On Thursday, U.S. President Joe Biden launched the virtual “Summit for Democracy.” It was an assembly of delegates from over one hundred countries to discuss and address the challenges facing democracy and human rights worldwide. In the past decade, the Institute of Democracy and Electoral Assistance has found that more than half of all democracies slid down its democratic scale. Some nations, like Myanmar, Afghanistan and Mali, have seen authoritarian coups. Others, including Hungary, Brazil and the U.S. itself, have become increasingly prone to anti-democratic tendencies.

In his opening address, Biden stressed this sense of global democracy in decline. Highlighting the threats posed by autocratic regimes, increasing political polarization and growing popular dissatisfaction, the U.S. president emphasized the need for action. “[I]n the face of sustained and alarming challenges,” he explained that “all around the world, democracy needs champions.”

While recognizing questions surrounding U.S. democracy, Biden positioned his administration as one such champion, announcing a plan to spend $424 million to bolster democracy globally. The pledge still needs to be worked out with Congress, but it would see funds directed towards supporting independent media, combatting corruption and advancing “pro-democracy” technologies.

The outcome of the summit and these initiatives is as of yet unclear. Annie Boyajian, the director of the democracy advocacy group Freedom House, cautioned against making any snap judgements, explaining that “a full assessment won’t be possible until we know what commitments there are, and how they are implemented in the year ahead.”

However, ambitions at the summit have been overshadowed by the tensions underlying it. Within the U.S. itself, the Biden administration has been charged with failing to secure American democracy, as Republicans have restricted ballot access in “red states”, and repeatedly blocked a voting rights bill in the Senate. Internationally, the summit has prompted questions over the nature of democracy itself.

Excluded from the summit, and painted by the U.S. as the autocratic enemies of global democracy, Russia and China went on a counter-offensive. In an unusual move, the two nations’ ambassadors to the U.S. – Anatoly Antonov and Qin Gang – collaborated on an opinion piece denouncing the summit. The ambassadors contended that both China and Russia were democracies, and rejected the U.S. “empowering itself to define who is to attend the event and who is not, who is a ‘democratic country’ and who is not eligible for such status.” Few impartial observers would be persuaded of the democratic credentials of either state, but the prerogatives assumed by the U.S. to define democracies should be subject to scrutiny.

As The Economist reports, a number of the nations invited to the summit seem significantly less democratic than some that were excluded – at least according to metrics devised by Freedom House. Several states – including DR Congo, Iraq and Angola – were rated “not free” by the advocacy group, but nevertheless attended; whereas “partly free” Hungary, Sierra Leone and Bolivia were never invited. The discrepancy is striking. Countries like Hungary might have seen some democratic backsliding recently, but its circumstances are incomparable to the DRC. Here, orruption is endemic, government forces commit human rights abuses and citizens are unable to exercise even basic civil liberties.

White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, countered such criticism, insisting that “inclusion or an invitation is not a stamp of approval on their approach to democracy, nor is exclusion the opposite of that.” It is not unreasonable to suggest that engaging with less democratic states is perhaps the best way to effect change within them. Norm Eisen, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former U.S. ambassador, argued that the summit could “embolden the pro-democracy forces,” within these states.

However, this is unlikely to convince many critics. John Keane, politics professor at the University of Sydney, regarded the summit as “cynically drawn up, bureaucratically crafted, [and] agency-structured.” For Keane, “the summit can’t be understood outside an attempt by the U.S. to build an anti-hegemonic – read: anti-China – coalition.” Further, this “great power” dimension is not easily ignored.

One of the more controversial invitees was “partly free” Pakistan. The country holds regular competitive multiparty elections, but its military exerts enormous influence over its politics and media, while concerns exist over violations of religious freedom. As a strategically important partner to the U.S., it is not surprising that Pakistan was invited. But Pakistan abruptly pulled out of the summit on Thursday – without giving a reason. The move was celebrated on Twitter by Lijian Zhao, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, writing: “Pakistan declined to attend the democracy summit. A real iron brother!”

It is hard to escape the feeling that the summit represents another step towards global conflict, as the U.S. and China scramble to construct opposing coalitions. As tensions escalate, the possibility of meaningful international cooperation seems increasingly fraught, while the challenges posed by the pandemic and the climate crisis loom increasingly large.