Overcoming Insanity To Create a Future for All

The farcical Summit for Democracy hypocritically held by the United States at the end of this week put on display both how little the “democracy” brand name has to offer, and the increasing disregard it receives from other nations of the world. But it has unintentionally served as a useful foil against which to discuss policies that actually would create a better future.

The “Summit for Global Dominance,” as one Russian leader accurately called it, was officially devoted to “strengthening democracy and countering authoritarianism, fighting corruption, and promoting respect for human rights.” But coinciding with the summit (and Human Rights Day of the United Nations) came a decision from the U.K. that showed just how opposed to authoritarianism and respectful of human rights the United States truly is: the U.S. won its appeal to extradite Julian Assange to face charges of violating the (likely unconstitutional) Espionage Act of 1917. Assange’s crime? Publishing information passed on to him, including proof of U.S. war crimes and of Democratic National Committee (DNC) bias towards political failure Hillary Clinton in 2016. The publication of those Democratic Party documents were used as the excuse to launch the Russiagate hoax, which paralyzed needed efforts to improve U.S.-Russia relations and was used to attempt to effectively undo the democratic election of political outsider Donald Trump in 2016.

Apparently the aspirations of the demos, the people, of other nations mean little to the organizers of the sham summit, as U.S., U.K., and NATO institutions continue to drive towards war with Russia and China. Their crimes, in the eyes of the Anglo-American elite? Economic development and political-strategic independence.

China’s response to the “Democracy Summit” excoriated the United States for using the term “democracy” into “a weapon of mass destruction,” used to spread war and chaos, to drive confrontation between nations. While the status of “democracy” in the U.S. itself is nothing to be proud of, China has adopted a different vision of what it calls “whole-process people’s democracy,” and the outcomes in terms of quality of life have been tremendous!

As for Russia, one need only look to 2014 to see the cynical use of “democracy” as a weapon of war. In that year, billions of dollars were poured into Ukraine from the U.S. and the U.K. into effecting a coup in that nation, after its President hesitated to reject Russia and to tie its fate to the European Union. That coup, which brought literal fascists into power, was rejected by people in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, who resisted the anti-democratic change in government through forms of autonomy, or, in the case of Crimea, voting overwhelmingly to rejoin the Russia of which they had been a part.

What would true “democracy” mean for the future?

Some slight potential is seen in the assent by a World Bank donors’ group (led by the U.S.) to allow a portion of the funds set aside for Afghanistan to be released this month towards urgently needed projects for food and humanitarian assistance. This slight advance comes as the Red Cross warns that “the international community is turning its back as [Afghanistan] teeters on the precipice of man-made catastrophe.” The Indira Gandhi Children’s Hospital in Kabul reports a 50% increase in malnourished children. Amnesty International has called for the easing of financial restrictions, which prevent the provision of basic services for fear of running afoul of the U.S. sanctions regime.

Another possible advance is seen in the Russian motion towards presenting a framework for legal security guarantees to provide stability with respect to NATO.

But the forces promoting a “war seeking a reason” are not motivated by specific security considerations. They are driven to conflict by the relative failures of the “Green” policy to achieve their aims of preventing development, reducing population, and reversing the potentials of scientific advancement. They trumpet the decoupling between “GDP” and carbon dioxide emissions, as though the post-industrial financialization this change reflects is a good thing. They propose, today, locking up 30% of the Earth’s resources, land, and water away from human use. But why would they stop there?

Think of what could be called a global democratic approach, one that would advance science, living standards, and cultural optimism. In the midst of the Covid pandemic, the achievement of modern health infrastructure in each country, with the other physical, social and other infrastructure and physical development needed to support it, can serve as an organizing point for a new paradigm of growth and development, as proposed for decades by the Schiller Institute and the entire LaRouche movement, a paradigm whose potential global realization has taken an enormous leap forwards with China’s economic success and its Belt and Road Initiative.

War, which should be unthinkable, is actively contemplated. What do you think you will do about it?

Showing 1 reaction

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Jason Ross
    published this page in Home 2021-12-12 22:41:45 -0500