Connect with us

INTERVIEW

‘Europe will become completely dependent on the US’

Published

on

The financial crisis of 2008-9, hyper-financialisation, the war in Ukraine, the economic sanctions against Russia, the rise of the BRICS and the idea that Western civilisation is in ‘decline’… All these are interconnected, and the neo-mercantilist tendencies rising in the US and Europe are both a reaction to and a consequence of all these processes.

The Norwegian political scientist and commentator Glenn Diesen argues in his books and speeches that the political and economic liberal ideas on which Western civilisation was founded are undermining it. According to him, it is essential to strike a balance between traditional values and social ideas and the requirements of modern society, and today’s Russia is moving in this direction and is emerging as the protector of ‘European civilisation’. Western conservatives, who see Russia as a natural ally in this struggle, also want to assert themselves against declining liberalism by returning to traditional Europe.

In your book The Decay of Western Civilisation and Resurgence of Russia (2019) you claim that the internal contradictions within liberal democracy and laissez-faire capitalism shake the foundation of Western civilisation. It sounds a bit like Spenglerian ‘decline of the West.’ Do you think there are similarities between Spenglerian analysis of the Western civilization and yours? Do we live again in a interwar-period-like situation?

Well, yes and no. I do side Spengler actually, but he is not unique in this sense. If we address most of the scholars who look on civilizations, they all tend to, more or less, reach the same conclusion, which is, civilizations end up destroying themselves, often in their excesses. They would exhaust fundamental culture at their core. I do actually side Spengler, but the collapse of the West is perhaps too much. But I think that all after the world order which has been built up around the West, a lot of the key ideas I think have begun to exhaust themselves.

If we look at, for example, political liberalism, with origin from the French Revolution. Remember, there were three slogans: Liberty, Equality and Fraternity or Brotherhood. Now, we tend to build a lot around political liberalism in terms of almost radical individualism. But what we forget is that the third part of the slogan, which is Brotherhood. I think that this is a reference to the unity of society. This is a kind of fundamental of sociology which is that we have to find a balance between the individual and the group. Once you have radical individualism, it begins to tear away at the common group identity, and eventually, it will fragment the group.

It is not just political liberalism I do see some weaknesses, but also economic liberalism. Again, this has been a challenge since the industrial revolution when capitalism was introduced. We always recognize that unfettered markets are deeply problematic because society becomes an appendage to the market in which the traditional community weakens severely. There has been a recognition since 1945 this had to be addressed, that some of the uglier sides of capitalism had to be contained. We had a kind of different form of capitalism until the 1970s and the 1980s in which there was a revert back to the unfettered markets in response to the stagnation of the 70s. And I also point out that a lot of these had been reversed after the Cold War. But I think there was an ideological hubris, the assumption that markets could do everything. These were excesses of liberalism in which both the economic and the political which failed to look at social cohesion. And I think this is what creates a lot of civilizational decay.

Another common aspect which is seen by scholars on civilizations is pointing out that civilizations are a bit like stars. They seem to shine the brightest when they are already dying. This is what we learn back from the Roman Empire as well. When it was at its height, there were a lot of excesses, a lot of self-indulgence which covered up decadence already set in. So yes, that’s one of the themes of the book. I do see this being a key problem.

You depict an international system in which a state needs a balancing act between gemeinschaft and gesellschaft to compete with others. The more markets get global and the state gets smaller, there is an urgent need for a broader state intervention. Do you think recent re-industrialisation and neo-mercantilism debate in the USA and using the so-called Chinese and Russian threat to the West are examples of this oscillation?

I think the return to neomercantilism is simply a reflection of the international distribution of economic power. Because, historically, we see that liberal economic systems evolve or develop when there’s a clear hegemony such as Britain in the 19th century or when the US took over in the 20th century. Under such conditions, the hegemon has an interest in creating trust. Because once there is trust in the international system, countries would not seek to control everything themselves, they would expect more integration, more open borders. And there is an interest for economic hegemon to support this when they are the most powerful.

So, again, with Britain and the US, they embraced liberal economics when they controlled the leading technologies. This is important because it is very ideal to have free markets if you are the economically dominant power. Because, you have the mature industries which are defined by low cost and high quality. And if you compete against the infant markets, the rest of the world, which are defined by low quality and high prices, open markets or unfettered markets and free trade would fill up the demands in other countries.

For example, when the British embraced free markets by repealing the Corn Laws, they were very open in the parliament, saying “Listen, this is great. The rest of the world would be like colonies to us, because they cannot compete against us on the free markets, they depend on us for manufactured goods, and they can do the rest.” This was the same with the United States.

So, there is an incentive to embrace free trade once you are the dominant hegemon. They will use your technologies, they will trust your control over the maritime sea corridors, they will use your banks and currency, so there is an interest in trust.

However, what we always see is new centers of power emerging. This is when the hegemon gets into a dilemma. Would you allow if you were the US, new powers to rise which can challenge the authority, like China? No. At this point, you have to weaken the rise of adversaries. You have to undermine its ability to develop its technological autonomy. You want to threaten its reliance on transportation corridors, undermine its access to the international reserve currency, banks, etc. Not just China, but of course, Russia as well for that sake.

But the problem is once the US begins to weaponize its administrative control over the international economy, it only increases incentives for other countries to decouple. And I guess that’s what we see now. Even the friends of America, be it Turkey or India, would also be punished by the US if they do not follow the unilateral sanctions of the US. The more the US weaponizes its control, the more you will see countries have incentive to move away from it. And I think that’s one of the things we have really seen in this, for example, that not just Russia is being sanctioned, but anyone can have their bank accounts taken away.

So I see liberal economics has been in decline, and when the hegemon goes away we tend to return to neomercantilism in which we reduce our dependence on others, we seek our own currencies, our own technological sovereignty. This is not necessarily a positive thing, as many conflicts can emerge. However, this is where the interests of states line.

So you think that the Biden Administration or who comes next would pursue the same policies against China and Russia.

Yes, I don’t think it matters who sits in the White House. Keep in mind when Trump unleashed all of these economic wars against China, Biden, Clinton, they all said “What is he doing? This is a Cold War.” However, after Trump went out, you have Hillary Clinton writing articles in Foreign Affairs, saying “We need powerful industrial policies,” which is neomercantilism. You take the government to fund your technological advancements, you use your economic resources, align it with state power to weaken adversaries. So, they follow the exact same policies. Whoever comes after Biden, they will do the same.

This is not necessarily in America’s interest. Because they currently are in a dilemma: they can either try to hold on to this unipolar order, even though there are now multipolar realities which they have to address, bu if they try to cling onto this, by preventing the rise of other powers, they would become so abusive, they would only incentivize the rest of the world to do it more, to diversify quicker.

In my opinion, the best policy for the US is to help to facilitate a multipolar system where they have a privileged position, instead of trying to fight it. Because once they fight it, they would see a multipolar world emerging which is in opposition to the US. You see that now with BRICS. They are very specific. They want to stop reliance on the US dollar. All see kind of a common threat from America. This is not what you want. You want to have a multipolar system emerging where the other actors may balance each other, and leave you alone, that is, the United States. They are not doing this at the moment. In my opinion, they do not pursue the ideal policy for the US. 

Let me ask about the BRICS summit. Can an enlarging BRICS bloc cope with G7 and NATO?

Yes, I think so. Simply because they tend to follow the same policies which the Americans tried to weaken the British hegemony. Keep in mind that when the British were dominant, especially in the early 1800’s, the Americans developed what they called the American system. They had three main pillars: They said we need a manufacturing industry; we need our own more efficient transportation corridors, roads, and ports; and ofcourse, you have to own your national bank.

We see these same things now coming from China which is obviously leading. First, they seek a very ambitious industrial policy to take the technological leadership in most of the new technologies associated with the fourth industrial revolution. We also see that they are pouring trillions of dollars into the Belt and Road Initiative for physical connectivity, new transportation corridors which are not vulnerable to the US pressure. And, the third is the financial aspect, which is the development of the new national banks, or the new development banks, diversifying away from the US dollar as a currency, but also setting up new payment systems, not being dependent on SWIFT, which can be used as a weapon by the US. So, they are already doing this.

I think that the BRICS becomes an institution to further build on these ideas, that is, brings together the huge amount of the countries which control a lot of the national resources of the world, the populations of the world, lots of the trade. They can set up their own transportation corridors, their own banks, and new technological hubs to cooperate with each other. There is a lot of potential. And I think this is the objective. I would not frame it as an alliance in the same way as the G7, because the G7 works together for a collective hegemony of the West under the US leadership. I think the BRICS is something different. They are facilitating multipolarity which means it does not have to have one dominant power. That is also obvious by the fact that the members they took in. For example, Saudis and Iran are not best of friends. But it is a way of resolving differences, instead of necessarily being dependent on a third party. So I think the BRICS has a lot of potential addressing a real demand which is that we have a unipolar world order developed over the past 30 years which no longer reflects the actual realities that the world has already become multipolar. So we need institutions which reflect this current reality. The Americans will not reform, hence you see parallel institutions appearing to facilitate this transition.

Let me ask you about the Ukrainian War. Why are European governments aligned with the USA on the Ukrainian issue even if European industrial interest contradict with breaking off with Russia? How can this war end? Has the Ukrainian army a chance to win this war?

No, I don’t think so. If we look at the front line, this is a war of attrition which is inaccurately being interpreted too much by territory, but it is a war of attrition which means you seek to exhaust the adversary. If you look at the causality ratios on the front line, the Ukrainian side is suffering greatly. 

What we see now is the Ukrainian army is exhausting itself, and the Russians are building up a powerful force in their rear. But Ukraine is also in preparation of a possible war with NATO if it enters the war directly. There are many considerations. But for this reason, there is a necessity for the Russians to hold back a bit as well.

If you just look at the math of it, the attrition rates, with every Russian soldier wounded or killed you have eight on the Ukrainian side. Most casualties in this war are caused by artillery. The Russians have eight to ten times more artillery, we see now eight to ten attrition ratio. So, I don’t see them winning it. Also I see the West having run out of their weapon storage. And also, war fatigue is setting in. The people become less interest in this.

I think that Europe is betting full on this world order based on unipolarity and the endurance of the American hegemony. I think at the beginning of this, the Americans sold to the Europeans this: “We give weapons to Ukranians, we put sanctions on the Russians, by the end of the week the Russian economy will implode, and we will reassert our authority in the international system.There will be no multipolarity.” I think if the Europeans knew what we were getting into at the beginning, we would have been more cautious. Because, what we see now is huge economic problems in Europe, the deindustrialization of Germany. I guess it is very predictable what was going to happen in Europe because we decided to maintain these dividing lines in Europe after the Cold War, and move them closer to Russia which sparked this war. The problem is Europe will be weakened, exhaust itself more, which is bad for both the Europeans and the Russians. Because now, the Europeans will have to withdraw under a bit more US protection, and we already have seen this, they have become more dependent on US security. This means that the Americans have more leverage over the Europeans. Now, they are converting this security dependence into economic loyalties. They told the Europeans to cut themselves off the Russians. Now they are pressuring the Europeans to cut themselves off the Chinese.

What is going to happen with Europe? They are going to be completely dependent on the US which means all these dreams about sovereign autonomy or European independence are gone.

Meanwhile, Russia has other problems as well. It ideally wants to diversify its partnerships, wants to have as many partners as possible so it would not be excessively dependent on anyone. But now, they would be much more dependent on China than they were initially hoping. Still, China is Russia’s most important partner, so they will try to figure this out.

Overall, divided Europe is weakened, it would be more dependent, either on the USA, or on China.

You think that Russia is now balancing two mutually contradictory necessities, namely, ‘irrational’ traditional community and ‘rational’ complex society which mean that it is positioning itself as the defender of European civilisation, contrary to the revolutionary Soviet experiment. Do you suggest that an alliance between ‘populism’ in Europe and Russia can reverse the decline of the West?

I think that having a militarized dividing line in Europe will definitely weaken it, will make this continent into a new Middle East, where great powers use them, and become effectively a chessboard. That is what we already saw with Ukraine. And that problem in Ukraine will spread across Europe.

Russia has its own social problems. Russia is definitely heading towards more conservative stands for many reasons. The key problem with Russian history is it has been a very divided country. It used to live for hundreds of years of Mongol yoke. And then Muscovy. In the 1700s, they reinvented Russia as a European country. They divorced themselves from their own past, changed the alphabet, and the way we dress, we look, we talk. Everything. This splitted Russia in two. You have two ideas about what Russia is. And the Bolshevik Revolution. Now you have the idea of a communist Russia. Then you have the 1990s, the idea of a liberal Russia.

The problem is, once you have such a divided country, you don’t work with your opponents, you seek to crush them. This is not good for democracy, not good for internal cohesion. And you are very vulnerable to having foreign powers to exploit the internal divisions, obviously in the West we attempt to do so. Russia is pursuing this new conservative path in which it seeks to unify the past 1000 years of Russian history.

So effectively doing what Dostoyevsky argued in the 1800s: all these different parts of Russian history are parts of the same Russia. Russia will be European, it will be Eurasian, it will have a socialist past, it has some liberalism. So Russia will largely reject what they consider to be the excesses of liberalism in the West. Because in the West we have a different problem which is why the Russians somewhat compare it to the Bolshevik Revolution in which we are divorcing ourselves from our own past as well.

The liberal nation-state was a very powerful vessel. It was based on the group. Culture, language, all of this clearly create internal cohesion in the group. But at the same time, on this you build on individualism, individual freedom, something that made a very stable and also progressive. But over the past few years, in the West, many people are worried that individualism or liberalism effectively decoupled itself from the nation-states. “We don’t need national culture, we are multicultural. We don’t need secularism, dividing state and church is not enough, we need to have a radical secularism which we essentially pressure the church out of society altogether. So, a lot of these things cause a lot of division.

What I have said about the possible alignment between Russia and Western conservatives, which I think you can already if you look at especially the American conservatives, be it Trump or Tucker Carlson. Maybe to a lesser extent [Viktor] Orban of Hungary as well. They see this conservative Russia as dealing with the similar challenges as we do. Because after the Cold War, we decided not to unify Europe, but instead redivided it. New dividing line is not communism vs. capitalism, but liberalism vs. authoritarianism. This made Russia our main adversary. Conservatives effectively see Russia as being a conservative state. This changes the divisions altogether. Because if the conflict is between liberalism and conservatism, Russia goes from being our main adversary to a key ally. So, I think that on the ideological basis you see many conservatives now have a common cause with the Russians.

But also beyond this, it is just common sense that the 1990s is over. Any aspirational hegemony has been exhausted. There is a recognition that we have to come to terms with reality. And that reality is, the idea that you can just expand NATO up to the Russian border and this is going to be the recipe for stability is simply not going to happen. So, I think that a lot of things are dividing the West at the moment from this perspective.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

INTERVIEW

‘China will be the primary international issue for the second Trump term’

Published

4 days ago

on

18/12/2024

By

Guy B. Roberts, one of the most influential figures in the Trump administration, former Assistant Secretary of Defense and former Deputy Secretary General at NATO, spoke to Harici: “China will be, I think, the primary international issue for the United States. The various statements by the leadership in China indicate that there will continue to be a strong push to fully integrate Taiwan within the Chinese political structure. I think that will be one of the big challenges in the first year of the Trump administration.”

Under former President Donald Trump, Guy B. Roberts served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs and was former Deputy Secretary General at NATO for weapons of mass destruction defense.

Guy B. Roberts answered Dr. Esra Karahindiba’s questions on the expectations for the second Trump term in terms of foreign and domestic policy.

I know that you have been closely working with Donald Trump in his previous cabinet as you were Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defense. You know how his policies were before, and you may foresee how it’s going to continue from January. What is your primary expectation at this point?

Well, it’s actually quite exciting because I think that President Trump has really made it clear that he intends to follow through on all of his campaign promises. He’ll likely focus almost immediately on the immigration issue—the illegal immigration into the United States—and also on revamping the tax structure to maximize tax reductions for middle-class Americans.

On the international side, I fully expect him to put pressure on allies and partners to do more for their defense and meet the commitments they’ve made regarding spending 2% or more of their GDP on defense. That was a key element in his first administration, and I actually was with him at NATO headquarters, where we talked at length about the need for our allies to step up. Once he gets his team in place, I see those things being critical upfront. Of course, the U.S. system is such that it’ll take probably six months before that happens.


