Connect with us

INTERVIEW

‘Western-centered UN no longer works, cannot resolve conflicts, needs reform’

Published

on

Hans von Sponeck, former UN Assistant Secretary General, spoke to Harici. He said that the the West centric orientation of the UN of yesterday, is no longer helpful at all in the world in which we live today.

Hans Von Sponeck is a close witness to the great suffering of the 20th and 21st centuries. His father, Hans Emil Otto Graf Sponeck, was an officer in the German army during the First World War. In World War 2, he was a general. He was executed in 1944 on suspicion of participating in the assassination attempt on Hitler.

Hans Von Sponeck, whose career at the United Nations (UN) has taken him to conflict and war zones, is a harsh critic of the organization’s structure. Appointed Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq in 1998, Sponeck headed all UN operations in Iraq and directed the Iraqi operations of the Oil-for-Food Program. In February 2000, Sponeck resigned in protest against the UN’s Iraq sanctions policy.

Sponeck was also part of a group of 18 people who published an open letter to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz calling for no further arms aid to Ukraine.

Hans Von Sponeck answered journalist Esra Karahindiba’s questions about the UN’s role in the international order and calls for reform, the Gaza and Ukraine conflicts, and the US-Germany relationship.

‘UN: Churchill, Rosevelt and Stalin’s dream turned into a nightmare’

While multipolarity debates and the search for a new international order become widespread, the role and legitimacy of the UNSC is being discussed. In addition, calls for reform are made, saying that the UN represents the interests of a narrow group of countries. How do you evaluate the role of the UN? What kind of restructuring is needed?

Well, the answer about the current situation as far as the Security Council is concerned is to me as someone who has spent over 30 years in the United Nations is very clear What is obvious is that over these 78 years of the existence of the UN, one thing has become every year more and more clear. That is since the beginning in 1945 of this new institution called the UN, we have created the world has created, the world has allowed to create a very West Centric institution. If you reflect back what this means, it means politically, financially, geographically; the UN is located in the West. The political UN is headquartered in New York. The commercial, the financial, the economic UN is invested in two UN institutions. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are located in Washington. The specialized agencies, the funds and programs the operational UN, the executive UN has been located until recently exclusively in Europe and in North America. So, the entire establishment is linked to the West. And if you then know this is nothing new whatsoever is that we have had a very unilateral oriented power structure in the UN then you can understand why in the 21st century now, we have reached a situation where this is no longer in line with the current geopolitical world order. The world order today is much more diversified, is much more unfortunately also polarized. The countries that yesterday where colonies have become mature independent countries that say “wait a minute, we exist, we have a voice, we will speak out and we will do what we think is in our best interest”. That has created a very complicated dynamics in the UN system as a whole but particularly in the UN Security Council. So, what in 1945, when three old men met in Yalta on the in Crimea; Churchill, Rosevelt and Stalin, they had a dream. The dream was one, together as a team to make sure that the world order is governed in such a way that East and West have a share. Now that dream didn’t last very long. And what yesterday was a dream, today is a nightmare.

 ‘UN is today badly in need of reform’

We have a totally inoperative Security Council that has not, I repeat, not been able to solve and prevent or manage conflicts and wars. Well, let me be specific. Iraq: No, there was no solution. There was in fact an illegal invasion. Ukraine: No. Afghanistan: No. Libya: No. So, people are there now political figures, also I must add, is this new civil society is questioning, is the United Nations worth to exist. If this is the case, my answer to that is very clearly: The political United Nations, meaning the security Council the General Assembly are today badly in need of reform. If they are not reformed, they cannot play the role that the world needs. But the UN is more than a political UN. There’s also an operational UN, the specialized agencies… You talk about Ukraine, you talk about Gaza… Who is there right now? The UN agencies under grave danger, are involved in helping on the humanitarian side. That’s another face of the United Nations. Then there’s the International Court of Justice; also not very effective because both the General Assembly and the International Court of Justice are very clearly without the authority of decision making. They can only advise the international court of Justice can give you an advisory opinion about the war in Ukraine. The general Assembly can vote on the legitimacy of the Russian invasion into Ukraine but they cannot decide. So, unless these minimized ineffective two small levels of authority have to be changed in order to make a difference.

‘West centric orientation of the UN is no longer helpful’

Can you define how those reforms could be made?

There are some very easy answers. One answer is: You cannot have in 2023 a Security Council that is based on the geopolitical reality of 1945. You have five members, five permanent members in the Security Council, three of which are from the West. Africa is not represented at all in the group of permanent countries. Latin America is not at all represented in that group. Asia with over 50% of the global population has one seat with China. So, this is, I come back to what I said in the beginning, the West Centric orientation of the UN of yesterday, is no longer helpful at all in the world in which we live today.

Then, you totally agree with President Erdogan’s “the world is bigger than five” statement.

The world is bigger than five. But I would go one step further. The world is bigger than five governments. But the world has become even bigger because of the role that civil society, non-governmental organizations play today that they were not able to play yesterday.

‘If one cannot talk to president Putin today, try tomorrow’

You are one of the signatories of an open letter to Olaf Scholz, calling for no more arms aid to Ukraine. At this point today, aid packages to Ukraine are rejected even in the US Senate. Media outlets such as The Economist criticized this situation and wrote, “The indecisiveness of the Western allies strengthens the possibility of Russia winning the war in Ukraine.” How do you evaluate the latest situation? Did the aid provided to Ukraine help? Will Western Ukraine resist be sitting at the table with Russia as it heads towards defeat?

Well, if you can give me one example where a war has led to peace on the battlefield, I would have difficulty in arguing that weapons don’t make it, can make a difference. I belong to those as a person with a background in the United Nations who argues with all the power that I have, the little personal power that I have, is to “say stop increasing the opportunity to kill people on the battlefield whether it is in Gaza or whether it is in Ukraine and start remembering that peace is made through diplomacy at a round table”. There must be a round table, where there’s equality but no unilateral independent leadership. So, my point is that shipping more weapons into a battlefield, guarantees you more debt, guarantees you an extension of military confrontation, but it is not a solution, certainly not a solution that would lead to a peace between conflicting parties that must be very clear. And what is happening in Ukraine now is increasingly. That is maybe the one chance we have: a pattsituation* where both parties recognize that this will be a never-ending confrontation where no side is going to win. So, why not stop now and do what the Secretary General of the UN and others are calling for which is an armistice.

The good opportunity to start is to remember there was Turkish leadership in the establishment of humanitarian corridors between the warring parties in order to allow the export that of wheat and millet and other agricultural products. That was the one moment or the exchange of prisoners or the return of children, other examples which should have and could have and we would look to Türkiye to be an active partner in promoting this opportunity to go from a humanitarian corridor to the moment of an armistice where the weapons are not used and negotiations for an agreement to have a peaceful resolution to take place. I do not belong at all to those who say with a person like President Putin one cannot talk. If one cannot talk to President Putin today, try tomorrow and maybe the next day. Ultimately everyone, east or west north or south knows that the resolution the return to peace will be in the conference room, will be achieved in the conference room, not in the swamps, in the mud, in the snow, of two countries fighting each other in Ukraine.

‘Sanctions probably punished Germans the most’

What do you think about sanctions against Russia? It is said that there was a boomerang effect for Germany. Do you agree?

First of all, it is correct. The Germans are probably more punished because of the cost of energy than anybody else. But I would say that there is no way to end this unless you go the diplomatic route that has to take place. We have to accept that other people have different opinions and if you sit with them on the conference table that doesn’t mean you agree with them. It means you are willing to listen to them that you are trying to understand the motivation of the other side. And if you do that, then you come one step closer to a resolution.

‘You must have the courage to disagree with US’

There are criticisms that Germany’s interests do not always coincide with those of the United States and that following Washington without questioning harms Germany the most.

Well, you know if you are a member of a club, then, you think you must take a view that is consistent with the majority in that club. I would say “yes” up to a point. When principles are involved, adherence to law in adherence to national or, in this case, EU

interests, then responsible politics means that you voice your disagreement and if the other side is really an ally, in the western context for example, if the Americans would understand that we are Germany is a friend of the us at the moment, so as a friend, you must have the right to disagree. And you must have the courage because you believe in the principles of the laws that govern us nationally and internationally. That that you do not necessarily have to go the way the United States wants to go.

‘Germany is a victim of Nordstream-2 sabotage’

Actually, this critic came right especially after the Nord Stream sabotage. How do you evaluate this criticism? Can Berlin pursue a policy independent of Washington? How do you see it?

There’s a lot of criticism in Germany of the German approach to dealing with you mentioned Nordstream-2. There are a lot of quotes, facts or the other word that is being used alternative facts, there is no such thing as alternative facts. They’re only facts. And the evidence that we, as a person in the public, have suggests that Germany is a victim here that our investments in a very expensive Nordstream-2 pipeline has been destroyed. That’s one thing one can say. But maybe more important is that the sovereignty, the German sovereignty has suffered as a result of this incident. Who is behind it? One can speculate. I would argue it is definitely not Russia. Russia wouldn’t be so foolish to shoot its own foot. So, it’s other parties. Who are these other parties? There are many answers to that. I don’t want to give you an answer. But I’m satisfied to know that a lot more has to be brought into the public domain to explain to people who are very critical of this development, who caused all this. That is still ongoing. One has to see, one has to wait.

‘European media lacks investigative journalism about the route of grain exported from Ukraine’

I also want to ask you about the grain deal which was initiated by the United Nations and Türkiye; and agreed by Russia and Ukraine. We know that more than 33 million tons of grain were exported from Ukraine to different parts of the world. But at the beginning, it was promised that this deal was for the poor people in Africa and different countries. But at the end of the day, today, according to World Food Program, we know that less than 1 million ton of grain was sent to the poor countries. How do you see the outcome of this grain deal as President Putin was not eager to renew the agreement for the next term?

Well, what I what would say is, political leaders who have including Türkiye should now go public in giving us evidence. What you’re saying is what I know. And that is that an inadequate amount went where it should go and that is to countries in the saheel, in the south of the Maghreb which is badly in need because of climate change. To have these the support from Ukraine that needs to be shown, explained in simple terms and then, one has to, and that is for example a role that the United Nations could play is, World Food Program should go public and say: “These are the figures and this is what we think should be needed. There should be a reversal of this policy of shipping grain, millets, corn, whatever it is, into countries that need it but don’t need it to survive, it should go where it is needed for people to survive.” And that is missing, the media at least, the media in Europe is not adequately trying to do investigative journalism to bring this to make that very clear. “This is what happened.” “Why did it happen?” “And why do you as the politician whom we elected to parliaments wherever they are, what are you going to do about it?” That is lacking. It’s not enough information flow into the public that allows the public to take a position where they have on the basis of credible information, an opportunity to react in the interest of those people who need to benefit from what Türkiye has negotiated, which is an immensely important contribution in order to ease the tension that exists in our region.

‘Give diplomacy a chance’

By the way, China prepared a document of 9-items for peace-building between Ukraine and Russia and presented it to Moscow. And Russia said “Okay, we appreciate any country who wants to be part of the peace”. But to be realistic, how do you perceive the role of China and the global South in the negotiations between Ukraine and Russia?

As always, those who offer themselves, whether it is the global south or it is China or anyone else, one should give those parties an opportunity to pursue that road of negotiations, of cooperation. Give diplomacy a chance. Don’t, from the from the very beginning in dealing with a conflict, be unable to compromise. I think a key word in this whole conflict resolution exercise is the ability to compromise. There is no treaty that I know that isn’t the result of compromise. So let’s sit and have a compromise and agree on what needs to be done in order to create a win-win situation. It’s possible but it’s not being done. It’s again a geopolitical great game that is being played here.

‘UN is politically irresponsible in Gaza’

UN can never produce something applicable or which Israel obeys regarding the Palestine issue. Can you comment on Israel-Gaza conflict? It’s now almost 20,000 civilians killed by Israeli air strikes or land operation. The majority of them are in the field of Gaza Strip. What do you think about the future of Gaza Strip because Netanyahu government wants to settle there and control Gaza. And the United States thinks that the control of Gaza should be given to the Palestinian Authority after the war. What do you think about the future of Gaza considering that Israel does not listen to any resolution of the UN?

Does Gaza have a future? Is there a future for the Gaza that we see on our television screens? It will take decades before Gaza is habitable again, before people can live there with dignity and security. It doesn’t exist. I come from a country I am old enough to have seen the Second World War. I know what war is like. I know how painful war is like. My father was executed. My mother in a was in a camp. My grandfather died on the way into a prison camp. My half-brother was shot in the battle. So, I know what war is. I know how long it took in my family to digest what we have gone through. What we have gone through is not half as painful as what Gaza people have gone through. So, it will take a long time before Gaza mentally and physically is able to stand on its own again.

That is a tragedy that should be recognized better today than tomorrow. Because if you only recognize it tomorrow, then many more people will have died in the meantime. So, there’s urgency. And the United Nations on the humanitarian side understands that very well. They understand. On the political side, they are irresponsible. They don’t want to take the steps that are needed in order to end this. The United States has every opportunity to stop that by stopping the supply of weapons into Israel. That isn’t happening and that makes in a way the United States a party to what is a crime of the highest proportion that you butcher innocent civilians day after day with the argument that you have to retaliate for what is, of course, also a crime committed by Hamas. But it is not acceptable that you look at this situation only from the today context. Ask the question why is there a Hamas? Why is there a Hamas? Would there have been a Hamas if in 1948 the UN resolution creating two states would have been implemented for both sides, for the Israelis and for the Arabs? There wouldn’t be a Hamas today. That is forgotten very often in the discussion.

‘Uncertainty that didn’t exist before the US occupation of Iraq’

You served in Iraq. Tensions between opposing factions have risen again as Iraq now prepares for elections. Even though 20 years have passed since the occupation, the country remains fragile. The state structure is weak, politics could not be institutionalized, infrastructure could not be built. What was Iraq like when you served? What about now? What kind of country did the occupation leave behind?

I was in Iraq at a time when Iraq was completely dependent on external humanitarian assistance. People wouldn’t have survived without World Food Program. But there was an order in Iraq as difficult and as complex it was. There was an order, there was an orderly relationship between Baghdad and the Kurdish areas. There was cooperation. There wasn’t just a border and then there was nothing on the other side. There was daily contact between Bagdad and Arbil and Sulaymaniyah, the Kurdish areas. So, there was this order which worked in favor of people of at the time when I was in Baghdad, 23 million people. Now, the people in Iraq are grappling with an incredible disorder where there is fragmentation, where there are militias, they’re either Sunni related or Shia related or Kurdish related. It’s a completely open unpredictable circumstance reality in which people again are fearful for their lives, for their survival, for their future. Do you want to be a young person in Baghdad or in Mosul or in Sulaymaniyah? What future do you have? You don’t know. Maybe a good one, maybe a bad one. But there is an element of uncertainty that didn’t exist at the time when I was in Baghdad.

* a situation in which neither of two opposing groups or forces will make a move until the other one does something

INTERVIEW

‘What we need from HTS is not to interfere in Lebanon’s internal affairs’

Published

on

Ziad Makary, Minister of Information of Lebanon spoke to Harici: “What we need from HTS is not to interfere in Lebanon’s internal problems or affairs.”

After two months of intense and destructive fighting, Israel and Lebanon have reached a ceasefire. Within 60 days, the ceasefire was to be implemented. According to the agreement, Israeli troops will withdraw from the designated areas, the Lebanese Army will deploy in the areas vacated by Israel and ensure security. A large-scale reconstruction work will be carried out due to mines, unexploded ordnance and destruction of infrastructure in the region. United Nations UNIFIL forces will maintain a presence in southern Lebanon in accordance with UN resolution 1701.

However, Israel has violated the ceasefire more than 100 times so far, which is considered unacceptable by Lebanon. Lebanese Information Minister Ziad Makary answered Dr Esra Karahindiba’s questions on the latest situation in Lebanon.

I would like to start with the latest situation in Lebanon. Even though there is a temporary ceasefire, Israel is not implementing what was promised. Can you tell us about the latest situations, and I’ll ask my other questions?

Well, as you know, we had a deadly war for about two months. As a government, we negotiated a ceasefire for long weeks, and in the end, with the help of the Americans, we reached an agreement to have a ceasefire and to implement it 60 days after the announcement.

In the meantime, there is a military plan: the Lebanese Army will start deploying where the Israelis will withdraw.

There is a lot of work to do. The army will handle this mission because there are many mines, unexploded munitions, destruction, closed roads, displaced people, and a sensitive military situation between Israel and Lebanon.

Israel has violated this ceasefire more than 100 times, and this is, of course, unacceptable. Lebanon is respecting the ceasefire, and we count on the committee formed when the ceasefire was announced.

I am talking about the Americans, French, Lebanese, UNIFIL, and Israelis. Their first meeting was held this week on Monday, and we hope this ceasefire will be implemented seriously as soon as possible because we have a lot to rebuild after the destruction we faced from Israel.

If Israel cancels the ceasefire and continues attacking Lebanon as it did recently, what is Lebanon’s current position? Hezbollah is stepping back from Syria. Maybe more of their troops will return to Lebanon. What about Lebanon’s own army?

I don’t think this ceasefire will be broken. We will have incidents daily, but I believe it will be a serious ceasefire.

I suppose we will have a complete withdrawal in about 40 days from all Lebanese territory. The Lebanese Army will deploy its forces, and we will apply 1701 as required, including southern Lebanon.

Of course, this especially applies to southern Lebanon because 1701 states that weapons are forbidden in southern Lebanon, and the only weapons will be with the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL.

What do you think about the latest situation in Syria? Now Bashar Assad has gone to Russia, and there is a so-called interim government trying to prepare for a transition period. Hezbollah is back. Iran is stepping back. There are no more Russian soldiers, and now a group called HTS is a candidate to shape Syria’s future. What will Lebanon’s position be toward Syria?

So far, we don’t have any relationship with HTS. What I would like to say is that the people of Syria must choose whoever will rule Syria.

What we want in Lebanon is to have good relations with the future government of Syria because we have many interests. We don’t need a fanatic government there.

We need a neighbor who respects Lebanon’s sovereignty and diversity. This is all what we need.

We will do everything to maintain the necessary relationships to continue ties between our countries as neighbors. We have a lot of interests in the economy, trade, social, political, and even border issues to resolve.

We have millions of Syrian refugees and many problems that need solving with whoever rules Syria. We don’t and should not interfere in Syria’s affairs and at the same time we will not let them interfere to us, too.

I hope and will work to ensure a decent and fruitful cooperation with the future Syrian government.

HTS is on the terrorist group list of the United Nations, and several countries have designated this group as terrorist. But in the near future, things may change. Turkey has appointed a charge daffairs for its embassy to continue diplomatic relations.

What will Lebanon’s position be? Do you consider HTS a terrorist group, or are things changing as they lead the country toward elections?

We don’t have a system of considering groups as terrorists or not. I already mentioned that we will assess the aims of Syria’s future government. What we need from HTS is not to interfere in Lebanon’s internal problems or affairs. Till now, as I told you, we are not the only country that cannot predict how the future of Syria will unfold.

The system theoretically should continue. We are continuing to deal with what we have—for instance, the embassy of Syria in Lebanon, the borders, and other matters. We are waiting for the new state, the new administration, and the new government to emerge, and we will proceed from there.

Will you run your diplomatic mission in Damascus?

Currently, it is not active due to everything that has happened. We will wait, but we hope to have good relations with whatever government emerges because it is in both countries’ interests. After Assad’s departure, Israel has invaded more of the Golan Heights. What is Israel’s position in the region? Many believe their presence may not be temporary.

For Lebanon, it is essential that Israel withdraws from the territory it has conquered. As you said, Israel is not only in the Golan Heights or southern Syria but has also destroyed Syria’s army, air and naval forces, and everything.

This puts Syria in a difficult position. We don’t know what kind of army or security forces the new Syrian government will have or how they will deal with Israel. Everything is unclear now. It’s been just five or six days since all this happened, and we need time to see how things settle down.

One question about Lebanon’s internal politics. After the port blast, you had difficult times with economic problems, and the presidential issue is still ongoing. How did it affect the current situation?

The system in Lebanon is not designed to facilitate such processes. It’s a complex system involving parliament, religion, political groups, and more, making electing a president challenging. It is not easy to elect a president because of our law which is causing things happen late, especially the elecion of president. However, we have a session on January 9, and we hope to have a president soon. We cannot rule a country without a president. Yes, we can manage it; it will continue, it won’t die, it won’t vanish, and it won’t disappear. But it also won’t have prosperity. We cannot develop our country, we cannot build it, and we cannot establish a new, modern administration that reflects the aspirations of young Lebanese people those who are ambitious and want to create a modern country with the protection of freedom and the beautiful Lebanese culture, along with the admirable image of Lebanon.

We hope to have a president, a new government, and renewed relations with Syria, as well as a ceasefire with Israel. In the long run, personally, I am somewhat optimistic about what will happen to Lebanon.

Last question: Do you think remaining without a president during this period makes it harder for Lebanon to address these challenges?

Of course, it has a serious impact. As a caretaker government, we cannot make major decisions, recruit new talent, or pass laws. The system cannot function without a president. We are losing talented young people who are leaving Lebanon, which is not in our interest.

Continue Reading

INTERVIEW

‘China will be the primary international issue for the second Trump term’

Published

on

Guy B. Roberts, one of the most influential figures in the Trump administration, former Assistant Secretary of Defense and former Deputy Secretary General at NATO, spoke to Harici: “China will be, I think, the primary international issue for the United States. The various statements by the leadership in China indicate that there will continue to be a strong push to fully integrate Taiwan within the Chinese political structure. I think that will be one of the big challenges in the first year of the Trump administration.”

Under former President Donald Trump, Guy B. Roberts served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs and was former Deputy Secretary General at NATO for weapons of mass destruction defense.

Guy B. Roberts answered Dr. Esra Karahindiba’s questions on the expectations for the second Trump term in terms of foreign and domestic policy.

I know that you have been closely working with Donald Trump in his previous cabinet as you were Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defense. You know how his policies were before, and you may foresee how it’s going to continue from January. What is your primary expectation at this point?

Well, it’s actually quite exciting because I think that President Trump has really made it clear that he intends to follow through on all of his campaign promises. He’ll likely focus almost immediately on the immigration issue—the illegal immigration into the United States—and also on revamping the tax structure to maximize tax reductions for middle-class Americans.

On the international side, I fully expect him to put pressure on allies and partners to do more for their defense and meet the commitments they’ve made regarding spending 2% or more of their GDP on defense. That was a key element in his first administration, and I actually was with him at NATO headquarters, where we talked at length about the need for our allies to step up. Once he gets his team in place, I see those things being critical upfront. Of course, the U.S. system is such that it’ll take probably six months before that happens.


Let’s talk about Ukraine. Trump promised to end the Ukraine war, stating he could do so in 24 hours. His aides continue to repeat this claim today. Considering the war is taking a negative turn for Ukraine in recent months, will Trump be able to bring peace to Ukraine? Also, do you think Russian President Vladimir Putin will accept a ceasefire or a peace deal?

That’s the real challenge. I think it’s unrealistic to expect that he can resolve this in 24 hours, as President Trump claims. It’s much more complicated than that. However, I do think he will engage directly with President Putin. I can see that happening, where he’ll pressure Putin to agree to a ceasefire and take steps toward resolving this issue.

Ukraine may not be enthusiastic about giving up territory, but I do think that given the situation in the situation such as the introduction of new weapons systems, the recent intermediate ballistic missiles that Russians fired on Ukraine, Ukraine’s invasion of Kursk region of Russia can set the stage for quid pro quo type of negotiation where each side gives up something at least at the beginning in return for a ceasefire. Peace, I believe, is going to take much longer than 24 hours.

President Biden, nearing the end of his term, has made some significant moves that could complicate things for Trump. For instance, he signed a bill allowing Ukraine to use U.S.-made long-range missiles against Russia. Secondly, he sanctioned Gazprombank, which is crucial for Russian international money transfers and energy trade. Several other banks are placed in sanction list. What is Biden trying to do just before leaving his post? Is he leaving some bombs in the hands of Trump?

I believe that’s certainly in the back of his mind. He’s setting the stage for successful negotiations, whether he wants to give Trump the credit or not. His administration will probably deny that. I do think that given the kinds of things the long-range fires that he’s now authorized in, the additional increases in military hardware that he’s agreed to and his encouragement by other allies to do the same, is helping and will help in arriving at a successful ceasefire negotiation.
About Trump’s upcoming second term presidency, European leaders were not really enthusiastic and they’re not happy. Some of them are not happy that president-elect Trump is going to return to White House. What kind of reorganization do you anticipate from Europe to a new Trump era? From an alliance standpoint, the Secretary General Rutte has been a very enthusiastic supporter and a campaigner, if you will, just like his predecessor, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to see that the Allies do more.  I think overall they have been doing more. I mean, we’ve had, I believe, over 21 countries now meeting the 2% military spending on GDP, and the others are on the road to doing so. The newer allies, like Finland and Sweden, have shown very robust spending on defense and training, even to the point of producing manuals for the population to undertake certain activities in the event there should actually be a war. That, I think, has deterrence value. The message being sent by the alliance is that we are an alliance, and that if you cross that line and attack any of us, you have to face all of us. Likewise, we have seen in the Indo-Pasific region reaching out to building a coalition with partners in the region including of course Australia and New Zealand but also Vietnam. We just recently sold them some training jets and other countries as well. The Trump Administration will probably be less focused on Alliance building and more focused on one-on-one relationships that are self-supporting in terms of defense. That might be a shift in what we’ll see happening between the Trump and Biden administrations.

You mean that Trump will prefer a personal diplomacy instead of a corporate diplomacy.

Yes, I think whereas Biden administration has been building coalition for example we have The Five Eyes, a group of countries reaching out to build a new interconnected relationship very similar to similar actually to what was attempted back in the late 50s and early 60s of something called SETO, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization which was tried to mimic the NATO alliance.  For a variety of reasons SETO didn’t work out and it fell apart.

But now that be in light of the Chinese aggressive behavior and it’s claims over the South China Sea and other areas, its belligerency against Taiwan and its refusal to agree to or accept the opinions by the international court of justice on the law of sea claims, the Hostile relationship they’ve had with the Philippines, so outlining islands all of that makes that particular region a potential hotspot. The recognition that the only way that there’s going to be an ability to stop and deter China from continuing and acting in that way is to build these relationships. And I think you’ll see a lot of enthusiasm for doing so.

Talking about personal diplomacy and personal relationships how would you describe a potential relationship between Trump and Xi Jinping, Trump and Macron, Trump and President Erdogan?

That’s a very important area, and I’m not sure exactly how the Trump Administration is going to proceed. However, I believe that President Trump places a lot of value on personal relationships with national leaders. That’s why I think he’s more comfortable and will be more comfortable building one-on-one relationships as opposed to forming large partnerships.

I would expect to see much more of this one-on-one approach, with Trump meeting with various presidents and prime ministers throughout the region that he considers key to establishing strategic stability, whether it be in Southeast Asia, the alliance partnership, the Mediterranean, or elsewhere. I think we can expect him to be much more proactive in building personal relationships than we saw in the Biden Administration.

Okay, talking about Trump and Erdoğan, and the cooperation and challenges between the US and Turkey, let’s discuss that a bit.  Especially the PYD issue, which is a significant issue for Turkey.  The US is trying to beat one terror group by using another, particularly as Turkey is a NATO ally but the US still ignores regarding Ankara’s concerns about the PYD.  That’s Turkey’s number one issue.

What do you think about the F-35 issue? Could Turkey rejoin the F-35 program?  What do you think about those main issues?  And finally, how do you see Turkey’s role as a facilitator in the Middle East, especially in bringing peace to Palestine and ending the war with Israel?

Well, you have just asked me a question that could take the entire day to answer.

Looking at the relationship with Turkey and its leadership, I believe Turkey is a critical partner in ensuring peace and stability in the region. At the same time, there is a lot of turmoil. One major issue is the apparent strengthening of Turkey’s relationships with Russia and China in term long term, which is inconsistent with NATO’s position on Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and Iran’s support for Russia by providing drones and missiles that we’ve already seen used on the battlefield. There’s also significant political turmoil within Turkey at the moment, you know better than I.  One unresolved issue is what to do with the two million displaced people as a result of various wars in the region.  I think President Trump would be very interested in meeting with Erdoğan to discuss resolving the Syria problem. Trump is likely looking for an exit strategy that would allow US forces to leave that particular area of the Middle East. During the campaign, he referred to such areas as “Forever Wars”, where the US is militarily involved in various regions globally.  Regarding Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups, those are major challenges.  I was very hopeful that the Abraham Accords would be the approach that the whole region would take.  This, again, was a Trump initiative during his first administration, involving countries like Israel, the UAE, Sudan, and I believe Morocco. They signed a peace treaty in which they promised to work together to develop economically, scientifically, and in engineering, as well as to maintain and create an environment for peace and security in the region, free from terrorist activities and hatred that have plagued the past several decades. To the point where I saw a country like Saudi Arabia even considering joining this process, it is now all on hold as a result of the Hamas attack on Israel and the response by Israel, which many people consider far excessive to what had happened.

It’s really interesting. I interviewed you in Ankara before, as you may remember. It was a one-hour interview, and we discussed this topic. I don’t want to repeat the same thing; perhaps our audience can watch that episode again. But again, like all the Western discourse, they repeat the same thing as if everything started with the Hamas attack on October 7th. Nobody talks about what has been happening since 1948. Okay, I’m the moderator and the presenter but I want to contribute to this discussion. I really don’t understand why, if the US government is willing to make peace in the region with the Abraham Accords and bring everyone together for a peaceful period, the US does not address Palestine’s need for freedom according to UN resolutions. Under these oppressions since 1948, Palestine has not been given that freedom. The two-state solution is still pending. How many people were injured or killed on October 7? I don’t know the exact number. But now, according to international organizations’ reports, almost 100,000 people have died in Gaza, including those in the West Bank. The West Bank is still witnessing numerous settlements. What do settlements mean? They are taking people’s lands and homes, creating a situation where peace cannot exist. Why doesn’t the US push Israel to implement the two-state solution to bring peace to the Middle East?

Well, that’s a very good question and needs to be addressed. The challenge is that I wouldn’t go back to 1948; I’d go back to 1917 and the Balfour Declaration, which created the environment we are in today. That declaration guaranteed a Jewish homeland. The problem is that you’ve got groups like Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and others with charters stating that their goal is to exterminate Israel. When that’s a primary goal, it’s very difficult to sit across the table and negotiate a peace agreement. If we got beyond that and all players in the region agreed to Israel’s right to exist, I personally believe that all the issues you mentioned would be subject to negotiation. I think the Israelis would give up quite a bit to have a guarantee that there wouldn’t be hundreds of rockets fired into their territory and that there wouldn’t be terrorist attacks all the time.

Recognition of Israel as a legitimate state with a right to exist would open the door to negotiations. I think everything else would be subject to negotiation, and I think they’d give up a lot. But when you’re at that particular point, and again, you have groups engaging in massive human rights violations—and I certainly wouldn’t put it past the fact that both sides have committed law of war or humanitarian violations—it creates an environment where people are consumed with hatred. As a result, that attitude gets passed on to the next generation, and 10 years from now, we’ll have another intifada or a similar kind of situation where people are already at each other’s throats. To sit here and say, ‘We can come up with a solution’ is absolutely right—we can come up with a solution. But there’s no willingness on the part of anybody to sit down and say, ‘Okay, let’s come up with a good deal.’ And that just doesn’t seem to be happening. I wish it would. I think the Trump administration, again, with President Trump’s personal intervention, has a great opportunity to negotiate some of the things you mentioned as enticement to bring everyone to the table.  We’ve had people come to the table before. In the past, we sat down and tried to hammer out agreements regarding weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East or arms control. We came up with some great ideas—they’re all out there. It just takes political will to implement them.

Unfortunately, there is no political will to do it. So, we just have to keep trying and build consensus among the region’s leaders that it’s in their best interest—and the people’s best interest—to sit down and craft a lasting peace. But whether that will happen, I have to say, after 40 years of looking at this issue, the likelihood is that we’ll face another cycle of violence in 10 years. That’s just the way it is in that region.

But we have the reality in the International Criminal Court, which announced an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, because of war crimes. This is the reality—we’re talking about dozens of thousands of people. We always say 50,000 people, but it is almost 100,000 people, and that is really insane. If you don’t want war in the region, the main issue is: with whom do you have war? With Iran, Lebanon, Hezbollah? You don’t like the Muslim Brotherhood, etc., but all of these are connected to the issue of a free state of Palestine. It’s not happening this way. It’s not going to happen. I don’t want to go deep into this discussion because it has no end.

So, in our last five minutes, I’d like to go back to Trump’s foreign policy. He was really pro-Israel in his first term and moved the embassy to Jerusalem. But later on, he also had negative moments with Netanyahu. For the 2024 campaign, he has garnered greater Israeli support this time around. How will this affect his policies towards Iran and the Middle East in general?

Well, yes. I mean, the primary player in the area right now is, in fact, Iran, because it is recognized as the number one supporter of international terrorism. This has been recognized by the Gulf Cooperation Council. They support Hamas and Hezbollah, both identified as international terrorist organizations. Coupled with the firing of rockets from Iran into Israel, which in turn creates an Israeli response, the spiral of violence continues. This needs to be stopped, and there are ways to work towards peaceful coexistence. But as we know, the rhetoric in Iran is “death to Israel, death to the United States.” That kind of attitude does not make peace negotiations conducive. I wish I could give an answer that says, “This is the solution, and it will be embraced by everyone.” But, as you said, we could talk for hours about the problems and challenges in the Middle East.  For example, in Lebanon, I’m watching what’s going on, and I’m actually thinking back to 1982 when I was in Lebanon. We had an attempt to maintain peace among the various groups, and then we had the Israelis invading Beirut, creating a siege situation, cutting things off. It feels like déjà vu all over again. How can we stop the cycle of violence? It really is beyond me. I’ve been dealing with this issue for a long time, and every time we came up with solutions, those solutions were quickly ignored. Hatred then became prominent. So, we just have to keep trying and, hopefully, someday we’ll get to that point.

Okay, let’s hope. My last question is on relations with China. Trump’s cabinet has hawkish figures who are strongly against China. Trump promised a 60% tax on China, which is a big concern. How do you think U.S.-China relations will progress under a second Trump term?

China will be, I think, the primary international issue for the United States. China’s long-term strategy is clear, and President Xi has made no secret of his ambition for China to become the world’s hegemon by 2049. They made statements to that effect and don’t hide it. They have a very aggressive policy of reaching out to multiple countries to build relationships through loans and various other economic incentives. They have also made claims in the South China Sea, which are very destabilizing. These claims are inconsistent with recognized international law of the sea. They have tried to harass many countries in the region over their territorial sea claims.

This has resulted in countries like Vietnam building a strong relationship with the United States. During one of my last trips as Assistant Secretary of Defense to Hanoi, I found the Vietnamese very enthusiastic about working with the U.S especially on defense sector. Other countries in the region feel the same way due to Chinese encroachment and bullying. China has also built a strong global network, acquiring port facilities in the Panama Canal, the Suez Canal area, the Straits of Malacca, and other choke points. They have created a very strong presence which in a hostile environment could be a way to strangle the world economy. We see these kinds of things happening and recognize within the United States that there are activities on the part of China that have a negative impact on national security and the collective security relationship around the world. I think we’ll see a much more active and proactive confrontation of China on these issues. There are some very big flashpoints or hot points, with Taiwan probably being the number one at the moment. The various statements by the leadership in China indicate that there will continue to be a strong push to fully integrate Taiwan within the Chinese political structure. I think that will be one of the big challenges in the first year of the Trump administration.

Continue Reading

INTERVIEW

‘Indigenous peoples standing to fight against colonialism and imperialism’

Published

on

In Venezuela, as well as in much of Latin America that was colonized by the Spanish empire more than five centuries ago, the month of October represents a date to remember and take pride in the indigenous roots of the American continent, called by the ancestral peoples “Abya Yala”. However, even today, 500 years after the arrival of Christopher Columbus, Spain continues without recognizing the genocide of the native peoples and their cultures, nor does it recognize the plundering of the riches of these lands. Currently, the empire is represented by another hegemonic power, the United States, and by another type of colonialism, the culture of the “American Dream” that seems more like a nightmare, but the threat to indigenous peoples, as well as Afro-descendant peoples that makes up Venezuela, continues to be the same. And in the face of this imperial and colonialist threat, Venezuela and other countries of the Abya Yala are struggling, resisting and winning the battle.

Within the framework of the Day of Indigenous Resistance in Venezuela, which since 2002 has been commemorated every October 12, we interviewed Clara Vidal, Minister of Indigenous Peoples of Venezuela. Vidal is originally from the Kariña indigenous people, based in the state of Sucre, eastern Venezuela, and has been Minister for Indigenous Peoples since 2022.

Why does Venezuela commemorate the Day of Indigenous Resistance?

Today we reflect on the importance of that tragic date, while today Spain commemorates a national holiday, they call it “Hispanic Day”, with joy, with airplanes, etc. That is, Spain celebrates the death of 90 million indigenous people, they are celebrating the greatest genocide in the history of humanity.

But we from Venezuela commemorate the 532 years of the beginning of the resistance of the indigenous peoples who to this day are in battle for a horizon and a victorious future that awaits us.

So today’s reflection is that nothing and no one, not the Spanish monarchy, nor the decadent U.S. empire will be able to defeat us, because 200 years ago we expelled them from these lands, because we do not want more colonialism or imperialism, we want to be sovereign, free and independent.

What are the references of the indigenous peoples in Venezuela today? And what is its importance? 

Well, let me say that we are today in the land of Commander Hugo Chávez, of the Liberator Simón Bolívar, of the Great Chief of Chiefs Cacique Guaicaipuro, the leader of the resistance of the indigenous peoples, because 532 years ago took place the invasion of our lands, and practically 90 million indigenous brothers were exterminated by an European Empire.

Precisely, according to what we have experienced and what our ancestors experienced, we can say that we are a free, sovereign and independent country, that throughout our history we are not going to allow any empire to controls us, dominates us, and that is why we have among our main historical references, which we must always remember: 

  1. The fight of the indigenous Cacique Guaicaipuro, our older brother. 
  2. Then the fight for our emancipation from the Liberator Simón Bolívar, and
  3. 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.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey