When is an election not considered free and fair by the West? Answer: when it delivers victory to a government that rejects neoliberal orthodoxy and refuses to orientate its foreign policy toward Washington or Brussels. There is no other conclusion one can come to after both the US and the EU announced wide-ranging sanctions on Belarus after the re-election of President Alexander Lukashenko.
Many may believe the sanctions deserved -- after all, the election has been condemned by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the country's human-rights record has been attacked by Amnesty International. But even if we believe the worst about Lukashenko (and it is widely accepted by opponents that he has majority support in Belarus), the democratic failings of the former Soviet republic pale into insignificance compared with those of other governments that the West, far from penalizing, has rewarded generously.
There is no talk of sanctions on Egypt, despite sweeping restrictions placed on opposition candidates, its thousands of political prisoners and widespread use of torture; on the contrary, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's country is the second-largest recipient of US foreign aid. And while US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice quotes with approval OSCE reports on Belarus, she seems less keen to respond to its verdict on central Asian states such as Turkmenistan -- a country that an OSCE official, Hrair Baliyan, has described as lacking even a "semblance of pluralism."
SMOKESCREEN
The US and its European allies have long used the smokescreen of democracy and human rights to undermine regimes of which they do not approve, while turning a blind eye to undemocratic practices and rights abuses in countries that do their bidding. A succession of governments have been labeled undemocratic by the US despite holding free elections: Guatemala in the 1950s, Chile in the 1970s, Nicaragua in the 1980s, the rump Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Pro-Western dictatorships such as the Shah's Iran, General Augusto Pinochet's Chile and Suharto's Indonesia have been generously bankrolled.
Even winning three democratic elections in a country where 21 parties operated freely, and there was a thriving opposition-run media, is no guarantee you won't be labeled a dictator by the West, as the late Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic found out. The reason Slobo was so labeled was not because he ran a one-party state or even because of his role in the Yugoslav wars, but because he represented the "unreformed" Yugoslav Socialist party, of which the West did not approve.
The West has the same problem with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Although Chavez was backed by 58 percent of Venezuelans in a referendum endorsed by the former US president Jimmy Carter, British Prime Minister Tony Blair called on him to "abide by the rules of the international community." The "rules" seem to be shorthand for accepting the social and economic template the West insists on imposing throughout the world.
The 83 percent vote for Lukashenko is said to be far too high to be taken seriously; yet there was no such Western incredulity when the pro-NATO and pro-EU Mikhail Saakashvili polled 97 percent in Georgia's 2004 presidential elections. When Georgian civil-society leaders protested about the authoritarian direction in which the country was heading, the West stayed silent.
In Ukraine, the scene of elections this weekend, the Western-backed orange revolution of just over a year ago has also left a bitter taste for many. For all its talk of spreading democracy, respecting the rights of independent peoples to choose whichever social and economic arrangements they wish really is the last thing the West wants.
Neil Clark's blog can be read at www.commentisfree.com.
What began on Feb. 28 as a military campaign against Iran quickly became the largest energy-supply disruption in modern times. Unlike the oil crises of the 1970s, which stemmed from producer-led embargoes, US President Donald Trump is the first leader in modern history to trigger a cascading global energy crisis through direct military action. In the process, Trump has also laid bare Taiwan’s strategic and economic fragilities, offering Beijing a real-time tutorial in how to exploit them. Repairing the damage to Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could take years, suggesting that elevated energy prices are likely to persist. But the most
Taiwan should reject two flawed answers to the Eswatini controversy: that diplomatic allies no longer matter, or that they must be preserved at any cost. The sustainable answer is to maintain formal diplomatic relations while redesigning development relationships around transparency, local ownership and democratic accountability. President William Lai’s (賴清德) canceled trip to Eswatini has elicited two predictable reactions in Taiwan. One camp has argued that the episode proves Taiwan must double down on support for every remaining diplomatic ally, because Beijing is tightening the screws, and formal recognition is too scarce to risk. The other says the opposite: If maintaining
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), during an interview for the podcast Lanshuan Time (蘭萱時間) released on Monday, said that a US professor had said that she deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize following her meeting earlier this month with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Cheng’s “journey of peace” has garnered attention from overseas and from within Taiwan. The latest My Formosa poll, conducted last week after the Cheng-Xi meeting, shows that Cheng’s approval rating is 31.5 percent, up 7.6 percentage points compared with the month before. The same poll showed that 44.5 percent of respondents
India’s semiconductor strategy is undergoing a quiet, but significant, recalibration. With the rollout of India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0, New Delhi is signaling a shift away from ambition-driven leaps toward a more grounded, capability-led approach rooted in industrial realities and institutional learning. Rather than attempting to enter the most advanced nodes immediately, India has chosen to prioritize mature technologies in the 28-nanometer to 65-nanometer range. That would not be a retreat, but a strategic alignment with domestic capabilities, market demand and global supply chain gaps. The shift carries the imprimatur of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, indicating that the recalibration is