Following the furor that was raised over Nancy Pelosi's controversial August 12th, 2022 visit to Taiwan and the fact that several members of Congress are about to follow in her footsteps as shown here:
....China has, once again, weighed into the issue during a recent press conference held by China's Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, Wang Wenbin.
On August 12, 2022, a representative from China's CCTV, a state-owned broadcaster controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, posed the following question to Wang Wenbin:
"US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at a recent press conference with the Congressional delegation to Asia that Taiwan is one of the freest “countries” in the world and their visit is to salute this democracy. She also noted that the visit signals no departure from the US government’s one-China policy and they are not trying to upset the status quo across the Taiwan Strait. What’s your comment?"
Here is the response from Wang Wenbin:
"Pelosi’s remarks are further proof that her visit to China’s Taiwan region shows connivance and support for “Taiwan independence” separatist forces. She openly referred to Taiwan as a “country”. This is a serious political provocation that violates the one-China principle and the three Sino-US joint communiqués. The DPP authorities have redoubled efforts within the island to remove the Chinese identity of Taiwan and push for “incremental independence”, and sought every means to create “two Chinas” and “one China, one Taiwan” in the international arena. Against such a background, Pelosi chose to visit Taiwan and claimed in a high-profile fashion that she was there on behalf of the US. The visit was clearly official in nature and aimed to provoke cross-Strait confrontation and interfere in China’s internal affairs. This is an extremely egregious move. To defend our sovereignty and territorial integrity, to uphold the basic norm in international relations of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs, and to truly safeguard peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, China has every right to take resolute countermeasures in response to the US’s provocations. Such measures are absolutely necessary under those circumstances."
Here is the key part of his response with my bolds:
"Pelosi will achieve nothing by using democracy as a pretext for her visit. Her visit has nothing to do with democracy. It was a political stunt that went against the will of the more than 1.4 billion Chinese people, including our compatriots in Taiwan, and challenged the one-China principle widely accepted by the international community. Her visit tramples on democracy and shows how the US puts its selfish interests above international justice. If Pelosi truly cares about democracy and human rights, she should visit Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya instead, where she could express repentance over the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed by the US military and vow to prevent such atrocities caused by US violation of UN Charter and norms in international relations from happening again."
In a Google search, the only reference to this comment about American repentance was found on Iran's Press TV as shown here:
You have to admit that it's pretty hard to argue with China's logic, isn't it? The members of Congress who are visiting Taiwan would do well to keep that in mind during their visit to Taiwan.
In part one of this two-part series on global democracy, we looked at the perception of democratic by people from 53 nations around the world according to the Democracy Perceptions Index study by the Alliance of Democracies. In this posting, we'll look at the greatest threats to democracy around the world.
From the survey of 53,000 people, the Alliance of Democracies study asked the following questions:
Respondents were asked to rank their answers by strongly agreeing, somewhat agreeing, neither agreeing nor disagreeing, somewhat disagreeing and strongly disagreeing.
Here are the results of the survey in order of degree of "agreement":
Let's looking detail at four of these factors that were deemed threats to democracy:
1.) Economic inequality - interestingly, a majority of people in all but 7 out of 53 nations in the study stated that economic inequality is a threat to democracy in their country. Here is a graphic showing the breakdown with agree including "strongly agree" and "somewhat agree":
The perception off economic inequality as a threat to democracy appears to go hand-in-hand with the perception that governments are acting in the best interest of a minority of people. The survey also showed that people who live in nations that are considered to be the "most democratic" are just as concerned about both of these issues as people who live in "less democratic" nations.
2.) Big Tech - according to the survey, just under half of the world's population in both democratic and non-democratic nations fear the influence of Big Tech companies, ranging from a high of 70 percent in the Philippines to 31 percent in Venezuela as shown on this graphic:
Given that the United States is home to the world's most influential Big Tech companies, it is somewhat surprising that 62 percent of American respondents believed that Big Tech is the top threat to American democracy, surpassing the 61 percent of Americans who believe that economic inequality is a threat to American democracy. Americans are also the most critical when it comes to social media's impact on democracy with 47 percent believing that its influence is negative and 41 percent believing that it is positive compared to a global average of 24 percent negative and 62 percent positive. Respondents from the United States, Hungary, Austria, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands are the only nations that had a net negative opinion of the impact of social media platforms on democracy.
