INTERVIEW

Prabhat Patnaik: We are entering a new era of struggle

Published

24.12.2022 22:35

We interviewed Prabhat Patnaik, one of India’s most important Marxist economists and whose works are closely followed in Turkey. Prabhat Patnaik is professor emeritus at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, India and from June 2006 to May 2011, he served as the vice-chairman of the Kerala State Planning Board.

Patnaik answered our questions about the past and present of capitalism; He argued that this mode of production could not survive with its own internal dynamics and could not accumulate capital, and always needed an external stimulus (colonies, pre-capitalist markets, state expenditures, accumulation by encroachment, etc.).

According to Patnaik, the reproduction schemes developed by Marx in Capital are the product of a theoretical framework in which capitalist production is assumed to be a closed system, and Marx actually rejected this assumption in his writings. The Indian writer draws attention to the fact that the current crisis of neoliberalism is also experienced at a time when external stimuli have disappeared.

Recalling the great peasant resistance in India at the beginning of the year, Patnaik argues that the ground for a worker-peasant alliance is more solid today than in Lenin’s time; because both classes are under attack by globalised financial capital. According to our guest, peasant resistance in India is the first to be a political opposition to neoliberalism; besides, it is a rather long-term struggle, unlike the working class, which is weakened against capital and stays away from long-term actions.

Prabhat Patnaik considers the Russia-Ukraine war to be a symptom of the collapsing neoliberal order. According to him, the sanctions against Russia to maintain order are one of the factors that led to the collapse of the system. Patnaik sees this as an opportunity not only for the peoples of the “Global South” but also for the workers of the “Global North.” What happens in Europe concerns the entire world; according to Patnaik, increasing strikes in the winter months is a sign: a sign that we are now entering an era of struggle…

‘LACK OF EXTERNAL STIMULI IS ONE OF THE CAUSES OF THE CRISIS’

Your articles and books are followed closely in Turkey. Your recent book Capital and Imperialism: Theory, History, and the Present was translated into Turkish. Let me ask about it: You reject the analysis of capitalism as a closed self-contained system and also you claim that capitalism has always been historically ensconced within a pre-capitalist setting, even its very existence and expansion is conditional upon an interaction between the two. So, it is obvious that you refuse the claim that a simple reproduction can create an expanded reproduction without an external stimulus within the very logic of capitalist production, don’t you? Therefore, colonial setting and imperialism can not be labeled as “stages” in the history of capitalism but they are inherent qualities of capitalist production from the very beginning.

Yes, absolutely. Because when Marx wrote the reproduction schemes he assumed that whatever surplus value was produced, either consumed, accumulated or accumulated in the form of productive capital, the fact that surplus value can be accumulated in the form of money, in which case it doesn’t create any demand for goods. It is something which has been there in Marx’s writing for a very long time. Marx has rejected what he’s called Say’s law which basically says that supply creates its own demand therefore there is never a problem of efficiency of aggregate demand. But I think while working on his reproduction schemes his concern was really much more to show how exactly the process of circulation of commodities occurs. Not necessarily to claim that actually this is the way that things happen in capitalism. The reproduction schemes are fundamentally based on the assumption that Say’s Law is valid. But in fact that is something which Marx rejected throughout his writings. So I think we should not think of his picture of expanded reproduction as a realistic picture of how things happen under capitalism. The moment we reckon with the fact that accumulation can take money form, that money can be a form in which wealth can be held, then of course it becomes perfectly possible not only to see capitalism as a system subject to overproduction, not just cyclically, but something that can be subject to overproduction over a period of time, and therefore something that may actually settle down at a state of simple reproduction without necessarily experiencing expanded reproduction in the absence of an external stimulus, or in the absence of the availability of an external market. I believe colonialism has played that role or pre-capitalist markets have played that role, passed the way that Rosa Luxemburg had argued in Accumulation of Capital. And after the exhaustion of the pre-capitalist markets, obviously they did get exhausted, I think state intervention has played a similar role. And I argue at this moment in capitalism, since both the external markets are exhausted more or less and since state intervention is virtually ruled out in neoliberalism, capitalism is without an exogenous stimulus, which is why you are experiencing the existing crisis.

