INTERVIEW

Multipolarity could be a great opportunity for Europe

Published

19.06.2023 14:37

With his recent works on US-European ties, the war in Ukraine, and the global economy, Italian journalist and author Thomas Fazi has gained attention. Fazi, who frequently contributes to the UK-based website Unherd and the US-based Compact, is also the author of the books titled ‘The Battle for Europe’, ‘Reclaiming the State A Progressive Vision of Sovereignty for a Post-Neoliberal World’ ve ‘The Covid Consensus’. In addition, Fazi is the co-director of the award-winning documentary “Standing Army”, which features Noam Chomsky and explores US bases around the globe. We talked with Fazi about the dependency of the European Union on the USA, the future of Europe, the emergence of multipolarity and de-dollarization.

For Europe to follow America in this strategy is completely suicidal

The United States’ new global economic strategy, what possible consequences could this have on Europe? According to some, as you know, the IRA and the rising energy prices may cause Europe to become de-industrialized. So, can the European Union avoid this danger by treating it as a sort of war economy? As you know, in recent days, there is also a discussion about this act to support the production of ammunition.

Well, I think the question is not what future risks are happening to Europe. The question is what is already happening to Europe as we speak, as a result of Europe’s, I would say, almost suicidal decision to join, to follow America’s policy first and foremost vis a vis Ukraine and Russia. You know, if we look at what has happened over the past year, aside from Ukraine, which is clearly the main victim, the continent that suffered the most from this war is by far Europe. Europe is the continent that was the most dependent on Russian gas and other commodities that came from Russia. And so, you know, the decision to sanction Russia has ended up almost becoming a kind of auto-sanction where Europe has basically sanctioned itself.

Also, the same could be said about Europe’s decision to follow America’s military strategy in Ukraine, continuing to pile weapons into Ukraine. You know, risking what effectively continues to escalate a conflict that is right on the European border. Again, it seems really hard to understand from a rational standpoint because from America’s perspective, its strategy in Ukraine, it kind of makes sense that we can win in Russia at a very small cost, at a zero human cost to America and at a very small economic cost all things considered. While at the same time, it means reasserting America’s hegemony and control over Europe and, in fact, increasing Europe’s dependence on America, as Europe has switched from Russian gas to American liquefied natural gas, which happens to be much more expensive. So, I mean, in the short term, America is clearly benefiting from this situation.

We know that Russia is doing quite well despite the sanctions. In fact, some say thanks to the sanctions. It is Europe that is really in bad shape. Germany is in recession. And it is likely that the entire Eurozone, if not the entire European Union, will soon be in recession. So, we are already facing de-industrialization. And I think all this should be enough to realize that in America, nobody sees Europe as an ally anymore. If it ever has, I would say it has always been a fairly unbalanced relationship, but at least for some time, you’ve benefited from being even from this unequal relationship. It is really unclear whether that is still the case. I would say it is not the case at all anymore. And I think this is evident in America’s strategy in Ukraine, which is also kind of an economic war against Europe just as much as it is a military war, a proxy war against Russia.

It is evident in the attack on the Nord Stream pipeline, which any serious person can understand, that it is an act committed with the knowledge of America, if not committed by America, and your prior knowledge, and in fact, they’ve admitted having prior knowledge. But I would say that it is pretty clear that America greenlighted the operations. What we are talking about is America is effectively greenlighting a terrorist attack on a critical European infrastructure. And on top of that, as you mentioned, we have the IRA, which is an explicitly protectionist industrial policy, causing quite serious damage to Europe’s industries. And it is clear that America is playing its own game. It is not even playing a kind of pan-Western game. It is playing its own game, which involves now decoupling from China. And it thinks that it can get on top of this game, and I think that is delusional. But I think America has, at least in the short term, a chance of acquiring a greater degree of self-sufficiency, because it has energy resources. Europe has none of that. And it is clear that for Europe to follow America in this strategy is completely suicidal, I think. And it really testifies to Europe’s political and even psychological subordination to America and its complete inability to think in autonomous strategic terms.

There is not any chance for Europe to develop any degree of strategic autonomy

In this regard, what about Europe’s strategic autonomy? I mean, how do you consider the debate over this strategic autonomy? There was an important discussion about the remarks Emmanuel Macron made during his visit to China, and also other leaders said something along such lines. What is your opinion on this?

There is no serious debate. You know, Macron is a guy that likes to express his ideas. He likes to be seen as a kind of nonconformist, as someone who thinks outside of the box, but in fact, he hardly ever does concrete acts or follows his words, and I think this time, there will be no different. Macron is the only one to speak as explicitly as he does about the need for the greatest strategic autonomy. But he has been saying that for a very long time. That has been France’s position for years, and Macron’s position too, ever since he came to power. But has that had any concrete consequences with that in any way? Not really. It has followed America on all the major decisions of the past years. It has followed America in Ukraine and provided military aid to Ukraine. It has not challenged America really or the European Union’s pro-American policies.

And at the end of the day, I do not expect any serious political challenge to emerge from Europe against America. I do not think there is any chance for Europe to actually develop any degree of strategic autonomy also because we have to be clear when we talk about Europe. I mean, if you mean the European Union, there is absolutely no chance that the European Union has such will ever to move towards this greater degree of strategic autonomy for a number of reasons. I mean, the European Union has enlarged so much over the years that it is now incorporated with almost all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, most of which are staunchly pro-American and anti-Russian. Macron might believe in the need to reduce dependency on America and NATO. Powerful elements in Germany probably share that opinion, and those in other countries even may say it openly. But that is certainly not what the countries of Central, and Eastern Europe think. And so, now the EU is just too fractured to be able ever to find a synthesis, ever to find a kind of common position, let alone one that involves greater strategic autonomy. I do not see that happening. I would say so politically; I do not expect much.

I think the greatest resistance that we’re likely to see in the near future, especially as for America’s policy, basically China is concerned, is going to come from European companies. They are the ones that are complaining the most about Europe’s decision to follow America in this coupling or risking policy because what they’re saying is, “Look, you were suffering enough as it is from having to give up on Russian gas and cheap commodities. If you also take away the Chinese market from us, then we’re as good as dead.” In fact, we’re seeing strong pushback come from European companies against this kind of policy of the company or this attempt to decouple Europe away from China slowly. But politically, Europe is just too subordinated to America to be able to think on its own terms. America dominates Europe on so many levels. It dominates Europe. You know, it dominates the institutions of the European Union. It dominates Europe culturally. It dominates Europe linguistically. What is the lingua franca in Europe? English. It is not French; it is not German; it is English. And who sets the terms of the English language debate? The Anglo-American newspapers and the Anglo-American think tanks. America controls the entire intellectual ecosystem, and that is not even to mention the American intelligence service and so on and so forth. So I think it is very hard at this point for Europe to extricate itself from American dominance somehow, and I think it is going to pay a very heavy price for that.

Multi-polarization of the world could be a great opportunity for Europe

You know, there is also a section inside Europe, as we know, that expresses its doubts regarding the conflict in Ukraine and also claims that Russia’s concerns must also be taken into account. However, you know the same group; for instance, Berlusconi, the former president of Italy, and his party in Italy have a strong anti-China stance. So, there are also other examples in Europe. Is it possible for Europe to form an anti-Chinese axis if the Ukraine conflict is finally resolved in the future?

Well, I think that is going to happen as a result of Europe’s subordination to America. We are, in fact mimicking or claiming to want to mimic America’s policy of decoupling. I think it is going to prove wrong in a very, very hard way. I think there is going to be strong pushback against that. I would not say anti-Chinese sentiment is that strong at the moment. In fact, I think that there is a growing awareness in Europe, at least at the popular level, against the fact that this so-called alliance with America is not really working out for us anymore. I think there is interest in this process of multi-polarization of the world, and this could be a great opportunity for Europe, which of course, does not mean that you go along with whatever China wants or that it does not mean that you sell off your economies to China. That is not even what China wants, by the way. It does mean that potentially this new reorganization of the global landscape could be a very big opportunity for Europe, and especially for countries like mine, for Italy, which is still politically positioned.

Italy could act as a bridge between China and Europe while interacting with the other countries of the Mediterranean and Africa, especially considering that Africa, with very strong relationships with Europe and especially with Southern Europe, is intensifying and strengthening its ties with China. We know that Chinese-African relations are strengthening at a very fast rate, just like African-Russian relations are strengthening. And I think this really points to Western Europeans. We really do not realize just how tired people were of the Western-led order, which the majority of people in the world have always perceived as being very unfair, very unjust, and having nothing to do without respecting the rules, even though they call it rule-based order. It has always been a Western-based order based on what suited the West and what suited Western interests. I think in this scenario where the entire world is strengthening relations with China and Russia, this confrontational attitude towards China is again completely suicidal because it could mean we’re not in the capacity to influence anyone anymore.

No one is following the West in Ukraine over Russia. Who sanctioned Russia? Only the so-called collective West, not a single non-Western country, has a sanction on Russia, and that point says a lot that points to you the rapidly declining ability of the West to exert influence in the world. If taking a confrontational attitude towards China today means taking a confrontational attitude toward the entire non-Western world, China is more than happy to strengthen diplomatic, political, and economic ties with Russia. I can only hope that at some point, someone in the West wakes up and, at least in Europe, realizes that we’re not isolating anyone with this strategy except ourselves. I think at the end of the day, European leaders have proven to have almost no boundaries when it comes to that. But I think at some point, reality will kick in, and it’ll just become apparent how far Europe can go in following America. Because as we said, if Europe decides to shut itself off from China and most of the China-led block, it will accelerate its decline at a pace that we cannot imagine at the moment. I think at some point, Europe will simply have to face reality, but it might even be too late by the time it does happen.

De-dollarization gives countries greater freedom

Well, there is one historical dynamic, and it is the US dollar decline. I mean, what impacts will the US dollar’s decline as a reserve currency have on the United States and on the rest of the world?

I think the process, this is happening now after having been announced several times. Incorrectly because we have never actually witnessed the beginning of the de-dollarization until recently, I think this time it is happening now with the fallout from the Ukrainian sanctions on Russia. All the data points to the fact that this trend has begun mainly for geopolitical reasons. America and the West have abused that financial dominance and used the dollar and other Western currencies to blackmail countries, even going as far as stealing Russia’s reserves. I think at this point, the trend is inevitable, and I think there will be positive consequences for most of the world because what we are witnessing is not a shift from one monopoly, the dollar, to another monopoly, say, the Chinese yuan. What we are witnessing is a differentiation of the currency used in international transactions. We are witnessing an increasing use of local currencies in the settlement of international payments. That is a really good thing because it gives countries greater freedom in managing trade and their balance of payments. That is a good thing. Most countries will benefit from that.

America, in fact, would also in the medium-term benefit from the de-dollarization because it is not ordinary Americans that have benefited from the dominance of the dollar. It is the American oligarchy. It is the American oligarchy that has benefited from being able to acquire resources almost for free to fuel its military empire around the world. It is America’s economic oligarchy that has benefited from deindustrializing the country, decolonizing all the industries for the sake of low-wage countries such as China. And America has been able to essentially maintain its power while it was deindustrializing itself, i.e., while it was increasingly buying more and more stuff from abroad because it had the dollar. Having the world’s reserve currency meant that America could buy foreign goods and products for free at industrialization. Has it not been good for the American workers, or has it not been good for American households to become a bit more of a normal country? For example, having to actually produce stuff and sell stuff in order to be able to buy stuff from abroad would actually benefit in the medium term. Of course, elites would not benefit, so it would not be beneficial for American oligarchies that have that control, unfortunately, in the driving seat when it comes to our policy-making. I think they will go to great lengths to stop this process of de-dollarization. I think they are very scared of it.

Anything America does to try to slow down these processes ends up fastening them, so they do not seem to realize this. I mean, just look at Ukraine. They might have thought that it was a great idea to use Ukraine to weaken Russia. But what has happened over the course of a year and a half is they have got Russia and China to strengthen their mutual ties, which has always been what American policy always tried to avoid for the past 70 years. It has accelerated the emergence of this post-W alliance. I think if they try to do the same with the dollar, so threatening countries not to abandon the dollar, they will simply achieve the opposite result. That will make countries even more anxious to abandon the dollar as soon as possible. I think there is nothing America can really do to slow down. It is declining if they do not prefer going for an all-out war with China, Russia, and the rest of the world. But, of course, that is a scenario we do not even want to contemplate. But at the moment, it is pretty clear that America’s strategy is self-defeating, in my opinion, and I think that will become increasingly apparent. Even in the coming months, with more and more countries joining the BRICS plus and so on and so forth, I think more and more countries consider America’s strategy to be somewhat crazy. America’s image is really getting tarnished beyond worse than it has ever been, and Europe’s image goes along with it.

Conflict between the military-industrial complex and the capitalist class in the USA

You mentioned in your last article that the economic ties between the US capitalists and China are conflicting with the interests of the US arms industry. This is an interesting point. So, what are the potential consequences of this situation?

I think critics of Western foreign policy and Western military interventionism have always understood these tools have been in the service of Western big business and Western capital. I think for a long time, that has been the case, and in fact, one could say that that has been the case for most of history. I think the national militaries have always been in the service of capital, and I would say what we are obviously now witnessing is a new scenario. When we look at the American strategy over Russia or even more over China, it is really not clear how these policies benefit Western business. How do almost all Western companies exit the Russian market, which was a pretty big market from one day to the next? And how is that in the interest of Western companies? How is cutting off the ties with Russia in their interest? Of course, it is in the interest of some specific sectors of the American economy, like the energy sector. But it certainly does not serve the general interests of Western capital or even American capital. And it is even more obvious with what is happening with China how America destroys the global trade system that it has been taking years to build to isolate itself and shut itself off from China. How is that generally beneficial for the interests of American or Western corporations? That is not clear at all since it does not. It does not even seem to follow a strictly capitalist logic which capitalism tends to want to open up. New markets open up access to resources, markets, and consumers. The current American strategy goes in the exact opposite direction. And it really does not seem to serve any other sector aside from a few specific sectors, but mainly one, what one could almost call a social class, that is the military-industrial social class.

It is not just the defense companies; it is also the entire civilian and state apparatuses that now revolve around the military and intelligence sectors. Now it is a huge complex that we are talking about. It is massive, and it is more powerful than ever. When Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex in the 60s, the military-industrial complex was definitely smaller than it is today. And so today, I think when we look at America’s strategy, it does seem like it is this military-industrial complex. It is this military class that is really driving the policy. And the policy is essentially ‘war forever.’ It is a permanent war because that is what the military class requires to survive. And so, I think we are in a very dangerous situation. Western capitalism has created this monster, but this monster has now escaped the control of its creators, and it has now acquired a life and volition of its own. It has actually subordinated its creator. And in fact, I think one of the most interesting developments that we see now in America, but also in Europe to a certain degree, is this growing kind of clash between most of the capitalist class and the military class. And we see that very clearly in China, where, as I mentioned earlier, the greatest resistance comes from American and Western corporations. So, we really do have a conflict here. On the one hand, we have capitalists that would benefit from the order clearly and require a certain degree of order and peace in order to profit. And then we have this military class that profits on chaos, destabilization, and war, and if not war itself, at the very least, the constant preparation for war. And so, as I write in the article, we might be witnessing a new kind of historical class struggle between the owners of the means of production on one hand and the owners of the means of destruction on the other.

Up Next

‘F-16 issue linked to Sweden’s NATO membership’

Don't Miss

Raisi’s visit to Latin America: Venezuela and Cuba are now part of the “East”

Tunç Akkoç

INTERVIEW

‘What we need from HTS is not to interfere in Lebanon’s internal affairs’

Published

2 hours ago

22/12/2024

Esra Karahindiba

Ziad Makary, Minister of Information of Lebanon spoke to Harici: “What we need from HTS is not to interfere in Lebanon’s internal problems or affairs.”

After two months of intense and destructive fighting, Israel and Lebanon have reached a ceasefire. Within 60 days, the ceasefire was to be implemented. According to the agreement, Israeli troops will withdraw from the designated areas, the Lebanese Army will deploy in the areas vacated by Israel and ensure security. A large-scale reconstruction work will be carried out due to mines, unexploded ordnance and destruction of infrastructure in the region. United Nations UNIFIL forces will maintain a presence in southern Lebanon in accordance with UN resolution 1701.

However, Israel has violated the ceasefire more than 100 times so far, which is considered unacceptable by Lebanon. Lebanese Information Minister Ziad Makary answered Dr Esra Karahindiba’s questions on the latest situation in Lebanon.

I would like to start with the latest situation in Lebanon. Even though there is a temporary ceasefire, Israel is not implementing what was promised. Can you tell us about the latest situations, and I’ll ask my other questions?

Well, as you know, we had a deadly war for about two months. As a government, we negotiated a ceasefire for long weeks, and in the end, with the help of the Americans, we reached an agreement to have a ceasefire and to implement it 60 days after the announcement.

In the meantime, there is a military plan: the Lebanese Army will start deploying where the Israelis will withdraw.

There is a lot of work to do. The army will handle this mission because there are many mines, unexploded munitions, destruction, closed roads, displaced people, and a sensitive military situation between Israel and Lebanon.

Israel has violated this ceasefire more than 100 times, and this is, of course, unacceptable. Lebanon is respecting the ceasefire, and we count on the committee formed when the ceasefire was announced.

I am talking about the Americans, French, Lebanese, UNIFIL, and Israelis. Their first meeting was held this week on Monday, and we hope this ceasefire will be implemented seriously as soon as possible because we have a lot to rebuild after the destruction we faced from Israel.

If Israel cancels the ceasefire and continues attacking Lebanon as it did recently, what is Lebanon’s current position? Hezbollah is stepping back from Syria. Maybe more of their troops will return to Lebanon. What about Lebanon’s own army?

I don’t think this ceasefire will be broken. We will have incidents daily, but I believe it will be a serious ceasefire.

I suppose we will have a complete withdrawal in about 40 days from all Lebanese territory. The Lebanese Army will deploy its forces, and we will apply 1701 as required, including southern Lebanon.

Of course, this especially applies to southern Lebanon because 1701 states that weapons are forbidden in southern Lebanon, and the only weapons will be with the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL.

What do you think about the latest situation in Syria? Now Bashar Assad has gone to Russia, and there is a so-called interim government trying to prepare for a transition period. Hezbollah is back. Iran is stepping back. There are no more Russian soldiers, and now a group called HTS is a candidate to shape Syria’s future. What will Lebanon’s position be toward Syria?

So far, we don’t have any relationship with HTS. What I would like to say is that the people of Syria must choose whoever will rule Syria.

What we want in Lebanon is to have good relations with the future government of Syria because we have many interests. We don’t need a fanatic government there.

We need a neighbor who respects Lebanon’s sovereignty and diversity. This is all what we need.

04:19 We will do everything to maintain the necessary relationships to continue ties between our countries as neighbors. We have a lot of interests in the economy, trade, social, political, and even border issues to resolve.

We have millions of Syrian refugees and many problems that need solving with whoever rules Syria. We don’t and should not interfere in Syria’s affairs and at the same time we will not let them interfere to us, too.

I hope and will work to ensure a decent and fruitful cooperation with the future Syrian government.

HTS is on the terrorist group list of the United Nations, and several countries have designated this group as terrorist. But in the near future, things may change. Turkey has appointed a charge daffairs for its embassy to continue diplomatic relations.

What will Lebanon’s position be? Do you consider HTS a terrorist group, or are things changing as they lead the country toward elections?

We don’t have a system of considering groups as terrorists or not. I already mentioned that we will assess the aims of Syria’s future government. What we need from HTS is not to interfere in Lebanon’s internal problems or affairs. Till now, as I told you, we are not the only country that cannot predict how the future of Syria will unfold.

The system theoretically should continue. We are continuing to deal with what we have—for instance, the embassy of Syria in Lebanon, the borders, and other matters. We are waiting for the new state, the new administration, and the new government to emerge, and we will proceed from there.

Will you run your diplomatic mission in Damascus?

Currently, it is not active due to everything that has happened. We will wait, but we hope to have good relations with whatever government emerges because it is in both countries’ interests. After Assad’s departure, Israel has invaded more of the Golan Heights. What is Israel’s position in the region? Many believe their presence may not be temporary.

For Lebanon, it is essential that Israel withdraws from the territory it has conquered. As you said, Israel is not only in the Golan Heights or southern Syria but has also destroyed Syria’s army, air and naval forces, and everything.

This puts Syria in a difficult position. We don’t know what kind of army or security forces the new Syrian government will have or how they will deal with Israel. Everything is unclear now. It’s been just five or six days since all this happened, and we need time to see how things settle down.

One question about Lebanon’s internal politics. After the port blast, you had difficult times with economic problems, and the presidential issue is still ongoing. How did it affect the current situation?

The system in Lebanon is not designed to facilitate such processes. It’s a complex system involving parliament, religion, political groups, and more, making electing a president challenging. It is not easy to elect a president because of our law which is causing things happen late, especially the elecion of president. However, we have a session on January 9, and we hope to have a president soon. We cannot rule a country without a president. Yes, we can manage it; it will continue, it won’t die, it won’t vanish, and it won’t disappear. But it also won’t have prosperity. We cannot develop our country, we cannot build it, and we cannot establish a new, modern administration that reflects the aspirations of young Lebanese people those who are ambitious and want to create a modern country with the protection of freedom and the beautiful Lebanese culture, along with the admirable image of Lebanon.

We hope to have a president, a new government, and renewed relations with Syria, as well as a ceasefire with Israel. In the long run, personally, I am somewhat optimistic about what will happen to Lebanon.

Last question: Do you think remaining without a president during this period makes it harder for Lebanon to address these challenges?

Of course, it has a serious impact. As a caretaker government, we cannot make major decisions, recruit new talent, or pass laws. The system cannot function without a president. We are losing talented young people who are leaving Lebanon, which is not in our interest.

INTERVIEW

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

Published

4 days ago

18/12/2024

Esra Karahindiba

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.

INTERVIEW

‘Indigenous peoples standing to fight against colonialism and imperialism’

Published

2 weeks ago

10/12/2024

Micaela Ovelar

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:

The fight of the indigenous Cacique Guaicaipuro, our older brother.
Then the fight for our emancipation from the Liberator Simón Bolívar, and
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.