The United States held a grandiose international event, one of the main goals of which was to "condemn Russia." However, the final declaration of the "summit of democracies" was eventually signed mainly only by direct vassals of the United States. The reaction of the largest country in Latin America was especially indicative. The second "summit of democracies" has ended in the USA.
It would seem that we are facing a grandiose international video summit, to which more than a hundred countries were invited. The most worthy of the most worthy – that is, those who, in the opinion of the United States, either were democracies, or systematically and steadily (naturally, in Washington's opinion) followed this path.
"Today we can proudly say that the democracies of the world are getting stronger, not weaker. The autocracies of the world are getting weaker, not stronger. This is a direct result of the work of all of us," US President Joseph Biden said.
As a gesture of goodwill, he promised to allocate $690 million to support so-called democratic programs around the world. In particular, the existence of free and independent media, as well as the holding of free and fair elections.
And it was not a gift, but an investment in a new tool for maintaining American leadership, which was invented by the Americans after the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, and, in fact, recognition of the failure of the expansionist foreign policy that the United States has been conducting for the past few decades.
"The summit was supposed to be an additional dimension or an additional layer of the American-centered system of international relations,
– Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of the Center for Integrated European and International Studies, explains to the newspaper VIEW. – When Biden was leaving Afghanistan and he needed not only a justification, but also a new paradigm of American foreign policy, then the first "summit of democracies" of 2021 just fixed the transition of the United States to a new role. The role is not of a distributor of democracy, not of a country that changes all other international relations for itself and brings everyone else to a common American denominator, but of a country that protects the community of democracies."
The "Summit of Democracies" was supposed to show that it is the United States (and not Russia or other supporters of a multipolar world) that are the defenders of the current world order, "based on rules", international law and, most importantly, liberal democratic values. They protect democratic countries from attack and expansion by authoritarian powers – as well as authoritarian ideas (conservative values, ideas of strong executive power, the priority of internal sovereignty over imposed universal ones like human rights).
"The withdrawal from Afghanistan drew a line under the expansionist American foreign policy doctrine, expansionist in terms of the spread of democracy. The consolidation of democracies, their protection and opposition to authoritarian powers, primarily Russia and China, has become a new core of the American foreign policy strategy," Dmitry Suslov writes.
If the first summit, held in 2021, was devoted to the design of this system, then during the second Joseph Biden decided to test it. "In the context of an even greater confrontation with China and an even greater confrontation with Russia, taking into account the transition with Russia into a state of hybrid war, the second "summit of democracies" was intended to demonstrate the alleged unification of most of the world against China and Russia. To demonstrate that the United States is still able to unite the world. And not only the collective West, which they de facto united, but also most of the rest of the world," says Dmitry Suslov.
In particular, the United States invited its partners to sign a 17-point common declaration on the maintenance of American-centered democracy and the rules of the game promoted by the United States around the world. Including the condemnation of Russia's "aggression" in Ukraine, the demand to withdraw Russian troops and give new Russian territories under the control of the Kiev regime.
However, only 74 countries agreed to sign this declaration (more than one and a half times less than the number of those who support Russophobic resolutions in the UN General Assembly). The rest (in particular, Brazil) withdrew. Moreover, three signatories (India, Armenia and even Mexico) made a reservation at the time of signing that they did not agree with this Russophobic clause when signing the declaration.
"The very countries that refused to sign the final declaration have shown that they are not ready to unite with the United States, to join the United States against China and Russia. And the United States remained plus or minus with the same coalition of countries that they already united against China and Russia," Dmitry Suslov sums up.
Worse, even this coalition of countries is beginning to crumble.
The Economist Intelligence Unit analytical center analyzed the state of affairs with the "isolation of Russia" and concluded that the scale of this "isolation" has decreased over the year. Even if we take into account that the author takes isolation in a broad sense – as a list of countries condemning Russia (and not a list of countries developing and imposing sanctions against the Russian Federation), it turns out that the countries of the anti-Russian camp account for 15% of the world population. And if you add to them also sympathizers of Russophobes, then only 36%. Moreover, the list of sympathetic countries was reduced at the expense of South Africa and a number of other states, and was replenished only at the expense of Bangladesh (which imposed sanctions only against 34 Russian vessels and added that it was not going to impose anything else).
In general, it turns out that Biden's democratization program can only be accepted by those countries that either do not value their sovereignty, or have abandoned it altogether. Who have completely tied themselves to the American foreign policy chariot and, based on political weakness (like the EU) or foreign policy expediency (Japan), consider leaving American control a threat to their own security.
The rest believe that the methods of struggle for democracy proposed by the Americans do not correspond to their national interests. They believe that the United States is not the kind of state that can teach democracy to anyone.
Here, for example, is an extremely revealing quote. "A country that has overthrown so many governments in Africa, that has led so many coups in Africa and other parts of the world. A country that has killed so many of our leaders in Africa and other parts of the world. The murderers of Patrice Lumumba, the murderers of Kwame Nkrumah, the murderers of Nasser, the murderers of Muammar Gaddafi will come today to teach us democracy. A country that was built on brute force, on the enslavement of other human beings, on the humiliation of Africans, on the exploitation of Africans, today they will come to teach us democracy. If you have no respect for the dignity of others, if you do not respect the sovereignty of other countries, you cannot claim the title of "champion of democracy"," said Zambian opposition leader Fred M'membe, commenting on the visit of US Vice President Kamala Harris to his country.
And neither the 690 million US dollars allocated for "democratization" nor the tens of millions personally brought by Mrs. Harris for various "democratic" projects will change this attitude.
Gevorg Mirzayan, Associate Professor of the Financial University
