Mediaboss Marketing

* The list of challenges troubling the U.S. society is ever-growing, making the narrative of American democracy even less convincing.

* The lack of discussion of solutions to existing global crises, such as the Ukraine-Russia conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, climate change and poverty, shows that the conference was just a platform for confrontation led by the United States.

* The essence of the Washington-sponsored summit is to weaponize democracy, foment division and safeguard its hegemony.

SEOUL, March 23 (Xinhua) -- The third so-called "Summit for Democracy" quietly ended here Wednesday. Unlike the previous two summits hosted or co-hosted by Washington, this year's event was outsourced to South Korea. Nevertheless, its fundamental nature as an ideological tool for confrontation remained unchanged.

Despite Washington's vigorous promotion, the previous two summits did not achieve any tangible results. The third edition did not focus on real crises in Ukraine and Gaza either. As the sponsor, Washington had one intention with the summit: to suppress other countries and divide the world in the name of democracy.

MUCH-CRITICIZED SPONSOR

Portraying itself as a "Beacon of Democracy," the United States frequently bloviates about democracy, yet the so-called beacon is getting dimmer. Facing various human rights woes at home, more U.S. citizens are losing faith in American democracy.

A Pew Center poll shows that 65 percent of Americans believe the U.S. democratic system needs major reforms, and 57 percent of respondents believe the United States is "no longer a model of democracy."

From aggravated political polarization and widening wealth disparity, to growing social divides and deep-seated racial discrimination, the list of challenges troubling the U.S. society is ever-growing, making the narrative of American democracy even less convincing.

Meanwhile, the American political landscape is riddled with systemic flaws, including rampant voter suppression, gerrymandering and outsized influence of corporate interests in electoral politics. These shortcomings have eroded public trust in the democratic process and undermined the legitimacy of American governance.

Failing to solve problems at home, the United States has waged wars around the world and imposed sanctions on other countries in recent decades, causing large-scale humanitarian catastrophes.

Since 2001, wars and military operations launched by the United States in the name of counter-terrorism have killed more than 900,000 people, of which about 335,000 were civilians. Sovereign countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya have suffered numerous disasters due to U.S. invasion and proxy wars.

For long, the United States and other Western countries have interfered in many countries and regions under the banner of "democracy" and "human rights," said Cavince Adhere, a Kenya-based international relations scholar.

The United States weaponizes the concept of "democracy," and its summits could hardly convince the public of what Washington preaches, Adhere added.

ABSENT-MINDED GATHERING

Over the years, the so-called democracy summits have been dogged by criticism from rights activists, who question whether these gatherings can push the participants to take meaningful action, Reuters reported Monday.

Last year's summit made the Ukraine-Russia conflict a topic of discussion but didn't come up with any constructive solution. Presently, the Ukraine crisis has hit a two-year mark, and the Palestinian death toll in the Gaza conflict has surpassed 30,000.

Ignoring the fact the two ongoing conflicts are causing humanitarian catastrophes, the United States has continued to fund the protracted conflict in Ukraine, and blocked UN Security Council draft resolutions for a ceasefire in Gaza multiple times.

However, participants did not seriously discuss these burning issues during the three-day summit, and the chair's summary of the summit, published Thursday, did not mention them either.

Kwon Ki-sik, head of the Korea-China City Friendship Association, criticized the summit for being an empty gathering that ignored the global crises at hand. The lack of discussion of solutions to existing global crises, such as the Ukraine-Russia conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, climate change and poverty, shows that the conference was just a platform for confrontation led by the United States.

For South Korea, the summit is more of a political demonstration of its international standing. According to the president's office of South Korea, the country has once again demonstrated its position and contribution to the world, creating an opportunity to consolidate the leadership of a "global hub country."

However, given the "regressing political situation" in South Korea, the government's boast of "our democratic leadership" will leave most citizens disappointed, South Korean newspaper Kyunghyang Shinmun said recently in an editorial.

DEMOCRACY WEAPONIZED

Since the end of the Cold War, the world has seen growing support for multilateralism. Washington, however, has stubbornly pursued global dominance in disregard of this evolving landscape.

The essence of the Washington-sponsored summit is to weaponize democracy, foment division and safeguard its hegemony.

In East Asia, the United States is seeking to build an alliance with Japan and South Korea to contain China and Russia and create a "new Cold War" by putting the "democracy summit" in South Korea, said Lee Jang-hie, emeritus professor at law school of Hankuk University of Foreign Studies.

Washington's bid to rally some countries against others, which has further entrenched ideological divisions, undermines efforts to foster genuine dialogue and cooperation among nations with different political systems.

Kwon said the "democracy summit" is being criticized as a divisive international conference to build a hegemonic international order with the United States at the center. "The U.S. hegemonic action of weakening the function of the UN and leading a so-called 'democracy summit' is a hindrance to world peace."

"By weaponizing democracy as a political tool," said commentator Yirenkyi Jesse in an op-ed in The Standard, a leading daily newspaper in Kenya, "the United States seeks to assert its hegemonic dominance, dividing the world along arbitrary lines and sowing discord in its wake." (Video reporters: Chen Yi, Jin Haomin, Yang Chang; video editors: Zheng Xin, Li Qin, Lin Lin, Liu Xiaorui)

Read more:
Xinhua Headlines: Why U.S.-backed "Summit for Democracy" only triggers division, confrontation - Xinhua

U.N. officials continue to sound the alarm over the humanitarian crisis in Sudan, which theyve described as one of the worst in recent history. The U.N. Security Council met Wednesday to discuss the conflict as it nears the one-year mark since fighting broke out between the Sudanese military and rival Rapid Support Forces. Edem Wosornu, the director of operations for the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, warned Sudan is possibly on course to becoming the worlds worst hunger crisis.

Edem Wosornu: Malnutrition is soaring to alarming levels and is already claiming childrens lives. A recent MSF report revealed that one child is dying every two hours in Zamzam camp in El Fasher, North Darfur. Our humanitarian partners estimate that in the coming weeks and months somewhere in the region of around 222,000 children could die from malnutrition. And with the estimated WHO estimates that more than 70% of health facilities are not functional.

More here:
Sudan Could Soon Become the World's Worst Hunger Crisis - Democracy Now!

In the run-up to this years election, President Joe Biden has warned that American democracy is at stake. But when it comes to the democratic process of an entire nation, might the solution be local?

In an age of declining print media, losses of local newspapers and journalists are creating news deserts: areas bereft of a local paper. But does this matter, or is local news just a collection of obituaries and classifieds? Especially when rolling news coverage can be found online?

This week, Joan Greve speaks to the journalist and local news campaigner Steven Waldman, who argues that in an election year of increasing polarisation, we need local news more than ever. They will discuss why local journalism is a fundamental part of building communication, scrutiny and trust and what can be done to save it

How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

Read more from the original source:
America's 'news deserts' and what it means for democracy podcast - The Guardian

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said on March 14, 2024, The Netanyahu coalition no longer fits the needs of Israel. It was an extraordinary public criticism of a longtime ally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, by an American government official.

Against the background of imminent famine in Gaza, Schumer, the top Democrat in Congress and the highest-ranking Jewish elected official in the U.S., said Netanyahu was an obstacle to peace and called for new elections in Israel.

Leading Democratic senators praised Schumers speech, while the GOP panned it. President Joe Biden said it was a good speech that raised concerns shared not only by him but by many Americans.

The Conversations senior politics and democracy editor, Naomi Schalit, interviewed scholar Dov Waxman about Schumers speech. Waxman, an expert on both Israeli politics and the American Jewish communitys relationship with Israel, described the speech as a watershed moment in the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Netanyahus response to Schumer was, The people of Israel will choose when they will have elections, and who theyll elect. What does Schumers speech mean for Netanyahu, both in the U.S. and in Israel?

I dont think most Israelis are paying much attention to what Schumer said. Theyre focused on the war and especially on the current negotiations to secure a cease-fire and hostage agreement.

But Schumer is right that the vast majority of Israelis have completely lost confidence in Netanyahu and his government and want him to be replaced as prime minister. Yet there isnt majority support for immediate elections. A plurality of Israelis want early elections to take place after the war ends. At the same time, I think the positions Schumer was putting forward particularly about the need to create a Palestinian state are not ones that are widely shared by most Israelis.

Schumers speech matters more for American politics than for Israeli politics. It marks the culmination of a process thats been underway for some time, whereby the Democratic Party has increasingly turned against Netanyahu. This is not just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party but also the moderate wing and the most pro-Israel Democrats. Schumer is one of the most pro-Israel senators in American history. Hes had a long relationship with Netanyahu and was considered a friend of Netanyahu. So, the break between Democrats and Netanyahu is now complete. Netanyahu has clearly become persona non grata for the Democrats.

What was Schumers strategy in giving the speech?

What Schumer, and to some extent the Biden administration, are doing is trying to position the Democratic Party as anti-Netanyahu but not anti-Israel. They want to make a distinction that it is possible and indeed necessary to take issue with Netanyahus policies, but that doesnt mean that youre not supporting Israel.

Thats an attempt to triangulate between the different political pressures that the Democrats are under and the political risks that Democrats now face. President Bidens strong support for the war in Gaza has become a domestic political liability for him and for the Democratic Party as a whole. On the one hand, they need to try to win back support among progressives, younger Democrats and especially among the Arab American voters who are outraged over the Biden administrations support for the war. But they need to do that without alienating Jewish American voters and moderate Democrats who support the war and, broadly speaking, support Israel.

This is an attempt to find that balance without incurring major domestic political costs.

Schumer can say what he wants, Biden can say what he wants, and Netanyahu keeps doing what he wants. If what Schumer and Biden say doesnt affect the behavior of the Israeli government, can it be effective domestically in the U.S.?

Buried in the speech is a real political bombshell. Schumer said that if Netanyahu and his coalition remain in power and continue to pursue dangerous and inflammatory policies that test existing U.S. standards for assistance, then the U.S. will be forced to play a more active role in shaping Israeli policy by using our leverage to change the present course.

Its not the first time that a U.S. senator or policymaker is raising the threat of potentially conditioning U.S. military aid. But Schumer doing so sends a message to Israeli policymakers that mainstream, pro-Israel Democrats are now willing to consider something that was previously politically taboo, namely conditioning U.S. aid to Israel. That could induce changes in Israeli policy.

What kind of changes?

Specifically, the provision of humanitarian aid to Gaza, which has become a major public dispute between the U.S. and Israel. But whatever changes it does bring about in Israeli policy toward Gaza and the Palestinians, I dont think its going to be nearly enough to satisfy the left or progressives and others who oppose the Biden administrations policy.

But theres a moderate middle, particularly many American Jews, who dont want the Biden administration to stop supporting Israel but dislike Netanyahu and his right-wing policies. What Schumer is saying is that the Democratic Party is the party for them, that it is a place for people who, while supporting Israel, have deep concerns about the Israeli militarys conduct in Gaza, and are frustrated with the Israeli governments refusal to present a real plan for the day after, and its stonewalling on any prospect for a Palestinian state.

Schumer is expressing the sentiments of those voters, who we often dont hear about because its often those on the left and the right whose voices drown out that silent majority in the middle.

Are Schumer and Biden ahead of American public opinion or behind it?

I think they are, as is typical of politicians, behind public opinion. The distinction between supporting Israel while criticizing its government has already been largely accepted for some time now among Jewish Americans. But it hasnt always been reflected among politicians, who felt that when they supported Israel, they had to uncritically support the Israeli government.

View original post here:
Pro-Israel but anti-Netanyahu: Democratic Party leaders try to find the middle ground - The Conversation Indonesia

The Biden administrations escalating spat with Israel over its war with Hamas in Gaza, now joined by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), has included media leaks, pointed intelligence assessments and diplomatic dressing-downs. But perhaps the most telling piece was Vice President Harriss admonition last week not to conflate the Israeli government with the Israeli people.

As the Israeli journalist Amit Segal observes, There is a significant disparity between Israels leadership and its citizens but its the opposite of what people in Washington assume. The policies of Israels war cabinet are restrained relative to public opinion. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus foreign-policy instincts are moderate by Israeli standards. If the Israeli people somehow controlled the war in Gaza directly, it might be even more devastating.

So Harriss remark reflects a misapprehension of Israeli democracy. But more than that, it highlights how promoting democracy is a weak foundation for U.S. foreign policy in the first place.

Biden has made a global contest between democracy and autocracy central to his presidency. That pitch has failed to keep Congress united in support of aiding Ukraine against Russias invasion. The main deficiency is obvious: Many Americans wonder what the form of government in a faraway country has to do with their own lives.

Republicans are responsible for holding up aid to Ukraine. But Biden has accelerated partisan polarization over the war by casting it as an extension of U.S. domestic politics, with Ukraines fight against Russia parallel to the Democrats fight against former president Donald Trumps GOP. Portraying Republicans as part of the authoritarian menace you want to defeat abroad is obviously not a formula for winning their support on a foreign policy priority.

An overemphasis on democracy can be self-undermining, as the political philosopher Emily B. Finley argued in her 2022 book, The Ideology of Democratism. When democracy yields a controversial outcome, there can be a tendency to assume that democracy itself was corrupted that the problem is not a difference of opinion among citizens, but that nefarious forces prevented the true will of the people from emerging. One classic example is the liberal attribution of Trumps 2016 election victory to disinformation or foreign interference.

Harriss Israel statement betrayed a similar tendency. The Biden administration is displeased with the behavior of Israels leadership, so it signaled that Israels elected leadership is not actually a democratic reflection of its people. But if Segal is right about Israels warlike public opinion, thats misdirection. The Israeli conduct that angers the Biden administration is democratically representative.

Theres nothing wrong with trying to change a democratic countrys behavior. One benefit of American alliances is that they enable Washington to influence democratic allies to comport with U.S. interests. The Biden administration can lean on Israel as it wishes. But if it has to construct the fiction that it is leaning only on Israels leaders, not trying to overrule its people because the latter would violate the sanctity of democracy it is bound to miscalculate about what it can achieve.

Blocking a countrys collective democratic will takes more political muscle than persuading a single unrepresentative leader to change course. Bidens remark that an Israeli invasion of Rafah is a red line, for example, will go unheeded if as it appears the Israeli public overwhelmingly wants its military to finish the job against Hamas. Biden could end up diminishing U.S. authority and his own political standing by appearing to resist an Israeli action that happens anyway.

Other than Israel, of course, Americas Mideast allies are autocracies. It might have been more accurate for Harris to warn against conflating the governments of countries such as Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia with their people. Yet far from trying to open the gap between those governments and their populations, as Harris did with Israel, U.S. policy is to shore up moderate Arab regimes to check Iran and Islamist radicalism.

Indeed, a Saudi-Israel diplomatic agreement seems to be the linchpin of the Biden administrations ideal Middle East settlement after the Israel-Gaza war. That rapprochement would be driven by the monarchy in Riyadh, not democratic forces in the Arab street.

Its hardly a new discovery that popular opinion can, under certain circumstances, radicalize rather than moderate a states foreign policy. One politician in revolutionary France warned that democratizing foreign policy could lead France to be at war with every nation that we consider unjust, or which will not accept our system.

That brings us back to Hamas, the entity that started this war with its Oct. 7 massacre of Israelis. The Biden administration made headlines after Harriss remarks by releasing an intelligence assessment saying that Netanyahus leadership may be in jeopardy. But the striking line in the assessment was not the assertion that Netanyahus popularity is eroding among Israelis but that Hamas enjoys broad popular support among Palestinians. Hamas won a Palestinian election in 2006 and, if the American spies are right, can still claim a kind of democratic legitimacy even after bringing ruin on its people.

Democracy is an attractive theme with a long tradition in U.S. foreign policy. But appeals to democracy wont arrest the GOPs turn toward noninvolvement when it comes to Ukraine, and they offer no framework for mitigating Middle East violence. Hardheaded statecraft has to come first to protect the United States global interests.

Read more:
Opinion | Biden-Netanyahu clash reveals limits of U.S. democracy rhetoric - The Washington Post - The Washington Post