3.) Free and fair elections - roughly half (49 percent) of the world feels that unfair elections and/or electoral fraud threatens democracy in their nation. Here is a graphic showing the percentage of respondents who felt that unfair elections and electoral fraud had a negative impact on democracy in their nation:
It is interesting that 49 percent of Americans strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that American democracy was under threat by unfair elections and/or electoral fraud, just behind Russia percent but significantly worse than China. While 40 percent of all respondents living in free democracies feared foreign interference in their elections, 53 percent of Americans stated that foreign interference threatens American democracy.
4.) Superpower influence - While Washington loves to tout the Russian and Chinese election interference narrative, a far higher percentage of people in the world are concerned about the threat of American influence on their elections as shown here:
Overall, 44 percent of respondents believed that the United States is a greater threat to democracy in their nation compared to 38 percent for China and 28 percent for Russia. The United States is also considered to be the bigger threat in almost all major regions of the world with the only exception being the United States and Asia where the United States anChina basically tied at roughly 50 percent.
The top five nations most threatened by the United States includes Pakistan (65 percent, Phillippines (62 percent), Taiwan (58 percent), South Korea (58 percent) and India (55 percent). The world is also split on the role of American policies on democracy; overall, 49 percent of the world views America's influence as positive while 35 percent views America's influence as negative. Among free nations, 43 percent view America's influence as positive compared to 41 percent who view America's global role as negative. Rather surprisingly, only 38 percent of Europeans regard America's role in world affairs as positive compared to 45 percent who view America's influence as negative.
Let's close by summarizing this two-part series. The analysis by the Alliance of Democracies clearly shows that the concept of democracy is in the eyes of the beholder with nations like China whose citizens regard as democratic standing in sharp contrast to the Western anti-China mantra. The biggest threat to democracy is widely viewed as the growing power and influence of the global elite who have benefited marvellously from the imposition of government anti-COVID measures which has led to a substantial increase in global income inequality. It is also interesting to note that the United States and its foreign policies are widely viewed as a substantial threat to democracy, exceeding the threats posed by both China and Russia. While the elite in Washington want the world to adopt their limited and self-serving view of democracy, it is clear that a very substantial portion of the global population would prefer to adopt their own democratic model rather than the flawed version being touted by Washington's ruling class.
Alliance of Democracies, a non-profit organization "dedicated to the advancement of democracy and free markets across the globe" has recently released the 2021 edition of its annual Democracy Perception Index (DPI), the world's largest study on how people perceive democracy. The results of the study are based on interviews with 53,000 respondents from 53 nations conducted between February 24, 2021 and April 14, 2021.From the perspective of the respondents, the study looks at the current state of democracy, the biggest threats to democracy in each nation and how the respondents assessed their government's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and how it impacted democracy.In the first part of this two-part posting, we'll look at the current state of democracy followed by a second posting which will examine the key threats to democracy.
Let's start by looking at the current state of democracy. Across the 53 nations in the study, an average of 81 percent of respondents stated that democracy is important, ranging from 92 percent in Greece to 62 percent in Japan. Now, let's look at whether people think that their nation is democratic as shown on this graphic:
Only 53 percent of respondents said that their nation was actually democratic with the most democratic nations and least democratic nations scoring as follows:
The study also looked at the perceived democratic deficit, the difference between how important people felt that democracy is and how democratic they believe that their nation is. Here are the scores for some key nations:
Switzerland - 9 (lowest deficit among the 53 nations)
Norway - 10
Taiwan - 12
Japan - 13
India - 14
Canada - 14
China - 14
Saudi Arabia - 18
United Kingdom - 21
Germany - 21
Hong Kong - 24
United States - 28
Russia - 33
Israel - 35
Italy - 37
Brazil - 40
Turkey - 45
Poland - 55 (highest deficit among the 53 nations)
Isn't it interesting to see that China scored very highly when it came to the perceived democratic deficit, right up there with Canada and Japan. As well, both China and Saudi Arabia scored better than the United States when measuring the difference between how important democracy is to the respondents and their actual perception of democracy.