Let’s talk about Ukraine. Trump promised to end the Ukraine war, stating he could do so in 24 hours. His aides continue to repeat this claim today. Considering the war is taking a negative turn for Ukraine in recent months, will Trump be able to bring peace to Ukraine? Also, do you think Russian President Vladimir Putin will accept a ceasefire or a peace deal?

That’s the real challenge. I think it’s unrealistic to expect that he can resolve this in 24 hours, as President Trump claims. It’s much more complicated than that. However, I do think he will engage directly with President Putin. I can see that happening, where he’ll pressure Putin to agree to a ceasefire and take steps toward resolving this issue.

Ukraine may not be enthusiastic about giving up territory, but I do think that given the situation in the situation such as the introduction of new weapons systems, the recent intermediate ballistic missiles that Russians fired on Ukraine, Ukraine’s invasion of Kursk region of Russia can set the stage for quid pro quo type of negotiation where each side gives up something at least at the beginning in return for a ceasefire. Peace, I believe, is going to take much longer than 24 hours.

President Biden, nearing the end of his term, has made some significant moves that could complicate things for Trump. For instance, he signed a bill allowing Ukraine to use U.S.-made long-range missiles against Russia. Secondly, he sanctioned Gazprombank, which is crucial for Russian international money transfers and energy trade. Several other banks are placed in sanction list. What is Biden trying to do just before leaving his post? Is he leaving some bombs in the hands of Trump?

I believe that’s certainly in the back of his mind. He’s setting the stage for successful negotiations, whether he wants to give Trump the credit or not. His administration will probably deny that. I do think that given the kinds of things the long-range fires that he’s now authorized in, the additional increases in military hardware that he’s agreed to and his encouragement by other allies to do the same, is helping and will help in arriving at a successful ceasefire negotiation.
About Trump’s upcoming second term presidency, European leaders were not really enthusiastic and they’re not happy. Some of them are not happy that president-elect Trump is going to return to White House. What kind of reorganization do you anticipate from Europe to a new Trump era? From an alliance standpoint, the Secretary General Rutte has been a very enthusiastic supporter and a campaigner, if you will, just like his predecessor, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to see that the Allies do more.  I think overall they have been doing more. I mean, we’ve had, I believe, over 21 countries now meeting the 2% military spending on GDP, and the others are on the road to doing so. The newer allies, like Finland and Sweden, have shown very robust spending on defense and training, even to the point of producing manuals for the population to undertake certain activities in the event there should actually be a war. That, I think, has deterrence value. The message being sent by the alliance is that we are an alliance, and that if you cross that line and attack any of us, you have to face all of us. Likewise, we have seen in the Indo-Pasific region reaching out to building a coalition with partners in the region including of course Australia and New Zealand but also Vietnam. We just recently sold them some training jets and other countries as well. The Trump Administration will probably be less focused on Alliance building and more focused on one-on-one relationships that are self-supporting in terms of defense. That might be a shift in what we’ll see happening between the Trump and Biden administrations.

You mean that Trump will prefer a personal diplomacy instead of a corporate diplomacy.

Yes, I think whereas Biden administration has been building coalition for example we have The Five Eyes, a group of countries reaching out to build a new interconnected relationship very similar to similar actually to what was attempted back in the late 50s and early 60s of something called SETO, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization which was tried to mimic the NATO alliance.  For a variety of reasons SETO didn’t work out and it fell apart.

But now that be in light of the Chinese aggressive behavior and it’s claims over the South China Sea and other areas, its belligerency against Taiwan and its refusal to agree to or accept the opinions by the international court of justice on the law of sea claims, the Hostile relationship they’ve had with the Philippines, so outlining islands all of that makes that particular region a potential hotspot. The recognition that the only way that there’s going to be an ability to stop and deter China from continuing and acting in that way is to build these relationships. And I think you’ll see a lot of enthusiasm for doing so.

Talking about personal diplomacy and personal relationships how would you describe a potential relationship between Trump and Xi Jinping, Trump and Macron, Trump and President Erdogan?

That’s a very important area, and I’m not sure exactly how the Trump Administration is going to proceed. However, I believe that President Trump places a lot of value on personal relationships with national leaders. That’s why I think he’s more comfortable and will be more comfortable building one-on-one relationships as opposed to forming large partnerships.

I would expect to see much more of this one-on-one approach, with Trump meeting with various presidents and prime ministers throughout the region that he considers key to establishing strategic stability, whether it be in Southeast Asia, the alliance partnership, the Mediterranean, or elsewhere. I think we can expect him to be much more proactive in building personal relationships than we saw in the Biden Administration.

Okay, talking about Trump and Erdoğan, and the cooperation and challenges between the US and Turkey, let’s discuss that a bit.  Especially the PYD issue, which is a significant issue for Turkey.  The US is trying to beat one terror group by using another, particularly as Turkey is a NATO ally but the US still ignores regarding Ankara’s concerns about the PYD.  That’s Turkey’s number one issue.

What do you think about the F-35 issue? Could Turkey rejoin the F-35 program?  What do you think about those main issues?  And finally, how do you see Turkey’s role as a facilitator in the Middle East, especially in bringing peace to Palestine and ending the war with Israel?

Well, you have just asked me a question that could take the entire day to answer.

Looking at the relationship with Turkey and its leadership, I believe Turkey is a critical partner in ensuring peace and stability in the region. At the same time, there is a lot of turmoil. One major issue is the apparent strengthening of Turkey’s relationships with Russia and China in term long term, which is inconsistent with NATO’s position on Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and Iran’s support for Russia by providing drones and missiles that we’ve already seen used on the battlefield. There’s also significant political turmoil within Turkey at the moment, you know better than I.  One unresolved issue is what to do with the two million displaced people as a result of various wars in the region.  I think President Trump would be very interested in meeting with Erdoğan to discuss resolving the Syria problem. Trump is likely looking for an exit strategy that would allow US forces to leave that particular area of the Middle East. During the campaign, he referred to such areas as “Forever Wars”, where the US is militarily involved in various regions globally.  Regarding Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups, those are major challenges.  I was very hopeful that the Abraham Accords would be the approach that the whole region would take.  This, again, was a Trump initiative during his first administration, involving countries like Israel, the UAE, Sudan, and I believe Morocco. They signed a peace treaty in which they promised to work together to develop economically, scientifically, and in engineering, as well as to maintain and create an environment for peace and security in the region, free from terrorist activities and hatred that have plagued the past several decades. To the point where I saw a country like Saudi Arabia even considering joining this process, it is now all on hold as a result of the Hamas attack on Israel and the response by Israel, which many people consider far excessive to what had happened.

It’s really interesting. I interviewed you in Ankara before, as you may remember. It was a one-hour interview, and we discussed this topic. I don’t want to repeat the same thing; perhaps our audience can watch that episode again. But again, like all the Western discourse, they repeat the same thing as if everything started with the Hamas attack on October 7th. Nobody talks about what has been happening since 1948. Okay, I’m the moderator and the presenter but I want to contribute to this discussion. I really don’t understand why, if the US government is willing to make peace in the region with the Abraham Accords and bring everyone together for a peaceful period, the US does not address Palestine’s need for freedom according to UN resolutions. Under these oppressions since 1948, Palestine has not been given that freedom. The two-state solution is still pending. How many people were injured or killed on October 7? I don’t know the exact number. But now, according to international organizations’ reports, almost 100,000 people have died in Gaza, including those in the West Bank. The West Bank is still witnessing numerous settlements. What do settlements mean? They are taking people’s lands and homes, creating a situation where peace cannot exist. Why doesn’t the US push Israel to implement the two-state solution to bring peace to the Middle East?

Well, that’s a very good question and needs to be addressed. The challenge is that I wouldn’t go back to 1948; I’d go back to 1917 and the Balfour Declaration, which created the environment we are in today. That declaration guaranteed a Jewish homeland. The problem is that you’ve got groups like Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and others with charters stating that their goal is to exterminate Israel. When that’s a primary goal, it’s very difficult to sit across the table and negotiate a peace agreement. If we got beyond that and all players in the region agreed to Israel’s right to exist, I personally believe that all the issues you mentioned would be subject to negotiation. I think the Israelis would give up quite a bit to have a guarantee that there wouldn’t be hundreds of rockets fired into their territory and that there wouldn’t be terrorist attacks all the time.

Recognition of Israel as a legitimate state with a right to exist would open the door to negotiations. I think everything else would be subject to negotiation, and I think they’d give up a lot. But when you’re at that particular point, and again, you have groups engaging in massive human rights violations—and I certainly wouldn’t put it past the fact that both sides have committed law of war or humanitarian violations—it creates an environment where people are consumed with hatred. As a result, that attitude gets passed on to the next generation, and 10 years from now, we’ll have another intifada or a similar kind of situation where people are already at each other’s throats. To sit here and say, ‘We can come up with a solution’ is absolutely right—we can come up with a solution. But there’s no willingness on the part of anybody to sit down and say, ‘Okay, let’s come up with a good deal.’ And that just doesn’t seem to be happening. I wish it would. I think the Trump administration, again, with President Trump’s personal intervention, has a great opportunity to negotiate some of the things you mentioned as enticement to bring everyone to the table.  We’ve had people come to the table before. In the past, we sat down and tried to hammer out agreements regarding weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East or arms control. We came up with some great ideas—they’re all out there. It just takes political will to implement them.

Unfortunately, there is no political will to do it. So, we just have to keep trying and build consensus among the region’s leaders that it’s in their best interest—and the people’s best interest—to sit down and craft a lasting peace. But whether that will happen, I have to say, after 40 years of looking at this issue, the likelihood is that we’ll face another cycle of violence in 10 years. That’s just the way it is in that region.

But we have the reality in the International Criminal Court, which announced an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, because of war crimes. This is the reality—we’re talking about dozens of thousands of people. We always say 50,000 people, but it is almost 100,000 people, and that is really insane. If you don’t want war in the region, the main issue is: with whom do you have war? With Iran, Lebanon, Hezbollah? You don’t like the Muslim Brotherhood, etc., but all of these are connected to the issue of a free state of Palestine. It’s not happening this way. It’s not going to happen. I don’t want to go deep into this discussion because it has no end.

So, in our last five minutes, I’d like to go back to Trump’s foreign policy. He was really pro-Israel in his first term and moved the embassy to Jerusalem. But later on, he also had negative moments with Netanyahu. For the 2024 campaign, he has garnered greater Israeli support this time around. How will this affect his policies towards Iran and the Middle East in general?

Well, yes. I mean, the primary player in the area right now is, in fact, Iran, because it is recognized as the number one supporter of international terrorism. This has been recognized by the Gulf Cooperation Council. They support Hamas and Hezbollah, both identified as international terrorist organizations. Coupled with the firing of rockets from Iran into Israel, which in turn creates an Israeli response, the spiral of violence continues. This needs to be stopped, and there are ways to work towards peaceful coexistence. But as we know, the rhetoric in Iran is “death to Israel, death to the United States.” That kind of attitude does not make peace negotiations conducive. I wish I could give an answer that says, “This is the solution, and it will be embraced by everyone.” But, as you said, we could talk for hours about the problems and challenges in the Middle East.  For example, in Lebanon, I’m watching what’s going on, and I’m actually thinking back to 1982 when I was in Lebanon. We had an attempt to maintain peace among the various groups, and then we had the Israelis invading Beirut, creating a siege situation, cutting things off. It feels like déjà vu all over again. How can we stop the cycle of violence? It really is beyond me. I’ve been dealing with this issue for a long time, and every time we came up with solutions, those solutions were quickly ignored. Hatred then became prominent. So, we just have to keep trying and, hopefully, someday we’ll get to that point.

Okay, let’s hope. My last question is on relations with China. Trump’s cabinet has hawkish figures who are strongly against China. Trump promised a 60% tax on China, which is a big concern. How do you think U.S.-China relations will progress under a second Trump term?

China will be, I think, the primary international issue for the United States. China’s long-term strategy is clear, and President Xi has made no secret of his ambition for China to become the world’s hegemon by 2049. They made statements to that effect and don’t hide it. They have a very aggressive policy of reaching out to multiple countries to build relationships through loans and various other economic incentives. They have also made claims in the South China Sea, which are very destabilizing. These claims are inconsistent with recognized international law of the sea. They have tried to harass many countries in the region over their territorial sea claims.

This has resulted in countries like Vietnam building a strong relationship with the United States. During one of my last trips as Assistant Secretary of Defense to Hanoi, I found the Vietnamese very enthusiastic about working with the U.S especially on defense sector. Other countries in the region feel the same way due to Chinese encroachment and bullying. China has also built a strong global network, acquiring port facilities in the Panama Canal, the Suez Canal area, the Straits of Malacca, and other choke points. They have created a very strong presence which in a hostile environment could be a way to strangle the world economy. We see these kinds of things happening and recognize within the United States that there are activities on the part of China that have a negative impact on national security and the collective security relationship around the world. I think we’ll see a much more active and proactive confrontation of China on these issues. There are some very big flashpoints or hot points, with Taiwan probably being the number one at the moment. The various statements by the leadership in China indicate that there will continue to be a strong push to fully integrate Taiwan within the Chinese political structure. I think that will be one of the big challenges in the first year of the Trump administration.

Continue Reading

INTERVIEW

‘Indigenous peoples standing to fight against colonialism and imperialism’

Published

2 weeks ago

on

10/12/2024

By

In Venezuela, as well as in much of Latin America that was colonized by the Spanish empire more than five centuries ago, the month of October represents a date to remember and take pride in the indigenous roots of the American continent, called by the ancestral peoples “Abya Yala”. However, even today, 500 years after the arrival of Christopher Columbus, Spain continues without recognizing the genocide of the native peoples and their cultures, nor does it recognize the plundering of the riches of these lands. Currently, the empire is represented by another hegemonic power, the United States, and by another type of colonialism, the culture of the “American Dream” that seems more like a nightmare, but the threat to indigenous peoples, as well as Afro-descendant peoples that makes up Venezuela, continues to be the same. And in the face of this imperial and colonialist threat, Venezuela and other countries of the Abya Yala are struggling, resisting and winning the battle.

Within the framework of the Day of Indigenous Resistance in Venezuela, which since 2002 has been commemorated every October 12, we interviewed Clara Vidal, Minister of Indigenous Peoples of Venezuela. Vidal is originally from the Kariña indigenous people, based in the state of Sucre, eastern Venezuela, and has been Minister for Indigenous Peoples since 2022.

Why does Venezuela commemorate the Day of Indigenous Resistance?

Today we reflect on the importance of that tragic date, while today Spain commemorates a national holiday, they call it “Hispanic Day”, with joy, with airplanes, etc. That is, Spain celebrates the death of 90 million indigenous people, they are celebrating the greatest genocide in the history of humanity.

But we from Venezuela commemorate the 532 years of the beginning of the resistance of the indigenous peoples who to this day are in battle for a horizon and a victorious future that awaits us.

So today’s reflection is that nothing and no one, not the Spanish monarchy, nor the decadent U.S. empire will be able to defeat us, because 200 years ago we expelled them from these lands, because we do not want more colonialism or imperialism, we want to be sovereign, free and independent.

What are the references of the indigenous peoples in Venezuela today? And what is its importance? 

Well, let me say that we are today in the land of Commander Hugo Chávez, of the Liberator Simón Bolívar, of the Great Chief of Chiefs Cacique Guaicaipuro, the leader of the resistance of the indigenous peoples, because 532 years ago took place the invasion of our lands, and practically 90 million indigenous brothers were exterminated by an European Empire.

Precisely, according to what we have experienced and what our ancestors experienced, we can say that we are a free, sovereign and independent country, that throughout our history we are not going to allow any empire to controls us, dominates us, and that is why we have among our main historical references, which we must always remember: 

  1. The fight of the indigenous Cacique Guaicaipuro, our older brother. 
  2. Then the fight for our emancipation from the Liberator Simón Bolívar, and
  3. More recently, the rescue of our freedom through our eternal Commander, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, who after that “For now” of February 4, 1992, and assuming our presidency in 1999, has rescued our freedom, our sovereignty, our independence for the present and for our national future.

The Bolivarian Revolution, what role has it given to the indigenous peoples?

Well, the Bolivarian Revolution gave us the main thing, which is the guarantee of the rights of indigenous peoples. The arrival of the Revolution fought and ensured that each of our indigenous peoples had a special chapter within the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of 1999. That is where the great appreciation of our revolutionary process towards the recognition and respect of rights begins. of indigenous peoples. In addition to that, the thousands of tools that it has given us as public policies: the Guaicaipuro Mission, the Ministry of Popular Power for Indigenous Peoples, which at an international level is a unique experience. Venezuela is a pioneer in having an institution especially for indigenous peoples, other countries now have ministries, like Brazil, for example, but we paved the way.

In addition to that, we have legislators, in the municipal councils, councilors, we have national deputies, who are indigenous. We have our voice represented before the national, regional and municipal Legislative Power.

The presence of the United States in Latin America

The presence of agencies of imperialism such as the CIA, DEA, or NATO, among other interventionist institutions in Latin America, must be considered according to the excess of their functions. The United States acts not as a country but as an interfering organization in the internal policies of each of the nations.

The United States intervenes in the policies of each of the nations, that is, violating the sovereignty of the people. And the most important thing is that they do not respect the culture and idiosyncrasies of each of the peoples.

Precisely, when we refer to colonialism, unlike imperialism, it is about dominating and controlling and imposing their culture, belittling the cultures of the native peoples. Now, when we talk about imperialism, this is total control, from every point of view: political, social, cultural, military of each of the peoples and nations.

From there the United States and Europe then fall into fascism, neo-fascism and similar expressions. From Venezuela, the indigenous peoples: Say no to the imperial presence in our lands and nations!

Imperialism in neo-fascist governments in Latin America attacks indigenous peoples

The indigenous peoples are brave peoples, in those countries with extreme right-wing, neo-fascist governments, the indigenous peoples have been totally criminalized or have been totally forgotten, denied to exercise their own culture in their own territories. Today we can tell you, from Venezuela, that the indigenous peoples are not alone, and we also encourage them to continue the fight for their rights. The right-wing and neo-fascist governments will never, ever love indigenous peoples, because they want to erase our history.

Those governments will never protect any rights of indigenous peoples. The Venezuelan left, Bolivarian socialism, has been a fundamental part of the demands of all these sectors, mainly indigenous peoples and communities, as well as Afro-descendants, because we are the same people, the oppressed peoples. So to the indigenous peoples of Abya Yala we say that the fight must continue until we get the victory. Venezuela is proof that it is possible to recover our identity, our rights and our indigenous culture.

Imperialism and genocidal colonialism in the world: Genocide in Gaza

We call on the world, the international community, and national and international public opinion to reflect on what is happening in Gaza. Just as today there is genocide in Gaza, against the people of Palestine, we also remember what we experienced more than 500 years ago. Just as it happens today with the Palestinian people, so it happened with our ancestors, just as yesterday our ancestors had victory, because we are alive today. Today we declare our solidarity and tell the people of Palestine that they will also win, because in the face of hatred, in the face of imperialism, in the face of colonialism, love and justice will always win. So today’s reflections are that we continue fighting, because victory belongs to the people who fight for their emancipation.

We are going to remember this date as the beginning of the greatest genocide in the history of humanity so that there can never again be any empire that can raise its arm and its hatred against the people, to impose the slavery of man by man, but rather there is peace, hope as we are proposing from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela with our constitutional president, Nicolás Maduro.

What is the message that Venezuela gives to other indigenous peoples? 

To the brother peoples of the South, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and also of great Brazil, because in Brazil there are also indigenous peoples, indigenous brothers and sister who were also invaded by Portugal like us; Today we tell all of you that this is the time of the people, we are going to unite, we are going to create a network of networks. The historical block necessary so that this decadent empire, or any other that may emerge, can never again defeat us. 

They have tried today with the Internet, with artificial intelligence, to oppress us, but here we say that with the ancestral human intelligence of indigenous peoples they will not be able to win. Here we are fighting. Let no one make a mistake, because there is a homeland here, as Commander Chávez said. So all our ancestors today are together, united to say enough of imperialism and colonialism. Victory will be of the people! Long live the people! Long live the indigenous peoples! Long live peace and long live freedom!

Finally, what is the importance of the union of indigenous peoples and Afro-descendant peoples in Venezuela

On this important day, Venezuela shows the rest of the indigenous peoples of Latin America its struggle and its resistance. Today, 532 years after the great genocide in Abya Yala, here we are, the indigenous peoples present alongside the Afro-descendant people, the indigenous people in general, the Venezuelan people of men and women who continue to resist. Today we can say with a firm voice, with a voice of love and with a voice of joy, that we continue in resistance.

We continue in a tireless fight for the vindication of our indigenous peoples. And that today in Venezuela we have more than 54 indigenous peoples, that means that we have resisted and that we will continue to resist and win.

Afro-descendant peoples have also fought a battle to survive and assert their rights. And here we are claiming the day of indigenous resistance, but we are also fighting for that ancestral history of the Afro-descendant peoples who were the object of imperial ambition, and which forcibly brought them here, but which today has precisely led us to walk the hand making revolution. 

We are now writing a new history, because we were here before the Spanish empire arrived, because the indigenous peoples were on this land, because the men and women who arrived enslaved now have a new horizon, precisely, which is not to forget history, our origins, but that we also know that our destiny is to definitively free ourselves from the yoke of imperialism, to emancipate ourselves from our minds and move forward towards the new generations with the vision of knowing that we are a people that resisted and that continues to resist because Nobody discovered us. We already existed.

Continue Reading

INTERVIEW

‘The majority of the European politicians are pro-war’

Published

3 weeks ago

on

03/12/2024

By

Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó told Harici: ‘In the European Union, the majority of European politicians are in favour of war. Since we are not a pro-war but a pro-peace government, it is clear that we do not fit into the current mainstream of European foreign policy.’

Responding to Dr. Esra Karahindiba’s questions, the Hungarian minister harshly criticised the majority of EU member states for their ‘non-peaceful’ policies, and also commented on President Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to use US-made ballistic missiles against Russia and the US sanctions on Gazprombank.

Excellency Minister, thank you very much for taking the time to talk to us. Let’s start with the criticism against Hungary by the EU. You are accused of not adhering to the European Union’s common foreign policy. What is your response to this, and how was your experience during your presidency of the Council of the European Union?

Unfortunately, those European politicians are in a majority in the European Union who are in favor of the war. Since we are not a pro-war but a pro-peace government, it is obvious that we are not falling in line with the current European foreign policy mainstream. We have been standing up for a ceasefire and peace negotiations to be started. The majority of the European politicians are pro-war. They make measures which are putting the risk of escalation higher and higher. So definitely, we will not align with that. We will continue our peace efforts, and we hope that, as President Trump enters into the White House in January next year, internationally speaking, pro-peace politicians will gain more strength.

When I interviewed you at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, you told me about that, and you told me that you believe if Trump is elected, peace is possible between Ukraine and Russia. Now Trump is the president-elect, and as you said, he’s going to take his post in January. Are you in contact with the Trump Administration, and are you taking any initiatives for making peace between the two countries? What are the items on your agenda, and what are you negotiating about?

Look, after President Trump has been elected, he has called our Prime Minister, congratulated him, and they agreed that the upcoming four years will be a golden age from the perspective of US-Hungary relations. You know, there are very strict regulations in the United States when it comes to a transition period, so the serious negotiations, the substantial negotiations between us and the Trump Administration will get started, obviously, right after President Trump enters the White House. There are some issues on the agenda already which we discussed way before, but for example, the Democrat Administration has terminated the bilateral tax treaty with Hungary. We hope that this will come into force again. The US Democrat Administration has restricted the access of Hungarian citizens to the ESTA visa system or a kind of visa system. We hope that with the Trump Administration entering into power, we will get back the status where we used to be. Of course, we hope that President Trump generally will carry out a policy which will help peace return to the Central European region and will allow a much better atmosphere in Europe to be created.

Frankly speaking, what is your position about Ukraine’s territorial integrity regarding Crimea and the Donbas region? Because those regions could be the number one condition for Russia to make peace.

Well, territorial integrity and sovereignty are principles that must be respected. On the other hand, I think sequence is important. First, a ceasefire has to take place, then peace negotiations have to be started, and then a peace deal must be made.

Talking about energy issues, today you joined the Istanbul Energy Forum here and had bilateral talks with several counterparts. Hungary announced that it signed an additional contract with Gazprom to use the Turkish Stream pipeline at full capacity. What do you expect from this development?

Look, Russia is a reliable partner when it comes to energy supplies. Turkey is a very reliable partner when it comes to transit. So, it is our honor that we can work together with Turkey and Russia in order to guarantee the security of energy supplies for Hungary. What we expect is that with the increased volumes, the price gets more competitive. Obviously, we have a very important program in Hungary through which we ensure that Hungarian families and households pay the lowest price when it comes to utilities. These additional contracts signed between Gazprom and our gas trading company are essential from the perspective of keeping the utility costs low in Hungary.

Let’s keep on the energy issue. I know that, as an observing member of the Organization of Turkic States, your term in the EU Council presidency is very important to be a bridge between these two regions. Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan are very eager, and actually, the EU is very eager to buy energy from these two countries. There are dozens of billions of dollars of infrastructure expected by the EU to be invested in this OTS region. What are the latest numbers? What is the latest development on that?

When it comes to the Turkic region or the Caucasian or Central Asian region, we do consider those regions as possible sources of future energy deliveries. We definitely count on the so-called Middle Green Corridor project to be successful, through which electricity from renewable sources from Azerbaijan and Georgia will be delivered to Central Europe through Romania to Hungary. We also count on gas from Azerbaijan to play a bigger role in our national energy mix. For that, the bottleneck is the capacity of the Southeast European pipeline network. But we do hope that we can increase the capacity in a way that allows us to increase the role of gas from Azerbaijan and the gas from Turkey in our national energy mix.

The Middle Corridor is gaining so much importance as the northern route is not being able to be used now, as you said. Meanwhile the Biden Administration, just before leaving office, has made its last steps and gave Ukraine permission to use US missiles against Russia. Russian leader Putin says “nothing will remain unanswered”. How do you see the upcoming future?

This is really dangerous. This definitely goes against the interests of the people in Central Europe. This definitely goes against the will of the American people since the American people have elected a different administration. They have elected a pro-peace president. So, I think it’s really dangerous what the current American Administration is doing. These measures can lead to an escalation, and we do hope that by January 20, we can somehow avoid escalation. Then, when President Trump takes office, hopefully, he will still have the chance to make peace. I do hope that the current Democrat Administration will not make it totally impossible to make peace in January.

My last question: what is your take on the Istanbul Energy Forum? What was your agenda here, and what are the expected outcomes for Hungary, Turkey, and other counterparts with whom you have had bilateral talks?

The most short-term duty of ours is now to overcome the challenges put forward by the US Administration’s decision to put Gazprombank on a sanctions list, since we are paying for the gas to the accounts of Gazprombank, as many other countries here in the region are. So, here we came together to find out how to overcome this challenge. I’m pretty sure that since we are united, we will find a way to overcome that and ensure the security of supplies in the future as well.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey