US 'democracy summit' simply for political show

Meanwhile, Chinese forums focus on development, cooperation, says expert

Experts in a number of countries have pointed to the stark difference in priorities between the United States-backed "Summit for Democracy" and two recent forums hosted by China, which focused on development and international cooperation.

Speaking to China Daily, Sourabh Gupta, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Institute for China-America Studies, said that the "Summit for Democracy" was held merely to fulfill a political campaign promise and was "not a good use of his time or anybody's time".

The summit, which was held on March 29 and 30 via video link, was hosted by the US along with the governments of Costa Rica, the Netherlands, South Korea and Zambia. The first such virtual gathering was held in December 2021.

Almost simultaneously with that summit, China hosted two events focusing on economic development and international cooperation — the China Development Forum, held from March 25 to 27, and the Boao Forum for Asia Annual Conference, which took place from March 28 to 31.

Gupta pointed out that China's focus is on development, economic prosperity and good governance. The China Development Forum and the Boao Forum for Asia shed light on how to ensure that everyone can be interconnected, integrated, richer and more prosperous, regardless of social systems, he added.

Meanwhile, the US has an "ideological focus on 'democracy' as a general good, but that inherent good has not really delivered the goods for poor countries", he said.

"If you have to choose and prioritize, I think it's more important to focus on development and good governance, because that is what will deliver prosperity," he added.

Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema, who co-hosted the summit, wrote in an article for Bloomberg on March 28 that "you can't eat democracy".

"Particularly in young democracies like mine, governments must deliver economically if they are to retain the people's consent. When multiple administrations fail to do so, disillusionment can grow not just with them but with the process itself," he wrote.

Sholto Byrnes, an East Asian affairs columnist for The National, a newspaper based in the United Arab Emirates, in an article published on April 4, described the Boao Forum for Asia as a "more low-key meeting than the 'Summit for Democracy', but arguably of more consequence".

"Those attending know they are there to look at what they can do together, not concentrate on what divides them, and to do so with some confidence going by the economic outlook just released by the forum, which declared that 'Asia is a bright spot in the bleak global economic landscape', with global economic governance moving into the 'Asian moment'," Byrnes said.

"It's about setting a tone, forging new friendships, finding new opportunities and synergies, and deepening understanding," said Byrnes.

"There may be a good case to say that it deserves more attention than the second 'Summit for Democracy' — a meeting that will appear riven with hypocrisy by some, aggressive to others, and quite simply irrelevant to those who were not invited but are quite happy charting their own destinies, with no need of any extra 'guidance' from (US President Joe) Biden and his allies," Byrnes added.

On the first day of the summit, Biden announced $690 million in new funding for "democracy programs" across the world.

"At these summits, it has become almost like a formality where you have to throw out a big number to make the summit look as if it's successful," said Gupta.

Many countries showed up at the summit more as a "formality", he added. "Particularly in the context that this is being done virtually, all they have to do is just spend a little time on the site to show up for the summit and move on with their lives. And I think that has essentially been the approach of most countries to the summit," he said.

Gupta said that "democracy hasn't really, in any way, moved forward" since the last summit.

"In many respects, it has continued the slow regression it had been going through," he said. "Part of the reason is that democracy thrives on economic prosperity or when the tide is lifting all the boats. And if the tide is not lifting all the boats, and there is no prosperity or economic happiness, there are tendencies to (try) to seek antidemocratic solutions to problems. And that has been, I think, a lingering issue at this summit."

In an interview published in Newsweek one day before the summit, Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov said there were many flaws and controversies surrounding the "Summit for Democracy".

He contended that democracy was being replaced by "democratism", a system in which "ruling elites enjoy practically unlimited power, democratic norms are just declared, and democratic institutions are nothing but window-dressing".

Antonov also said the US was attempting to actively influence or completely rework other nations' political systems.

Gupta said the comments made by the Russian diplomat highlighted "an essential truth".

"The US itself complains about disinformation being a tool for subverting democracy in the US.But the US also provides support, which is seen in other societies at times, to subvert their democracies or their political systems," he said.

Gupta stated that "no one has the patent on democracy".

He stressed that it is up to each country to decide its own social and political system.

yifanxu@chinadailyusa.com