On an overall basis, across the 53 nations in the study, 40 percent of people felt that there was not enough democracy in their nation, 46 percent felt that there is the right amount of democracy in their nation and 14 percent said there was too much democracy in their nation. Here is a graphic showing each sentiment:
Interestingly, the study found that 33 percent of respondents from Saudi Arabia felt that there was too much democracy in their nation followed by Pakistan at 27 percent, Philippines at 26 percent, India at 24 percent and Taiwan at 23 percent (the top five).
When looking at whether or not governments usually act in the best interests of their citizens, on average, 49 percent of respondents stated that their government served only a minority of its citizens. Here is a graphic showing the percentage of respondents who believed that their government served only a "small group of people" (pink coloured nations):
The study also found that the percentage of respondents in almost all nations who believed that their governments acted to benefit a minority of its citizens was up from the previous year. The highest scores were found in Peru (21 percentage point increase, Greece (17 percentage point increase), Argentina (15 percentage point increase) and Austria (13 percentage point increase).
Let's close this posting by looking at the state of democracy in the world's "model" democracy, the United States. Here are some key figures which compare the results from 2020 to those of 2021:
Act to benefit a minority - 2020 - 52 percent, 2021, 59 percent
The results of the study by the Alliance of Democracies clearly shows that a substantial portion of citizens in many nations believe that their political system is becoming increasingly less democratic and is increasingly functioning to support the needs of a minority of their peers. In the second part of this posting, we'll examine the greatest threats to democracy, some of which you may find surprising.
While there has been growing coverage of the unrest in Hong Kong, there has been minimal coverage of what may lie behind the pro-democracy protests. Even Donald Trump has entered the fray with this tweet which clearly condemns China's actions against protestors in Hong Kong:
As you will see in this posting, it is entirely possible that a Washington-based and Congressionally funded institution is responsible, at least in part, for the lack of calmness in Hong Kong.
A few weeks ago, I wrote this posting on the National Endowment for Democracy or NED, America's instrument of democratic promotion around the world, that is, democracy American style. NED was founded in 1983 during the Reagan Administration with the following Statement of Principles and Objectives:
"Democracy involves the right of the people freely to determine their own destiny.
The exercise of this right requires a system that guarantees freedom of expression, belief and association, free and competitive elections, respect for the inalienable rights of individuals and minorities, free communications media, and the rule of law."
While NED touts itself as a "private" foundation, in other words, it is independent of government. That could not be further from the truth. Here's what NED has to say about itself that belies its true character:
"NED is a unique institution. The Endowment’s nongovernmental character gives it a flexibility that makes it possible to work in some of the world’s most difficult circumstances, and to respond quickly when there is an opportunity for political change. NED is dedicated to fostering the growth of a wide range of democratic institutions abroad, including political parties, trade unions, free markets and business organizations, as well as the many elements of a vibrant civil society that ensure human rights, an independent media, and the rule of law.
This well-rounded approach responds to the diverse aspects of democracy and has proved both practical and effective throughout NED’s history. Funded largely by the U.S. Congress, the support NED gives to groups abroad sends an important message of solidarity to many democrats who are working for freedom and human rights, often in obscurity and isolation....
From its beginning, NED has remained steadfastly bipartisan. Created jointly by Republicans and Democrats, NED is governed by a board balanced between both parties and enjoys Congressional support across the political spectrum. NED operates with a high degree of transparency and accountability reflecting our founders’ belief that democracy promotion overseas should be conducted openly." (my bolds)
Despite its proclamation that it has a "nongovernmental character", NED receives its funding through an annual appropriation from Congress through the Department of State making it little more than another mouthpiece for Washington's agenda. NED promotes Washington's global agenda through direct grants to more than 1600 non-governmental groups that are working for "democracy" in more than 90 nations around the world.
