The last paragraph of that article makes me laugh at its predictability and tremble at what it could mean for the future. "How to encourage the election of governments not only responsive to their electorates but also to U.S. interests remains the uncharted challenge ahead." What if the desires of the electorates run in direct opposition to some areas of U.S. foreign policy?
The U.S. should accept the fact that there is an organization headquartered on its own soil that is supposed to act in these sort of circumstances, and act through it to promote democracy. However one of the reasons this international body is largely seen as ineffective is because the U.S. keeps spitting in its face and doing whatever they want when they can't get large scale support for their often foolhardy endeavors. Remember Operation Iraqi Freedom and its "coalition of the willing?" That was not the first time the U.S. circumvented dissent in the UN for their modern form of imperialism, and it won't be the last (*ahem* Iran *ahem* DPRK). If the U.S. doesn't have to comply with the UN, why should any other country? That's why the UN is seen as a big joke by a large number of people in the West, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
