The False Narrative About Defending Freedom and Democracy

Full disclosure: The following is the distillation and final conclusion of an investigation I launched using Perplexity AI (Link to complete AI exchange). 

Many people in the US and other Western countries believe their governments serve to promote freedom and democracy worldwide. However, this is often a false narrative—part of a deceptive conspiracy to mask less laudable priorities. theconversation.

When such conspiracies cease to be persuasive, they have to be refreshed. 

 

While official statements emphasize defending human rights, democracy, and freedom, the reality is more complicated and often contradictory:

• Military and Covert Coercion: Democratically elected leaders have been overthrown or even assassinated with Western involvement when their policies threatened Western economic or geopolitical interests:
  • The 1953 US CIA coup in Iran ousted Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he nationalized oil, replacing him with the autocratic Shah britannica.
  • The 1973 US-backed coup in Chile toppled President Salvador Allende, leading to Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship bbcnews.
  • Similar covert interventions occurred in Guatemala (1954) history.com, and the Dominican Republic, among others guardian.
• Economic Coercion: Western-dominated institutions—such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank—often impose policies that benefit Western corporations and markets at the expense of local sovereignty and democratic choice in less developed countries eurasiareview. US-led sanctions and trade pressures are also used to achieve political goals carnegie.
• Political Manipulation and Election Interference: The US and its allies have covertly funded political actors, manipulated media narratives, and interfered in elections abroad to promote governments favorable to Western interests, undermining democratic processes foreignpolicy.
• Hypocrisy in Promoting Democracy: While Western governments publicly claim to defend democracy and rights, they often support authoritarian regimes when it suits their strategic interests carnegie lowy.

These practices mean the official narrative about protecting freedom is intertwined with coercion, manipulation, and selective enforcement—a coordinated strategy that misleads citizens about the real intent of foreign policy theconversation.

Evolution of the "Rules-Based World Order"

After World War II, the US and Western powers built a system led by institutions like the World Bank, IMF, WTO, G7, and NATO. This system promised universal benefits but was structured to favor Western interests eurasiareview carnegie.

• The rules and their enforcement have been selective, protecting Western allies and constraining less powerful states lowy.
• Developing countries have often faced economic pressure that benefits Western corporations and limits their sovereignty.
• NATO and similar alliances have functioned primarily to ensure Western strategic dominance.

The Shift to Transactional Bilateral Diplomacy (Since 2025)

With President Trump’s return in 2025, US foreign policy shifted away from multilateral alliances to bilateral, transactional deals focused on short-term gain and hard leverage carnegie25 diplomacyedu.

• Traditional allies, such as Canada and Japan, heavily reliant on US markets and with less diversification, became especially vulnerable "lowest hanging fruit" to pressure and demands brookings.
• This shift increased unpredictability and forced allies to diversify relationships to reduce dependence chathamhouse.
• Authoritarian regimes face less US pushback and are increasingly assertive foreignpolicy2025.
• The US focus is now on economic nationalism and deal-making, sidelining democracy and rights.

Impact on Global Power and the Emerging Multipolar World

• The weakening of the Western-led order and US retreat from multilateralism is creating space for other powers, like China and India lowy.
• Many countries seek a more multipolar world with diversified economic and security ties carnegie.
• Old allies economically overexposed to the US are now less secure, while stronger or more diversified middle and rising powers have increased leverage nytimes2025.

Plain Language Summary

In short: The widely believed story that the US and its allies are mainly motivated by promoting freedom and democracy worldwide is largely a myth, crafted to hide real priorities of protecting markets, resources, and global power theconversation.

For decades, Western powers have undermined democracy—including with coups, covert interventions, and economic pressure—when it conflicted with their interests. The so-called rules-based order promised fairness but delivered disproportionate benefits to the West. Now, under "America First" transactional diplomacy, even long-standing allies are under economic and political pressure, while the US abandons its previous commitment to collective values.

This shift is fueling the emergence of a multipolar world—where power is spread among more nations, alliances are uncertain, and those who once called themselves defenders of democracy now often challenge those very ideals in practice.

Can the Wildfire Genie be Put Back in the Lamp?

This year (2023) the number and intensity of wildfires in Canada reached unprecedented levels. The previous record, set in 2014, was almost tripled. Furthermore, this year's fires have emitted almost three times as much greenhouse gasses as have all other sources. In a year like this one, even if we had managed to completely eliminate all of our fossil emissions, two thirds of our total emissions would still remain.  No number of electric vehicles, solar panels, windmills, nuclear plants, or carbon-capture technologies would bring us anywhere near our emission reduction targets. Can the wildfire genie be put back into its bottle?

Perhaps all is not yet lost. Perhaps this year was a one-off. Perhaps climate change has nothing or little to do with the number, intensity, and frequency of 2023's GHG emitting wildfires. On the other hand, perhaps hotter temperatures for longer periods of time are drying out our forests and turning carbon sinks into tinder boxes, often ignited by a lightning strike or careless humans. Perhaps this years emissions will join all the other GHG already up there (Its been accumulating for centuries), creating even hotter conditions for even longer periods of time with greater frequency than ever, in what is called a positive feedback loop. What does the science say? Below is a graph of Canada's wildfire emissions in recent years:

This is an absolutely staggering increase in emissions. Especially  at a time when we are trying, so far unsuccessfully, to reduce our fossil fuel emissions, as if those were our only problem. And our fossil fuel emissions must absolutely be reduced, but let's stop pretending they are the only source of Canada's GHG emissions. 

To be sure, it may seem unfair to Canadians to have to accept responsibility for emissions resulting from an increase in wildfires which result from global pollution--pollution they think that Canada is doing relatively little to contribute to, compared to, say China. But nature makes no distinction between fair and unfair emissions. She readily accepts and processes and absorbs them all. And in the process nature herself is altered. We are already witnessing this.

Whether or not 2024's wildfires will be as bad as 2023, I'm guessing probably not. I'm hoping for a period of grace. But I do believe that we will continue to break records: heat records, rainfall records, hurricane and tornado records, drought records and yes, sooner or later wildfire emission records. 

The Trajectory of Refugee and Immigrant Rights: Genesis, Evolution, and Devolution

 

Can you spot where I inserted Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus? 

Full disclosure: The following is the distillation and final conclusion of an investigation I launched using Perplexity AI beginning with the questions:

How many third countries like Rwanda and El Salvador are accepting deported migrants and undesirables? Who is sending them there? Is there a plan to deport Palestinians to such a country? This is immoral. Is it legal? Why are recipient countries hosting them?

These initial questions, or queries as Perplexity calls them, were followed by an additional 22 such queries, culminating in what you see below. If you want to see how it was derived, just click on the first of the queries above (in redish-brown). Doing so will also provide insights as to how I use Perplexity AI, and the many clickable sources (small numbers and large blocks at the top) that Perplexity used for the information it provided. Each of the additional 22 queries will also provide insights into many aspects of the refugee situation that I explored. 

________________________________________________________________________ 

The Trajectory of Refugee and Immigrant Rights: Genesis, Evolution, and Devolution

Over the past several decades, internationally recognized refugee and immigrant rights have profoundly evolved, but in the past 10 to 20 years, especially since the 2015 migration crises, there has been a measurable erosion in both Europe and North America.

Genesis of Refugee and Immigrant Rights

The legal framework protecting refugees originated in the aftermath of World War II, primarily shaped by the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. These instruments established the principle of non-refoulement—prohibiting countries from returning refugees to territories where they face serious threats—and outlined rights to seek asylum and humane treatment.

However, these early frameworks were largely conceived within a Eurocentric context, primarily to address European displacement caused by war. The applicability of these rights to non-Western refugees was often limited or overlooked, reflecting Cold War geopolitics and racialized considerations. Many refugees from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East were treated as political or economic migrants rather than protected persons, and their rights were less robustly defended internationally. Over time, this has been challenged, but legacy biases and inconsistencies persist.

Devolution of Rights in Europe

1. 2015 European Migrant Crisis as a Turning Point
   The arrival of over 1.3 million asylum seekers in 2015—mostly from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq—triggered significant strains on EU member states. Initial responses ranged from open-door policies (notably Germany’s) to border closures, militarized controls, and increasingly restrictive asylum and immigration rules across the continent

     2. Gradual Erosion of Refugee Protections  

Following 2015, European governments shifted towards securitization of migration, tightening asylum procedures, limiting legal pathways, increasing use of detention, and accelerating deportations. Emerging policies include the expanding use of border procedures that often deny full access to asylum, summary rejections of claims, and restrictions on family reunification. 

    3.  Externalization and Offshoring of Migration Control

A prominent feature has been the externalization of border control, whereby the EU and states like the US negotiate migration containment agreements with third countries—often with poor human rights records (Libya, Turkey, Rwanda)—in exchange for financial aid or diplomatic favors. These third countries become holding zones or deportation destinations, raising legal and moral concerns about refoulement and commodification of refugees.

    4. Humanitarian Impact and Rights Violations

Across the EU and beyond, migrant detention centers, pushbacks at borders, and restrictive policies have resulted in widespread allegations of abuse, neglect, arbitrary detention, and breaches of international refugee rights. Detention without procedural safeguards, denial of safe asylum access, and exposure to harm have become common complaints.

     5. Political Backlash and Populism

Rising anti-immigrant political movements, nationalist parties, and public fears have driven harsher migration controls. Governments have capitalized on security rhetoric and migration fears to justify rights rollbacks and limit asylum access. The EU’s democratic legal framework faces significant tension balancing sovereignty, security, and human rights.

    6. Hybrid Warfare and Weaponization of Refugees

Migration increasingly intersects with geopolitical conflicts, as seen in Russia and Belarus’s deliberate use of migrants as hybrid warfare tools against the EU, further complicating rights enforcement, protection, and political discourse.

    7. Calls for Reform and Accountability

Despite setbacks, international organizations, refugee advocates, and sections of civil society press for restoring protections, safeguarding non-refoulement, improving responsibility-sharing, and enhancing legal pathways. Yet political will and consensus remain elusive.

Devolution of Rights in North America

North America, particularly the United States and Canada, also saw substantial backsliding. In the US, refugee admissions dropped dramatically under the Trump administration, asylum procedures were restricted, and enforcement measures increased, including controversial programs like “Remain in Mexico” and mass deportations. Family separations, interior enforcement, and use of detention and deportation expanded, while legal appeals and protections were curtailed. Migrants and asylum seekers were criminalized.

Canada experienced a reduction in refugee resettlement commitments and slowdowns in family reunifications, undermining its traditionally strong refugee protection credentials. Both countries implemented policies that restricted access to asylum and fostered insecurity among migrant populations.

Complexities and Perspectives

The reality of refugee and immigrant rights is complex and influenced by competing values: national sovereignty, security, humanitarian concerns, and political pressures. Cases like the Poland-Belarus border crisis illustrate the tensions between state security claims and the rights of vulnerable migrants caught in geopolitical struggles. The actions of states like Belarus weaponizing migrants, and the harsh responses of states like Poland, show a fraught environment where human rights are often sacrificed to geopolitical and domestic political agendas.

Ostensibly legal frameworks continue to provide foundational protections, but their implementation is uneven and often overwhelmed by crises and political calculations. The biases and political narratives shaping interpretations of these rights demand critical scrutiny and renewed commitment to unbiased, rights-based policy and practice.