ODDITIES OF EXPORTED DEMOCRACY

The Summit for Democracy slated for December 9-10 in the United States remains a central concern of both the journalists and politicians. In fact, no one expects dramatic decisions from the event anyway, even theoretically. The knowledgeable people note that organising a large-scale virtual event with a pool of delegates from more than a hundred countries just to ‘talk about democracy’ is not the format promising concrete measures and results.

Indeed, Washington’s decision hit the headlines with a wide range of participants. The official list was published by the State Department, and reported earlier, albeit in general terms, in Politico.

"Distribution of elephants"

The total number of countries invited to the summit reaches 110. But we yet to know the criteria of selection. Logically, these should be the countries with successful democracies, while the ‘dictators’ should be left behind.

Perhaps this process can be called the ‘distribution of elephants’, although the symbol of the US Democratic Party is not an elephant but a donkey.

Not everyone is ready to acknowledge the role of the US as the leading ‘judge’ of democracy. And not all the participants of the summit comply with Washington’s list of real democracies, like Congo. In 2017, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein said that the army of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) massively violate human rights, including committing mass executions confirmed by reliable data. “There is abundant and credible evidence of massive human rights violations in the provinces of Kasai, Kasai Central, Kasai Oriental, and Lomami in addition to the drastic worsening of situation with security, including attacks on civilians by the military for their likely links with local militias," Al Hussein said. Although the government in DRC has changed, one car hardly consider Congo ‘a beacon of democracy’.

Azerbaijan is not invited to the summit. Turkey, Russia, Hungary—a member of NATO and the European Union—did not receive invitations either. Do Mr. Biden and his team think there is less democracy in these countries than in Congo?

It is not the only strange thing with invitations. Georgia, for example, has been invited to the summit. We do not mind getting a friendly neighbouring country invited to the event. But it is strange that quite recently the US administration expressed dissatisfaction with the prosecution of the ‘father of Georgian democracy’ Mikhail Saakashvili. One can assume that this was done as a tribute to the memory of the Rose Revolution. This could at least partially explain the reason behind the invitation sent to Armenia.

But at the same time, Kyrgyzstan, which has a track record for hosting two revolutions in recent years, was not one of the ‘specially invited’. Neither Egypt, nor Tunisia—the countries of the so-called Jasmine Revolution, which took place ten years ago—were among the invitees. Jordan did not receive an invitation either. The key ally of the US in Middle East, Saudi Arabia, which has recently launched large-scale reforms, was also left overboard. We can assume that the US did not invite the monarchies only. But what about Spain, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark?..

Armenia’s attendance of the summit raises questions though. Experts remind that shortly after the victory of Pashinyan's ‘revolution’, Mher Yeghiazaryan, head of the Armenian Eagles party also managing the Hayinfo website, was arrested. He went on a hunger strike and died 44 days later in prison from a heart attack, according to official sources.

In September 2020, just before the war with Azerbaijan, Nikol Pashinyan finally took over the Constitutional Court, which shocked the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe. Yet another, more recent example: three seats of the Armenia bloc in the assembly hall of the Armenian parliament have had posters ‘political prisoner’ attached to them throughout the last summer season, because three deputies of the bloc—Mkhitar Zakaryan, Artur Sargsyan, and Armen Charchyan—were under arrest. Sargsyan was released at the end of October though. Yet the rest two opposition deputies “continue to remain under arrest in a shameful manner. Remarkably, in none of the member states of the Council of Europe there was a situation when three opposition deputies were deprived of freedom without waiving their parliamentary immunity,” the main opposition bloc of Armenia stated.

Nevertheless, Armenia was invited to the summit. The effect of the distribution of ‘elephants’ or ‘donkeys’ was so tangible that Washington had to come up with explanations. According to Voice of America, “a senior administration official involved in planning the summit told Reuters that invitations were sent to countries with different democratic experiences from all regions of the world. This should not be interpreted as confirmation or rejection of the status of democracy in these countries," said an administration official.

But what were the main criteria of selection anyway?

Friendship or democracy?

There is a version that the US is in fact trying to review the state of its allies, preferring to call the event Summit for Democracy. Hence Washington refused to invite the countries pursuing an independent foreign policy. But there is a confusion anyway. After all, we are not going to discuss whether, for example, Cape Verde, Papua New Guinea, Micronesia or Vanuatu can be considered the allies of the United States.

We can understand that Washington did not invite Russia and China because they consider them key rivals. Venezuela, Cuba, Myanmar, etc. are not invited either. But what about Armenia, a member of the CSTO and the EAEU, which is openly called an outpost of Russia? What about the NATO members Turkey and Hungary? Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the representatives of the Croatian and Bosnian communities advocate membership in NATO, is not among the invitees, although Serbia was invited. In a word, the principle of selection of participants reminds an old anecdote about a manager: “’Bring me the personal files of all our employees. Now choose ten files among them and fire the rest!’ ‘But why, sir?’ ‘Because I do not like unlucky guys!’” It’s the same as scattering peas or beans on the world map.

Just a talkee-talkee?

At the beginning of my career, my senior colleagues used to tell me that “if I wanted to take a really interesting interview, I should focus on something, not someone. If this is an interview with someone, rest assured it will cover stereotyped questions with 99% of the answers known in advance. A really interesting interview is about a specific topic.” Extrapolating this professional journalistic truth to international politics is a risky business. But at the same time, it is logical to expect tangible results from a meeting with a clear agenda. And with participants who, at least theoretically, can agree on the topic of discussions. Otherwise, it will either turn out to be a typical Hyde Park address with a questionable performance, or the attendees will adopt a final declaration teeming with extremely good wishes on the need to develop green energy. Or, as in this case, "it's better to be rich and democratic than poor and authoritarian." That is why the selection of the summit participants based on incomprehensible criteria has eventually put another ‘scandalous’ tag on the upcoming event.

Oddities of exported democracy

Remember the unexpected statement of the then-recently appointed US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, which many found as his flagship address?: “We will not promote democracy through costly military interventions or by attempting to overthrow authoritarian regimes by force. We have tried these tactics in the past. However well intentioned, they haven’t worked. They’ve given democracy promotion a bad name, and they’ve lost the confidence of the American people. We will do things differently." After these words, the US was expected to have a more thoughtful and professional foreign policy. Moreover, there was also a sad example of Afghanistan. But now, with the start of preparations for the Summit for Democracy, our worst fears are coming true. The United States has not abandoned the idea of exporting democracy. But at the same time, they cannot find a working and safe form of realisation of this idea.

This means that the current scandal is not the last one.