Connect with us

INTERVIEW

Turkey, Serbia, Kosovo and Sokullu Mehmet Pasha

Published

on

Will there be a conflict in the Balkans, which are still haunted by the tragic memories of the 1990s and the dissolution of Yugoslavia, at the first sign of tension? It’s normal to be worried.

Similar worries were voiced during the most recent hostilities between Kosovo and Serbia. Some others raised the risk that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine would escalate and involve the Balkans as well as a broad frontal conflict between Russia and the West.

After the military activity on the border line and the alerting of the Serbian army, the crisis began the pacification phase. The Kosovo court commuted the former Serbian police officer Dejan Pantic’s arrest, which had caused unrest, to house arrest, and Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic demanded the removal of the barriers.

Although there are currently less tensions, conflict dynamics are still active and will likely remain so in the foreseeable future.

We spoke with political scientist Stevan Gajich, a researcher at the Institute of European Studies in Belgrade, to better grasp the Serbian government’s viewpoint on the matter. Stevan Gajich preferred to respond to our inquiries by covering a wide range of historical periods, starting with the present and moving forward to Sokullu Mehmet Pasha and the Austro-Hungarian empire.

  • The border region between Serbia and Kosovo is a particularly complicated and contested situation. We want to understand ongoing developments and conflict dynamics. Is there a connection between the recent destabilizing actions from both sides and the crisis in Ukraine?

The connection is that Albin Kurti, the Prime Minister of what we call the interim institutions of Kosovo and Metohija, is trying to use the crisis in Eastern Europe in order to form an anti-Serbian coalition to pronounce Serbs as Russians in the Mediterranean or the Southeast as part of Europe. He is a troublemaker, somebody who should be dealt with severely and so on. So that’s the connection. Another thing is how it is all happened. It happened because the Albanians are not recognizing the agreements that they have signed, their own Parliament ratifies, the so-called Brussels agreements twice, in 2013 and 2015. According to the agreement which Serbia, by the way, has fulfilled, the only concession that the Albanians made was that they should establish that the community of Serbian municipalities of Kosovo-Metohija. However, Kurti says that he does not respect the Resolution 1244 and he does not respect the Brussels Agreement and so on and so forth. So what did the Serbs do? They left institutions, and that means that the ethnic Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija left the police. So what did Albanians do? They arrested some of the policemen as if these people were involved in war crimes, terrorism and some other nonsense. But the thing is if they knew that, how come that there wasn’t an issue when they were hiring the policeman or when they were in the police force, so this is of course only form of pressure. Also the Albanian Special Forces entered into the Serbian village of Velika Hoča, which is in the south of Mitrovica in Metohija. It is a Serbian village, ancient one, with some 13 medieval period Serbian Orthodox churches. And they entered and they’ve seized 40,000 liters of wine from a family. By the way, for all the families there, their only means of existence is production and selling of wine. They seized 40,000 liters, mixed it all up, which means that they destroyed it. And this was, of course, a form of economic pressure on the Serbs to leave. That’s what the what it is. Also the ‘independent observers’ there was the KFOR troops from Albania, so Albanians were controlling Albanians  Serbs. I mean this is really outrageous. After the arrest of the policeman, Serbs have formed barricades in the form of protest and that’s it. And then Kurti started to threaten with weapons and killing Serbs. Of course, Serbia had to react and to show that if such an attempt happens. And I must remind you, there’s two huge pogroms happened in front of NATO forces. One was in 1999 while Serbian army was leaving, and NATO was entering and the second one was in 2004 when Kosovo was already under total control of NATO. On both occasions, Serbian churches were burned, so Serbs were expelled from their homes. And some 200,000 Serbs were expelled from Kosovo and Metohija, which is a huge number for that province. Basically, that’s what happens.

  • Does Russia support you (the Serbian side) in waging such a conflict with Kosovo? Do you believe it is conceivable to receive military assistance from Moscow while the Ukraine War is still raging?

The help from Russia is important in regard to Kosovo and Metohija issue. Their most valuable help so far has been the support of the international law, the support of the territorial integrity of Serbia on all of its territory, including Kosovo and Metohija, supporting the resolution of 44 and supporting the Serbian constitution. So that was repeated now and there was strong assurance that Russia will continue this support. They have, of course, reacted in that respect but there was no one talking about some kind of military support. Of course, Serbia has a military cooperation with Russia, but it also has a military cooperation with NATO. It’s even more. The military activities with NATO is more frequent than that of Russia and every year statistics show that.

  •  Elections for the local municipality were delayed until April 2023. Additionally, the Kosova government reversed its decision about license plates, although tension is still increasing. What steps will reduce the tension, and what does Serbia think about it?

This is only delaying of the open issues. We’ll see what comes next. The point is that Kurti was doing these things solo, maybe with the support of the Great Britain and Germany, because Germany and some EU countries openly supported them and said the Serbs should leave the barricades, although they did not say anything about Albanians not respecting the Brussels Agreement and also about them treating the Serbs. They always called on ‘both sides’ for calmness, which is a sheer hypocrisy from their side. That’s about it. Neither the license plate issue nor the election issue is solved, so we’ll see what comes next. What is important is basically the Americans. We’re not satisfied by what Kurti did. Similarly let’s took Suez Crisis, where France and Britain attacked Egypt. Americans were against that and humiliated them. This time Americans were against what Kurti was doing while he was getting support from England, Germany, and the EU. That is important. I mean this so-called German and French initiative, which is outrageous, calls Serbia to recognize independence of Kosovo as a state which is really a very salty joke from their side while the agreements that were already signed, where the EU was a mediator, were not respected. That is what also happened in Ukraine with Minsk 1 and 2. Even the Serbian President, which is mentioned in Merkel’s interview, says that obviously the EU behaves hypocritically and that it’s lying in all these cases.

  •  Why did the Serbian army place itself in an alert state? Is there nothing else or options to do than  using army? Is there a specific goal or road map for the Vucic government, or what is the aim of Belgrade?

The high alert of Serbian army was the right thing to do because obviously that was the only way for Serbia to explain the so-called international community. Oh, what a racist term because when you say the international community, it only applies for the political West. To explain them that Serbia will not stand by while their people are being maltreated or even killed or expelled, which was also a possibility, they did what it had to do and it was the right decision. The message was received. That’s why, Serbian policemen are freed. I think that the Americans again are the ones who have pressured the Albanians, and that’s why. You can say that it was by Kurti’s reaction, because once the Serbian policeman Dejan Pantic was released, he said that he wants to see this judge who did that this is outrageous, which means basically Americans demonstrated to Kurti that they have means on influencing things in Kosovo and Metohija even if he is behaving badly.

  • What does Serbia envision for the future? Does Serbia intend to join the EU and NATO? If Serbia’s future plans include joining the EU and NATO, wouldn’t that necessitate recognizing Kosovo as a sovereign state?

No, Serbia is definitely not going to join NATO. That’s an official position because Serbia has a status of a neutral state, according to a parliamentary resolution in 2007. It’s definitely not joining NATO. Serbia is officially on the EU path, but in a similar way like Turkey. The Serbians’ road to EU is not going anywhere. And this is what I like to call a Japanese kabuki theater where the EU is pretending that they want us and Serbian authorities are pretending that we are getting there, and nothing is going on. The EU is falling apart after Brexit definitely, and now the Ukrainian crisis showed all the impotence of EU. Especially Berlin but also Paris are being bullied not only by Washington and London, but even by Kyiv, which is humiliating. Why would Serbia want to join such an impotent organization? The EU has also been very arrogant toward the Serbs. They have promised that they will accept us, but in the Salonika meeting in 2003, nothing happens. There is a fatigue among the Serbian society. The majority of Serbs, according to all the sociological data, do not want to join the EU even if they would accept to take us tomorrow. This is really not an issue, both NATO and especially EU are not an issue. We are looking at other options. I’m glad that Turkey is also joining many of the other international organizations, especially Eurasian initiatives, and I think that that’s where in the future Serbs and Turks will meet in some other form of associations on the Eurasian continent, but the EU as a political wing of NATO and as a relic of the Cold War has lost its meaning. I think one of the reasons for the Americans to provoke this proxy war with Russia in Ukraine is to reoccupy Western Europe and Europe as a whole. I think that London and Washington were not happy about Berlin getting more powerful. Look at now what’s happening. The German economy is being destroyed from within by agents of North Atlantic influence such as Annalena Baerbock and other politicians like Schultz, who are too weak to do anything about it. France is a bit more independent, but still not so much. Why would we want to go and enter a sinking ship, which is the EU? Although the rhetoric from the state will still be that the EU is our strategic goal. That’s what the officials will say, but even they don’t say it as often. They say that there is fatigue in the population, which is certainly true. That’s the situation.

  • What if Serbia decides to recognize Kosovo? Would it be feasible if Serbia and Kosovo exchanged some contested land?

A simple answer is no, Serbia will not recognize Kosovo. There won’t be any exchange of territories. This was an issue until late 2018, but it was highly unpopular both amongst the Serbs and the Albanians from Kosovo. When we had the previous tensions in that period, they all look as if it was some kind of a show between Vucic and Rama. I think one of the directors was Alex Soros, who was also the initiator of the so-called Open Balkans Initiative, which is basically a NATO’s initiative. I don’t think that this is feasible, this won’t happen. We will not recognize Kosovo and this idea of exchanging territories is definitely dead. Why would Serbs exchange their territory for their territory? All of Kosovo and Metohija is a part of Serbia and, of course, other territories in Serbia are also part of Serbia. This is not going to happen, thank God, I would say, and it is good that these ideas have been abandoned.

  • Turkey is the first country to recognize Kosovo as a state, and it currently has excellent relations with Serbia. Do you believe Ankara might function as a mediator?

I think that Turkey and Serbia have common interests, but Turkey has to change its policies. I think that Turkey should look at their best partner and ally, which is Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan recognizes Serbia in all of its territory. Turkey, unfortunately, is selling bioreactors to Kosovo, which is a separatist government. It is also a grave mistake. Another grave mistake, and this is something that the Turks don’t know, is that the Kosovo Albanians have been very aggressively assimilating the Turks from Kosovo-Metohija because there are some other autonomous Turks, especially in the city of Prizren. These people are forcefully being assimilated into Albanians. There is another thing that Turkey does not realize. Albania and Albanian nationalism from the first day were a Roman Catholic project, and this is what I don’t know why people and policymakers in Turkey don’t understand. There’s an Albanian scholar from Tirana called Olsi Jazexhi and he’s saying exactly the same thing. Turkey is being portrayed as an enemy in the official Albanian history books, in the made-up Albanian history. Well, why is it made-up? There is an excellent book by Teodora Toleva, a Bulgarian scholar. She died prematurely but she wrote a book called ‘Austro Hungarian Influence on the Creation of Albanian Nation’. Everything is fake there, from the flag that was created in a studio in Vienna in the 20th century to things like language, which was standardized by the Vienna Court and the Habsburgs. What is important I would say for Turks to know is that all the Albanian elites are either Roman Catholic or crypto-Catholic. Ibrahim Rugova was a crypto-Catholic. He was the one who was portrayed as Albanian Nelson Mandela or something like that. By the way, his life was saved by the Serbian secret police several times because the KLA structures wanted to murder him. Once the terrorist was killed on the wall of his house. He was trying to assassinate Rugova but the Serbian police has prevented that. Rugova was a crypto-Catholic. Hashim Thaçi had a photo with him and the Pope on the central part of his cabinet. Eddie Rama, Prime Minister of Albania, was born as an Orthodox Christian and he converted to what? To Roman Catholicism. Ramush Haradinaj said ‘yes, I’m a Muslim, but we were all Catholics’, and he held the picture of Mother Teresa in his cabinet. Mother Teresa, by the way, allegedly an Albanian from Macedonia, is being praised like an Albanian hero. In Macedonia, while all the Albanians are Muslims, Sunni Muslims, why on Earth would they celebrate a Roman Catholic saint? This is completely nonsense. But that is part of the policy of Vatican, Austria-Hungary, and Italy in the past, which created Albania and Albanian nationalism as a Roman Catholic project with one problem. The problem is how you take a population 70% of which is Muslim and then try to make Roman Catholics out of them. Well, you take their elites and that’s what was done in the past and what is done now. Another thing is when you enter the city of Prizren, there is a huge Inacio Loyola Jesuit gymnasium. The real conflict in Kosovo is not between Serbs and Albanians, but it is between Islam and Roman Catholicism within the Albanian community and I would say even in the past among Muslims that the conflict was between Turkey and the Gulf states that were financing all the Arab looking mosques as opposed to Ottoman mosques. You have these white, small, thin minarets all over Kosovo-Metohija and Macedonia and in South Serbia, which is financed by the monarchies from the Gulf, from the Persian Gulf. That’s another thing. If you look at Albanian history, what the Austrians did is that they took a person of mid-level importance from Serbian history, which is George Kastrioti Skanderbeg. Then they have proclaimed that he is an Albanian and now he’s an Albanian national hero, although his mother’s name is Voisava. His parents and his brothers are buried in the Serbian Monastery, Hilandar in Mount Athos in Greece. How can on earth he be Albanian if his parents are Serbs? But this doesn’t matter. This is only a detail. The point is that both political project of Albanians and political project of Bosnians in Bosnia is a Western project from day one, before the entrance of Austro-Hungarian Empire in Bosnia, which happened after the Berlin Congress. Even in 1878, all the Serbs who took Islam would be called Turks because, as you know, the Ottoman Empire had a millet system, so you can be black, Chinese, Serb, white, Georgian, Armenian, Greek, whatever. But if you are Muslim, that makes you a Turk. So, they were Turks. But once the Austro-Hungarian Empire took Bosnia and Herzegovina and later in 1908 annexed it, which almost provoked World War One back then. They have gone with this Bosniazation of Muslims in the Balkans, Serbian speaking Muslims. They created these Bosnians. And that is why politically whatever Turkey does, even if Turkey stands on its head, the Bosnian Muslims are always going to be a player of NATO. Before that, the Austria-Hungarian Empire simply set the political West. And if you have noticed also during the 90s, while Muslims were being killed in Iraq, the only Muslims who were supported by the West was the Albanians and the Bosnians, the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina. And how both these sides view Turkey as a payer, as somebody who is paying for their bills, but they never give real concessions to Turkey. If Albanians are assimilating Turks into Albanians, and if they’re teaching their history, the Turks are always an enemy.

What were we talking about? Serbs and Turks have to make a new deal, but the serious one this time, because there are issues when where we can really come on the same page. Let me remind you one thing, the Greater Serbia was made by a person who was the greatest grand vizier of the Ottoman Empire, and that is Mehmet Sokoli Pasha or Mehmed Pasha Sokolovic as we call him, or Bajica Sokolovich, because he was a Serb and he knew he was a Serb. He became a janissary. He was taken not as a child but as a teenager, so he is student at a monastery. He was already literate. He was a very ambitious young man, and he was the grand vizier of the Ottoman Empire during the three empires and during the greatest peak of power of the Ottoman Empire. Serbs, as you know, had an empire in Kosovo. Metohija was the capital of (…). It was Prizren. I’ve mentioned Prizren, because the Turks also lived there but are really being, as I said, assimilated by the Albanians. The capital then moved to Skopje, which is now the capital of Northern Macedonia. However, Serbs have this, let’s say, tradition, even a tradition of the Byzantine or Roman Empire. It’s something that the Ottoman Empire became after 1453. If Turkey really wants to be serious with the cooperation with the Serbs, then it has to make a new deal. Let’s speak but let’s speak seriously. A serious talk would start by calling things by their names. Once Erdogan did that, when he was in 2007, if I’m not mistaken, in Sarajevo, he said basically to Bosnian Muslims, ‘we love you and all of that, but you are the same people with your neighbors’, meaning ‘with other Serbians’. And this is, of course, something that Bosnians call themselves now. See, when they live in Turkey, they understand that they are Serbs of Muslim faith, that Turkey is their country and that’s it. I mean they don’t have this identity problem. Whereas the Bosnians are constantly and basically in this limbo, that was again created by the West, it was created by Austria-Hungary Empire out of their political interest because Austro-Hungarian Empire was afraid. It was afraid of the new countries that emerged after the Ottoman Empire left or was defeated, or call it whatever you want, in the Balkans. They were afraid of Greece and Serbia having a huge common border, which is why Albanian nationalism was created as a Catholic project to be something between. So from out of different people of three religions, because Albanians are also Orthodox Muslim and Roman Catholic, they created one nation out of two languages, which is Albanian. Out of Gheg of the North and Tosk of the South, they created one language. And some people like Count Thalloczy and Benjamin Kalaj did completely the opposite thing in Bosnia from one people of three religions. I’m talking about Serbs. Out of Roman Catholic Serbs, Orthodox Christian Serbs, which is the majority of Serbs, and Serbs of Muslim faith, who were called Turks during the Ottoman Empire, they created three nations. They wanted to create three nations. Why? Because they were afraid that this huge mass of people can become a serious political power in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. And that’s what happened at the end. You know that Mlada Bosna, Young Bosnia, a guerrilla Gavrilo Princip who shot Ferdinand in Sarajevo on 28th of June 1914. He was a member of an organization called Mlada Bosna, which means Young Bosnia. And this organization had people of all three religions in Bosnia. It had, for instance, Mustafa Golovich, who was a Muslim. It had Ivo Andric, the famous writer who was a Roman Catholic. It had Cabrinovic and Gavrilo Princip who were Orthodox. All of them considered themselves to be Serbs or Yugoslavs, as they say. Back then these two things were synonyms. They were against the Austrians artificially dividing the people.

If Turkey and Serbia can have a serious conversation about strategic partnership, not about mid-level good relations but about the strategic partnership and if Turkey mediates between the people of the same language and explains to the Muslims that Serbs, meaning Orthodox, are not their enemies, that they are their brothers. If these things happen, then there can be a serious cooperation. If Turkey continues to recognize Kosovo, if it threatens that it will sell Bayraktars, then this partnership can only be superficial. I mean I’m very frank in this interview and this is the whole truth when it comes to the relations between Serbia and Turkey. We have a good foundation on which we can build. And not all of our history is a history of animosity, because of Mehmed Sokoli Pasha. I didn’t mention why I said that he created the greatest great Serbia. It is the fact that he re-opened and restored the Serbian Patriarchate. Where? İn Pec in Kosovo-Metohija. And he has placed his brother, Macaria Sokolovic, as the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church and the jurisdiction of the Serbian Orthodox Church at that time was huge. It was all of Rumeli, as the Turks say, and all the way up to today’s Hungary. So, the jurisdiction was very big. And that was done by an Ottoman grand vizier. For instance, and that is not the only example, there is a great warrior Omar Pasha Latas who was helping the Reformation of the Ottoman Empire. He fought for it in the mid-19th century. The history is more about shades of grey than black and white and I think that there are these things where we can cooperate on serious grounds, but there must be some kind of frankness and of openness for that from the Turkish side. And if there is not those things like that, there can’t be a serious conversation about really strategic partnership. And again, I can say that look at Azerbaijan, look at the development of the Serbian-Azerbaijani relations, which is really getting better and better. And Azerbaijan respect Serbia. It respects Serbian interests and Serbian territorial integrity. And this is why it is Azerbaijan also highly respected by Serbia. That’s my opinion on the possible development of the Serbo-Turkish relations in the future.

 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

INTERVIEW

German economist: Militarization of industry is a path to disaster

Published

1 month ago

on

17/02/2025

By

Lucas Zeise, a German economist and co-founder of Financial Times Deutschland, shared his views on the militarization of industry in a recent interview. Zeise said, “If more and more is being spent on the defense industry, this is actually a loss. Because this is a production that exists only for destruction. This is a sign of a general decline and at the same time an indication of the road to disaster.”

Born in 1944, Lucas Zeise is a financial journalist with a background in philosophy and economics. His career includes positions with the Japanese Ministry of Economics, the German aluminum industry, the Frankfurt-based Börsen-Zeitung, and the Financial Times Deutschland, which he co-founded. Until 2017, he served as editor-in-chief of UZ, the weekly newspaper of the German Communist Party (DKP). He currently writes a regular column for Junge Welt and contributes articles to various publications.

Lucas Zeise answered Tunç Akkoç’s questions about the debate on German industry and economy and global developments.

Tunç Akkoç: First of all, is deindustrialization a reality?

Lucas Zeise: Yes, I think so, but of course it is a long-lasting reality. Deindustrialization is a process that coincides with capitalist development in general. Industry has been the main surplus-value-producing element of capitalism in all countries, and in some of the more developed countries, notably Britain, deindustrialization has reached a more advanced level. Since Britain was the first fully developed capitalist country, this process started earlier.

Economists often refer to this process as the tertiary sector, i.e. the service sector in general. In capitalist countries, the share of services in the economy is steadily increasing. This is a general trend that can be observed everywhere, and is particularly related to the fact that developed countries are gradually shifting their industries to other regions, especially South-East Asia, by exporting capital. While industrialization is taking place in these regions, the process of deindustrialization in developed countries has accelerated.

In addition, the process of financialization has also accelerated and the financial sector has become stronger. However, the finance sector is a service sector, not an industry. Nevertheless, all these service sectors depend on industry remaining strong. When we analyze the UK, we can see that the country has experienced a relative decline compared to other regions. For example, Germany had overtaken the UK in the industrialization process and even surpassed it before the First World War. Likewise, the US has also overtaken the UK in terms of industrialization.

This is a long-term trend. However, two major industrialized countries, Germany and Japan, have managed to resist this process for a long time. The recent economic shocks, however, have accelerated Germany’s deindustrialization process, which has brought about an inevitable crisis. This is the essence of the whole issue.

Tunç Akkoç: Some influential figures in the European Union, such as Mario Draghi, have argued that Germany should move away from the car industry and invest in new technologies such as artificial intelligence. What do you think about such proposals for structural change?

Lucas Zeise: I think such proposals for structural change will happen spontaneously on the one hand. I mean, this process is already going on naturally. China has already overtaken Germany in the car industry. Therefore, Mario Draghi’s advice on this issue is actually a cheap suggestion. It is easy to suggest something like this and then say ‘Great job!'”

On the other hand, it would be ridiculous to think that it is possible to steer the economy in this way. It is not enough to say, ‘OK, now we are investing heavily in artificial intelligence and we will get ahead in this field.’ Moreover, it is debatable whether artificial intelligence is really a great revolution or just a passing fad. Artificial intelligence can actually be considered as a sub-branch of the semiconductor industry, i.e. microelectronics.

Of course, the development of microelectronics is important and all countries are making state-sponsored investments in this field. The European Union and Germany are already encouraging this. However, this is not something that is unique to Germany or something that makes Germany different from others. While it is possible to make great progress in this area, this alone is not the final solution to a problem.

Tunç Akkoç: In general, how do you assess Germany’s future energy supply strategy?

Lucas Zeise: Obviously, I am not an expert in this field, so it is difficult for me to give a really good assessment. But it seems very clear to me that all states have to pay attention to such a central sector of the economy.

Germany was already in a different position in that it did not have its own oil companies. This has become a historical tradition. As for natural gas, there used to be two big centers: one centered around BASF, the other around Ruhrgas. These two structures were interconnected and worked well for a while. Over time, however, this system changed and other areas of the energy sector, especially electricity generation, were restructured.

However, this does not change the fact that the energy sector must be guided by the state. Energy policy should be managed by the state in a holistic manner. Developing a common energy policy in the European Union already seems unlikely. However, such a policy should have been mandatory for such a large common market.

At this point, if we look at the example of Turkey, the energy sector there is handled, managed and coordinated in a relatively centralized manner. In Germany, and at the EU level in general, there is a major deficiency in this respect. The state does not really take enough ownership of the energy issue.

Tunç Akkoç: On the other hand, German industry is increasingly turning to the defense industry. Some see in the militarization of the economy the potential for a kind of ‘re-industrialization’. After the war in Ukraine, more and more German companies are breaking the taboo on supplying the defense industry and entering the military equipment sector. How should we assess this development?

Lucas Zeise: On the one hand, this is clearly a sign of the collapse of the still developing and relatively well-functioning global economy. If more and more of it is being spent on the defense industry, this is actually a loss. Because this activity is a production that exists only for destruction. This is a sign of a general decline and at the same time an indication of a road to disaster.

It is also clear that there is competition for the best defense tenders in the international arena. That is why everyone feels that it needs to enter this field strongly. Nobody just wants to buy aircraft from the US, but wants to build their own defense industry. Germany was already taking part in this process. Although not always at the forefront, tank production in particular has long been strong. This sector was progressing steadily, albeit at a slow pace.

However, this development seems to herald an impending catastrophe. It shows that everyone is preparing for war. This is very similar to the atmosphere before the First World War.

Tunç Akkoç: Elections are approaching in Germany. Do you think that after these elections, Germany’s economic policies will change with a new political order?

Lucas Zeise: More likely no, I don’t think so. I think that economic issues have become a bit more prominent, but if we look back, I remember that in the German Bundestag elections in 1969, one of the main debates in the election campaign was whether the German Mark (D-Mark) should appreciate against the US Dollar. So, a very specific and economically critical issue for Germany at that time was at the center of the election campaign. This debate was directly related to the position Germany should take vis-à-vis the US and Europe.

Today such a debate is missing. The issues that really need to be addressed —energy policy, deindustrialization— are being dealt with in a strangely distorted way. The only thing that everyone seems to agree on is the Agenda 2010 program that Gerhard Schröder launched in 2002 or 2003. This program meant lowering wages, reducing social benefits and increasing profit-making opportunities for companies.

But this approach was already wrong at the time. Schröder’s move enabled some big companies to make a big leap forward and strengthened German capital, especially in the European domestic market. This had certain advantages, but repeating it now would only worsen the situation.

That’s why I think the debate is being conducted in the wrong way and not particularly along party lines. On the contrary, there seems to be a consensus among most political actors on this issue.

Tunç Akkoç: How do you assess the first actions of the Trump administration and what will be the impact on international relations and the global economy?

Lucas Zeise: In my opinion, there is not a new wave of deregulation (liberalization). The US government’s more aggressive stance towards other great powers, or as Trump calls them, ‘shitholes’, or small states, ruthlessly suppressing and crushing them, is not deregulation. It is, in fact, a further intensification of the rivalry between the capitalist states, which are essentially allies, by any means necessary. We can see this situation clearly.

This is not deregulation; it is more like what happened during the Ronald Reagan era. At that time, the US tried to revitalize its rivalry, not with China, but especially with Japan and Western Europe. Reagan’s ruthless behavior towards his own allies was aimed at strengthening the US global position. Today, I think it has become even harsher, so much so that the President of the US can stand up and say, ‘Oh Denmark, you have to give us Greenland, or else we will buy it.’ They even imply that they can intervene directly if necessary.

This kind of behavior is actually a continuation of the past US policies towards Panama. Panama was detached from Colombia and made independent because the US wanted to build a canal there. In other words, this imperialist behavior towards weak countries is already a tradition. But the behavior towards medium-sized states such as Germany, Britain, France or Japan is becoming more and more brutal. I see this as the result of an intensifying and ever more bitter rivalry.

The US in particular is less and less reluctant to use its military power more recklessly, and this is becoming more and more prominent. This is not a new era; it is a further advance of neoliberalism and laissez-faire. The so-called ‘rules-based economic policy’ rhetoric has been completely discarded.

Tunç Akkoç: We see both overly optimistic and overly pessimistic comments about the Chinese economy. When government bonds lose value, pessimists sound the alarm; when exports break records, optimists raise their voices. Does China have the intention or the power to ‘share’ the world with the US?

Lucas Zeise: I completely agree with you; the overly optimistic comments are as exaggerated as the overly pessimistic ones. If I try to think from the point of view of the Chinese Communist Party and its leaders, their tradition has been to position China as the largest economic power and to take the first place in the capitalist world.

In the present situation, if I am the second most powerful country, naturally my goal is to equalize with the first. And I have to do this because there is almost no scenario in which the US will accept this and say, ‘OK, we can live in peace with China.’ For a while it seemed as if there was this understanding, that we were working well with China and we were happy with that. But this is clearly no longer possible.

The official US policy is based on not allowing China to become an equal power. They want to continue to set the rules and, if necessary, to violate them according to their own interests. Therefore, China is forced to act like an imperial power.

Continue Reading

INTERVIEW

Head of Roscongress: Local currencies are used to bypass sanctions

Published

1 month ago

on

16/02/2025

By

Alexander Stuglev, the Head of  Roscongress Foundation, spoke to Harici: “For easing the sanctions regime, national currencies are currently used, and potentially in the future, a digital currency developed by the BRICS can be used.”

With the Russia-Ukraine war, Moscow has increasingly turned to business diplomacy and international trade cooperation as strategic tools to mitigate the effects of Western sanctions. Central to this effort is Roscongress Foundation, Russia’s premier organization for fostering global economic dialogue and partnerships. Established to enhance Russia’s business ties internationally, Roscongress serves as a bridge connecting Russian enterprises with global markets through high-profile forums such as the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF). The organization plays a critical role in reshaping Russia’s economic development by emphasizing collaboration with emerging economies, strengthening ties with traditional partners, and exploring new trade opportunities in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Roscongress was organized a meeting in Istanbul and Alexander Stuglev, the Head of  Roscongress Foundation, replied the questions of Harici.

As we understand, Roscongress is the main tool for business diplomacy and to eliminate the impacts of Western sanctions. Can you tell us more about the organization?

Yes, you have noticed correctly, Roscongress was established in 2007 as a non-financial development institution that deals with the organization and holding of major international economic and political events in Russia in the interests of attracting investments to the Russian Federation and developing the economy of the Russian Federation.

At the same time, while organizing events we, of course, proceed from the fact that in addition to interaction between Russia and businessmen from a particular country, direct connections can also be established with third countries, that we are also welcoming.

Could you tell us more about the opportunities and risks you see in Turkish-Russian relations in business sector?

Undoubtedly, to some extent, sanctions affect the development of Russian-Turkish relations and, in general, business relations with Russia.

Nevertheless, today, all those who use these turbulences in a pragmatic way to build their business projects in Russia are winning, occupying the vacated niches from Western countries, developing their own business. And from the point of view of easing the sanctions regime, national currencies are currently used, and potentially in the future, a digital currency developed by the BRICS association (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) can be used.

First of all, there are always risks out there, marketing risks included. Secondly, in addition to the fact that Turkish companies have occupied the niches vacated by Western companies, we see a general change in the structure of the Russian economy with a greater focus on creating products and services within Russia.

Tourism for example; the number of tourist trips that have now emerged in Russia is many times higher than there were before COVID, about 83 million trips are made by Russian citizens annually within Russia.  And this requires the infrastructure development.

Taking into account the large number of support programs from the Russian state for companies that are developing tourism infrastructure, there are great chances, for foreign companies as well, if they organize a Russian legal entity in the format of an LTD and get the opportunity to develop their projects. This is one of the possibilities.

Creative industry, computer IT security, IT products; in all those areas we can cooperate completely freely. These are such cross-border industries, where, I think, it’s very difficult to be a subject for sanctions.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Russian President Vladimir Putin set a goal of increasing bilateral trade volume to $100 billion. Do you see an expansion or a contraction in the Turkish-Russian trade volume in 2025?

Firstly, this is practically 100% growth to what we have now.As for the forecast for 2025-2026, the main thing is,first: in my opinion, the construction of transport and logistics projects.There is the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea for example.Second; this is cooperation in the field of energy. Thirdly, this is cooperation in the field of chemistry (creation of chemical products) from supplied raw materials, from oil and gas.This is a promising area of pharmaceuticals, supplies of medical equipment, as well as medical services in Türkiye.Undoubtedly, the development of tourism is very promising but also creative industry, IT industry, Cybersecurity.These are the areas that, in my opinion, will develop in the near future. Of course, traditional cooperation in the field of metallurgy.Traditional cooperation in the field of agriculture and food supplies will grow for sure.

What challenges do sanctions pose to bilateral relations?

The first is an axis from the sanctions regime, including through payment in national currencies and using digital currencies. The second is business, thanks to its capabilities, will find a solution to any restrictions. I do not want to go into details now, do not want to disclose the details of the opportunities that companies can use to maintain a normal trade balance.

Anti-colonial movements in Africa seem to have opened up space for Russia in both diplomatic and commercial terms. How do you assess the situation there?

This is an anti-colonialist movement not only in relation to France, but also in relation to other countries. This is also a movement in relation to proposals that are unfair to Africa, for example, on the green transition, because it will destroy African business and will give great advantages to global companies. In my opinion, it is necessary to proceed from the interests of African countries, which, in fact, Russia always does. This is the advantage of our economy and politics.

We work in a ‘win-win’ mode. In the same way, the Turkish side can work in Africa. In the same way, Chinese investors have been actively working in Africa to this day in the form of the prospects of this market. But based on common interests, on the one hand there is a creation of profitable enterprises. On the other hand – the development of the African economy.  Only this will provide an opportunity for further mutual growth. If we simply export material resources from the colonies as a consumer and do not give anything in return, nothing good will come for sure.

After the fall of Assad government, does Russia have any interest in doing business in the reconstruction of Syria?

I am sure that Russian companies will take part in this process, just like other international companies. Now a period of political stabilization will pass and a period of certain growth will begin. The main thing is that extremist movements and non-constructive movements in relation to Syria and the Syrian people do not prevail in politics.  I believe that politics and economics will improve in the near future.

Continue Reading

INTERVIEW

‘Fascism is a tool of capitalism in crisis’

Published

2 months ago

on

02/02/2025

By

From January 9 to 11, the World Festival of the Antifascist International took place in Caracas, Venezuela. More than 2,000 national and international guests from more than 100 countries, as well as other Venezuelan cities, attended the event. Among them were representatives of social movements, political parties, cultural and popular organizations, intellectuals, indigenous peoples, youth, students, workers, parliamentarians, communicators and other personalities. The mega activity was carried out within the framework of the Inauguration of Nicolás Maduro, who on January 10, was sworn in as President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for the period 2025-2031, and also served as an example of international support for the continuity of the Bolivarian Revolution under the leadership of Maduro. Another important event that surrounded the Festival was the Inauguration of Donald Trump this January 20.

The Italian-Argentine philosopher Rocco Carbone, who has delved into the discursivities and political and cultural processes of Latin America, was born in Cosenza, Calabria, in southern Italy, but has lived for more than 20 years in the Argentine capital, Buenos Aires. Carbone studied at the Università degli Studi della Calabria. He received his doctorate in Philosophy from the University of Zürich, Switzerland, and currently teaches at the National University of General Sarmiento (UNGS) and is part of the prestigious world of Argentine scientific research center CONICET.

In addition to the aforementioned International Fascist Festival, Carbone participated in other activities carried out in Caracas within the framework of the Inauguration of President Nicolás Maduro, such as the January 9 March; the Swearing-in on January 10; and, the III World Communication Congress of the University of Communications (LAUICOM) held on January 11, among others. In that sense, Harici was able to talk with the Italian-Argentine philosopher about what fascism is, who is Argentine with Javier Milei as its president, and what is coming for Latin America and the world with the arrival of Trump to the White House.

Venezuela has just celebrated the International World Anti-Fascite Festival. Can you give us a definition of what fascism is and how it is expressed today?

The first thing I would tell you is that fascism is never something new, fascism is always old. With this I want to tell you that I am a little reluctant to talk about neofascism, but rather the word fascism convinces me more. I know that, at least in Argentina, where I have lived for more than 20 years, and also in the rest of Latin America this is a difficult word. It is a difficult word from political theory, from political action, for different reasons. But, without a doubt, when we say fascism we are referring to the Italian experience, to the German experience of the 20th century, which were experiences that extended more or less between the 20s, 30s and 40s. But if one theorizes this word a little, in the 20th century we see fascism in different places, that is, fascism in the 20th century was an international force. We find fascism, for example, in Great Britain, where in the 1920s and 1930s there was the British Union of Fascists, led by Oswald Mosley, a guy who had trained with Lord Keynes, the key to economics who was part of a brain of the Blackmore Group.

For example, in old China in the 1930s, within the Kuomintang of the Chinese Nationalist Party, founded by Sun Yat-sen, there also existed a dual power apparatus called the Blue Shirt Association, which was an apparatus fascist type military politician. If we think about Our America, for example, in Cuba governed by Gerardo Machado y Morales, the greatest fact against that political experience is that he persecuted a great militant who was part of the student movement and the Cuban labor movement, Julio Antonio Mella. Being an avid writer, in some of his texts, which we can read today because they have been preserved, Mella called Machado Morales “the tropical Mussolini”, that is, Mella identified Machado as a fascist. Then Mella had to exile himself from Cuba and went to live in Mexico and Machado had him murdered.

And if we think about Argentina in the 1930s, the so-called “Infamous Decade”, there was an Argentine fascist party recognized by the Italian fascist party that had a mass experience, especially in the city of Córdoba, where it was led by a relatively important Argentine Thomist philosopher, Nimio Juan Manuel de Anquí.

And why do I say all this? Because everything that is in history, everything that is in the political history of the world and in the political history of Latin America, at some later point, that history can be reactivated again. And it seems to me that this is happening today in Our America with different expressions of politics that if we call it right or extreme right or extreme right, we say absolutely nothing, because that is an insufficient descriptive expression.

So it seems to me that using these categories says nothing, for example, about the Venezuelan opposition, about Milei, about Bolsonaro. And it seems to me that this word, fascism, has indeed been reactivated. Now you ask me to give a definition of fascism, and I believe that we can think of fascism in many ways, we can think of it in relation to statehood, but we can think of it as political power without necessarily linking it to the nation-state.

Regarding Javier Milei, you have just released a book about the type of fascism that the Argentine president characterizes. Tell us a little about that.

Yes, the book is precisely called “Flamethrower: Milei and Psychotizing Fascism.” Fascism is a psychotizing power because it is a power that tends to drive the citizen, the free organizations of the people, the political parties, and politics crazy… Fascism is a power that discursively, but also politically, when it makes policy, always says two things at the same time and these things contradict each other.

In the case of Milei we can see it clearly, for example, when he was in the middle of the presidential campaign, Milei said that the current Minister of Economy, his Minister of Economy, Luis Caputo, was a criminal and a thief, because he had requested a loan from the IMF for 45 billion dollars, which became an enormous Argentine external debt. But then, when Milei won the presidential election, he chose Caputo as economy minister and now praises him.

Well, there we effectively see a power that narratively says two things at the same time that deny each other. That is why I say that it is a psychotizing power, that is, a power that tends to drive the citizens crazy. And, from my point of view, that psychotizing style basically tends to at least inhibit the popular response to fascism. That is the psychotizing element, the permanent contradictory element, that activates fascist power. We also see it in the permanent development of policies.

In the case of Milei, before becoming president he was briefly a deputy, and when he was a parliamentarian he voted in favor of the elimination, for example, of a tax that is the Income tax (also called the tax on great wealth). Milei voted against that entry, because for him, the Argentine State is a kind of evildoer, it is a kind of thief. The State is a kind of criminal because it taxes the citizens. However, now that he is president he is reinstating the income tax. Once again we see a contradictory policy that balances between a denial and an affirmation.

I believe that in this way we can understand fascism: as a kind of latent political force that is present in the life of people, as a kind of small person (a dwarf) that is – to a greater or lesser extent – in each one. of us and that, appropriately stimulated, grows again.

This January 20, the White House has a new tenant. What can we expect from Trump’s international policy towards Venezuela and Latin America?

Klara Zetkin in her 1923 text: “Fight against fascism. And how to defeat it”, argues that fascism is “a tool of capitalism in crisis.” In that sense, Trump is the head of state who represents the maximum expression of capitalism, and when capitalism is in crisis (in fact, Trump feels that the United States is in crisis, is in danger) to surf that crisis and stay afloat, capitalism expands. a much more radical tool than capitalism itself: fascism. It seems to me that this is a great definition to understand what we are talking about when we talk about fascism, because as we said before, that word activates historical comparisons, which can confuse us or divert us a little. And it seems to me that if, on the contrary, we connect it with the rationality of capitalism, especially the capitalism in crisis that we are experiencing in the 21st century, that is, a capitalism that has many dimensions, there is a productive capitalism, analog capitalism, there is another platform capitalism, financial or digital, there is another type of capitalism, specifically in Latin America, the narco capitalism.

And capitalism at this moment is going through a transition phase, because there is a dispute for the hegemony of capitalism between the old US imperialism and new emerging countries, such as the BRICS. I am referring to Russia, I am thinking of China, India, Iran, which are disputing that hegemony, that leadership. 

And so, because capitalism is closely linked to imperialism, the United States feels the pressure of that crisis. Trump has expressed it several times, for him American power is in crisis, in decline. So in different places in the Western world, forms of fascism are activated so that capitalism stays afloat, stays alive and reaffirms itself in this moment of transition from one hegemony to another hegemony, which we still do not know what it will be. Let’s say, this neo-hegemony or hegemonism is still uncertain, but it seems to me that the world is moving towards it, therefore, it seems to me that we must effectively understand it under that paradigm: fascism as a tool of capitalism in crisis.

As to how Trump’s arrival at the White House may affect Venezuela, this is also a bit uncertain. But the obvious thing is that the Trump administration needs an antagonist. If Israel and Gaza reach a prolonged peace agreement, beyond the circumstantial ceasefire, and if Trump manages to end the war in Ukraine. The United States will exert greater pressure and interference against Venezuela. Trump is acting psychotically against the Chinese government, his main enemy in the fight to maintain global hegemony. That is why thinking about a “reasonable capitalism” is nonsense, which is why people must unite and organize.

What do we do?

Imagining and organizing a new world, alternative to the power schemes of powers that do not fight to achieve something but rather covet everything that exists is the task of participation and struggle for the forces of emancipation that vibrate in the ideas of social justice. and egalitarianism. National and popular forces with the Latin American perspective of the great Homeland. Because, what is a town, after all? It is not a fixed or eternal idea but an idea that names and summons the possibility of being constituted in each historical stage. That idea indicates less a large number, a large conglomerate, or a conspicuous number of people mobilized than a fluctuating community experiencing an epiphany. A revelation of power, of knowledge, of beauty, of shared knowledge. A social bond, a hug. An experience: a constitutive part of what one is and without which one cannot be, nor continue to be. From Our America it must still be possible to imagine and organize an emancipatory action – spliced ​​with the dimensions of multipolarity and the BRICS – constituted around a popular slogan: Make Antifascism Great Again, on the 80th anniversary of the subordination of archaeological fascism at the hands of the revolution.

Notes

“Flamethrower. Milei and psychotizing fascism” (2024) by Rocco Carbone. In this essay, the Italian-Argentine philosopher maintains that “fascism is a highly psychotizing or maddening political power. And this characteristic is expressed very well in Milei, because Every time Milei speaks he says two things that clash with each other, for example: First he said: ‘Pope Francis is the representative of the evil one on earth’ and then, when he makes a trip to Rome and visits the Vatican, he says: “The Pope is the most important Argentine in history.” In this text, Rocco invites us to resist and combat this political power because “fascism does not imply an idea different from our own, but the death of all ideas.” And he concludes that “Fascism is a tool of capitalism in crisis,” a thought previously postulated (1923) by the feminist and German communist deputy Klara Zetkin (1857-1933) in the text “Fight against fascism. And how to beat it.”

In “Mafia capital: The hidden logics of power” (2019) the philosopher maintains that: “Organized crime (now nationalized) has a very broad advantage over Argentine democracy and its laws.” In his text, Rocco reviews Latin American history and the recent radicalization of neoliberal governments. It also describes the development of the Mafia, from its origins and how: “in just two generations it stopped being a regional and rural organization to become another, made up of modern, cosmopolitan and refined businessmen, with doctorates, capable of expressing themselves and doing things.” His work has been published in many languages.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey