s why both the far left and the center often end up either denying Israel’s right to exist or pressuring it to back down in its war against Hamas in Gaza. The right, on the other hand, believes the only way forward is to strengthen Western identity in order to face the challenge — and so it tends to support Israel in the conflict.
- How to deal with Russia: This one is even more complicated. On the far right, some conservatives view Russia as a European nation trying to reinforce its identity, and therefore a potential ally rooted in shared history and culture. On the opposite side, the far left also shows a certain level of “understanding” toward Russian aggression — seeing it as a reaction, a kind of boomerang effect of the West’s past successes and dominance. The political center, however, sees things more plainly: Russia’s actions are aggression, and they must be stopped in order to protect European interests.
So, as mentioned earlier, the first step has to be alignment between the different sides. To some extent, I think this will happen naturally as history unfolds — political groups will slowly converge toward a similar perception of reality and, as a result, a similar vision of how to move forward. But such a natural process may take too long. If we want to speed it up, we need to actively encourage this convergence through stronger internal communication and open discussion. This can be achieved by encouraging efficient communication on multiple levels:
- Mass media level: We need to create a shared, unbiased information space, where the public in different nations can access reliable information that accurately reflects other nations’ perspectives and their approaches to addressing global challenges.
- Elite level: Academics, philosophers, and other key influencers should be able to collaborate across borders, ideally under the umbrella of cross-border institutions that facilitate open exchange of ideas.
- Political level: Government delegates should manage structured and effective discussions across nations, ensuring coordination and dialogue at the policy-making level.
This is the real prerequisite and the foundation on which any Western coalition must be built.
At the same time, it makes sense for such a coalition to begin with a relatively small group of nations outside the EU — countries that genuinely feel the need for it. The most natural candidates today would be the US under Trump’s leadership, Israel, South Korea, and Taiwan. Including the UK would also be highly beneficial.
Israel, South Korea, and Taiwan are moderate conservative nations that urgently need a coalition. They also have very different histories and cultures, which means that any alliance among them would be rooted in the basic shared values I described earlier. The US and UK are natural allies, and having the UK involved would help guarantee that democracy stays a core value of the coalition, providing a strong foundation with a broad common denominator for other nations to join later.
Later on, other moderate conservative nations already within the EU could join as well, such as Hungary and Italy. Hopefully, countries like Canada and Japan — which today are not part of any formal coalition — will also come on board. Eventually, the rest of the Western nations, including the entire EU, could join too. (Whether the EU would join as a bloc or allow each member state to participate individually — which would effectively dismantle the EU — would be for them to decide)
In terms of priorities, the first areas of cooperation should be the economy and foreign policy, followed by military cooperation and judicial matters.
Another path could be to start from the EU and expand outward. The challenge, however, is that most of the major EU nations today are left-leaning, and it’s hard to see how they could align in the near future with “frontier nations” such as Israel, South Korea, and Taiwan. Quite possibly, what we’ll actually see is the growth of two Western coalitions, with some nations “voting with their feet” by moving from one to the other — eventually leading to the creation of a single, true Western coalition.