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

Who won the Israel-Iran war? Retired Rear Admiral Alaettin Sevim speaks to Harici

Published

on

Although the 12-day Israel-Iran war appears to have concluded for now with a ceasefire through the intervention of US President Donald Trump, tensions in the region persist. This brief conflict has left many questions in its wake. Is the war truly over? Who were the winners and losers? Were Iran’s nuclear facilities really destroyed? Many questions are still being debated. We posed some of these questions to Retired Rear Admiral and Istanbul Kent University Lecturer Dr. Alaettin Sevim.

The US intervened in the Israel-Iran war on day 10 and by day 12, declared, “that’s enough, the war is over.” What is the significance of the US trying to enter and exit this conflict so quickly? Or was this a tactical maneuver or a diversion, much like Trump’s actions at the negotiating table?

In my opinion, America, and President Trump in particular, was not a strong supporter of this war. It did not want to intervene but was forced to do so. Consequently, an offensive was carried out in proportion to America’s technological sophistication and its weight in world politics. However, my belief is that this was a pre-notified offensive with minimized impact. This is based on the fact that the targeted nuclear facilities began evacuating two days prior, and even though this evacuation was observed and detected, the units supporting and carrying out the evacuation were not subjected to any attack. Similarly, I assess that Iran’s response to America—the attack on the air base in Qatar—also appears to have been a pre-arranged and mutually approved attack, given that it was pre-announced and targeted evacuated bases. Therefore, I believe that America, and President Trump in particular, did not want this war, that a limited intervention was carried out, and that this was met with an equally limited and pre-planned response, bringing the war to a ceasefire for the time being.

Do you believe this conflict has ended and that the ceasefire between Israel and Iran could be permanent? Or were the parties simply sizing each other up for the next conflict?

I believe it [the ceasefire] will hold for a while. The main determining factors here will be whether Iran continues its nuclear program and how much pressure Netanyahu might be under domestically in Israel. These are important issues. I believe these were the fundamental reasons for the war breaking out in the first place. If a de-escalation can be achieved on these fronts, I assess that the ceasefire will continue for at least some time.

There was constant talk of the conflict escalating into a regional war. In this context, a scenario like Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz was also mentioned. Do you see such a risk? Or do you think the risk of Hormuz being closed has passed for now?

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran could only happen if Iran is in a very difficult position and has no other choice left. What could that entail? For example, if Iran’s oil facilities are hit, its ability to export oil diminishes, the regime is endangered, the Iranian government is threatened, uprisings begin, and Iran is left with no other option, then the closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran could be on the table. Otherwise, it would be like shooting itself in the foot. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz would also affect Iran’s own trade. It is clear that its oil product shipments, especially to China, would be blocked. This is something that Iran and its allies would not want. Therefore, I assess that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz could only be considered at a point where the war has escalated significantly and Iran, having no other recourse, is willing to risk everything. I do not see this as possible in the near future.

In the Israel-Iran conflict, air forces and missile capabilities were the focus. However, important maritime trade routes from Hormuz to the Red Sea were also on edge. Could this have triggered tensions where navies might take the stage?

Yes, a key feature of modern warfare is the absolute necessity of air power. You cannot end a war with air power alone, but you will certainly lose a war without it. It has become clear that you must develop your air power in line with your objectives and your ability to deploy it against enemy air forces.

As for navies in the region, they are already on the stage. Navies have always had a presence in the region in recent times. They are still present. Depending on the escalation of the crisis, an increase in the naval presence in the region is possible. For example, in the most recent American offensive, cruise missiles launched from submarines were used. Therefore, we must always bear in mind that America and other nations have a visible and invisible naval presence in the region at all times, and that this presence can increase or decrease depending on how the crisis develops. But a naval presence will always continue in the region, whether through bases or through invisible assets like submarines.

How do you think China and Moscow viewed these interventions by the US and Israel? Can it be said that these two capitals were caught in a dilemma: trying to avoid a confrontation with the US while also protecting their ally?

It appears that Russia may have made some effort to limit the American intervention. Russia’s recent statements, in particular, have been noteworthy. For example, they stated that they had been informing Israel for a very long time that Iran did not have any capacity to develop nuclear weapons. Furthermore, Putin’s statement that the US intervention would affect regional and even world peace was also remarkable. China’s public statements, at least the ones we’ve seen, remained more low-key compared to Russia’s. But as an important ally of Iran, we see China taking Iran’s side, at least at the level of official statements or public declarations of support. Here, I assess that Russia, in particular, may have been trying to persuade America behind closed doors.

In conclusion, I assess that Israel gained an advantage through the damage it inflicted on Iran’s infrastructure and nuclear capacity, but that Iran won by not losing the war. I believe that Iran’s capacity to respond to Israel—its capacity for reaction—was underestimated, and it was a mistake not to consider that it could retaliate for such a long period, even if with long-range missiles. For this reason, in my opinion, Iran is considered a winner for not having lost this war.

Continue Reading

Interview

Retired Vice Admiral Kadir Sağdıç: ‘Closing Hormuz would benefit the US-Israel’

Published

on

Retired Vice Admiral Kadir Sağdıç previously served as the Head of the Planning Group for BLACKSEAFOR (Black Sea Naval Cooperation Task Group), a multinational naval force established to enhance maritime security and cooperation among the Black Sea littoral states. In 2009, as the Southern Sea Area Commander, he was in charge of the naval command that managed Türkiye’s maritime security in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. We asked Kadir Sağdıç about the developments and potential scenarios concerning the Strait of Hormuz: “Closing Hormuz would benefit the US-Israel.”

‘Not possible from the perspective of international law’

At what stage of a crisis could a scenario to close the Strait of Hormuz be activated? What is the legal status of the Strait of Hormuz? What drills and simulations has the Iranian navy conducted based on this scenario to date?

The Strait of Hormuz, like the Strait of Gibraltar or the Baltic passages, is an international waterway and is not very narrow. In fact, its narrowest point is 30 kilometers wide. It is not like our Turkish Straits; for instance, the Bosphorus is 700 meters wide. Hormuz is 40 times wider, and there are different countries on its opposing shores. There is Oman, Iran, and it is littoral to the United Arab Emirates and also to Qatar. In a place where so many countries are littoral parties in the same region, closing the Strait of Hormuz is not possible under international law.

The Turkish Straits have a special status. Both the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus Straits are very narrow, and both of their coasts belong to the Republic of Türkiye. Although the Black Sea is an international body of water with vast areas of 140 and 300 miles, the 12-mile territorial waters of the two countries [on either side of the Black Sea entrance] do not close off the sea. However, in the Turkish Straits, which include the Sea of Marmara, the Bosphorus, and the Dardanelles, all coasts and the internal waters belong to Türkiye. Therefore, the Turkish Straits have a special status under the Montreux Convention. But the Strait of Hormuz has no such special status. In such a situation, yes, during past crises like the Iran-Iraq War, Iran took the initiative to strike tankers to disrupt traffic. But in doing so, it assumes the risk and must bear the consequences itself. It does not do this by taking refuge in international law.

‘Revenue from China would be cut off’

In military literature, we call it a situation assessment. Before making a decision, we run it through a test. This involves three stages: suitability, feasibility, and acceptability. Let’s look at the Strait of Hormuz from this perspective. If Iran attempts to close it, what does Iran gain? Would closing Hormuz serve its purpose? That’s what we need to look at. For example, if it succeeds in closing it, it would draw attention to the economy, because petrol and natural gas costs would rise. At a time when the world economy is going through difficulties, it could draw the world’s attention to Hormuz via oil. This could provide a modest benefit, as if to say, “Pay attention to me, protect me, let the crisis de-escalate, and respect my rights. In return, I won’t close the strait.”

But if oil and natural gas prices increase, speculators will be the ones to benefit. You [Iran] cannot benefit in the long run. Eventually, even if the crisis turns into a war, it will subside at the end of the war. Therefore, for a sustained increase in oil prices, cartels like OPEC and others must make a collective decision. Supply in that region doesn’t just come from Iran. There are many players in oil supply, primarily countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait. Therefore, unless OPEC makes a lasting decision, oil prices will not remain high. They will rise during the crisis and then fall. Iran also sends its own supply to the world market through the very strait it would close. It has a major buyer, China, with which it has long-term contracts. It would suffer losses from that as well. This action would not bring gains to Iran, but losses, because it would cut off the revenue coming from China.

‘Closing Hormuz would make Iran a target’

Would an Iranian military action to close the Strait of Hormuz grant the US a “legitimate” right to intervene under international law? Or would the US use this as a pretext to find a “legitimate” justification for an attack on the Iranian navy with an international coalition?

What other harm would closing the Strait of Hormuz cause? Iran would politically broaden its range of adversaries. While its current counterparts are Israel and the United States, if the strait were to be closed, numerous countries affected by this would target Iran, leading to a major political imbalance. In other words, the political pressure on Iran would mount significantly. It would have unnecessarily made more enemies, and its own sales would be disrupted. Iran would have to revise its current agreement with China, saying, “I will close the Strait of Hormuz now, but if I survive the war, I will supply you with this much at this price.” It cannot close the Strait of Hormuz without revising this agreement with China behind the scenes and persuading them.

So, let’s say the decision to close it is made, but is it feasible? Can it be done? Feasibility here means, will your military power—your ships, unmanned aerial vehicles, aircraft, and land batteries—have enough firepower to stop the traffic passing through that strait? When Iran makes a move, the countries whose ships would be hit—and ships from all over the world pass through there—will be affected. It’s not just the littoral oil-producing countries that provide the supply; third-party ships also transit. Therefore, when those ships are damaged, their nations’ forces may also reach the stage of using force as part of self-defense.

The injured parties may not legally target Iranian elements directly. The United Nations Security Council will condemn Iran for the damage caused to third parties and will take measures. This could go as far as the use of force. That is, it won’t just be a condemnation. An international coalition force, under UN resolutions, under Security Council resolutions, would likely intervene against Iran. This would greatly strengthen the hand of the US and Israel. An intervention by just two countries would suddenly become a multinational action under a UN mandate, necessitating the use of force against Iran. In that case, the feasibility of closing the Strait of Hormuz also seems quite low.

Let’s assume you have the feasibility and the power, and you decide to use that military power to close it. You don’t, but let’s say you do. Well, is it worth taking that much risk, losing that many assets, and being on the losing side politically? At a time when Israel and the US are pressuring Iran, is it worth turning a significant part of the world against itself, suffering damage from the coalition forces they would form, and losing additional strength? Can it bear this risk? I think not. Therefore, when we test the logic of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, closing it brings no gain. It neither has the operational capability—its forces may not be sufficient to close it against the world—nor is the risk acceptable. Therefore, I assess that if it acts rationally, Iran will not close the Strait of Hormuz.

On the other hand, an attempt by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz does not, of course, give the US a direct right to intervene. The US would need to evaluate this through United Nations Security Council resolutions. If Iran directly targets a US ship or an American tanker, then of course the US, as the other party, would engage in self-defense and could respond in kind. But we don’t know how Iran would implement this. Furthermore, I have logically assessed that such a decision will not be made.

‘The crisis will remain regional’

In such a scenario, how would the Iranian and Chinese navies react? Would it have an escalating effect on military tensions in other critical waterways around the world, such as the Strait of Malacca? Do you see a risk of a conflict in Hormuz spilling over to the Red Sea via the Houthis and other critical trade routes?

The question of how the Chinese navy would react to tension and escalation in the Strait of Hormuz region is also on the agenda. At this stage, China might react differently in its own vicinity, such as Taiwan and the China Seas. If a crisis develops there, it might launch a military operation. But I see no possibility of the Chinese navy participating in an operation in the Gulf region, in the Strait of Hormuz, or of China taking the initiative to intervene with armed force. There is no such probability. From what we have seen of China at this stage, I assess that it has no such intention in international relations. Increased tension here will have an effect on the Houthis, who have appeared to be aligned with Iran in the last year or two. Perhaps if Iran makes an attempt in the Strait of Hormuz, the Houthis could carry out similar actions in the Red Sea. I assess that a potential escalation in the Strait of Hormuz would increase Houthi activities. As long as the crisis and state of war continue, they might also undertake more advanced actions in the Red Sea.

I do not expect an intervention in other critical waterways, such as the Strait of Malacca, at this stage. However, if events escalate and blocs are formed—pitting the Eurasia “Heartland” [a geopolitical concept for the Eurasian landmass] of China, Russia, Türkiye, and Europe against the Oceania countries—meaning an intervention from the oceans (Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic) by the maritime-focused group led by the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada (to which we should also add Korea and Japan)—then tension in the Strait of Malacca via countries like Indonesia and Malaysia could be possible. But this would mean the crisis has escalated to a global scale. This would be a very dangerous situation. I do not assess that it will reach that stage. I assess that this crisis will remain regional.

Continue Reading

Interview

‘Freedom of thought in the US has never been under greater threat’

Published

on

American journalist Joe Lauria, Editor-in-Chief of Consortium News, spoke to Harici: “Freedom of thought in the US has never been under greater threat.”

Joe Lauria is an experienced investigative journalist specializing in US foreign policy. Since 1990, he has worked for mainstream media organizations such as The Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe, The Sunday Times (London), The New York Times, and The Washington Post. He currently serves as the editor-in-chief of the independent investigative journalism platform Consortium News. Lauria is the co-author of A Political Odyssey: The Rise of American Militarism and One Man’s Fight to Stop It, written with former US Senator Mike Gravel, and How I Lost By Hillary Clinton. The foreword to the second book was written by Julian Assange. In his journalism career, he has focused on issues such as US military interventions, intelligence operations, and press freedom. Lauria is the recipient of the 2017 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism and the 2015 I.F. Stone Medal from the Harvard Nieman Foundation.

Joe Lauria answered Tunç Akkoç’s questions in an interview with Harici.

In your 2023 personal reflections, you mentioned Daniel Ellsberg, who risked his freedom to leak the Pentagon Papers. As far as I know, you also closely follow the Julian Assange and Edward Snowden cases. How do you assess the conflict between freedom of expression and national security? In your opinion, can the leaking of classified documents be justified when the public interest is served?

I absolutely believe that leaking classified information is the right thing to do, especially if it will end an unjust war. That’s what Daniel Ellsberg was trying to do by leaking the Pentagon Papers. And this idea of national security, especially in the United States, has very often been used as a kind of sham. It’s a way to protect the interests of powerful people who were involved in a terrible war like Vietnam. And even though they were losing the war, and they knew it, they refused to end that war. The Pentagon Papers were all about that. The government study Ellsberg participated in, which was supposed to be secret, showed that the US knew for years it was losing that war. Politicians and generals kept telling the American people and the world they were going to win. So many people, mostly Vietnamese but also American soldiers, were dying for nothing. But it was very difficult for them to withdraw politically from the war because they would look like failures, not just militarily but politically. And I think we’re seeing a similar situation in Ukraine right now.

But yes, someone who has these documents, like Ellsberg did, like Chelsea Manning did about the Iraq war, and finding a newspaper or an online publisher like WikiLeaks to publish these documents, is absolutely their right to turn the public against the government based not just on a political argument, but on facts that were hidden from the public. The Assange case was particularly dangerous because they went after a publisher. Now, in the US, we have the First Amendment [The First Amendment to the United States Constitution], and that basically allows you to publish any material under the First Amendment. But the Espionage Act contradicts the First Amendment because it says anyone who has unauthorized possession of defense or classified information is in violation of the Espionage Act. Now, Assange was a publisher, so he had First Amendment protection. But he was also technically violating the Espionage Act. So that law needs to be changed. In fact, that’s what he pleaded guilty to, which is why he was freed, because he said, yes, I broke that law, but I don’t believe the law is just. I believed I was protected by the First Amendment. That’s why I published the documents, he said.

So again, a government employee who signs a secrecy agreement, as they all do in intelligence agencies, by law, whether it’s the US Espionage Act or the British Official Secrets Act, they cannot give out the information. And we are living in a time of great repression, not just about classified information, but about any kind of information that goes against powerful interests. They are stopping people from speaking, particularly on social media. The government is using private companies to silence people who criticize Israel, especially right now and about what’s happening in Gaza. And this is even more serious than Daniel Ellsberg because it involves hundreds, maybe thousands of people, students speaking out on campuses. That Turkish woman arrested in Massachusetts, a student who wrote an op-ed, along with four other names, hers was the only name in the article.

When you compare it to the past, how do you assess the current state of freedom of expression in America? Have you seen a similar picture before?

It’s much worse today. Let me give you a quick example of how it was better in the past. It was never great. But I’ll give you an example of how much worse it has become. Fifty years ago, in the 1970s, I can’t remember the exact year, there was a journalist named Seymour Hersh, and he was given classified information or made aware of this attack in My Lai, a village in Vietnam. Where American soldiers killed dozens of innocent women, children, and all the men in a village. This was one of many massacres. But the American people didn’t know about it. It wasn’t in the newspapers. So a whistleblower went to Congress and then to this journalist and gave the information. The information was published, it became a huge scandal. They arrested and prosecuted one soldier, but he got out after a year or two.

My Lai was a civilian massacre in Vietnam in the 1960s. At that time, a whistleblower came forward, and Congress and the press listened to him. He was not punished at all. The journalist Seymour Hersh reported on this incident, got a job at The New York Times, and won a Pulitzer Prize. One of the responsible soldiers, Lieutenant Calley, was tried and imprisoned. Now let’s look at Iraq. The video known as “Collateral Murder” was leaked by Chelsea Manning to WikiLeaks. It showed US helicopter gunships firing on civilians in the streets of Baghdad. Manning was imprisoned for disclosing this information. The journalist who published the video, Julian Assange, has also been deprived of his freedom for years. But none of the soldiers in the video were prosecuted. So, in 50 years, the tables have turned: the whistleblower used to go free, now they go to prison. The journalist used to be rewarded, now they are punished. The soldiers used to be prosecuted, now they are immune. This situation clearly shows how much the American system and culture have regressed. Furthermore, the government’s use of private companies to restrict public speech on social media platforms is ongoing censorship. Freedom of expression on platforms like Twitter and Facebook is under serious pressure.

We are all aware of this now: thanks to social media, people have more of a voice than ever before. This threatens elite and powerful interest groups. In the past, this threat came from powerful, independent media, as in events like Watergate, which brought down Nixon. Today, however, ordinary people have a more effective voice than they ever had before. That’s precisely why there’s an extraordinary effort to silence these voices. But pay attention: This isn’t happening in the Soviet Union or China. It’s happening in the United States of America. Yet this is a country that should be a symbol of democracy and freedom of expression.

My next question is a bit more general but directly related to what you’ve been saying. Based on your book “A Political Odyssey,” how do you explain America’s interventionism that has been ongoing since World War II? What is the fundamental reason for the military-industrial complex, which we’ve been talking about for decades, being constantly fed by war? And do you think this cycle can be broken?

That’s a very big question. Firstly, I think American interventionism dates back much further than just post-World War II, even to the founding of the United States in 1789. In fact, this tendency began to show itself after the victory against Britain in 1787. At that time, the British had forbidden the colonies from crossing the Appalachian Mountains to seize Native American lands. Many American colonists did not want to accept this prohibition. This was one of the reasons for the rebellion—perhaps not the main one, but an important element. After gaining independence, the US engaged in a systematic war of extermination and expansion against indigenous peoples. This was truly a chain of territorial expansion and interventions.

Then came the Mexican-American War in 1846. Large areas within today’s US borders, like California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona, belonged to Mexico at that time; they were seized through war. And of course, in 1898, the rising American Empire replaced the collapsing Spanish Empire. The US defeated the Spanish in places like the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico; it even intervened in Cuba. This marked the beginning of America’s expansion on a global scale. So, this interventionist structure has existed in America from the very beginning.

However, a significant break occurred with World War II. We discuss this topic in detail in the book I co-authored with the late Senator Mike Gravel. In American history, many companies that produced weapons during wartime would return to their former businesses after the war. For example, firms that made sewing machines produced weapons during the war and then went back to making sewing machines. Even after the American Civil War, an army of one million was disbanded, and soldiers returned to their farms. So, the US never had a permanent army or a continuous war industry. But this situation changed radically after World War II. Because the Great Depression of the 1930s had largely ended thanks to the war. The war industry became the fundamental dynamic that pulled the US out of the crisis and made it the world’s largest manufacturing power. This is not the case today—Trump tried to bring it back, but it probably won’t be possible. At the end of the war, there was a strong motivation to sustain the military industry due to the fear that the economic depression would return. This motivation coincided with the US process of global expansion. Permanent military bases were left in the Pacific, Asia, and many parts of the world. Because the US was the only major power not devastated after the war. This effectively gave it the role of a global empire.

At this point, as Eisenhower also warned, we are talking about the beginning of a permanent military-industrial complex and America’s global empire. And we are still living within this structure today. Like all other empires, this structure will eventually collapse. But this collapse will not happen willingly; it will occur with back-and-forth steps, over time, and inevitably. Today, we see BRICS countries coming together to create a counterbalance to US imperial power. This perhaps signals the beginning of the end. It’s no coincidence that Donald Trump praised President McKinley in a recent speech. McKinley was the president during the period when the US fought against the Spanish Empire. Trump similarly carries a kind of “imperial nostalgia.” He wants to revive old power with tariffs, to return America to its 1950s manufacturing capacity. But this will not happen. This, in my opinion, is his pathological dream. The forces Trump represents have realized that US global dominance is nearing its end. Just like the old empires in Europe, America needs to understand that it must now turn its attention to its internal problems. For now, there is no concrete sign in this direction, but in my view, this transformation is inevitable. And we are currently at that very breaking point in history.

Now let’s come to today. Trump and the MAGA movement have repeatedly promised to dismantle the “deep state.” Do you think Trump can genuinely break the influence of the military-industrial complex? After all, he explicitly said so himself. What are your thoughts?

First, it must be said: the deep state denies its own existence. It’s even ridiculed with the claim that this concept is a “conspiracy theory.” But many of those who say this are actually part of those very structures. They don’t want to be seen; they want to remain deep. So, the fact that the “deep state” is now openly discussed, at least in America, is progress in itself. In other countries, these structures were recognized much earlier. In America, this structure was essentially established after World War II. With the National Security Act signed by Truman in 1947, the Pentagon, the National Security Council, and then the CIA were established. In 1950, the NSA [National Security Agency], whose existence was kept secret for a long time, emerged. So, the institutional foundations of the deep state were laid during that period. Whether you like Trump or not, one truth must be accepted: The Russiagate scandal was a fabrication from start to finish. It was a lie concocted by the Clinton campaign, and this lie was supported by institutions like the FBI. Leaking false news about your opponent in American politics is common; it’s called “opposition research.” However, when it came to Trump, this turned into a state operation. The FBI saw Trump as unpredictable, outside the system, and dangerous. He was an uncontrollable figure whose actions were uncertain. He was also someone who threatened the system. That’s why they tried to stop him. Trump realized this and developed a personal vendetta, especially against the FBI. Ultimately, Trump was both perceived as a threat to the deep state and was subjected to its interference.

Some noteworthy developments are currently taking place. Trump has appointed Kash Patel, an Indian-American, as FBI Director. Patel says he wants to close the FBI’s Washington headquarters and turn it into just a field office. This also includes a plan to transfer the budget to local law enforcement agencies across the country. If this happens, it would mean a serious shake-up of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s central bureaucratic structure—and that would be a significant signal. Also, during the Trump era, some documents related to the John F. Kennedy assassination were released. These documents brought questions about the CIA’s role back to the fore. These could be seen as signs of a reckoning with the deep state. But despite all this, it’s hard to say for sure. Whether there will be truly lasting change is unknown. The structure we call the deep state has always found a way to survive. Even if Trump leaves, despite the damage done, the system is likely to be rebuilt—unless a fundamental structural transformation occurs. The point we have reached today is a period where intelligence agencies are influential enough to shape not only foreign policy but, at times, domestic policy as well. Therefore, we are at an extremely critical juncture in American history.

It should also be added: some believe Trump might genuinely be fighting against existing power structures. However, there’s another view—that even if Trump and his team dismantle the current deep state, they will establish their own “deep state” in its place. So, this could just be a different version of a power struggle.

Yes, you’re absolutely right. The system will most likely change, but it will be replaced by a structure controlled by Trump instead of the Democrats. There will still be a “deep state,” but in a different form. Because the current structure operates like a power above parties—it’s always there, regardless of who the president is or who controls Congress. There’s a strong example of this: About 10 years ago, the Senate wanted to declassify a report on the CIA’s torture practices following the Iraq invasion. This report revealed that the US had established secret torture centers worldwide after 9/11. Obama also openly admitted this, saying “we tortured some folks.” However, the CIA secretly accessed Senate members’ computers to prevent the report’s publication. This was a huge scandal, not just morally but legally. Because the CIA is prohibited from operating within the US—let alone spying on elected senators, which is a direct violation of the constitutional order. This incident clearly showed how powerful and untouchable intelligence agencies have become. As for Trump—he’s hard to define because we haven’t seen anyone like him before. He took harsh steps against the bureaucracy, weakened many institutions, and dismissed many people. But he often did this with day-to-day decisions, without a plan or long-term strategy. So, it’s uncertain whether he will feel the need to build a “deep state” behind him. However, if he has big goals—like buying Greenland, as he once mentioned—then he might need intelligence and military power, and thus a kind of deep state of his own. Therefore, the answer to the question of whether Trump would create his own deep state is: Yes, that’s quite possible.

Now let’s move from domestic policy to foreign policy. How realistic do you think are the expectations that the Trump administration will end US intervention in foreign wars? Does Trump truly represent a shift? Especially considering the comments many make about a “realist foreign policy” and a move away from the neocon line, how do you view these assessments?

Actually, not really—and that’s the problem. This time, there are no openly interventionist, neocon figures like John Bolton or Mike Pompeo in the Trump administration. However, Marco Rubio is Secretary of State, and figures like General Keith Kellogg are re-emerging. For example, Kellogg was previously dismissed and demoted, but now he’s trying to be influential in Ukraine policies again. Trump says things that sound good. He gives some messages that are anti-interventionist and intuitively correct. This aligns with the rising libertarian tendencies in America. There’s a particular vein that opposes foreign interventions, and Trump sometimes aligns with this. However, there’s still a serious gap between rhetoric and practice.

Trump says he doesn’t like wars and wants to end the war in Ukraine. But the real question is: does he truly understand the fundamental causes of this war? This was the point Vladimir Putin emphasized in his long phone call with Trump—this war won’t end unless the root causes are addressed. In America, however, these causes are hardly ever discussed. The mainstream media doesn’t bring up these deep-rooted reasons. Yet, at the beginning of the 2014 crisis, there was open talk about the unconstitutional change of government in Ukraine and the role of neo-Nazi groups—especially the Azov Battalion—in this process. US and British media had published major stories about these groups. It was stated that although their numbers were small, their influence was very large.

But now this narrative has been erased. Talking about neo-Nazis has almost become taboo. Again, there’s no longer any mention of President Viktor Yanukovych, who was confirmed as democratically elected by the OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe], being violently overthrown in February 2014. It’s like a chapter erased from history. We, at Consortium News, report on these overlooked fundamental causes. Because we voice these truths ignored by the mainstream media, we have faced censorship and various smear campaigns. Some circles even tried to label us as Russian propagandists—simply for reporting documented facts like the coup and neo-Nazis.

In December 2021, Russia presented some draft treaties to NATO and the US. Their demands were clear: withdrawal of NATO troops from former Warsaw Pact countries and removal of missile systems in Romania and Poland, which are only six minutes away from Moscow. There was concern that these systems could carry nuclear warheads. Russia explicitly stated that if these demands were not negotiated, it would take “technical-military steps”—and this resulted in the invasion of Ukraine. Although Russia’s 2022 attack is often presented as a “beginning,” according to Moscow, it was a continuation of a war that Ukraine started in 2014 with US support. So, does Trump really understand these facts? I don’t know. I don’t think so. He had long talks with Putin, and even his envoy Fred Witkoff went to Moscow several times. The Russians must have explained these issues—including NATO expansion—many times. Moreover, these objections don’t just belong to Putin; his predecessor Boris Yeltsin was also openly against NATO expansion, even their puppet Yeltsin. So, these objections have been part of Russia’s political line for over thirty years.

So, can Trump really end the war in Ukraine? To do that, he first needs to understand the fundamental causes of the war. Because the only way Ukraine can win this war is if NATO directly goes to war with Russia. However, NATO leaders are aware that this could lead to a nuclear catastrophe—so this option is not on the table. This means Ukraine cannot win. In reality, Ukraine has lost the war. The sooner they sit down at the table, the better their terms might be. But they continue to fight. Trump, at this point, remains ineffective. Yet he has the power to end this war. The US provides weapons, intelligence, and funding to the Ukrainian government. In fact, Ukraine has been largely sustained by American taxpayers’ money for eight years. Trump could stop the war by deciding to cut this support. But so far, he isn’t doing it.

The second issue is Gaza, and this is perhaps the worst. Trump is supporting a war crime of the most heinous kind here. Moreover, he completely misunderstands the issue. He’s from New York, like me—he comes from Queens—and he describes Gaza as if it’s a high-crime neighborhood. He talks about stabbings and muggings but never mentions the 2,000-pound bombs dropped on people’s tents, their forced displacement and subsequent bombing, or their starvation. Trump talks about helping the people of Gaza, but he plans to do this by removing them and building new structures in their place, meaning through ethnic cleansing. This doesn’t look like someone who wants to end wars—on the contrary, he’s exhibiting an attitude that condones the most serious human rights violations we’ve witnessed in recent years. Despite talking about non-intervention, he doesn’t practice it. Why? Perhaps he’s lost control. It seems he repeats the opinion of whoever he last spoke to. We often see this approach in his administration. Yet he should listen to realistic thinkers, even his own instincts. But he doesn’t.

You’ve been closely following and reporting on the Middle East for years, and you know the American perspective very well. So, in your opinion, does Trump’s Middle East strategy really fit into an understandable framework? Balances in the region are changing rapidly—the push to overthrow Assad, the genocide unfolding in Gaza, Israel’s increasing aggression… In light of all these developments, do you have a clear view of what kind of strategy Trump is pursuing in the Middle East?

Getting a free plane from Qatar, arranging real estate deals in Gaza and elsewhere when he leaves office—Trump’s Middle East “strategy” basically boils down to this. There are even rumors he has plans to build a tower in Dubai or Abu Dhabi. So, he doesn’t understand the Middle East; he only understands real estate deals. He has no idea about the region’s history. He can’t grasp the Palestinian issue. He still sees Gaza as a high-crime neighborhood in New York. He’s ignorant of fundamental historical facts like the role of Western Europe, especially Britain and France, in the post-Ottoman Middle East, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the establishment of Lebanon and Syria. He also doesn’t understand how the US took over regional dominance from Britain after the 1956 Suez Crisis and how it supported Israel as a proxy power. Today, the fact that Arab regimes are abandoning the Palestinians through the Abraham Accords is seen by Trump as “peace.” Yet the result was the catastrophe in Gaza—a process that essentially laid the groundwork for genocide.

No one is taking action except the Yemenis—including your president [referring to Turkey’s president]. He constantly says nice things, but as far as I know, he’s still sending oil to Israel. As for Trump, what primarily motivates him is his personal wealth. He defends Israel because he received $100 million from the Israel lobby, especially from the late wealthy donor Miriam Adelson. Like many American politicians, he instinctively tends to defend Israel no matter what. However, a break is now occurring. More and more people are raising their voices because Israel’s practices of genocide and ethnic cleansing are completely out in the open. They are no longer hidden or concealed. Those making these statements are far-right figures in the Israeli government. These individuals, once considered marginal, Kahanist-line figures [followers of Meir Kahane’s extremist ideology], are now in power. And they are trying to realize the dream of “Greater Israel.” What we are witnessing in Gaza is the most extreme point of this process—literally an attempt at a “final solution.” So, what is Trump doing in the meantime? He’s dreaming of a golf course in Gaza. We’re talking about a situation this pathological.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey