Mediaboss Marketing

');});jQuery('.entry-content p.watermarked > div.watermarked_image > img').each( function() {if ( jQuery(this).hasClass('alignnone') ) {jQuery(this).parent().addClass( 'alignnone' );}if ( jQuery(this).hasClass('alignleft') ) {jQuery(this).parent().addClass( 'alignleft' );}if ( jQuery(this).hasClass('alignright') ) {jQuery(this).parent().addClass( 'alignright' );}if ( jQuery(this).hasClass('size-medium') ) {jQuery(this).parent().addClass( 'has-size-medium' );}if ( jQuery(this).hasClass('aligncenter') ) {jQuery(this).parent().addClass( 'aligncenter' );jQuery(this).parent().children().wrapAll('');}});}});});

THE WASHINGTON FOREIGN PRESS CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C.

MODERATOR: Well, good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Washington Foreign Press Centers briefing on the 2023 Summit for Democracy. My name is Doris Robinson and I am the briefing moderator. As a reminder, this briefing is on the record, and we will post the transcript later today on our website at fpc.state.gov.

Our distinguished briefer today is NSC Senior Director for Democracy and Human Rights Rob Berschinski. He will start with some opening remarks and then we will take your questions. Over to you.

MR BERSCHINSKI: Thanks, Doris. Its a pleasure to be back at the Foreign Press Center to discuss the second Summit for Democracy, which President Biden and the leaders of Costa Rica, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Zambia will co-host next week.

Its been just over three months since I was last here to discuss the summit, and in the meantime a lot of work has gotten done, so allow me to start with a bit of a laydown. First, I want to reiterate the reasons why were doing this. As President Biden has said, were currently at an inflection point when it comes to the future of democracy, both within the United States and around the world. The defining question of this age is whether democracies will continue to deliver for their people in a rapidly changing world.

The United States launched the Summit for Democracy process in early 2021 to put new and high-level focus on the need to strengthen democratic institutions, protect human rights, and accelerate the fight against corruption both at home and abroad. In the 15 months since we held the first Summit for Democracy in December of 2021, the world has witnessed profound change, emerging from a global pandemic and responding decisively as Russia brutally invaded its neighbor Ukraine in violation of the UN Charter. The events of 2022 put in stark relief what we already knew that democratic government grounded in the rule of law and the will of the governed remains, for all its messiness and challenges, the best tool humanity has to unleash human potential, maintain international peace and security, grow prosperity, and uphold human dignity.

So given that context, the second Summit for Democracy will gather leaders from around the world to again shine a spotlight on the need to strengthen democratic resilience and the protection of human rights as a fundamental imperative of our time. It will once again highlight how democracies deliver for their citizens and are best equipped to address the worlds most pressing challenges.

Now, as of last night, an agenda for the summit went live on the State Departments Summit for Democracy website. Thats at http://www.state.gov/summit-for-democracy. So Id refer you to that webpage for additional details, including on the events many themes, speakers, and timing. But let me just say a few brief words on the run of show.

The formal summit runs from next Wednesday, March 29th, to Thursday, March 30th, and will be preceded by a day of high-level thematic events on Tuesday, March 28th, hosted by members of President Bidens cabinet and other senior U.S. Government officials. On Wednesday, March 29th, President Biden, joined by President Chaves of Costa Rica, Prime Minister Rutte of the Netherlands, President Yoon of the Republic of Korea, and President Hichilema of the Republic of Zambia will assemble world leaders in a series of virtual leader-level plenary sessions. Weve extended invitations to 120 foreign governments and other partners to join this group. Interspersed throughout the day will be interventions from noteworthy pro-democracy and pro-human rights advocates who will have a chance to address government leaders.

Then, on Thursday, March 30th, each summit government will host in its capital an in-person regional ministerial-level gathering with representatives from foreign governments and nongovernmental actors. So what audiences will witness on March 30th is pretty unique, as well have a summit ongoing in five different locations around the world, all happening on the same day. The U.S.-hosted event on March 30th will focus on advancing technology for democracy, the topic of which will be a significant focus area of U.S. announcements during the summit.

Our foreign partners will focus their in-person events on March 30th on other thematic topics essential to the functioning of representative and accountable governance. The Costa Rican event will focus on the role of youth in democratic systems; the Dutch event will focus on media freedom as a cornerstone of democracy; the South Korean event will focus on the fight against corruption; and the Zambian event will focus on bolstering free and fair elections. The U.S. Government is sending high-level delegations to each of our co-host partners events in support of what theyre doing. So, for example, Ambassador Katherine Tai, the U.S. Trade Representative, will lead our delegation in Korea, and Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, our ambassador to the United Nations, will lead the delegation to Costa Rica.

The thematic events hosted by U.S. Government departments and agencies on Tuesday, March 28th that I mentioned will also touch on core summit themes. These will include, among several others and again, Id refer you to the website for a full rundown meetings and events focused on a just and lasting peace in Ukraine and also the imperative of gender equality to democratic, rights-respecting societies. And both of those events will be hosted by Secretary Blinken Secretary of State Blinken.

The importance of the fight against corruption, hosted by Treasury Secretary Yellen; and the ways in which the Department of Justice is defending the rule of law from transnational threats, which will come via a speech from Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. In addition, Deputy Secretary of Commerce Don Graves will represent the U.S. Government at a half-day forum on business and democracy hosted here in Washington by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS, which will spotlight the importance of private of the private sector to democracy and the commitments that companies are making to advance it.

