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 Ring of Fire: A Climate Genie We Can’t Put Back

Canada’s rush to mine critical minerals in Ontario’s Ring of Fire threatens to unleash a climate risk far greater than its promised benefits for the green energy transition. The region’s vast, ancient peatlands store up to 35 billion tonnes of carbon—making them one of the world’s largest and most stable carbon sinks. Mining and road-building would lower the water table, dry out the peat, and trigger the release of massive, irreversible carbon emissions—potentially hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO₂ and methane.

Once dried, these peatlands become highly vulnerable to catastrophic fires. Peat fires are notoriously difficult to extinguish, often smoldering underground for months or even years, releasing enormous amounts of carbon and making restoration virtually impossible. Despite this, wildfire emissions—which now far exceed Canada’s official, human-caused emissions—are not counted in climate targets or public debate. There are no national or global wildfire emission-reduction targets, leaving a dangerous gap in climate policy as we approach an irreversible feedback loop: more fires, more emissions, more warming.

The minerals beneath the Ring of Fire are important for electric vehicles and renewable energy, but the carbon cost of disturbing these peatlands could negate any climate gains. The risks—climate, ecological, and social—dwarf the economic benefits.

We are on the verge of unleashing a climate genie that cannot be put back in the bottle. The world must recognize and protect the irreplaceable carbon sinks of the North before it’s too late.

Past the Tipping Point:

Here in Canada we are now past the tipping point. Even if we eliminate emissions from all other sources, wildfires alone put us well over our emission targets. A positive feedback loop in which this year's emissions get added to the accumulated emissions from previous years/decades/centuries, ensure that next year's temperatures will be even higher, drying out even more forests and tundra, melting even more permafrost, turning it all into kindling for next year's fires, thereby ensuring that they will be more numerous and ferocious than this year's fires. And so on.

None of this will be immediately apparent to most people because powerful interests don't want it to be. We are constantly being fed a steady diet of claptrap to bamboozle us and to lull us into an unwarranted sense of complacency. First and foremost, emissions from wildfires are not included in the tally of Canada's emissions because they are considered carbon neutral--the vegetation will grow back and reabsorb any GHG emissions released by a fire; and secondly, because wildfires are not considered to be anthropomorphic (caused by humans). But discounting them does not make these emissions go away, just as exporting fossil fuels doesn't mean that they don't get burnt elsewhere and contribute to global warming. A realistic prognosis for the planet must include all GHG emissions, whether someone accepts responsibility for them or not. GHG emissions are a global problem, and as such national solutions are limited.

Some wildfires are not anthropomorphic. Wildfires predate the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels. But the increased intensity, frequency, size and number of wildfires is indeed anthropomorphic--exacerbated by global warming. The importance of this cannot be exaggerated; the emissions from wildfires in Canada have now eclipsed emissions from all other sources. Our once enviable carbon sinks have become liabilities--primary sources of GHG emissions. Discounting and excluding wildfire emissions from the total tally gives a very deceptive and dangerously misleading indication of where we're really at. 

 

We hear a great deal about emission reduction plans: Solar energy, wind energy, new nuclear plants, car battery plants for EVs, carbon capture technologies, etc. Despite all these, even excluding wildfire emissions and exported fossil fuels from the mix, our total GHG emissions have continued to rise. Nothing that has been done to date has lowered our GHG emissions. On the contrary. Adding wildfire emissions to the mix more than doubles Canada's total emissions. No proffered solution can reduce emissions by the amount required. 

Just a cursory examination of the most popular climate solutions reveals that all of them are intended, not only to reduce emissions, but also to make business as usual possible; the new "green" economy is intended to allow for continued capitalist expansion and perpetual economic growth. Replacing "zero" emission targets with "net zero" targets allows fossil fuel exporting countries to keep on exporting as long as they have enough carbon credits to do so. Under "net zero" there is no requirement to leave fossil fuels in the ground as long as you have enough carbon credits to offset any emissions in the process of extracting them. Carbon credits are acquired by sequestering carbon, either by planting and/or purchasing swamps and forests, or by installing carbon capture technology to capture emissions at the source--at a coal-fired power plant for instance. The responsibility for any CO2 emissions that occur after export falls to whichever country burns them. Of course this does nothing to reduce global emissions, but it does effectively protect fossil fuel exporters from liability while continuing to extract and export fossil fuels. Even banks can reach net zero while financing the fossil fuel industry as long as they have enough carbon credits to offset emissions that occur in their offices. Even the mineral extraction industry is re-branding itself as "green", not because of lowering its CO2 emissions, but because minerals for EV batteries, solar panels and windmills are needed in the new "green" economy. None of this has reduced the total global emissions, or even that of a particular country, but nonetheless seems to be convincing a lot of people that real effective work on reducing emissions is being done in a timely manner. Not so!

DeepGreen mining seafloor

Now, even ignoring all other sources of GHG emissions, wildfires by themselves are enough to ensure a climate holocaust. Given the positive feedback loop described above, we can only expect the damage caused by wildfires to continue to grow exponentially, regardless of what we do. Only an actual reduction in global temperatures could interrupt our invincible defeat. Perhaps if we had decoupled climate action from economic growth ten, twenty or thirty years ago we could have reduced emissions enough prevent the positive feedback loop now fuelling wildfires. We didn't.

--by Stewart Vriesinga

The Great Net Zero Green-Washing Deception: A Path to Oblivion

"Net Zero" has become the new buzzword for setting emission targets. Countries and corporations alike have set net zero emission targets to convince us that they are "doing their part" to reduce global emissions. But what is net zero exactly? Are they really doing their part? What, exactly, is the difference between net zero and zero emissions? Instead of reducing emissions to zero, with net zero one can buy a license to emit through the purchase of carbon offsets. But this leads us to the next question: What are carbon offsets?

Carbon offsets are devices that capture and sequester carbon. Some offsets are biological, some are technological. The former includes things like forests, wetlands, peat reserves, etc. These can be purchased and protected, locally or abroad, or created through reforestation and reclaiming of wetlands etc. 

Technological carbon offsets are ways of capturing carbon at the source of emission, or removing it from the atmosphere. The latter has not yet been achieved on a large scale, but is being invested in by corporations and countries on the assumption that they can developed in time for them to meet their net net zero emission targets. Theoretically captured carbon must somehow be sequestered in a way that it cannot be re-released into the atmosphere. This is usually done using deep underground deposits, often utilizing already depleted oil wells. 

The main problem with net zero emission targets is that they do little to discourage global consumption of fossil fuels; they only provide incentives to reduce those emissions emitted in a particular country or by a particular corporation. Fossil fuels extraction intended for export markets can continue unabated provided they exporters are, or assumed will be in possession of enough carbon offsets to offset emissions that occur as a result of extraction. This allows a corporation or country to meet its emission targets while continuing to extract fossil fuels for export, because it disregards emissions that occur after export. Once the fuels are out of their domain--once they have been exported to other end users--it is no longer the extractor's responsibility; it is the purchasers who must account for those emissions. Net zero emissions are extremely attractive to fossil fuel exporting countries and corporations. Exxon Mobile is one example of this: 

The plant’s main function is to process natural gas from a nearby deposit. But in order to purify and sell the gas, Exxon must first strip out carbon dioxide, which comprises about two-thirds of the mix of gases extracted from nearby wells.

The company found a revenue stream for this otherwise useless, climate-warming byproduct: It began capturing the CO2 and selling it to other companies, which injected it into depleted oil fields to help produce more oil.

--Inside Climate News

Oil companies have found a way, not only to meet their net zero emission targets, but to make a handsome profit while they're at it by cashing in on generous government subsidies for emission reductions,  while also selling the carbon they've captured to smaller companies who pump it into depleted wells to extract even more oil! This double-dipping actually increases global fossil fuel consumption rather than reducing it.  

The oil industry is not the only one to use deceptive accounting methods. Banks, for instance, can set a few solar panels on the roof and maybe hook up a couple of other alternative energy sources, and then claim to be carbon neutral, while their huge loans to fossil fuel industries continue uninterrupted. Net zero targets take the onus for emission reductions off of the fossil fuel and other industries in possession of carbon offsets, and externalizes  responsibility for these emissions to countries who import fossil fuels, in much the same way that industry is outsourced to overseas supply chains to reduce labour costs, avoid taxes, worker protection laws, and local environmental standards, etc. 

The problem with this nationalistic approach is that global warming is a global phenomenon. Corporations and nation states externalizing the cost of carbon emissions is not going to reduce global emissions. We all live on the same planet. And countries that must import fossil fuels and sell off their own carbon offsets--forests, wetlands, etc.-- are usually less able to bear the costs of transitioning to cleaner renewable energy than the countries they import the fuel from. Similarly, large oil producers are selling off their most carbon intensive operations to smaller wholly-owned private operators who do not trade on the stock market and are therefore not subjected to same scrutiny and regulations. Furthermore, divesting themselves of carbon intensive holdings qualifies these large global operators for huge government subsidies as a reward for "reducing" their carbon emissions:

 

Exxon Touts Carbon Capture as a Climate Fix, but Uses It to Maximize Profit and Keep Oil Flowing

The company sells the CO2 to other companies that use it to revive depleted oil fields and has relentlessly fought EPA oversight of the practice.

In 2008, when concerns about climate change led Congress to pass a tax credit meant to encourage companies to capture and store carbon dioxide, Exxon was presented with another way to make money from the technology. The massive amounts of carbon dioxide captured at its Wyoming facility put the oil and gas giant in a position to claim more credits under the tax break than any other company.

In the ensuing years, Exxon may have claimed hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits, according to estimates based on publicly available data from the Internal Revenue Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and a global think tank that tracks the technology.

--Inside Climate News

So, as we can see, Net Zero targets are a clever and useful way of accounting for, or, more precisely, not accounting for carbon emissions. Consequently those who want to appear serious about reducing their carbon emissions may in reality be doing little if anything at all to reduce global emissions. Are there better ways of measuring, accounting for, and reducing fossil fuel emissions? Ways of more accurately measuring a country's global carbon footprint and setting emissions targets accordingly? Yes, there certainly are!

A big part of the problem is that instead of recognizing and naming climate change as a cost of production, the cost has been externalized. Wealthy and fossil fuel producing nations are using net zero targets, not as a way of reducing global emissions, but rather transferring responsibility for existing emissions onto poorer countries and pretending that this somehow will reduce global emissions. It won't. Just as offshoring production is used to reduce the cost of labour, so too offshoring responsibility for CO2 emissions from fossil fuel producers to fossil fuel consumers obfuscates the true cost of extraction. The former will reduce the cost of labour for production, while the latter will reduce the cost of fossil fuel extraction by transferring responsibility for emissions from sellers to buyers. Offshoring production costs does not reduce the global amount of labour required to produce a commodity; it may increase it if reduced labour costs forestall automation. So too, offshoring fossil fuel extraction and consumption costs to end consumers does not reduce the total amount of global emissions. The consequences this faulty net zero accounting are largely borne by those least responsible for CO2 emissions, and those least able to afford it. By off-loading responsibility for emissions onto those least able to afford it, instead of reducing global emissions net zero targets actually increase emissions. 

Not only does this practice increase emissions; they constitute a grave injustice to those who suffer the consequences of global warming and climate change. If the car we are driving jumps the curb and kills innocent pedestrians we expect the driver to take responsibility, and insofar as compensation for damages the driver is liable. Why should it be any different for for the drivers of CO2 emissions?