WASHINGTON – One of President Biden’s most specific foreign policy promises was his pledge to convene a global summit on democracy during his first year in office. The gathering would be intended to take a public stand against the authoritarian and populist tides that emerged during Donald J. Trump’s presidency and, as Mr Biden and his advisers see it, threaten to engulf Western political values.
However, in the weeks since Mr. Biden’s election, America’s own democracy has been staggering. This month, a crowd of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, disrupting the sacred peaceful transfer of power. Next week, the Senate will begin its second presidential impeachment trial against Trump in a year. Republicans in Congress are poised to impose a legal deadlock by obstructing Mr. Biden’s every move.
The sense of a dysfunctional, if not completely broken, democratic system makes foreign rivals crow – and suggests that the United States has no business to lecture other nations.
“America is no longer setting its course and has therefore lost all right to plot it,” Konstantin Kosachev, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Upper House of the Russian Parliament, wrote on Facebook after the uprising at the Capitol. “And, still more, to impose it on others.”
Americans can be “proud of their democracy and freedom,” Hua Chunying, a spokeswoman for China’s Foreign Ministry, recently told reporters. But after witnessing so much political chaos, she added, “Deep down they may hope they can live a life like the Chinese.”
Government officials say neither opportunistic commentary from foreign rivals nor recent displays of good-faith skepticism from foreign policy analysts at home have dampened the plan Mr. Biden pledged as a candidate: convening a “ summit for democracy ” where like-minded leaders could discuss ways to strengthen their own systems internally and protect them from threats such as corruption, electoral security, disinformation and the authoritarian model that has gripped China and Russia and invades countries such as Turkey and Brazil.
Writing in Foreign Affairs last spring, Mr. Biden said the event would be “to renew the spirit and shared purpose of the nations of the free world. It will bring the world’s democracies together to strengthen our democratic institutions, honestly confront nations that are declining and forge a common agenda. “
A person familiar with the planning of the summit, which had been going on since before the election, said that Mr. Biden was not deterred by the recent political strife in the United States and would likely host an event with other heads of state, although details such as timing and location have not been determined. Others familiar with the trial said they expected an event by the end of the year. A White House official did not respond to a request for comment.
In Washington, however, a debate about the idea has broken out among former US government officials and academics. It is closely about the plans for the summit, but there are greater concerns about the country’s role as a world leader in the post-Trump era.
The immediate question is whether the political crisis is a reason to delay the plan for the summit and reassess the effort to promote the democratic model around the world, as some have argued.
“The United States has lost credibility; there’s no question about that, ”said James Goldgeier, a professor of international relations at American University and a former National Security Council employee in the Clinton administration. In a recent essay for the State Department, he argued that Mr Biden should instead hold a democracy summit at home – one that focused on “injustice and inequality” in the United States, including issues such as voting rights and disinformation.
“If you have a total gridlock on Capitol Hill and you don’t have the ability to get things done to improve people’s lives, you’re not going to command a lot of moral authority,” added Mr. Goldgeier.
“How can the United States spread democracy or set an example for others when it barely has a functioning democracy at home?” Emma Ashford, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, wrote in Foreign Policy this month. Washington’s foreign policy elites remain committed to maintaining a three-decade foreign policy aimed at reshaping the world into America’s image. They are way too blasé about what that image will have become in 2020. “
Biden government officials say these criticisms create a wrong choice between restoring the country’s strength at home and its reputation abroad.
During public comments in August, Jake Sullivan, who is now Mr. Biden’s national security adviser, spoke of “the intersection of domestic and foreign policy, not just as an abstract concept, but at the heart of our grand strategy.”
“Any effective strategy for US engagement in the world must start with making those deep investments in the strength of our own democracy and democratic institutions,” said Mr. Sullivan, “and on going on issues like dealing with systemic racism. “
While that work is underway, proponents of holding a summit say it would be an important moment for the world after four years in which Mr Trump saw strong leaders such as President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, Kim Jong-un of Noord. Korea and Crown praised. Saudi Arabia’s Prince Mohammed bin Salman confirmed their arguments that stability and firm central control are more important than civil society and popular will.
“I feel very strongly that the events of the past weeks – and years – make it necessary” to hold a summit, said Representative Tom Malinowski, Democrat of New Jersey and the former senior official in the State Department for Human Rights and Democracy. in the Obama administration.
He argued that the riot at the Capitol and Mr. Trump’s broader attempt to reverse the election results demonstrated the resilience of America’s core institutions. “No one should look at these events and suggest that they undermine the strength of our example,” he said.
Mr Malinowski and other supporters of the summit admit that it poses some practical complications, especially among those who would be exactly invited to attend.
In his Foreign Affairs essay, Mr. Biden said his summit could be modeled on President Barack Obama’s four nuclear safety summits, which brought together world leaders to exchange ideas and make specific commitments on reducing and securing nuclear weapons.
Mr Biden added that his event would consist of civil society organizations “on the front lines in defense of democracy” and “a call to action” to technology and social media companies becoming ships for anti-democratic disinformation.
But countries like Turkey, Poland and Hungary, all NATO allies, are ostensibly democracies, but are increasingly determined by authoritarian practices. Critics are asking whether they should be invited and persuaded to implement reforms, or excluded to deny them the status and status of the Democratic label.
One possible approach would be to establish a D-10 group of democracies, a concept coined by the State Department during the George W. Bush administration, with Australia joining the United States, Great Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea and the European Union.
Whatever form it takes, supporters of the idea say it would be a distant echo of Bush’s grand “freedom agenda”, his call to transform Middle Eastern autocracies into democracies that many now see as an example of hubris. of the United States.
“This must be done with complete humility and serious honesty about our shortcomings, and the fact that we are not exporting an American model,” said Thomas Carothers, a senior vice president at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Several supporters of the democracy summit agree that the political chaos requires a very humble approach.
“I don’t think he’s talking about democracy that he’s talking about,” said Gayle Smith, a former senior director of the National Security Council for Development and Democracy in the Obama administration.
“President Biden understands very well, and we have clearly seen that democracy is not something you call ‘democracy,’ and we are done,” added Ms. Smith, who is now the president and chief executive of the One Campaign, who worldwide advocates for poverty and disease. “It’s a continuous process.”