On the U.S. side alone by my count, the summit is likely to involve the participation of nearly 20 of the U.S. Governments seniormost officials, but its also going to include dozens of our foreign government partners and numerous civil society and NGOs from around the world who have come together in their own right to host events on the margins of this summit, starting this week and particularly on Monday of next week, both in Washington and around the world.

And Ill close just by saying a few brief words on the announcements we intend to make next week. I dont want to get ahead of the President and other senior officials, but suffice it to say that were looking forward to announcing a number of new initiatives to demonstrate how the United States is working to advance our pro-democracy and pro-human rights agenda. These announcements will include significant additional financial investment in the Presidential Initiative for Democratic Renewal, which President Biden launched at the first Summit for Democracy with over $400 million in funding. New funding will enable new and existing initiatives, programs, and policies that support free and independent media, combat corruption, bolster democratic reformers and human rights activists, defend free and fair elections, and ensure that technology works for and not against democratic societies. And as I alluded to previously, we expect to place particular focus on announcements related to our technology for democracy agenda during the summit itself.

So Ill conclude with that, Doris, and welcome questions. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, sir. Thank you for those remarks. We will start the question and answer portion of todays briefing. For those in the room, please raise your hand and wait for the microphone. For those on Zoom, you can also raise your virtual hand. And we will start in the room. Lets start with Alex Raufoglu, Turan News Agency.

QUESTION: Thank you so very much, Rob. Thank you so much for coming down here, briefing about the results of the results of the summit as one of the positive signs is having you here second time since December, so we welcome you here. Are you in a position to break down the list in terms of the countries that are, lets say, left out? They were represented last time, will not be represented this time? And also some of the newcomers, if you dont mind.

MR BERSCHINSKI: Sure.

QUESTION: I have some few other tough questions yeah, let me know if you want me to throw them all at you now, or one by one you will take them. So, which one.

MR BERSCHINSKI: Okay. So Ill just address the question on invitations. As I mentioned, were inviting around 120 different foreign governments and partners. Our approach to the invitations is, as it was at the first Summit for Democracy, to form a big tent. So we have reinvited all of those governments and partners that were invited to the first summit in December of 2021 and also added eight new governments from around the world.

With each of those, what weve seen is positive steps towards the summits theme in terms of strengthening democracy and promoting respect for human rights. The new governments are at very different stages in terms of the depth and strength of their democracy, which is true of all of our invitees, but at the end of the day we wanted to include those who have the political will, and we want to put wind in their sails so that they can do their part to advance democracies both within their countries and around the world.

QUESTION: Thanks for that. Are you in a position to name them, the countries that you mentioned?

MR BERSCHINSKI: Sure. So new countries that will be invited for the second summit include Bosnia and Herzegovina, Liechtenstein, Cote dIvoire, Gambia, Mauritania, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Honduras.

QUESTION: Thats extremely helpful. Thank you so very much. Two more question.

MR BERSCHINSKI: Sure.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the contrast in terms of performance of some of the countries that were part of the first summit, such as, in my region in Georgia it has been backsliding, judging from the latest human rights report. And some other countries, such as those in Central Asia, were not part of the summit, but the Secretary has just returned back from the region, and he mentioned some tangible steps that they have been taking. Is it going to be reflected in your when you look at the invitation list, and also next, lets say, year of action, when you work with those countries?

MR BERSCHINSKI: Yeah, its a good question. Like I said, we want to this is a summit for democracy; its not necessarily a summit of democracies. And despite the fact that we are pitching an extraordinarily large tent, we need to draw the line somewhere. So our main message to governments around the world is, as we always do, we want to engage on matters of democratic renewal, strengthening institutions that reflect popular will, and accountability, and transparency. Thats not limited, of course, to the Summit for Democracy.

We took the approach of reinviting all the countries that we invited in 2021. And you mentioned Georgia. We have made clear our concerns with democratic backsliding in Georgia. The president of Georgia was just welcomed here in the United States. Shes been an outspoken voice for Georgias Euro-Atlantic aspirations, and she will be the representative of that country that we invite to the Summit for Democracy.

QUESTION: I appreciate that. And my last one, I promise. I want to give you a chance to appeal to the countries particular such as Azerbaijan, particularly those that will not be represented at all, neither by their governments no thanks for that because they dont deserve to be there, given their human rights records but also their civil society members and opposition will be sidelined, given the circumstances in those countries. What do you want people with democratic aspirations living in those countries such as Azerbaijan take away from this? So out of this, when they look at the presidents gathering with world leaders and discussing democracy and something that it is not really attaching upon their countries necessarily? Thanks so much.

MR BERSCHINSKI: So I think its good to reinforce that in launching the Summit for Democracy this isnt just about the two events back in December and now in March of 2023. We refer to this as a process, and what that process has done over the course of two years now is launch any number of different conversations: conversations amongst governments, including the United States but not limited to the United States; conversations between governments and activists some formal, some informal; these regional gatherings that well have next week in our co-host capitals; and just an extraordinary outpouring of support and work and new initiatives from advocates, NGOs, and other members of civil society, as I alluded to.

So each of those components is absolutely vital to this process in the way each of those components is vital to thriving democracy. And we would say to activists from governments that have not been invited, many of whom are participating in this process in different ways, the process is going to continue and there will be opportunity to engage moving forward, and thats really at the root of this. The Summit for Democracy process is about starting a conversation and having all actors who contribute to well-functioning democracy make commitments around improvement moving forward. Thats not limited just to governments.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Lets go to Beatriz here. And Beatriz, if you could say your name and outlet.

QUESTION: Hi, Im Beatrix Pascual. I am with EFE, the news agency in Spanish. And I wanted to follow up on something you mentioned. You said that Honduras is one of the eight countries that has been newly invited. I wanted to see if you could please elaborate what was behind that decision, if it has something to do with the new president who took office after the first summit, Xiomara Castro. And I have another question, but I can wait for you to

MR BERSCHINSKI: Great. Okay, thank you. Nice to meet you. So as you alluded to, Honduras held free and fair elections in November of 2021 that led to a peaceful transfer of power. And the Castro administration continues to express its commitment to strengthening democratic governance and has committed to establishing a UN anti-corruption commission as part of the fight against corruption.

So an invitation to the second Summit for Democracy doesnt imply, as I mentioned earlier, that all aspects of any countrys democracy are perfect, but it does demonstrate that the United States has made a commitment to our partners who work to strengthen democratic governance that we want to work with them. So thats really where were coming from in terms of the invitation to the Honduran Government.

QUESTION: Thank you. And my second question was about the activists and civil society figures that are going to intervene during the summit. I know that some countries of Latin America have some governments have not been invited, like Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, El Salvador. Are some civil figures from those countries intervening in the summit? Thank you.

MR BERSCHINSKI: The short answer is yes. You will see, over the course of the summit, activists from the countries you mentioned in the Western Hemisphere but from all over the world both having an opportunity in some cases to directly address world leaders, but also to be involved in the thematic events I mentioned that are taking place next Tuesday, and also the events hosted in various capitals of our co-hosts, including San Jose, Costa Rica. We expect leaders, activists, advocates to play a central role in all of these various events around the summit, to include from countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua.

MODERATOR: Thank you, sir. Well go online and then well come back to the room. So I see we have several hands raised. Lets go to Elmar Thevessen from ZDF Germany.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. I appreciate this opportunity. Good morning to everyone. I have a question about the countries that are considered to be strong democracies but are in the process of backsliding, and namely, for example, Hungary, Israel, Poland, but also Mexico, where the president is trying to limit the capabilities of the election institute, which creates of course a huge created huge protests within the country.

So how do you plan to send the signal that something like this, this kind of backsliding, is not okay if the democratic principles have to be and should be upheld by everyone?

MR BERSCHINSKI: Thanks. So let me just say in the course of U.S. bilateral relations, we are raising with all of our foreign partners, not least the I believe four that you mentioned, issues around promotion of democratic values and institution and protection of human rights. So these issues come up consistently throughout U.S. foreign policy, not least, I should mention, through the State Departments Human Rights Reports, which were just issued by my colleagues at the State Department earlier this week.

Again, the Summit for Democracy is meant to provide a platform for those governments to talk about the steps that are invited to talk about the steps theyre taking to advance democracy both within their own borders and in partnership with others around the world.

We made our invitation decisions on the basis of political will. We recognize that governments are in different places in terms of perhaps advancing in some regards and taking controversial steps with respect to democracy in their countries in other regards. Let me but let me just say in aggregate the President feels like were turning a corner, and thats based on a large amount of data reinforced by some of the best advocacy organizations that track measures of democracy and freedom around the world, who have indicated in recent months and weeks that the democratic backsliding in aggregate weve seen around the world may be turning a corner. And thats really what the Summit for Democracy is all about. Notwithstanding events in individual countries, we wanted to shine a bright light on the need to strengthen democracy in the aggregate, and the data shows that thats beginning to occur, and we want to reinforce that trend.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Lets go to Pearl Matibe.

QUESTION: Thank you so much, and being flexible to come and discuss this with us. Rob, its good to see you again.

MR BERSCHINSKI: Good to see you.

QUESTION: We last saw you in December just before the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit. So thank you so much and I just want to give you some encouragement to please continue to do these for us. Its super important for the work that we do.

So, Rob, please allow me a few questions here. Right. First Im going to ask you: This creation let me just give some context. This creation of this summit is really a President Biden initiative, and while this summit will have co-hosts, it will be Americas credibility that is on display with this second democracy summit. First question to you: Could you clarify just for the record I know you probably already have this value, but if you could just state it or articulate it for the record would you agree with me that journalism is the cornerstone of democracy, that a well-informed society is a prerequisite for a functioning, healthy democracy, Rob?

MR BERSCHINSKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR BERSCHINSKI: Im happy to say that journalism is a cornerstone of a well-functioning democracy.

QUESTION: Okay. And so my question to you is heres whats happening. Thousands of African journalists, African women journalists, African editors, and foreign correspondents like myself, who have not felt the outcomes of the first democracy summits Year of Action, I just want to know from you how will these end beneficiaries benefit from this summit. I understand that its going to be sort of a virtual format, right? So how will their interaction be a seat at the decision-making table? Or are they just going to be, like, talked at? Thats my first part of my question.

I did reach out to your office for several weeks now, and Im hoping that I can engage with your office offline, because the responses have not really been satisfactory, Rob, to be honest. Press freedom and journalism the work we do is super important to democracy. I reached out to the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson. Im going to quote for you what she said to me. Quote, I refer you to the State Department in the freedom she said, The Netherlands, as a co-host for the regional event of the summit, will she said, Our aim is to target more a regional European audience as media freedom is also under pressure in the Netherlands and in the wider part of Europe. Which tell end of quote which tells me that Africans, African journalists and press freedom for Africa, is not going to be a key element threaded into this conference. The focus is going to be on a European audience, Rob.

So Im really concerned about how journalists will benefit. Im going to give you a quote from an African editor whos asked this question: Ive been fielding tons of questions since the beginning of the year, quote. How can I attend the summit in Zambia? That was a question I received from an African journalist.

Rob, back to you. I really would like to understand, and I see I note the exclusion from the eight additional governments. Please speak to Eswatini, which has still got an absolute monarch, and Zimbabwe. How, if youre not including them, will those populations benefit from this summit? Thanks.

MR BERSCHINSKI: Thanks for that question. So let me just say in terms of the priority that the U.S. Government places on media freedom and the sustainability of the journalistic enterprise, I mentioned in my opening remarks the Presidential Initiative for Democratic Renewal. This is our flagship program of both foreign assistance and policies that reflect key pillars of what it means to have a strong and well-functioning democratic system, and media freedom and journalistic sustainability are one of the five core areas.

So since the first summit when we announced this initiative, weve invested significant new resources in addition to, I should add, the very significant resources already undertaken via U.S. democracy, human rights, and governance programming around the world in defending members of the press around the world. So weve invested in the International Fund for Independent Media, for example, bringing along many partners in the Summit for Democracy process. Weve launched a new program by which we will seed what is similar to an insurance pool, allowing journalists who are hit with so-called SLAPP suits to be able to have a means to defend themselves, among other programs.

So were taking a number of different steps. As you mentioned, one of our co-hosts, the Netherlands, is focusing its regional event on media freedom as well, and I think thats a good indication of how seriously we take this issue collectively and what a core function it is to well-functioning democratic governance around the world. Our African partner, Zambia, has elected to focus its co-host day event on free and fair elections, which I dont think anybody can argue are equally important to democracy. So we are fully in support of the Zambians choice to focus their day on that theme, and were hopeful that they will invite not just regional governments, but advocates and members of the press as well. Thats certainly our hope and expectation, and the nature of the dialogue weve had with them. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Rob. Lets go back to the room, and well go here. If you could state your name and your media outlet.

QUESTION: Hi. Im Sierra Cougot with Japans Kyodo News, and I just wanted to thank you all again for doing this for us. So I was hoping to ask you if Taiwan is expected to participate in any way, and what that would entail, whether its a government delegation or a civil society delegation, or otherwise. Thank you.

MR BERSCHINSKI: So the answer is yes, Taiwan participated in the first summit in December of 2021. Its participation in the second summit will look very similar. So we expect to have representatives from Taiwan involved in different capacities during the course of the Summit for Democracy.

MODERATOR: Great. And lets go to Prashant in the back.

QUESTION: Prashant Jha from The Hindustan Times. My question is South Asia-focused. One broader question which has come up earlier: The list to many seems very arbitrary. And I ask this because the exclusion of certain countries in South Asia which claim, and have a reasonable record of being democratic. And I want to ask you first about Bangladesh, and what your concerns about Bangladesh are which has merited its exclusion for the second year in a row. I also want to ask you about Sri Lanka and Bhutan, and why you think that these countries, which Bhutan is an Eastern democracy, but has had periodic elections, and Sri Lanka, which you even saw big popular agitation last year dont merit inclusion in a list that you have drawn up.

MR BERSCHINSKI: So Im not going to get into the particulars of the decision-making around who was and wasnt invited. I can only reiterate that we were looking in building the invite list for the summit to reflect both the diversity of democratic governance around the world and to pitch a big tent in terms of whos invited.

And receiving an invitation to the Summit for Democracy is not the U.S. Government passing judgment on the state of any particular countrys governance. We want to continue to make that clear. Weve been very clear with both the Government of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka about the state of democracy and human rights in those two countries, and we look forward to working with both of them moving forward. As I said, this is a process. We want to see improvements. Thats a standard we hold ourselves in the United States to, and this isnt necessarily the last word in terms of the dialogue that were having with both of those governments.

QUESTION: Just to ask a follow-up. I know you dont want to get into the particulars, but because this is so striking, Ill ask you: While these countries have been excluded, Pakistan has been included, and we know . . .

QUESTION: One follow-up. I know you dont want to get into the particulars, but because this is so striking, Ill ask you: While these countries have been excluded, Pakistan has been included, and we know the state of civil-military relations there, which would indicate that it is not as flawless a democracy as one would think. So while I understand that this is not you passing judgment, it does appear to many that the exclusion of some countries and the inclusion of some countries, particularly in South Asia, reflects maybe just political priorities rather than an objective assessment of the political conditions in these countries. Would you agree or disagree with that?

MR BERSCHINSKI: No, I would disagree with that. And I think we have strong and important relations with both Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, and those relationships are not in any way impacted by an invitation to the summit.

MODERATOR: Thank you. We have time for just a few more questions. Are there any more questions in the room?

Well go back to Alex.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. I want to ask you about transnational repression. I just noticed that it is on website and it there will be a hearing, a special event on that with deputy attorney general. Can you speak to the importance of it? Thanks so much.

MR BERSCHINSKI: Im sorry. Will you say that last

QUESTION: Importance of that particular session, the state of transnational repression, how much of it is your concern, and why did you decide to focus on it in particular. Thank you.

MR BERSCHINSKI: So transnational repression, meaning the increasing trend of autocratic governance seeking to silence dissidents and journalists and activists outside their own borders, is a trend that the Biden administration has been concerned with from day one. Weve spent quite a bit of time working on the different facets of how we can push back against this trend.

So its appropriate to lift up during the Summit for Democracy. Weve seen instances of transnational repression going on within the United States, and I would expect the deputy attorney general to speak to some of those instances, and also many noteworthy examples of governments kidnapping dissidents, using the threat of abuse against family members in that individuals home country, holding a threat against a family member against them to silence their voices abroad as well. So this is a dynamic that impacts both citizens and non-citizens within the United States and diaspora members around the world, and its worthy of increased attention.

I think youll see deliverables from the U.S. Government that we will announce next week that are focused on ways that we are increasingly addressing this issue, and we look forward to Deputy Attorney General Monacos remarks, talking about the role that the Department of Justice plays in ensuring that anyone within U.S. borders is safe from transnational repression.

MODERATOR: We will go back online, and then well come to the room. Apologies if I mispronounce the name. Dilge Timocin with VOA Turkish Service.

QUESTION: Yes, hi. The State Department released the human rights report just two days ago, and for Trkiye the report says, and I quote, Under broad anti-terror legislation passed in 2018, the government continued to restrict the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms and compromised the rule of law.

So I know my colleagues also asked about their countries, but I just want to confirm. Trkiye was excluded from the first summit and not invited to the second summit. Can you clarify the reasons why Trkiye is not invited? Does it need to be read as President Erdogans exclusion or is it because of the I dont know upcoming elections in Trkiye or like one of the cohosts were maybe against the invitation?

MR BERSCHINSKI: So let me say that Trkiye remains an important NATO Ally of the United States and an incredibly important partner. And so thats worth repeating. I wont duplicate what you just read in terms of what the State Department announced, in terms of the state of human rights within Trkiye. The U.S. Government has been quite clear in terms of our assessment of the status of democracy and human rights within the country. But I can confirm for you that Trkiye was not invited to the second Summit for Democracy.

MODERATOR: And well take our last question with Beatriz.

QUESTION: Thank you. I have two questions, very briefly. I wanted to follow up in the issue of invitations. Will Juan Guaid, the Venezuelan opposition will he be invited? Because he was invited the first

MR BERSCHINSKI: Im sorry. Can you say again?

QUESTION: Juan Guaid was

MR BERSCHINSKI: Oh, Juan. Yeah.

QUESTION: Just like that question. And then I wanted to ask you about Ukraine and how you think how importance the war in Ukraine how important it will be during the summit and if President Zelenskyy will be talking or participating in any way. Thank you.

MR BERSCHINSKI: So I mentioned that we will have the opportunity to hear from noteworthy democratic opposition members and human rights activists at various times during the summit. I would refer you to the State Department webpage for those that weve announced. We havent announced all of them, and Ill just leave it at that for now.

In terms of Ukraine and the participation of President Zelenskyy, I would refer you to the Ukrainian Government in terms of confirming President Zelenskyys participation, but our expectation is that he will participate in the summit, as with many dozens of foreign leaders. And as I mentioned in my opening remarks, were going to dedicate a session on Tuesday to a just and sustainable peace in Ukraine hosted by Secretary of State Blinken. So Ukraine and Russias brutal invasion will be featured in the Summit for Democracy. But of course were mindful of the fact that, from the get-go, this process has been about strengthening democracy around the world, and so its certainly not limited to Ukraine.

MODERATOR: And Rob, I will throw it back to you for closing remarks.

MR BERSCHINSKI: Okay. Nothing to add other than thank you all for spending the time. Were really looking forward to all of the weeks events next week. Please stay tuned. Weve got, I think, an impressive package of announcements that were going to be making over the course of the year excuse me course of the week. And so look forward to engaging with all of you on those as theyre made public. Thank you, Doris.

MODERATOR: On behalf of the Foreign Press Center, Id like to thank you for briefing us today. I would like to thank all of the journalists who joined today. And with that, this concludes todays briefing. Thank you.

Original post:
2023 Summit for Democracy: Progress in the Year of Action - United ... - Department of State

Muck around with the belief of citizens in a democracy that their governments are actually democratic, and youre asking for trouble.

Emmanuel Macron and Bibi Netanyahu are only beginning to find this out.

French President Macrons decision last Thursday to raise his nations retirement age from 62 to 64 by presidential diktat, once he realized that the National Assembly wasnt going to enact it for him, will surely multiply the millions of Frenchmen and women whod already taken to the streets, by a factor of well, a lot. That conservatives in the National Assembly whod previously supported raising the age had backed off their earlier support was partly due to polling that showed the public opposed the measure by more than a 2-to-1 margin. Another recent poll had shown that two-thirds of French people believed that French democracy wasnt working very well.

That was before Macrons thunderbolt. A quick poll that Harris Interactive conducted last Thursday, hours after Macrons action, found that 82 percent disapproved of the use of constitutional provision 49.3which enables laws to be made without having to pass the legislatureto raise the retirement age, while 65 percent favored continuing the protests in the street.

More from Harold Meyerson

Clause 49.3 requires some explanation. As France-ologist Art Goldhammer explained to me on Thursday, the clause has been invoked 89 times, by governments of the right, center, and left, since the establishment of the Fifth Republic in 1958. The vast majority of the previous invocations, however, have been on matters like budgetary appropriations; none of them, until last Thursday, had been used to alter anything so fundamental as the nations social contract.

In 1958, clause 49.3 was very much the creation of the man behind (and in front of) the Fifth Republic, Charles de Gaulle. The problems with the Fourth Republic, which had governed France since the end of World War II, centered on the frequent falling apart of its governments, which were cobbled together as coalitions of the nations many political parties. The revolving door of governments meant, among other things, that there was no steady national policy on the fraught process of decolonialization, on which the nation had been compelled to embark. To stop the rapid-fire succession of governments and policies, the Fifth Republics constitution created a presidency with five-year terms, regardless of the formations and dissolutions of legislative majorities, and put control of foreign policy in the presidents hands. And just in case the legislature was too obdurate or obstreperous, Article 49.3 also gave the president a way around the legislature in domestic matters as well.

Needless to say, the Fifth Republics first president was the selfsame Charles de Gaulle.

Before last Thursday, this imbalance of power between the branches of government had never really deeply affected the fundamentals of French life, which is why most political parties had not sought to change it. In recent years, one leader of the French left, Jean-Luc Mlenchon, has called for a new constitution that doesnt enthrone the president with such Gaullist (or, if you prefer, Bourbon-esque) levels of power, but his and his partys position has been a niche concern. That niche could stand to grow larger. More French politicians, and certainly the public, may now look at their constitutional arrangements and ask, in the mighty words of R. Crumbs Mr. Natural: Is dis a system?

A poll conducted last Thursday, hours after Macrons action, found that 82 percent disapproved of the use of constitutional provision 49.3 to raise the retirement age.

At least since 1789, of course, France has also had a separate, extra-constitutional branch of government: the streets. In 1995, so many Frenchmen and women took to the streets that the conservative government of President Jacques Chirac, which had gotten parliament to vote to raise the retirement age, was compelled to announce that it wouldnt promulgate that legislation into law.

In the past few months, the French have taken to the streets again in very large numbers to oppose raising the age, but I suspect that may be a trickle compared to whats about to come. After last Thursday, le dluge.

THE FRENCH ARENT THE ONLY PEOPLE protesting the withdrawal of democratic rights. In Israel, the issue is also that of a sudden alteration of long-established de facto guaranteesin this case, the existence of an independent judiciary.

Those guarantees are de facto rather than de jure because Israel (like the U.K., which had governed Palestine before Israeli independence) has no written constitution. But just as the French had assumed that truly major social legislation would not become law through presidential fiata de jure guaranteea clear majority of Israelis had assumed that even without a constitution, the independence of the judiciary was assured. Indeed, an independent judiciary in Israel is all the more important, since the nation has no constitutional equivalent of the U.S. Bill of Rights, and its solely up to the courts to defend the civil liberties of the minority.

As in France, so in Israel: Polling there has shown that two-thirds of Israelis are opposed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus governments move to subject the courts to parliamentary override. But like Macron, Bibi and his far-right coalition continue to move ahead to subject Israel to unchallenged rule by anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab extremists, and anti-all-Jews-save-the-ultra-Orthodox extremists as well. Only the courts, and the streets, stand in their way.

And in recent weeks, the streets have been filled with what now total millions of Israelis, calling on the government to stop. Augmenting the masses in the street is another form of social protest. Key sectors of Israels secular Jewish majorityabove all, in the tech industry and the militaryhave threatened to emigrate or stand down, respectively, if the government effectively eliminates the courts.

In Tel Aviv as in Paris, democracy is in the streets. There are differences, to be sure. Israelis are demanding the preservation of the branch of government that defends minority rights, while the French are demanding that the nation not be governed by a president who can ignore a parliamentary majority. But both sets of demonstrators know they represent clear majorities of their respective populations.

There are some unhappy similarities as well. The left-wing parties in both countries have been so fragmented and feckless that they couldnt forestall their nations current crises. In France, the failure of the left to unite and back policies that defended the working class against neoliberalisms ravages has meant that the nationalist far right now eclipses the left, in parliament and at the polls. In Israel, the failure of left parties to unite both with themselves and with the Israeli Arab parties enabled the right to win the last election, and a number of elections before that one.

That representatives of the left in these countries are now in the streets, then, is partly their own damn fault.

AND WHAT ABOUT HERE, in the US of A?

We, too, have seen one huge withdrawal of legal rights and concomitant disruption of the social order recently, in our own Supreme Courts revocation of Roe v. Wade. That also was met by demonstrations, however brief, and then electoral affirmations of the right to choose in a host of states, both blue and red.

Those demonstrations may seem as nothing compared to the outbursts to come should a Trump-appointed, far-right federal district judge in Amarillo, Texas, Matthew Kacsmaryk, impose a nationwide ban on mifepristone, a nonsurgical way to end a pregnancy that was authorized decades ago by the FDA. As in Israel and France, the protests will be directed at the policy itself, at the withdrawal of a long-standing social right, and at a governance structure that allows for the arbitrary overruling of that right.

Our nations governing structure, of course, is fairly larded with features and foundations that effectively counter democratic values, beginning with the Electoral College and the Senate. Like the French, we, too, have a proud tradition of taking to the streets, in actions that have produced civil rights laws and occasional alterations to foreign and military policies. In the early and mid-1930s, some strikes were so disruptive that they compelled the government to enact worker rights legislation.

But ours is an immense and diverse country, which has never seen quite the equivalent of what lies ahead for France, and what Israel is now beginning to experience. Judge Kacsmaryk may well just change all that, but given all the impediments to our nations achieving the status of a genuine democracy, we may yet need to fill both the streets and the voting booths for decades to come.

See the rest here:
Democracy Is in the Streets - The American Prospect

NEW ORLEANS (press release) Since becoming a state in 1812, Louisiana has participated in Americas bold experiment with democracy. In anticipation ofAmerican Democracy: A Great Leap of Faith, a traveling exhibition from the Smithsonian Institution coming to THNOC in mid-June, the 2023 History Symposium explores how the democratic system has functioned in Louisiana and how key events have influenced our current political environment. Moderator Dr. Pearson Cross and a vibrant slate of speakers will address topics ranging from the drafting of the first constitution and the politics of enslavement to the womens suffrage movement in New Orleans and how Louisianas environment impacts public policy. The symposium also complementsYet She Is Advancing: New Orleans Women and the Right to Vote, 18781970, a companion exhibition toAmerican Democracyopening at THNOC on April 28.

WHAT: History Symposium: Democracy in Louisiana

WHERE: Hotel Monteleone

WHEN: Saturday, April 1, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Champagne reception to follow from 5:30-7:30 p.m.

WHO:Hosted by The Historic New Orleans Collection (THNOC)

Speakers include Dr. Pearson Cross (moderator), Dr. Brian Klopotek, John Barbry, Dr. Steven Procopio, Dr. Laura Rosanne Adderley, Dr. Theodore R. Foster III, Dr. Libbie Neidenbach, Dr. Albert L. Samuels, Rebecca Mowbray, Lamar Gardere and Dr. Andy Horowitz

See more here:
Democracy in Louisiana, a History Symposium presented by The ... - New Orleans Magazine

Your people cant take it anymore, LordIn exchange for oil and gas they sell our country.

These lines, translated from Portuguese, are from the song Vendem o Pais, They Sell the Country, by the late, great Mozambican hip hop artist Azagaia. Born Edson da Luz, he died on March 9th at the age of 38. He was a movement artist, empowering millions with songs challenging the elite and inspiring grassroots action. A frequent theme in his lyrics is the exploitation of Mozambique by extractive industries like oil and gas. Thousands poured into the streets on the news of his death, to honor his life and to protest the power structures he so consistently and eloquently criticized. The Mozambican government responded with a brutal crackdown, unleashing tear gas, rubber bullets, and beating and arresting protesters.

Azagaias death coincided with two events that reinforce central themes of his music. First, Cyclone Freddy, a world-record-breaking extreme storm, slammed Southern Africa not once but twice, wreaking devastation, killing over 500 people in Malawi, Mozambique, and Madagascar and displacing over one million people. And second, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, released its Sixth Synthesis Report, summarizing almost a decade of global scientific research on climate change and issuing its direst warnings yet on the urgency of immediate, concerted global climate action.

Cyclone Freddy was the longest-lived and highest-energy tropical cyclone in recorded history. The storm was named on February 6th, as it developed off the northwest coast of Australia. Freddy headed west over the Pacific Ocean, building force from the historically high ocean surface temperatures, slamming into the island nation of Madagascar on February 21st. After then spending five days inundating Mozambique, Freddy retreated to the waters offshore, again building strength. As police were suppressing the Azagaia protests, Freddy arrived again, pummeling Mozambique and southern Malawi for four days before dissipating. The World Food Program and other aid agencies are scrambling to reach people cut off by the torrential rain, flooding and mudslides.

Cyclone Freddy serves as a stark illustration of the warnings included in the new IPCC report. The rate of temperature rise in the last half-century is the highest in 2,000 years, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said as the report was released. Concentrations of carbon dioxide are at their highest in at least 2 million years. The climate time bomb is ticking. The science is unequivocal: humans are causing a climate catastrophe, and our window to avoid irreversible damage is closing rapidly. Most importantly, people in poor nations, in the Global South, bear the brunt of climate disasters, but have contributed the least to global carbon emissions. This is the ongoing legacy of colonialism and resource extraction embedded in the lyrics of Azagaia.

So many people within our countries, especially in Africa, are invisible, evoking pity when a deadly cyclone hits, forgotten the week after, Dipti Bhatnagar, climate justice activist based in Mozambique, wrote in a piece eulogizing Azagaia. As the crises deepen, people are going to get more and more incensed, she said on the Democracy Now! news hour. The youth are going to get more and more incensed. We need cultural icons like Azagaia. We need space. We need constructive ways for people to get involved, to be able to organize, to oppose the injustices that are happening. And the powerful know that.

A new front to challenge entrenched power is being opened in the United States. Founded by author and climate activist Bill McKibben, Third Act seeks to inspire people 60 years and older to take action against climate change.

Third Act recognizes that young people have been providing the climate leadership, young people and people from frontline communities, Indigenous communities, McKibben said on Democracy Now! What they lack sometimes is the structural power to force change at the pace that we need. Older people have structural powerThere are 70 million Americans over the age of 60. That is a sleeping giant.

This week, Third Act launched a National Day of Action to Stop Dirty Banks. Protests were held in at least 30 states, at major banks like Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo and Bank of America demanding they stop funding fossil fuel projects. Here in D.C., for instance, the banks are going to be blockaded with people in rocking chairs, McKibben explained. Older people are sitting down today, but theyre also standing up in a way that they havent before.

This latest IPCC report, Secretary General Guterres says, is a how-to guide to defuse the climate time-bomb. It is a survival guide for humanity. For a just and equitable transition away from fossil fuels, it will take grassroots organizing and action. As Azagaia often declared, POVO NO PODER! (Put the People in Power!)

Read more:
The Climate Bomb is Ticking, from Mozambique to Wall Street - Democracy Now!

POLITICO illustration/Photos by iStock

Earlier this month, conservative law students gathered in Austin, Texas, for the Federalist Societys first National Student Symposium since the overturning of Roe. This years theme was law and democracy but the relationship between those two principles seemed more than a little unclear.

To those who have followed the Federalist Society closely since its triumphs at the Supreme Court last year, the symposiums focus on law and democracy may hardly seem incidental, writes Ian Ward, one of the few men in attendance who did not wear a suit and tie. Since its founding in 1982, the Federalist Society has championed judicial restraint, the notion that judges should limit their roles to interpreting the law as written, leaving the actual business of lawmaking to democratically elected legislatures.

That was all well and good when conservatives saw the judiciary as the domain of activist liberals, dragging the nations laws further leftward than the legislative branch had intended. But with a solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court, and a majority of the nation out of step with conservative positions on issues like abortion, that approach has come under scrutiny particularly among younger conservatives, who bear no scars from the legal losses of decades past.

As Federalist Society members consider where the movement goes from here, there was a definite sense of cognitive dissonance at the conference, where many of the panelists appeared willing to endorse the logic of anti-democratic arguments but shied away from those arguments more radical conclusions, Ward writes. For some, that means embracing a more interpretative approach to jurisprudence that the society has long opposed. As Federalist Society president and CEO Eugene Meyer put it: I think it would be fair to say theres been some movement over time more in the direction of interpreting the Constitution and less in the direction of pure judicial restraint.Law professor Josh Blackman was more forthright: The norm that judges be restrained and moderate that ship has sailed.

Read the story.

Youre tired of him; what about me? I have to deal with him every day.

Can you guess who wrote this about Benjamin Netanyahu in 2011? Scroll to the bottom for the answer.**

The former vice presidents appearance at Washingtons venerable Gridiron Dinner earned a rapturous response. | Scott Olson/Getty Images

Mike Pence and a Bunch of Nerds Walk Into a Bar OK, they actually walked into the Gridiron Dinner, where the former vice president set off a much-talked-about homophobia controversy. But theres another element of his appearance worth scrutinizing, writes Michael Schaffer in this weeks Capital City column: His pointed criticism of Donald Trump came at the same time that hes resisting a subpoena that could help hold Trump accountable. And worst of all, a Washington desperate to look bipartisan in an age of stark division abandoned self-respect and ate it right up.

The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank spooked markets. But dont be afraid of sounding like an idiot the next time youre dishing over kombucha in Palo Alto just follow these talking points (from POLITICOs Sam Sutton):

- If anyone asks when you heard about the bank run, just say that youre glad you unmuted WhatsApp notifications.

- No, I did not submit a bid to the FDIC for Silicon Valley Banks assets this weekend. Why would I waste my time on an offer sheet that cant fully guarantee more $150 billion of uninsured deposits?

- Where were the regulators? I mean, sure. But also, where the hell was the risk manager? Nobody in C-suite watches Powell pressers?

- When someone says that SVB could bring down the global economy, ask them why the European Central Bank raised rates by half a percentage point on Thursday.

Congresswoman Pat Schroeder (D-Colo.), who died this week at 82, at a National Organization for Women convention in July 1987. | Charles Krupa/AP Photo

Remembering a Feminist Icon Former U.S. Rep. for Colorado Pat Schroeder, the feminist pioneer who drew attention to her cause with her brand of witty straight-talk remember her saying Ronald Reagan had a Teflon-coated presidency, or that dynastic figures like George W. Bush were members of the lucky sperm club? died this week at age 82. In this retrospective on her 12 terms in Congress, Joanna Weiss explores Schroeders landmark contributions to women and American politics, like the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 and the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 as well as the work still left to be done.

The headlines this week have assured readers that a financial meltdown is not imminent while raising the alarming possibility that the opposite might be true. While wondering which headlines, exactly to trust, it is instructive to go back to the biggest meltdown of them all the Great Crash of 1929 and see how the papers handled it. Fortunately, we have this prime example for sale for $48 on eBay, a Chicago Tribune from Wednesday, October 23, 1929, which reassuringly told readers, Stock Market Will Recover, Doctors Think. It sounded great at the time. The very next day, October 24, would become known as Black Thursday, which saw the largest sell-off of shares in history and helped launch the Great Depression.

**Who Dissed answer: President Barack Obama got caught saying this on a hot mic at the G-20 Summit, along with then-President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, who said of Netanyahu, I cant stand him. Hes a liar.

[emailprotected]

View post:
Are young conservatives giving up on democracy? - POLITICO