Let's look at NED's activities in Hong Kong for 2018 according to its website. Here are the projects that were funded over the period from 2015 to 2018:
Notice that the 2018 funding to the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs was granted to "facilitate engagement on Hong Kong's growing threats to guaranteed rights". That certainly sounds like promoting democracy to me. NED spent a total of $1,357,974 on grants to organizations that were promoting freedom, democracy and human rights in Hong Kong over the period from 2015 to 2018. Unfortunately, we don't know what NED spent on promotingg democracy in Hong Kong in the timeframe prior to 2015. While, in the grand scheme of what Washington spends this is not a great deal of money, it is the principle of what Washington is attempting to create in Hong Kong that is of concern. This is a very clear example of meddling in the internal affairs of China and Hong Kong, actions that will only serve to anger China who is the also the recipient of a great deal of NED's attention. It is also key to remember that there are likely other taxpayer-funded programs through which Washington is attempting to influence what happens in Hong Kong.
In my opinion, this tweet by the conservative-leaning Washington Examiner is a dead giveaway to the source of the unrest:
Video from Hong Kong shows pro-democracy protesters waving American flags and singing the American National Anthem. Demonstrations have shutdown the city's airport for a second consecutive day and put the entire Chinese city on edge. pic.twitter.com/ZrYE5DzZYU
While the ideals of democracy are admirable and desirable, Washington's version of democracy is tainted by big money and has developed into a system where politicians are for sale to the highest bidder. This is not the democracy that most of the world wants. Long-term Congressional meddling in other nations internal affairs through its funding of the National Endowment for Democracy is little better than the nation reengineering exercises undertaken by the Central Intelligence Agency since the end of the Second World War.
Thanks to the unbridled patriotism of one major and nearly ubiquitous American corporation, American voters can now rest assured that democracy is safe during the 2020 election. Let's take a look at ElectionGuard™, the latest in election-guarding technology.
According to Microsoft, ElectionGuard has five major benefits that "...will protect the vote against tampering by anyone, and improve the voting process for citizens and officials...":
1.) Verifiable: Allowing voters and third-party organizations to verify election results.
2.) Secure: Built with advanced encryption techniques developed by Microsoft Research.
3.) Auditable: Supporting risk-limiting audits that help assure the accuracy of elections.
4.) Open source: Free and flexible with the ability to be used with off-the-shelf hardware.
4.) Make voting better: Supporting standard accessibility tools and improving the voting experience.
How can Microsoft ensure that ElectionGuard is secure? Here's the company's answer to that pressing question:
"ElectionGuard uses something called homomorphic encryption – which enables mathematical procedures – like counting – to be done with fully encrypted data. The use of homomorphic encryption in election systems has been pioneered by Microsoft Research under the leadership of Senior Cryptographer Josh Benaloh. With homomorphic encryption, individually encrypted votes can be combined to form an encrypted tabulation of all votes which can then be decrypted to produce an election tally that protects voter privacy. By running an open election verifier, anyone can securely confirm that the encrypted votes have been correctly aggregated and that this encrypted tabulation has been correctly decrypted to produce the final tally. This process allows anyone to verify the correct counting of votes by inspecting the public election record, while keeping voting records secure. The use of homomorphic encryption to enable verification is separate from and in addition to the process of paper ballots counted as an official election tally."
Microsoft claims that its mission is to "empower every person on the planet to achieve more" and that this can be accomplished by improving access to disabled persons who wish to vote among other things. The company also wants to make the voting experience easier and more modern for everyone. To that end, ElectionGuard will showcase its ability to allow people to vote at home, then bring a QR code to their local polling place to scan and prepopulate their ballot. ElectionGuard will support the use of both PCs and standard tablets running a variety of operating systems as a ballot marking device. By doing this, ElectionGuard will create an interface that looks very similar to the interface that people are familiar with on their phones and tablets. After people select their preferred candidate on a ballot marking device, they can then print off their ballot on a sheet of paper which is humanly readable so it can be reviewed to ensure that it is accurate before being dropped into the ballot box located at their polling place. Most importantly, Microsoft notes that the ElectionGuard software can be incorporated into any existing or newly developed voting system at the local, state and national level.
Microsoft is working with a number of partners to complete the development and testing of ElectionGuard including Galois, a Portland, Oregon-based, privately-held software company which has received millions of dollars from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop improved hardware security as well as a system that will secure computer hardware against software attacks that exploit hardware vulnerabilities. While all of this seems arcane, it is interesting to note that on its website, Galois lists only U.S. government entities as its clients:
According to D&B Hoovers, Galois clients also include the United States Navy, United States Air Force, members of the intelligence community as well as major U.S. defense contractors General Dynamics and Rockwell Collins as shown here:
One might almost think "Deep State actor" if one were so inclined.
Here is Galois' announcement about its partnership with Microsoft and the development of ElectionGuard:
Galois claims that Microsoft's Defending Democracy Program team is creating a product that will be usable by anyone and that ElectionGuard can be used as the core of most of today's election systems including those around the world. The product will be open source which will allow hobbyist programmers to develop and share open election systems, right down to elections that are held in high schools. Isn't that cute?
The ElectionGuard system is being hyped by Washington-funded media outlets as shown here:
...as well as by the American mainstream media as shown here:
The software development kit or SDK version of ElectionGuard will be available later this year with early prototypes scheduled for pilot programs during the 2020 election cycle. As an added benefit, not only is the ElectionGuard software free, Microsoft is also offering a cut-rate Office 365 application suite called Microsoft 365 for Campaigns for political parties and campaigns. According to Microsoft, the software can be set up in less than five minutes and is available for $5 per month per user, a 75 percent discount off of the price that the sweaty masses pay. Even if the software is hackable as shown here, that's still a deal that's hard to pass up!
It is rather fascinating to see that American electoral security is now being placed in the hands of a very powerful software company with a record of producing products that are regularly hacked including this recent breach of security and this warning from the National Security Agency:
No matter how capable this new software will be at ensuring an untarnished election, there are still multiple ways that an American election can be tarnished. For example, while ElectionGuard may successfully defeat the alleged attempts by Russia to defeat American Democracy, I wonder if it can protect American voters against the clearly non-democratic practice of gerrymandering as you can read about in this posting.
With very little fanfare, the G7 nations (a reformatted version of the G8 thanks to Russia's alleged annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its subsequent removal from the group) have created an institution that will protect all of us who are incapable of discerning between Russian propaganda (obviously bad propaganda) from our propaganda (obviously good propaganda). Given the name of the institution, you might think that it somehow involves the G7 assisting nations in need during emergencies but you couldn't be more wrong.
Here is the announcement about the created of the G7 Rapid Response Mechanism from the Government of Canada:
The G7 Rapid Response Mechanism or G7 RRM was created to "protect democracy" and its Coordination Unit will share information and threat analysis to better anticipate, identify and respond to threats to democracy across the G7 nations and around the globe.
Here is a quote from the final communique of the latest full meeting of the G7 regarding election meddling:
"We commit to take concerted action in responding to foreign actors who seek to undermine our democratic societies and institutions, our electoral processes, our sovereignty and our security as outlined in the Charlevoix Commitment on Defending Democracy from Foreign Threats. We recognize that such threats, particularly those originating from state actors, are not just threats to G7 nations, but to international peace and security and the rules-based international order. We call on others to join us in addressing these growing threats by increasing the resilience and security of our institutions, economies and societies, and by taking concerted action to identify and hold to account those who would do us harm."
In their Charlevoix Commitment on Defending Democracy from Foreign Threats, the leaders of the G7 had this to say:
"We, the Leaders of the G7, commit to:
1.) Respond to foreign threats, both together and individually, in order to meet the challenges facing our democracies.
2.) Strengthen G7 cooperation to prevent, thwart and respond to malign interference by foreign actors aimed at undermining the democratic processes and the national interests of a G7 state.
3.) Establish a G7 Rapid Response Mechanism to strengthen our coordination to identify and respond to diverse and evolving threats to our democracies, including through sharing information and analysis, and identifying opportunities for coordinated response.
4.) Share lessons learned and best practices in collaboration with governments, civil society and the private sector that are developing related initiatives including those that promote free, independent and pluralistic media; fact-based information; and freedom of expression.
5.) Engage directly with internet service providers and social media platforms regarding malicious misuse of information technology by foreign actors, with a particular focus on improving transparency regarding the use and seeking to prevent the illegal use of personal data and breaches of privacy.
6.) Support public learning and civic awareness aimed at promoting critical thinking skills and media literacy on intentionally misleading information, and improving online security and safety.
7.) In accordance with applicable laws, ensure a high level of transparency around sources of funding for political parties and all types of political advertising, especially during election campaigns.
I thought that Point 7 was particularly interesting given that U.S. politics is rife with "dark money" which is defined as follows:
"Dark Money refers to political spending meant to influence the decision of a voter, where the donor is not disclosed and the source of the money is unknown. Depending upon the circumstances, Dark Money can refer to funds spent by a political nonprofit or a super PAC. Here’s how:
1.) Political nonprofits are under no legal obligation to disclose their donors. When they choose not to, they are considered Dark Money groups.
2.) Super PACs can also be considered Dark Money groups in certain situations. While these organizations are legally required to disclose their donors, they can accept unlimited contributions from political non-profits and “shell” corporations who may not have disclosed their donors, in these cases they are considered Dark Money groups."
Dark money groups must publicly disclose explicit political spending but not other expenditures which can total tens of millions of dollars or more.
Let's look at one of the hosts at the G7 meeting in Charlevoix. Ms. Chrystia Freeland is Canada's Foreign Minister and was blacklisted by Russia in March 2014 (prior to Canada's 2015 election and her appointment as the Liberal Party's Foreign Minister) for her strong criticism of Russia's "annexation" of Crimea. At the time, she advocated for sanctions against Russia which resulted in this:
...and eventually this exchange with Maria Zakharova from Russia's Foreign Ministry:
"Question: Can you comment on the appointment of Chrystia Freeland, the new Canadian Foreign Minister, who used to criticise Russia and President Vladimir Putin in the past? When will it become possible to exclude her from the list of Canadian officials covered by Russia’s sanctions?
Maria Zakharova: The appointment of national foreign ministers is the prerogative of sovereign countries. The Canadian leaders that made this decision should be asked to clarify their motives. I don’t think this is a question for me. We have noted that Canada now has a new Foreign Minister.
Regarding our attitude towards her past critical remarks and the lack of such remarks today, we don’t know anything about her future line or priorities. I believe we need to focus on the specific actions and programmes as implemented by the Canadian Foreign Ministry. Then we can comment and take action if necessary.
Regarding excluding her from the list of officials covered by the sanctions, I would like to remind everyone that, although many headlines read that the Canadian Foreign Minister was included on the Russian sanction lists, the situation is slightly different. She got on the sanction list not as a Foreign Minister of Canada, but in 2014, as a response measure taken by the Russian side. First, Canada declared sanctions against some Russian citizens, including Russian officials. In response, Russia compiled its own list that included Ms Freeland. I believe that we need to look for an answer regarding the circumstances for excluding people from this list in the context of reciprocal and symmetrical actions."
After her travel ban was imposed, Ms. Freeland had this to say:
It's certainly reassuring to know that one of the key G7 architects of the anti-Russia movement has no bias when it comes to "messing with elections". My guess is that anything short of a Liberal Party majority in Canada after the October 2019 election will be blamed on Russia given that this has already been put in place:
...and that Ms. Freeland and Canada's Public Safety Minster Ralph Goodale recently had this to say to the world after a meeting of the G7 foreign ministers:
It is interesting to note that Ms. Freeland is most concerned about Russia's impact on political polarization. I hate to tell Ms. Freeland but political polarization in Canada and the United States has existed for decades, long before the concept of Russian-sourced meddling was the watchword of the day. Just ask Albertans.
Given the anti-Russia bias that took root and has become pervasive in the West since 2014 and, in particular, since the Hillary Clinton loss in 2016 which is blamed on Russian-sourced disinformation, it is comforting to see that the unbiased leadership of the G7 is doing its best to ensure that those of us who live in vulnerable democracies are being protected from the efforts of Russia to destroy our way of life.
I have been an avid follower of the world's political and economic scene since the great gold rush of 1979 - 1980 when it seemed that the world's economic system was on the verge of collapse. I am most concerned about the mounting level of government debt and the lack of political will to solve the problem. Actions need to be taken sooner rather than later when demographic issues will make solutions far more difficult. As a geoscientist, I am also concerned about the world's energy future; as we reach peak cheap oil, we need to find viable long-term solutions to what will ultimately become a supply-demand imbalance.
Posts
