The summit he called will be held Biden, last November, as part of his efforts to defend democracy in the world, a promise he made during his presidential campaign.
The summit is based on 3 main goals: defending against tyranny, fighting corruption, and promoting respect for human rights, according to the US State Department’s website.
Biden is scheduled to call for a second summit a year later, to review the progress made compared to the pledges made by representatives of countries at the first summit.
‘America is not the best’
But even before the first summit was held, criticism chased it from all sides. The American magazine “Foreign Policy” considered that the summit might be counterproductive.
She added that there are risks involved in the summit to gather diplomats from dozens of countries without a clear goal.
In principle, the American Journal considers that there is nothing wrong with holding the democracies in the world to a summit to promote liberal ideas, and one might consider it an urgent task at a time when you are living democracy It is under siege in several places and faces major challenges such as social networking.
However, one has to question the feasibility of moving forward with this idea now, especially since the ultimate goal of the meeting seems unclear.
Foreign Policy asked: Is the summit supposed to result in tangible results and new commitments or programs with a measurable impact on the strength of democracy around the world? Or is it a panel discussion that produces glamorous statements, but produces few results?
The magazine considered that United State It is not the best place to host such a summit, as America is currently classified as a “flawed democracy” even before the election of the former American president. Donald TrumpAnd nothing has happened to rectify that, as one of the country’s two main parties refuses to accept the results of the 2020 elections.
The magazine said that if Washington’s main problem is the increasingly ascendant China, the United States cannot be selective about who its friends are. From a strategic perspective, welcoming Angola to the top and ignoring Singapore is short-sighted.
And she believed that in the event that there are goals for Washington from the top as a superpower, the preference for democracy may reduce its influence as a great power, and, in turn, give China an opportunity to attract other countries that will not change its political nature in order to please “Uncle Sam,” and this indicates the results The opposite that the summit might bring.
“Choices According to Interest”
For its part, the British magazine “The Economist” believes that not all those invited to the summit of democracy are democrats.
She said the guest list issued by US State Department It includes 110 countries, noting that the choice relied on US interests more than objective criteria.
For example, Freedom House, a Washington-based institution, publishes an annual list since 1973, assessing the state of the political and civil rights of the world’s nations.
Freedom House’s list categorizes the countries of the world into countries: “free, partly free, or not free.”
But the list of countries invited by Biden to attend the summit includes countries that Freedom House has classified as partially or not free at all, such as Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
In explaining the matter, the “Economist” said that it is related to the Biden administration’s need for regional diversity, so it was invited, like Niger, and strategic considerations also played a role, as countries such as Pakistan and Ukraine have a lackluster record in the field of democracy, but they are strategic partners of the United States.
Although democracy has declined a lot in India and Brazil, they will attend the summit, just because of their political importance to the US administration.
As for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, it focused on the varying priorities of the countries participating in the summit, each with its own challenges that are different from the other.
In its report, the Foundation gives Africa an example of the divergence of priorities, which is participating in 17 countries in the summit. Countries in the Sahel region, such as Burkina Faso, Niger and Mali, are exacerbated by existential challenges, because terrorist movements The flow of weapons especially from Libya engulfed in chaos. In South Africa, the situation is different. It has witnessed a continuous economic and political deterioration in recent years.
In Europe, there is a reluctance to embrace the return of US global leadership, as the European slogan “strategic independence” shows the desire of the European Union to free itself from submission under the leadership of Washington or Beijing, in addition to the fears of some that Biden’s summit and his approach to democracy will lead to the division of the world’s countries into democracies and others. Non-democratic, and this does not take into account the complex situation of the world.
Russia and China criticize
The first criticism came from China and Russia. The ambassadors of the two countries to Washington wrote a joint article denouncing the summit and excluding their country from it.
He considered that the Russian ambassadors, Anatoly Antonov and Chinas Chen Zhang, the summit as “a clear product of the Cold War mentality”, and “will provoke an ideological confrontation and division in the world.”
They emphasized that “democracy is achieved in many ways, so there is no suitable model for all countries.”
The two ambassadors stressed that “no country has the right to judge the political and diverse landscape of the world by one standard.”