INTERVIEW
‘We are currently experiencing a reactionary-militarist restructuring of the state in Germany’
Published
on
The decision of the Berlin Administrative Court against Germany’s oldest daily left-wing newspaper Junge Welt [Young World] has become a hot topic in our country as well. According to the ruling, there was nothing wrong with the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) referring to the newspaper as “extreme leftist” in its internal intelligence reports; Marxism-Leninism was already unconstitutional and Junge Welt was praising Marx and Lenin and denouncing capitalism!
Nick Brauns, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Junge Welt, says the matter is more serious. Not only were the German courts now “accusing” Junge Welt of being Marxist-Leninist, but even the mere mention of the simple fact that society is divided into classes was deemed unconstitutional.
Brauns believes that the German state is being restructured in a more reactionary and militaristic way in preparation for war with China and Russia. The crackdown on the media and freedom of the press is only part of this reorganization.
Can you give us some information about the trial process? What happens to a newspaper if the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BvF) reports it as ‘extremist’, or ‘left-wing extremist’? What is the court’s evidence against Junge Welt?
Junge Welt has been around since 1947 and was the newspaper of the Free German Youth in the GDR. Today it is a daily newspaper with a Marxist orientation that is independent of political parties, corporations and churches. It currently has a daily circulation of around 21,000 copies.
Since the end of the 1990s, Junge Welt has been the only German-language daily newspaper to be listed as ‘left-wing extremist’ in the annual reports of the domestic secret service – the so-called constitution protection reports. The German government justified this with the Marxist orientation of Junge Welt. It is claimed that Junge Welt is not primarily a journalistic product. Rather, the publisher and the co-operative as the main owner are accused of being ‘extremist groups of people’ with plans to overthrow the government.
As a result, Junge Welt, which is also subject to the laws of the market, has considerable disadvantages in terms of advertising and distribution, but also in its editorial work. With reference to the secret service report, it has been refused paid advertisements on public radio, in railway stations and on public transport. Institutions refuse to provide information in response to press enquiries. This is the declared intention. In 2021, in response to a parliamentary question from the parliamentary group Die Linke, the German government admitted that by naming Junge Welt in the secret service report, it wanted to ‘deprive the newspaper of its breeding ground’ and limit its reach.
Because fundamental rights such as freedom of the press and freedom of trade are being violated here, the publishing house 8. Mai GmbH, which publishes the newspaper, filed a lawsuit against the naming in the intelligence report. On 18 July – after around three years – a court hearing finally took place. However, we lost in the first instance. The court considers the naming of the newspaper in the intelligence report to be justified. The judgement had obviously already been decided before the trial. We only received a new dossier from the secret service’s lawyers the day before the trial, which we were unable to respond to due to the short time available. Among other things, we were accused of using terms such as working class, capitalism and class justice. I think the term class justice is a good way to describe the judgement. Ultimately, this trial was about freedom of the press and the question of to what extent and to whom this fundamental right should apply. It obviously does not apply to left-wing critics of capitalism, or only to a limited extent.
‘THE STATEMENT THAT SOCIETY IS DIVIDED INTO CLASSES VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION’
Presiding judge Wilfried Peters spoke in favour of the BfV from the beginning. According to the reports we read, Peters accused Junge Welt of praising Marx and Lenin, and also organising an annual conference against capitalism, against ‘the free democratic basic order.’ Can we say from now on, the German state criminalises ‘praising’ Marx and Lenin, or speaking against capitalism? The court is implying that Junge Welt is affiliated with the German Communist Party (DKP). Is it a crime to ‘affiliate with’ the DKP?
The German government and its secret service have long accused Junge Welt of having a Marxist orientation. In response to a parliamentary question, the federal government declared that the mere statement that a society is divided into classes violates the constitution. Such an absurd accusation would not only affect Marxists, but also left-wing trade unionists and bourgeois social scientists. In the trial, however, the secret service’s lawyers went even further – and the court followed their lead. Now we were accused of being Marxist-Leninist.
The secret service’s lawyers and the court referred to the 1956 ban on the Communist Party Germany (KPD) by the Federal Constitutional Court. In the judgement at the time, Marxism-Leninism – albeit explicitly in its interpretation by Stalin – was described as incompatible with the constitution. It is clear that even after 70 years, this judgement from the height of the Cold War still hangs as a sword of Damocles over the left. As proof that we are Marxist-Leninist, a photomontage from our reader’s letter page showing Lenin reading Junge Welt was cited, among other things. The judge went so far as to make the nonsensical claim that anyone who sympathised with Lenin was automatically striving for a one-party dictatorship. He also claimed that Lenin had vigorously fought against the so-called Free Democratic Basic Order (FDGO) [Freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung]. However, the FDGO was formulated by the Federal Constitutional Court in 1952 – almost 30 years after Lenin’s death and certainly not for Russia.
Every year for almost 30 years, Junge Welt has organised the International Rosa Luxemburg Conference with speakers and artists from all over the world, including Cuban academics, Turkish socialist MPs, American trade unionists and African philosophers. This year in January, 3,700 people attended the conference, which has established itself as something of an annual kick-off for the socialist and communist left in Germany.
The court is now accusing us of using this conference to create reach and act as a political factor. Other daily newspapers also organise conferences for their readers. Bourgeois, neo-liberal newspapers organise conferences with property consultants or invite readers to wine tastings in order to retain their readership. But we are accused of not primarily aiming to win and retain readers with such a conference, but of wanting to prepare the revolution there.
It may be that individual authors or employees are close to the DKP and we also share a common Marxist conviction. But the DKP has its own party newspaper, Unsere Zeit. And Junge Welt is a daily newspaper independent of the party – also independent of the DKP. Incidentally, the DKP is a legal party that regularly contests elections. But it is also named as left-wing extremist in the constitution protection report. Of course, this should also be criticised. An important difference, however, is that Junge Welt is not a party, not an activist organisation, but a newspaper. And according to a ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court in 2005, a newspaper may not be named in the constitution protection report. This fundamental judgement was made at the time for a right-wing weekly newspaper, Junge Freiheit, and should also apply to Junge Welt.
At the same time, a right-wing magazine Compact was banned in Germany. Do you think German authorities seek a ‘balance’ between the persecution of the so-called ‘right-wing’ and the leftist publications?
Compact was the fascist magazine with the highest circulation. Its editor Jürgen Elsässer is sometimes referred to as the German Dogu Perincek because he has a similar biography, with a development from Maoism to the nationalist right and a certain Eurasian orientation. Now the Compact was a disgusting racist paper that agitated against migrants and Muslims in particular. However, the magazine was not banned because of any criminal offences, but because the German government did not like its political line.
We at Junge Welt criticised the banning of Compact as an attack on the freedom of the press – even if we don’t shed a tear for the magazine itself. It was certainly no coincidence that Compact was banned two days before the trial of Junge Welt. The German government is trying to present itself as a democratic centre that is fighting against the ‘extremists’ of the left and right. And our experience is that all measures taken in the name of the fight against the right will sooner or later also affect the left. Many bourgeois media columnists were alarmed after the ban on Compact and the trial against Junge Welt and have warned against further restrictions on press freedom – even if they have no sympathy for our left-wing, Marxist and anti-imperialist orientation.
‘THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT WANTS TO PREPARE THE COUNTRY FOR WAR IN EVERY FIELD’
Federal Germany is well-known for its anti-communist stance for decades. After the Ukrainian War and Israel’s invasion of Gaza, it seems that the German state does not want to tolerate any dissident voices in the press and tries to consolidate the state organisation in a more militaristic way. Do you agree with that?
We are currently experiencing a reactionary-militaristic state reorganisation in the Federal Republic of Germany. Immediately after the start of the Ukraine war in 2022, the government declared a ‘turning point’ and decided to massively rearm the Bundeswehr. The government’s declared aim is to make the country fit for war at all levels in the coming years – for a war against Russia and for the West’s war policy against China. This also includes the suppression of critical voices in the media. The domestic secret service is playing an increasingly active role here by defaming critics of the government as ‘extremists’ and pillorying them for their opinions.
The majority of the press has voluntarily backed this policy and has joined in with the war propaganda of the ‘evil Russians’ against whom Germany must defend itself.
Anyone who, like Junge Welt, criticises the armament and militarisation, explains NATO expansion as the background to the Ukraine war and advocates a diplomatic peace solution is defamed as a Putin apologist or traitor to the fatherland. The pressure is even stronger on the Israel-Palestine issue. Unconditional support for Israel is seen as Germany’s ‘reason of state’. Perfidiously, the state is using the remorse of many people, including anti-fascists, for the Nazis’ crimes against the Jews to suppress criticism of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Pro-Palestinian demonstrations are regularly attacked or banned by the police. There have been a number of dismissals of journalists from the state broadcaster in recent years because they have privately campaigned for Palestinian rights on social media or criticised Israel. Foreign pro-Palestinian academics and intellectuals – including a number of Jews – have been dismissed from visiting professorships or prevented from organising events with them in Germany. Junge Welt is almost the only newspaper that has resisted this course, openly naming the occupation and war crimes of the Israeli army and standing up for the rights of the Palestinians. That is why we are accused of anti-Semitism by bourgeois newspapers – which is all the more absurd as we are an anti-fascist newspaper that rejects and combats all hatred of Jews.
You may like
-
Israel signals prolonged occupation in Syria and Gaza
-
The Tragedy of a Nation: Bashar’s Glory Days and the Road to Ruin
-
Israel, Hamas nearing ceasefire agreement
-
‘Ceasefire’ diplomacy accelerates in Gaza: ‘Gaza without Hamas’ plan under discussion
-
Netanyahu is before the judge for corruption: ‘National security’ theatre in court
-
Israeli tanks 23 kilometers from Damascus
INTERVIEW
‘China will be the primary international issue for the second Trump term’
Published
4 days agoon
18/12/2024Guy 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 agoon
10/12/2024In 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 agoon
03/12/2024Hungarian 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.
EU leaders convened in Brussels to tackle global and regional challenges
Syria will not follow Afghanistan’s Taliban model of governance
Yoon summoned again for questioning on treason charges
Germany closes 2024 with armament records
Argentina and the IMF: Negotiations begin for a new $44bn agreement
MOST READ
-
EUROPE1 week ago
Sweden blames Germany’s nuclear phase-out for energy crisis
-
OPINION2 weeks ago
Why Did the Assad Regime Collapse in Just 12 Days?
-
OPINION1 week ago
Implications of the EU–Mercosur free trade agreement from a Latin American perspective
-
DIPLOMACY2 weeks ago
On the brink of war or a new renaissance? Highlights from the Schiller Institute’s 40th anniversary
-
OPINION2 weeks ago
Who won in Syria?
-
ASIA1 week ago
Chinese academy discusses Syria
-
MIDDLE EAST1 week ago
Syria after Assad; A look at the future and possible scenarios
-
MIDDLE EAST2 weeks ago
Handover in management, and executions in Syria