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.
