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

How will the Palestinian reconciliation agreement in Beijing be implemented?

Published

2 days ago

25/07/2024

Elif İlhamoğlu

The repercussions of the signing of the ‘Beijing Dialogue’ by the senior representatives of the Palestinian factions, especially Hamas and the Fatah Movement, aiming to end the division between them and create unity under the mediation of China continue. The declaration, which envisages the establishment of a single interim government in all Palestinian territories (Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem), was supported by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, while the United States opposed it, saying ‘We do not envisage a role for Hamas’ in the Palestinian Authority. The Western press, on the other hand, ignores China’s success and argues that the initiative is ‘unrealistic and unworkable’.

We discussed these debates with Shu Meng, Assistant Professor at the Middle East Studies Institute at Shanghai International Studies University, founded in 1949. Shu Meng, who is also the director of editorial department of Asian Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, answered our questions on the Palestinian reconciliation, China’s Palestine and Middle East policy and the role of the US in the region.

After three days of meetings in Beijing, 14 Palestinian factions, including Hamas and the Fatah movement, signed a joint declaration aimed at building Palestinian unity. According to the declaration, an ‘interim government of national unity’ will be established on the basis of the Palestinian constitution. How do you evaluate this development?

I believe this progress is profoundly significant. China has always maintained that the root of the Palestinian issue lies in the long-awaited realization of the aspiration for an independent Palestinian state. Respecting the national rights of the Palestinians and promoting their statehood are contingent upon the foundation of national reconciliation and internal unity. For my part, the disparity in strength between the two sides in the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks, partly stemming from the fragmentation within Palestine, has been a major hurdle. China’s efforts have contributed to a relatively more equal footing for both parties at the negotiation table.

Palestinian organisations had previously signed a national reconciliation document, but this was not implemented. Do you think it will be realised this time? If yes, what makes this agreement different from the others?

Achieving complete internal reconciliation faces a certain degree of difficulty, but nevertheless, it is a crucial first step for all parties to come together and sign a peace accord.

Moreover, the current timing differs from previous instances. Israel has yet to halt its military operations in Gaza, and various Palestinian factions are increasingly realizing that division poses a significant obstacle to achieving national liberation. A unified Palestine is imperative for any participation in shaping the political future of Gaza. Therefore, this reconciliation holds greater internal momentum for Palestine.

In the future, numerous challenges lie ahead in the path towards reconciliation, such as differences in the methods of confronting Israel and intra-party competition. Nonetheless, internal reconciliation and political unity remain the correct direction for advancing the resolution of the Palestinian issue.

Tel Aviv reacted to the agreement. Is it possible to implement such an agreement without convincing Israel?

I believe that an internally united Palestine is not in Israel’s interests. However, with the signing of the peace agreement, while future internal reconciliation in Palestine may face obstacles from Israel, the key lies in whether Palestinian factions can truly set aside their differences and prioritize the overall interests of Palestine.

Do you see the two-state solution as realistic and feasible when there is an Israeli government that so clearly opposes the two-state solution?

If we solely rely on the strength of Palestine, it is evident that the two-state solution is difficult to achieve, as evidenced by the experiences of the past decades. To realize this solution, it relies heavily on the impetus of the international community. Concrete actions must be taken by the international community, and further cohesion must be fostered on this issue.

What concrete steps can and will China take to implement this agreement? Has Beijing discussed this issue with regional countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey?

China has put forward the “three-step” initiative: the first step is to promote the comprehensive, lasting, and sustainable ceasefire in the Gaza Strip as soon as possible and ensure the access of humanitarian assistance and relief. The second step is to uphold the principle of “Palestinians ruling Palestine” and jointly promote post-war governance in Gaza. The third step is to promote Palestine’s becoming a full member of the United Nations and work on implementing the “two-state solution.”

China has repeatedly communicated with Arab countries on the issue of Palestine and published a joint statement between China and Arab countries on the issue of Palestine this year. Moreover, China has long been promoting a fair resolution of the Palestinian issue in bilateral and multilateral forums.

There are criticisms that China is trying to increase its influence in the Middle East through soft power, diplomacy and trade agreements. How do you evaluate these criticisms? Will the US leave the Middle East and will China take its place?

Rather than saying, “China is attempting to increase its influence in the Middle East through soft power, diplomacy, and trade agreements,” it would be more apt to state, “China’s growth in soft power, diplomacy, and trade in the Middle East has enhanced its influence in the region.”

Historically, both China and the Middle Eastern countries are the birthplaces of splendid civilizations. In reality, China and the Middle Eastern countries have actively expanded exchanges and cooperation in various fields, greatly promoting the mutual understanding and exchange between the Chinese civilization and the diverse civilizations of the Middle East. The Middle East is one of the most complex regions in global geopolitics today. Facing the complex and ever-changing situation in the Middle East, China has always supported the Middle Eastern people in independently exploring their own development paths and the Middle Eastern countries in working together to address regional security issues. It is believed that China’s fair stance and its attitude of promoting common development will continuously enhance its regional influence in an invisible manner.

As for the second question, firstly, the United States will not completely withdraw from the Middle East, and secondly, China will not replace it. The two parties have different advantages in the Middle East and there is no reciprocal relationship between them. The Middle East is not a playground for major powers, and the influence of various countries in the Middle East is not a zero-sum game. China has no intention of replacing the United States’ position in the Middle East. Instead, China hopes to work with the Middle Eastern countries in solidarity, jointly building a community with a shared future for all humanity.

What kind of goals, principles and interests does China have in the Middle East different from the US?

China’s policies are becoming more just and impartial, refraining from favoring any particular ally. It adheres to a balanced policy of non-alignment, maintaining normal relations with all countries.

China prefers to be a mediator rather than an agitator. It has not substantially intervened in any regional crisis.

China understands that regional countries aspire to maintain a balance among major powers and enhance their autonomy. It does not coerce any country to choose sides.

(Of course, as a Chinese scholar, my viewpoint may be biased towards China, and I welcome any corrections.)

INTERVIEW

Presidential elections and migration in Venezuela

Published

2 days ago

25/07/2024

Micaela Ovelar

This July 28, 2024, the most important presidential elections will be held in Venezuela since, with Venezuelan people’s support, Hugo Chávez managed to establish the Bolivarian Revolution. It is a “decisive electoral contest for the future of Venezuela and for national, regional and international stability”, many analysts think. The two candidates with the greatest chance of being elected are the current president, Nicolás Maduro, and Edmundo González, a last-ditch replacement, who responds to the interests of the United States and the opposition leader María Corina Machado, who is disqualified from participating in political elections.

Our exclusive interviewee for Harici is Pedro Sassone, a renowned Venezuelan sociologist and diplomat. He served as Consul Chief of Mission of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in Ecuador and as Representative of Venezuela in the General Secretariat of the Union of Southern Nations (UNASUR), among other responsibilities. Currently, in addition to directing the Pedro Gual Institute of Higher Diplomatic Studies, he is the Vice Minister for the Comprehensive Care of Venezuelan Migrants of the Ministry of Popular Power for Foreign Relations of his country.

What is going to happen this July 28, 2024 in Venezuela?

Well, very beautiful and hopeful things are happening in Venezuela. That is to say, we are seeing a vigorous and developing democracy, and an economy that is already stabilizing, despite US and European sanctions. A few weeks ago, the Venezuelan people carried out a national electoral simulation organized by the country’s highest electoral authority: the National Electoral Council (CNE), in which Venezuelans turned out en masse to express their potential willingness to vote this year. 28 of July. Therefore, it will be a new democratic party for Venezuela, this election Sunday that will will be materialized in popular expression.

The exercise of suffrage or the practice of voting is a true civic tradition for the Venezuelan people and citizens. Our people like to vote and, just as they expressed it during the drill, where thousands of people participated voluntarily because it was not mandatory to do so, this Sunday, July 28, we can also expect that Venezuelan society will come out en masse to vote for the candidate of political preference. , our candidate, the only one who guarantees political, economic and social stability, is President Nicolás Maduro.

This reflects several things. Firstly, it reflects the democratic, participatory spirit and peace that is experienced today in Venezuela, and, secondly, the trust and recognition of the management of President Maduro, who has known how to face and overcome all obstacles, remaining faithful to His town.

Is Venezuela internally, politically and socially stable today?

Yes, for approximately two or three years the country has experienced peace and tranquility that has not been known since the United States unjustly imposed unilateral coercive measures on us, the so-called “sanctions.” Then came the Covid-19 pandemic, but little by little, the Bolivarian Government has managed to overcome the economic blockade, to the point that the Venezuelan economy today is stable and improving progressively year after year. I reiterate, this despite the fact that the attacks against Venezuela have not stopped for a second.

Therefore, our greatest wish is that the electoral process in our country develops perfectly, that there is no act of violence that will tarnish the presidential elections this Sunday, July 28. We hope that the dynamics are as the Venezuelan people are accustomed to. That is, voting is an expression of duty and civic conscience, voting is an institution of the Bolivarian Revolution, and of the democratic spirit and peace that Venezuela experiences.

We are aware of the dangers and threats we face for being in the eye of the imperialist hurricane, for defending our sovereign right to the use of our natural resources, especially Venezuelan oil. Our country continues to have the largest oil reserve in the world, the control of our resources by foreign powers is, has been and unfortunately will be behind the attacks, blockades, and pressures of all kinds that Venezuela suffers. Despite which we continue to move forward.

Please, tell us about the new vice-ministry that the Venezuelan Executive has just created.

Well, it is a new vice ministry of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Venezuela. The immigration issue is treated in our government as a State policy, in that framework, it is a social mission (as we call public policies) that President Nicolás Maduro has called the Great Mission Return to the Homeland (GMVP). It is a social mission (or public policy of the State) that we can say is the only international mission that Venezuela has, at the moment.

The Great Mission Return to the Homeland (GMVP) has four vertices for the social protection and rights of Venezuelan migrants: 1. Legal assistance and guaranteed identity; 2. Comprehensive Care in Education, Culture and Sports; 3. Comprehensive Socioeconomic Protection for Return; and 4. Communication and Logistics Plan.

The first vertex will provide support to migrants “against the abuses to which they are subjected in the countries where they are”, so “the best lawyers, the best law firms will be hired to deal with labor abuses for our people… And it will also ensure that their passports reach them.”

We are going to deploy, we are going to strengthen our consulates for legal attention in each of the countries, in each of the missions, fundamentally where there is the greatest flow of Venezuelans. Why? Because there are violations of law, there is xenophobia, there is violation from the point of view of labor law.

The second vertex will provide due attention in matters of “education, culture and sports, which allows, among other things, to complete their studies in high school, universities and technical schools, in addition to facilitating them – through the Great Mission Viva Venezuela Mi Patria Querida – to develop its qualities in different artistic manifestations.”

We have already tested a first pilot plan that we are now going to extend. The program is called “Culminate your Baccalaureate”, so that young Venezuelans around the world can study in our institutions. This proposal has the virtue that it is a degree that will have two certifications, one for high school and another for trade, with a particularity that this trade certification is recognized by the International Labor Organization (ILO).

The third vertex will guarantee not only the return to Venezuela, but also “initiate entrepreneurship and small investment projects once they are in the Homeland, in addition to providing socioeconomic protection.”

Finally, the fourth vertex seeks “to tell the truth about our migrants, to tell the truth about Venezuela and the logistical plan to achieve, in a progressive but sustained manner, support for the thousands of migrants who want to return.”

For all this, it is a projection of the social protection policy of the Venezuelan State at the international level. The social policy of the Bolivarian Government is at your service so that you return.

“I believe that the time has come for the return of Venezuelans who are abroad, because return is their right and the country needs them back. Venezuela has told international organizations that return is a right and our government will provide the conditions for safe return,” Pedro Sassone, Vice Minister of Comprehensive Care of Venezuelan Migrants.

Much has been said about the number of Venezuelan migrants abroad. Is there an official figure?

Talking about official figures is speculating, since there are no such figures. There are no figures because no one has an exact precision of the volumes. And they are, as the term says, people “in human mobility”, that is, they are here, they are in Colombia, they are in Peru, they are in Ecuador. So the problem is not the number. And what has happened to the figures? They have been an element of manipulation by US government and international organizations, among others.

What I want to say clearly is that Venezuelan migration was instrumentalized and was used as a political factor to attack the Venezuelan government. Therefore, the figures are speculations to justify the money for supposed support for Venezuelans in each of the countries.

In the end it is an instrumentation of a political nature, therefore we cannot talk about figures, we can talk about processes. Yes, there has been a process of migratory flow of Venezuelans that is important, the largest in our history. This is the way in which the Venezuelan State has identified it and our president Nicolás Maduro defined it and has given it the importance and level it deserves, when defining this mission for the Comprehensive Care of Venezuelan Migrantes.

It is the entire social, cultural, and health structure in care of Venezuelans abroad, and, it is also important, all the support that our government provides to the Venezuelan Foreign Service, to our embassies, and consulates. I am arriving from Mexico, our entire foreign service is coordinating for protection and promotion of the return to peace.

And do you have an estimate of how many Venezuelans are going or returning to Venezuela to actively participate this July 28 in the presidential elections?

No, we do not have that accounted for, because that is up to each person, their will and their right to return to the country. And there are no figures to know how many Venezuelans have returned to vote in these elections. In addition, Venezuelans will have the possibility of voting in each of the Venezuelan consulates, in the country where they are legally residing, and complying with the requirements established by Venezuelan laws. Each consulate has duly reported this.

At the end of this electoral process, what can we expect for Venezuela?

Well, we hope that each presidential candidate ends the promotion of their political option peacefully, that they speak with sincerity and responsibility to the Venezuelan people, that the results are accepted by all contenders. For our part, in what has to do with our candidacy, that of President Nicolás Maduro, we know that there has been an open dialogue, dialogue has continued with the people, it is being projected in terms of the seven main lines of transformation, which is our economic and social development guide for Venezuela 2024-2030. That is, we have an economic proposal, there are the figures, because we are closing with this year, with a GDP growth of 4%.

We have controlled inflation, investment is arriving in the middle of an economic war. I want to tell the International Community that the unilateral coercive measures against our country have not been suspended, there are 930 unilateral coercive measures. Venezuela continues to be suffocated from a political point of view, with these illegal coercive measures that violate International Public Law and Human Rights.

However, despite all this, the Venezuelan economy is recovering and there is hope, in terms of consolidating the prosperity of the Venezuelan and achieving economic well-being and social well-being, which is the central philosophy, we also have hope and full conviction that Nicolás Maduro will to be re-elected.

And we have to tell that Venezuelan who left and who is eager to return, well, that here is his country, here is a government that is waiting for him, here is a Government that designs a policy for them. The country is waiting.

Your family is waiting for you. There is nothing more important, transcendent, than one’s homeland, because the homeland is like your mother, it is what gives you solidity, gives you identity. There is no country like you and reuniting with your country is a right.

The time has come for the return of Venezuelans, to strengthen the country, and the time has come to reaffirm the democratic commitment to the Bolivarian Revolution, re-electing Nicolás Maduro, this July 28, in peace and joy, characteristics of Venezuelan culture.

INTERVIEW

‘We are currently experiencing a reactionary-militarist restructuring of the state in Germany’

Published

3 days ago

24/07/2024

Erman Çete

The decision of the Berlin Administrative Court against Germany’s oldest daily left-wing newspaper Junge Welt [Young World] has become a hot topic in our country as well. According to the ruling, there was nothing wrong with the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) referring to the newspaper as “extreme leftist” in its internal intelligence reports; Marxism-Leninism was already unconstitutional and Junge Welt was praising Marx and Lenin and denouncing capitalism!

Nick Brauns, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Junge Welt, says the matter is more serious. Not only were the German courts now “accusing” Junge Welt of being Marxist-Leninist, but even the mere mention of the simple fact that society is divided into classes was deemed unconstitutional.

Brauns believes that the German state is being restructured in a more reactionary and militaristic way in preparation for war with China and Russia. The crackdown on the media and freedom of the press is only part of this reorganization.

Can you give us some information about the trial process? What happens to a newspaper if the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BvF) reports it as ‘extremist’, or ‘left-wing extremist’? What is the court’s evidence against Junge Welt?

Junge Welt has been around since 1947 and was the newspaper of the Free German Youth in the GDR. Today it is a daily newspaper with a Marxist orientation that is independent of political parties, corporations and churches. It currently has a daily circulation of around 21,000 copies.

Since the end of the 1990s, Junge Welt has been the only German-language daily newspaper to be listed as ‘left-wing extremist’ in the annual reports of the domestic secret service – the so-called constitution protection reports. The German government justified this with the Marxist orientation of Junge Welt. It is claimed that Junge Welt is not primarily a journalistic product. Rather, the publisher and the co-operative as the main owner are accused of being ‘extremist groups of people’ with plans to overthrow the government.

As a result, Junge Welt, which is also subject to the laws of the market, has considerable disadvantages in terms of advertising and distribution, but also in its editorial work. With reference to the secret service report, it has been refused paid advertisements on public radio, in railway stations and on public transport. Institutions refuse to provide information in response to press enquiries. This is the declared intention. In 2021, in response to a parliamentary question from the parliamentary group Die Linke, the German government admitted that by naming Junge Welt in the secret service report, it wanted to ‘deprive the newspaper of its breeding ground’ and limit its reach.

Because fundamental rights such as freedom of the press and freedom of trade are being violated here, the publishing house 8. Mai GmbH, which publishes the newspaper, filed a lawsuit against the naming in the intelligence report. On 18 July – after around three years – a court hearing finally took place. However, we lost in the first instance. The court considers the naming of the newspaper in the intelligence report to be justified. The judgement had obviously already been decided before the trial. We only received a new dossier from the secret service’s lawyers the day before the trial, which we were unable to respond to due to the short time available. Among other things, we were accused of using terms such as working class, capitalism and class justice. I think the term class justice is a good way to describe the judgement. Ultimately, this trial was about freedom of the press and the question of to what extent and to whom this fundamental right should apply. It obviously does not apply to left-wing critics of capitalism, or only to a limited extent.

‘THE STATEMENT THAT SOCIETY IS DIVIDED INTO CLASSES VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION’

Presiding judge Wilfried Peters spoke in favour of the BfV from the beginning. According to the reports we read, Peters accused Junge Welt of praising Marx and Lenin, and also organising an annual conference against capitalism, against ‘the free democratic basic order.’ Can we say from now on, the German state criminalises ‘praising’ Marx and Lenin, or speaking against capitalism? The court is implying that Junge Welt is affiliated with the German Communist Party (DKP). Is it a crime to ‘affiliate with’ the DKP?

The German government and its secret service have long accused Junge Welt of having a Marxist orientation. In response to a parliamentary question, the federal government declared that the mere statement that a society is divided into classes violates the constitution. Such an absurd accusation would not only affect Marxists, but also left-wing trade unionists and bourgeois social scientists. In the trial, however, the secret service’s lawyers went even further – and the court followed their lead. Now we were accused of being Marxist-Leninist.

The secret service’s lawyers and the court referred to the 1956 ban on the Communist Party Germany (KPD) by the Federal Constitutional Court. In the judgement at the time, Marxism-Leninism – albeit explicitly in its interpretation by Stalin – was described as incompatible with the constitution. It is clear that even after 70 years, this judgement from the height of the Cold War still hangs as a sword of Damocles over the left. As proof that we are Marxist-Leninist, a photomontage from our reader’s letter page showing Lenin reading Junge Welt was cited, among other things. The judge went so far as to make the nonsensical claim that anyone who sympathised with Lenin was automatically striving for a one-party dictatorship. He also claimed that Lenin had vigorously fought against the so-called Free Democratic Basic Order (FDGO) [Freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung]. However, the FDGO was formulated by the Federal Constitutional Court in 1952 – almost 30 years after Lenin’s death and certainly not for Russia.

Every year for almost 30 years, Junge Welt has organised the International Rosa Luxemburg Conference with speakers and artists from all over the world, including Cuban academics, Turkish socialist MPs, American trade unionists and African philosophers. This year in January, 3,700 people attended the conference, which has established itself as something of an annual kick-off for the socialist and communist left in Germany.

The court is now accusing us of using this conference to create reach and act as a political factor. Other daily newspapers also organise conferences for their readers. Bourgeois, neo-liberal newspapers organise conferences with property consultants or invite readers to wine tastings in order to retain their readership. But we are accused of not primarily aiming to win and retain readers with such a conference, but of wanting to prepare the revolution there.

It may be that individual authors or employees are close to the DKP and we also share a common Marxist conviction. But the DKP has its own party newspaper, Unsere Zeit. And Junge Welt is a daily newspaper independent of the party – also independent of the DKP. Incidentally, the DKP is a legal party that regularly contests elections. But it is also named as left-wing extremist in the constitution protection report. Of course, this should also be criticised. An important difference, however, is that Junge Welt is not a party, not an activist organisation, but a newspaper. And according to a ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court in 2005, a newspaper may not be named in the constitution protection report. This fundamental judgement was made at the time for a right-wing weekly newspaper, Junge Freiheit, and should also apply to Junge Welt.

At the same time, a right-wing magazine Compact was banned in Germany. Do you think German authorities seek a ‘balance’ between the persecution of the so-called ‘right-wing’ and the leftist publications?

Compact was the fascist magazine with the highest circulation. Its editor Jürgen Elsässer is sometimes referred to as the German Dogu Perincek because he has a similar biography, with a development from Maoism to the nationalist right and a certain Eurasian orientation. Now the Compact was a disgusting racist paper that agitated against migrants and Muslims in particular. However, the magazine was not banned because of any criminal offences, but because the German government did not like its political line.

We at Junge Welt criticised the banning of Compact as an attack on the freedom of the press – even if we don’t shed a tear for the magazine itself. It was certainly no coincidence that Compact was banned two days before the trial of Junge Welt. The German government is trying to present itself as a democratic centre that is fighting against the ‘extremists’ of the left and right. And our experience is that all measures taken in the name of the fight against the right will sooner or later also affect the left. Many bourgeois media columnists were alarmed after the ban on Compact and the trial against Junge Welt and have warned against further restrictions on press freedom – even if they have no sympathy for our left-wing, Marxist and anti-imperialist orientation.

‘THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT WANTS TO PREPARE THE COUNTRY FOR WAR IN EVERY FIELD’

Federal Germany is well-known for its anti-communist stance for decades. After the Ukrainian War and Israel’s invasion of Gaza, it seems that the German state does not want to tolerate any dissident voices in the press and tries to consolidate the state organisation in a more militaristic way. Do you agree with that?

We are currently experiencing a reactionary-militaristic state reorganisation in the Federal Republic of Germany. Immediately after the start of the Ukraine war in 2022, the government declared a ‘turning point’ and decided to massively rearm the Bundeswehr. The government’s declared aim is to make the country fit for war at all levels in the coming years – for a war against Russia and for the West’s war policy against China. This also includes the suppression of critical voices in the media. The domestic secret service is playing an increasingly active role here by defaming critics of the government as ‘extremists’ and pillorying them for their opinions.

The majority of the press has voluntarily backed this policy and has joined in with the war propaganda of the ‘evil Russians’ against whom Germany must defend itself.

Anyone who, like Junge Welt, criticises the armament and militarisation, explains NATO expansion as the background to the Ukraine war and advocates a diplomatic peace solution is defamed as a Putin apologist or traitor to the fatherland. The pressure is even stronger on the Israel-Palestine issue. Unconditional support for Israel is seen as Germany’s ‘reason of state’. Perfidiously, the state is using the remorse of many people, including anti-fascists, for the Nazis’ crimes against the Jews to suppress criticism of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Pro-Palestinian demonstrations are regularly attacked or banned by the police. There have been a number of dismissals of journalists from the state broadcaster in recent years because they have privately campaigned for Palestinian rights on social media or criticised Israel. Foreign pro-Palestinian academics and intellectuals – including a number of Jews – have been dismissed from visiting professorships or prevented from organising events with them in Germany. Junge Welt is almost the only newspaper that has resisted this course, openly naming the occupation and war crimes of the Israeli army and standing up for the rights of the Palestinians. That is why we are accused of anti-Semitism by bourgeois newspapers – which is all the more absurd as we are an anti-fascist newspaper that rejects and combats all hatred of Jews.