So you also reject Nicolai Bukharin’s criticism of Rosa Luxemburg regarding the external market and his emphasis on competition between capitals. You insist that wealth-demand for money can also be used for accumulation.

Yes. Competition forces capitalists to accumulate capital. But accumulation of capital can take many diverse forms. One is accumulation in terms of money. There is no reason why competition should force capitalists to actually accumulate in the form of capital goods. And that’s basically my point. Once one recognises the fact that accumulation can take a money form, then the need for an external stimulus becomes quite obvious.

You count three external stimuli in your book: pre-capitalist markets, public expenditure and innovation. How do you evaluate today’s setting of global capitalism regarding these stimuli? Do we have them in the era of neoliberalism?

Of the three, which have been generally discussed in the literature, I think innovations are really not a serious exogenous stimulus. This is where my argument would be different from Michael Kalecki’s, whose work I rely on so much. Because of the fact that innovations are introduced precisely when the markets are growing. In other words in a period in which there is growth taking place you have innovation being introduced. And this is something very clear during the period of the Great Depression. Lots of inventions came on stream but none of them were introduced as innovations into the production process which they actually had to wait for the post-war period of capitalist boom in order to be introduced. The automobile boom actually far from lifting the United States from the recession or the Great Depression of the 1930s. Actually it became stored because of the depression. So I don’t believe that innovations really provide an authentic exogenous stimulus. Whatever investment is decided upon, it is the form of the new processes, but the new processes themselves stimulate a larger amount of investment, that is what I am skeptical about.

Obviously, I think public expenditure can be an exogenous stimulus if public expenditures are financed not so much at the expense of the working people, but if it is financed either by taxing the capitalists or taxing the surplus earners more generally. Because in that case a part of the taxes would come out of their savings, so there is some net stimulus. Or, public expenditure can be financed by a fiscal deficit. But the point is that in conditions of neoliberalism, taxing capitalists or surplus earners is generally frowned upon by globalised financial capital. And so is the fiscal deficit which is why most countries have got fiscal responsibility legislation. Because of this fact, under neoliberalism, the individual nation-state policies must conform to the globalised financial capital, otherwise it leaves the country, goes somewhere else. And because of that, most governments find themselves in a position where they really cannot stimulate the economy, neither of the two ways in which alone they could stimulate the economy. And that’s why neoliberalism does not have access to pre-capitalist markets or in the sense that pre-capitalist markets have lost their weight now in stimulating boom under capitalism. And secondly, under neoliberalism the state cannot lead this role. And that is why the period of neoliberalism is associated with a period of general stagnation which has settled to the capitalist world after 2008.

‘HIGH PROFITS ARE THE REASON FOR INFLATION’

So you are skeptical about the so-called Green Energy, Industry 4.0., etc.?

There has been a lot of talk about it. But I do not see any of them in fact stimulating any economy. I mean we are currently moving into a fairly serious world wide recession. You may say that this world wide recession has nothing to do with the more long term factors that I am talking about. But I believe it does have to do with the longer term factors in a certain way. That’s the following: Basically in order to stimulate the economy within the parameters of neoliberalism, the governments, particularly the United States and Europe as well, for a very long time have been pursuing a policy of almost zero interest rates and quantitative easing which is really kind of putting enormous amounts of liquidity into the economy. You know the current inflation was actually stimulated by the rising profit margins. I believe the rising profit margins was in fact facilitated by the floating of this enormous amount of liquidity in most capitalist economies which really greatly reduces the liquidity risks. It would be handicap if the serious illiquidity risks that it will have to face. But the availability of this enormous amount of liquidity and virtually zero interest rates are something that actually reduce the liquidity risks to a point where many of the corporations felt they moulded to push up their profit margins. And I think that was the beginning of the inflation. In order to curb wages now the governments all over the capitalist world are actually increasing interest rates. So that is pushing the world economy into a serious recession.

In your book, you emphasize the role of metropolitan centers regarding the deindustrialization of the colonial periphery. The ocean of small producers and labor reserves serve for center and local landowners and also capitalists can stabilize the value of money even if there is a near constant share of wages. But for decades there has been a deindustrialization in imperialist countries and a sort of industrialization in former colonies. How do you explain this reversal? Moreover, real wages have been decreasing in all advanced capitalist countries progressively. How do you explain this tendency?

Let me state one thing first. Even though there has been a migration of capital in production. There have been movements of goods but capital in production has moved to a few countries of the Global South, particularly Southeast Asia and perhaps to some extent South Asia as well. But notwithstanding this movement of capital, it is true in that sense today’s capitalism is very different in this particular respect from what it was in the colonial period. In the colonial period, the world economy was segmented. Labor from the Global South was not allowed to move to the Global North – it still is not allowed to move freely. And capital from the Global North, even though it was allowed legally to move to the Global South, did not actually do so. So the point is now that the second part is no longer true. Capital from the Global North, at least for certain times of activities, is moving to the Global South. One would have thought that this would therefore use up the labor reserves which are there in the Global South, which are a legacy of colonialism. But that is not happening. And as a matter of fact labor reserves in the Global South are increasing relative to the work forces despite the movement of the capital from the Global North to the Global South. That is because of the fact that the rates of technological progress that this kind of movement of capital brings about are really very high. And what is more, if labor reserves do not get exhausted wages remain at the subsistence level where labor productivity is rising, share of surplus rises, and surplus earners prefer to buy commodities, their preference is for commodities which are really less employment-intensive.

So the shift in income distribution has also an effect in reducing employment. And of course the very high rates of labor productivity growth. Growth of employment in many countries is simply even less than the natural rate of growth of the workforce. Let alone absorbing the labor reserves. And what is more, the labor reserves are also getting replenished, because in neoliberalism there is necessarily an attack on petty producers and peasants. The whole idea is to open that entire sector for encroachment by capital. And that is why during the period of planning in many of the countries of the Global South, there was actual protection of the petty production sector. Minimum prices for the many crops, subsidiaries. In India price protection still exists for foodgrains which the current government tried to undo. But there was a year long peasant agitation against the withdrawal of this price protection.

‘PEASANT RESISTANCE IN INDIA WAS THE FIRST POLITICAL OBJECTION TO NEOLIBERALISM’

I would like to ask you about this peasant resistance against the imperialist capital. Because you make a distinction between accumulation through expansion and accumulation through encroachment. It sounds like today’s imperialism needs perpetual primitive accumulation and expropriation rather than just absorbing the surplus value. Do you agree with that? Especially in the Indian subcontinent, South East Asia and North Africa peasants and small producers are still important. It seems that expropriating Asian and African peasants is one of the main goals of imperialism.

Yes, of course, absolutely. And in fact this is something that neoliberalism brings about. And one of the things which I stand by is the fact that primitive accumulation is not something which is confined only to the origins of capitalism. The exogenous stimulus that I was talking about is in fact the part of primitive accumulation. As a matter of fact, Marx increasingly became aware of this. He wrote a letter to Danielson in 1881 in which he talks about the drain from India, the drain of the value from India to Britain. Huge figures. He says that the drain from India amounts to the incomes of 60 million agricultural and industrial workers in India. It is really something that cannot be treated just as an epiphenomenal. I think Marx himself was aware of the fact that there was a process of primitive accumulation occurring simultaneously with normal accumulation. He did not have time to develop this idea. So primitive accumulation is something that under neoliberalism, particularly an effort is made to impose a process of primitive accumulation in the Global South. And that, in turn, implies that many peasants and petty producers lose their occupations and they join the workforce in quest of jobs, but of course not enough jobs have been created. So the labor reserves increase, therefore even though there is a shift in the activities, a whole range of activities from the Global North to the Global South, this does not raise wages of the Global South, while it keeps wages in the Global North down.

So what is the significance of the Indian peasant resistance?

There are a number of things one has to bear in mind. This basically implies that the peasantry is now facing globalised capital, international agribusiness and so on. When Lenin was talking about worker-peasant alliance, the basis of that alliance lay in the fact that the workers would usher in a democratic revolution against the feudal lords and that would free the peasants. But after the peasants are freed from the classes of feudal lords, then of course the basis of that worker-peasant alliance no longer exists. Certainly, not between the peasantry as a whole and the workers. That was the Soviet industrialization debate. The Bukharin-Preobrazhensky debate was about that. And Stalin’s solution to the whole problem through forced collectivisation was, I think, left a mark on the development of socialism, i.e. the entire authoritarian structure that developed and so on. Those were really shaped in that period because recisitums [tasfiyeler] in the Soviet Union because of forced collectivisation.

Now we live in a very different world, where the basis for a worker-peasant alliance is really much firmer, because both are now confronting globalised capital. So there is no question of kulaks developing capitalist threat to socialist order. Because of the fact that they cannot develop as a capitalist class if the economy is open to encroachment by international agribusiness which would like to keep them under its control. So that actually puts a constraint on the development of indigenous capitalism from among the rich peasant class. On the other hand, to the extent they are squeezed. They have a real interest in making a common cause with the industrial workers. In other words, the basis for a worker-peasant alliance today is stronger than that of any kind from Lenin’s days.

I think the significance of the Indian peasant struggle is that it was the first challenge at the political level to the neoliberal order. The working class has been greatly weakened, both in the Global North and the Global South as well. If you go on strike, the capital would shift elsewhere, and would locate its plant elsewhere. That kind of fear is something that will generally keep the working class subdued. They have one-day strike, two-day strike but not a prolonged action. So the peasant action in India was the first prolonged action. And literally every means at the disposal of the state was used to break the peasant resistance. But they did not succeed. In every conceivable way they were mobilised against the peasants but the government did not succeed.

‘NEOFASCISM, NEOLIBERALISM’S RESPONSE TO POSSIBLE WORKERS’ MILITANCY’

You highlight one of the main consequences of the recent crisis is neo-fascism. It seems like neo-fascism claims that it is against neoliberalism and financial slavery, however, there is no indication that this movement try to cut transnational financial flows or raise workers’ consumption with a new industrial policy and public expenditures. I think India’s Narendra Modi is one of the best examples of this tendency. So, does it seem like there is no escape from neoliberalism? Presidents like Modi, Erdoğan, and Orban claim that they are resisting the Western hegemony and making their countries independent. Is that possible?

Not at all. Modi is forever begging globalised capital to come and set up plants here, the whole slogan is “make in India.” I think neofascism is neoliberalism’s answer to possible worker class militancy. The militancy that you are currently witnessing in large parts of Europe, and a militancy which can threaten at any kind, even in the Global South. In much of Asia that militancy is going to manifest itself. I think Sri Lanka is a good example. The economic crisis neoliberalism has been pushing that country is going to now explode in the sense of working class and general urban resistance. The point is that now the crisis of neoliberalism has brought it to a situation, where it simply cannot continue without requiring an alternative pillar of political support. Neofascism provides that political support in a number of ways. Firstly, it is of course authoritarian. And it is not just authoritarian in terms of state authoritarianism, but it also has its army of thugs and hooligans who go around and terrorise people. Secondly, it actually divides the working class along the lines of ethnicity, religion and so on. And third, yet most importantly, it changes the discourse. Modi now does not claim anymore that he has brought about an economic revival, created jobs that provided for employment but now he claims that he built a temple. So they change the discourse. I think that is why neofascism is useful for neoliberalism. Except that unlike all fascisms, neofascism also cannot provide any solution for the economic crisis of neoliberalism. Not even a military solution.

You said that the western sanction regime pushes the world economy away from the neoliberal order to a host of ad hoc arrangements and undermines the imperialist-dominated order altogether. Do you still believe that? Do those ad hoc arrangements draw us up to a bloody world war? Also, Russia has not nationalized any foreign or Russian industry yet and has been strictly avoiding any sign of a Soviet-style economy or socialist measures. It seems that when neoliberal era and imperialist unipolarism come to an end, it doesn’t mean that individual countries which have a strife with the West automatically adopt a new and social economic policy.

I agree with that. Socialism does not come by stealth. I think the Ukrainian war is certainly an immense crisis for global capitalism. Neoliberalism imposes upon the world an order, that is really an imperialist order because it has opened up all countries to the penetration of metropolitan capital. The post-war period you had dirigiste governments everywhere. They nationalised the industry, introduced some kind of planning, and controlled their local resources. That is something that imperialism tried to subvert. It tried to subvert through individual actions. People often tell me that in the 1950s and 60s yes imperialism was there and today is not, but the truth is the opposite. In the 1950s and 60s imperialism was weakened, which is why they attacked Mosaddeq, Allende and so on. Fundamentally imperialist military interventions were required to topple these regimes. While today that does not really require any military intervention of that kind. Except if a country is trying to threaten the order.

So the point is that I believe that because of the crisis of neoliberalism you really have some kind of a threat to the regime. When you have that kind of a threat, then the efforts to control that threat actually further accentuate the crisis.

Let me give an example. Russia, China, newly emerging countries, they are obviously revolting against the unipolar world. Russia is certainly not a socialist country, they are oligarch controlled. Except that one should not forget that oligarchs were opposed to the Russo-Ukrainian war. And China, while it calls itself a socialist country, there are all kinds of debates and discussions about it. But fundamentally, what you have today, therefore, is not a threat of socialism for the imperialist order, but the threat of multipolarism.

That is sought to be countered by having sanctions against Russia. What have the sanctions achieved? The sanctions in fact have the opposite effect of making all kinds of countries, India included, have bilateral deals with Russia. And if you have a bilateral deal, then you have opted out of global order, to that limited extent at least. So the global order whose defense is the primary objective, gets undermined by the same defense. That is the symptom of the crisis of imperialism and neoliberalism in the current context.

A country like Saudi Arabia is developing relations and some kind of bilateral talks with China. Going with Russia in the OPEC+, in order to cut down the daily production of oil against American wishes. These are straws in the wind. They are symptoms of a collapsing order. Saudi Arabia, who would have thought? The global order imposed by imperialism, I think, is collapsing.

‘THINGS GOING ON IN EUROPE INTEREST THE WHOLE WORLD’

So you think that working people of the Global South can use this opportunity.

Yes, of course, people of the Global South can use this opportunity. But I believe what is happening in the Global North is quite interesting. After all, British workers, German workers… Italian workers, they actually oppose the Ukrainian war. The Italian neofascist government, for instance, is in fact holding the line. Neoliberalism and neofascism have once more formed a formidable alliance in Italy.

What is happening in Europe is of great interest to the entire world and also to the future of capitalism. I am not saying that the workers are engaging in a socialist struggle, the workers are engaging in an economic struggle. But the economic struggle within the parameters of capitalism is really not going to be very successful. So the point is to see what the workers would do next. Obviously, then, political issues would come on to the agenda. And I believe, in a once, European workers are on paths of strikes and actions and so on, these would have a great impact on the Global South as well. I believe generally that we are entering a period of struggles.

Up Next

Turkey, Serbia, Kosovo and Sokullu Mehmet Pasha

Don't Miss

‘If Germany does not pay reparations, it will be a huge loss of reputation’

Erman Çete

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.

INTERVIEW

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

Published

3 weeks ago

03/12/2024

Esra Karahindiba

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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