The international virtual "summit for democracy", planned by the US Department of State for December 9-10 and about which Joe Biden spoke during his last year's election campaign, apparently can no longer be held. Lists of friends and foes have been drawn up, the selection of "clean" and "unclean" has been carried out, the agenda drawn up by the White House administration has been approved, and a joint statement by the Americans has been prepared in advance. So, the leaders of 110 states, along with representatives of non-governmental organizations and business, can now formally appear on plasma screens together or in turn, briefly greet each other and peacefully disconnect from the video link.
But even this, in general, a symbolic act was completely denied to Russia and China. Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan were not included in the list of the State Department. All EU countries participate except Hungary. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Sudan and Ethiopia, as well as a number of other countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia are not among those invited. Such, to put it mildly, one-sided and one-sided approach to the perennial and exciting topic leaves no doubt that the United States has finally assumed the role of the godfather, who alone decides who is right and who is wrong, and distributes carrots and sticks to the whole world. The unwanted must now live, in their opinion, with a sore feeling of guilt for their own inferiority.The rest are assigned the role of compromisers and sang along in the united chorus of champions of abstract freedom and democracy.
A negative attitude towards the upcoming event was expressed by the press secretary of the President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Peskov. “This is nothing more than, you know, some kind of attempt to draw some new dividing lines. We fought and fought in the early 1990s to cut and remove these dividing lines. But now the United States, unfortunately, prefers to create new dividing lines and divide the countries into good, in their mind, and bad, also in their mind, ”he said.
Considering that in recent years both Russia and China have clearly become an economic counterweight to American interests in the world, the logic of the White House, which cannot afford to indulge in discussions with strong geopolitical rivals, becomes understandable. And he doesn't care that such a position, according to the same Dmitry Peskov, "does not at all correlate with the general mood in the world." But the dividing line can be deepened by inviting, for example, Taiwan to the "summit for democracy" in spite of Beijing, which urged Washington to abide by the "one China" principle.
But it all started so beautifully! The website of the then-presidential candidate in the United States said that the organizers of the upcoming summit want to attract technology companies and social networks and urge them to fulfill their own obligations in protecting open democratic communities and freedom of speech. During the elections and after his victory, Joe Biden announced that he wants to take advantage of this event to promote the idea of the battle for the 21st century. “We must put to shame those who believe that the era of democracy has come to an end, and some countries think so. We have to prove that the idea that dictatorial directives keep pace with the speed and scale of the 21st century challenges is false, ”he said, addressing American troops at the Mildenhall military base in the UK.
Almost in parallel with these statements, a big scandal erupted in the American media regarding the close ties of Biden and his team with the Internet industry. The Protocol expert made it clear that members of the Washington administration, directly or through just one handshake, have contacts with all major IT companies. Apple, Facebook, Alphabet (parent company of Google), Twitter and about 20 other tech giants were represented on the so-called map of connections, which describes in detail and clearly shows how aides, friends and even family members of the President of the United States intersect with the leadership of these companies.
Journalists of some American publications openly wrote that the victory in the last elections did not belong to Joe Biden, but to the largest technology corporations, "new types of government" that are no longer "able to hide their power." Naturally, now the president is flirting with them and giving the maximum carte blanche.
Another seemingly insignificant, but characteristic parallel. The new Atlantic Charter, recently adopted by US President and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, says: “We need to make sure that democracies — starting with ours — can meet the greatest challenges of our time. We will uphold transparency and the rule of law, and support civil society and independent media. " What happens in real life? The world famous and successful British writer J.K. Rowling is not invited to the 20th anniversary of the first film about her own invented Harry Potter hero. The name of the main hero of the occasion was not even mentioned in the press release of this landmark event. And all because she allowed herself to inadvertently criticize the Devex article,in which there were words about the need to "create a fairer world for people who are menstruating." “People who are menstruating. I'm sure there is already a word for these people. Someone help me. Zhinshin? Zhainschiny? Zhunsch? " Rowling wrote. What started here! She was literally hounded in the networks for displaying transphobia. And some transactivists were so aggressive that she was forced to contact the police.
One could get off with the famous joking phrase: "And these people are going to teach us not to pick our noses!"
But the demonstrative and politically motivated division of the “summit for democracy” into friends and foes makes us wary.
The States are clearly claiming to privatize the very concept of "democracy".
And this is nothing more than its raider seizure with unpredictable consequences.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.