Two recent events in Europe have the potential to send shock waves well beyond the continent. The events are significant both in themselves and in how their double standards chisel away at the West’s heroic narrative and reveal the true cynical strategy. The first is France’s compromising of democracy in the appointment of a new prime minister; the second is Turkey’s application for membership in BRICS.
In August, President Nicolás Maduro declared that he had won re-election in Venezuela by a vote of 51.95% to 43.18%. The U.S. was quick to ride in as the champion of democracy. White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby told a press conference that “we have serious concerns that the result as announced does not reflect the will and the votes of the Venezuelan people.” Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared that “the announcement of results by the Maduro-controlled National Electoral Council (CNE) were deeply flawed, yielding an announced outcome that does not represent the will of the Venezuelan people.”
The U.S. insistence that democratic elections represent the will of the people fits admirably with the narrative of the U.S. as the global defender of democracy. It’s silence when France’s elections fail to do so fits less admirably. And the difference between the vociferous response to a rival’s election and the silence in the face of an ally’s reveals the double standard. And the double standard reveals that the strategy is less about the defense of democracy than about the defense of the U.S. alliance.
After the party of French President Emmanuel Macron was dealt a shocking and crushing defeat by the far-right National Rally Party of Marine Le Pen in the European Parliamentary elections in June, Macron called elections in France. Those elections were won by the left wing New Popular Front (NPF) with 180 seats. Macron’s party, who forged a front with the left against the party of Le Pen, came second with 159 seats. National Rally came third with 142 seats, and Michel Barnier’s center-right Les Republicains came last with a mere 39 seats.
As the winner of the election, the NPF, consistent with the workings of parliamentary democracies, proposed its candidate, Lucie Castets, to form a government. Their proposal was rejected by Macron who, ignoring the will of the people, instead nominated Barnier, the head of the party that won the least votes, as prime minister. Jean-Luc Melenchon, an important leader of the NPF, accused Macron of “officially deny[ing] the result of the legislative elections.”
Unlike the American response to Venezuela’s election, the White House and State Department seem to have been silent: no champion of democracy rode in to defend the people of France.
The defense of democracy is not the only victim of Western double standards. So is the inviolable right of a nation to choose its own alliances and partners.
The integrity of the commitment to this right must be sacred because it is the policy that is behind the West’s involvement in the war in Ukraine. The West better believe in this right because its defense is the justification for hundreds of thousands of deaths on the battlefields of Ukraine.
The war in Ukraine, State Department spokesman Ned Price explained early on, “is a war that is in many ways bigger than Russia, it’s bigger than Ukraine.” What is bigger than Ukraine for the United States, and worth letting Ukrainians die for, is “the principle that each and every country has a sovereign right to determine its own foreign policy, has a sovereign right to determine for itself with whom it will choose to associate in terms of its alliances, its partnerships.”
But when Turkey applied for membership in BRICS, the European Union expressed concern.
BRICS is neither an alliance nor a block. BRICS opposes blocs and is not against the United States. Indeed, some of its members, like India, have good relations with the United States. But BRICS is a large international organization whose primary purpose is to balance U.S. hegemony in a new multipolar world. Its founding members are Russia, China, India, Brazil and South Africa. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirate recently joined.
On September 4, Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov confirmed that “Turkey has applied for full membership” in BRICS and that BRICS would “consider it.” He also announced that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan would attend the upcoming October BRICS summit in Russia.
If admitted to BRICS, Turkey would become the first NATO member to join the multipolar organization whose purpose is to balance U.S. hegemony. And, unlike Ukraine’s right to join the alliance of its choice, that prospect does not make the West happy. The EU immediately declared its concern. EU spokesman Peter Stano did say that Turkey has the right to choose its international partnerships. But he emphatically added that, since Turkey is a candidate for EU membership, “the bloc expected such candidates to share its values and fully align their foreign policies with it.” In other words, unlike Ukraine, Turkey is not really free to choose its alliances and partners.
Joining BRICS need not place Turkey in opposition to the European Union. BRICS is not a bloc and is against no one. But a NATO country joining BRICS would be a seismic shift in the newly emergent multipolar world.
It is the belief of Erdogan that “the geopolitical center of gravity is shifting away from developed economies.” “Turkey can become a strong, prosperous, prestigious and effective country if it improves its relations with the East and the West simultaneously,” Erdogan said. “Any method other than this will not benefit Turkey, but will harm it.”
It is Turkey’s belief that it can fulfill its obligations as a NATO member while pursuing its foreign policy strategy of forging ties with many partners in a multipolar world. It does not see the need to choose between NATO and BRICS or between the U.S. and Russia and China.
In July, after attending a Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, Erdogan also expressed the ambition of Turkey joining the SCO, which, like BRICS, is a Chinese and Russian led multipolar organization. “We want to further develop our relations with Russia and China within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. We believe they should accept us not just as a dialogue partner but as a member,” Erdogan said. That would also make Turkey the first NATO member to have membership in the SCO. Explaining Turkey’s multipolar approach, Erdogan said “We do not have to choose between the European Union and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as some people claim. On the contrary, we have to develop our relations with both these and other organizations on a win-win basis.”
While the West is committed to defending a country’s right to choose its own alliances and partners when it furthers a U.S. led unipolar world, it seems much less committed to the same principle when it challenges that world in favour of a multipolar one. As with France and Venezuela, the double standard between Ukraine and Turkey chisels away at the myth and reveals the true U.S. grand strategy.
Ted Snider is a regular columnist on U.S. foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets. To support his work or for media or virtual presentation requests, contact him at tedsnider@bell.net.
