theAnalysis.news: Recent Episodes
Paul Jay
John Bellamy Foster reflects on the enduring relevance of Einstein’s “Why Socialism?” in this fourth segment of our series on ecology and materialism. Marx’s foundations of ecological materialism are blended with the work of natural scientists and the Greek philosopher Epicurus. Socialism, as a transformational project whose intellectual birthplace is materialism, had to be forcefully defended by Albert Einstein, the preeminent scientist of the 20th century. Bellamy Foster, discussing his Introduction to Einstein’s essay, explains the importance of Einstein’s contribution in the postwar context and into the present.
In this third segment of a series on ecology and materialism, John Bellamy Foster concludes that across different societies, starting from ancient China, the Hellenistic world, and India, there is a parallelism of class struggles. They involve notions of self-consciousness through production in relation with nature, human freedom, solidarity, and substantive equality. Common to them is a praxis that combines Epicurus\'s philosophy of enough and reciprocity with Marx\'s emphasis on production and transformation. Lynn Fries interviews John Bellamy Foster on GPEnewsdocs.
In Part 2, John Bellamy Foster debunks the misconception that socialism and materialism had no role in the development of ecological analysis. His research shows that socialist transformation involves the transformation of human relations with nature, and that the modern ecological movement grew out of Marx’s analysis of the dialectics of society and nature. And there again, the Epicurean strand carries right through. Lynn Fries interviews John Bellamy Foster on GPEnewsdocs.
In this first segment of a series on ecology and materialism, John Bellamy Foster explains how Marx, who was not a natural scientist, learned from chemists, physicists, biologists, and the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus. Marx then garnered a unique theoretical approach that identifies the causes of the societal and ecological crises we face today. Lynn Fries interviews John Bellamy Foster on GPEnewsdocs.
In part three, filmmaker and journalist Paul Jay turns to the film that brought this conversation full circle: How to Stop a Nuclear War. Jay traces the bomb\'s origins to a lie — the U.S. and Britain knew by 1944 there was no German nuclear program, yet built one anyway to secure postwar hegemony. He argues the Cold War was never really about defense; it was a protection racket that justified permanent militarization, purged the American left, and convinced generations that annihilation was the price of safety. Jay makes the case that nuclear winter research has been buried for decades because acknowledging it would mean admitting there is no such thing as a winnable nuclear war — only a lucrative one.
In part two, filmmaker and journalist Paul Jay argues that American politics runs on kayfabe — pro wrestling’s term for the fiction that the staged drama is real. The battles themselves are real enough: the fights in Congress over legislation, the billions spent to win elections. But what’s said publicly — the messaging, the narrative, the story sold to voters — is mostly fiction. The power of finance, the military industrial complex, and the billionaire class as a whole are rarely talked about in mainstream media or politics.
In part one, filmmaker and journalist Paul Jay joins host Shalaj Lawania for a personal reflection. Jay argues that Canadian and American identity sit on a foundational lie: stolen land, slavery, and corporate rule masked as liberal democracy. He says most mainstream journalism focuses on the actors, but rarely on who owns the stage.
He traces his “red diaper” upbringing, the Cold War myths he didn’t internalize, and the way mainstream and algorithmic media turn politics into a billionaire-run wrestling show while keeping us on the brink of nuclear war. Any honest account of personal identity, Jay says, has to start with knowing the society we live in, how we got here, and the brutal history that continues today.
This summer, theAnalysis.news is revisiting some of our best episodes. Today’s pick, The Significance of the “Shit Show” Debate, originally published on September 30, 2020.
Paul Jay is joined by Prof. Leo Panitch, Jacobin writer Meagan Day, and historian Gerald Horne to break down the presidential debate and the deeper reasons behind the dysfunction in U.S. politics. They also discuss how a people’s movement might respond if Trump attempts a coup after losing the election.
Leo Panitch passed away on December 19, 2020, at the age of 75.
Rank-and-file delegates amended the UAW Constitution at the union\'s 39th Constitutional Convention, requiring the union to divest from Israel Bonds after a grassroots campaign led by auto workers, academic workers, and graduate employees.
In the second part of Barry Stevens\' conversation with international law expert Michael Byers, the focus shifts to the \"tragedy of the commons\" unfolding above our heads. As thousands of satellites are launched by companies such as Elon Musk\'s SpaceX and millions of pieces of debris accumulate in orbit, the risk grows of a collisional cascade—known as the Kessler Syndrome—that could render parts of near-Earth space unusable for generations. Byers says that the rapid commercialization of space is linked to US military priorities and great power competition, as satellite networks sold as civilian infrastructure become essential tools of modern warfare and domination. The pace of expansion is outstripping the ability of international institutions to protect and govern the orbital environment. In the process, the spirit of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty is being steadily eroded. Space was envisioned as a realm of peaceful cooperation and a province of all humankind. This analysis shows how one of its last great global commons is being stolen and squandered.
Article 1 of the Outer Space Treaty, signed at the height of the Cold War in 1967, declares that space \"shall be the province of all [hu]mankind.\" That remarkable consensus, with its benefits to science and communication, has held for more than half a century— until now. In this conversation, host Barry Stevens talks with Michael Byers— Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at UBC and co-author of Who Owns Outer Space? — about how, behind breathless media coverage of rockets landing by themselves and astronauts circling the moon, Donald Trump\'s reframing of space as a \"warfighting domain\" and his Golden Dome fantasy are eroding fifty years of restraint and triggering an arms race. With Pentagon-backed companies like Musk\'s SpaceX, the commons of space is being crowded, enclosed, monetized, and militarized. But as Byers insists, \"it is not too late.\"
From the Cold War bomber gap to the Iraq WMD fraud to Golden Dome, America’s permanent war economy has spent 80 years converting real geopolitical conflicts into manufactured existential threats — and turning fear into profit.
The Iran war follows the same playbook: no confirmed nuclear weapon, no IAEA finding of a bomb program, no U.S. intelligence assessment authorizing one — but billions in new contracts, spiking defense stocks, and a president whose portfolio was moving through Palantir, Nvidia, and Broadcom while praising their “war-fighting capabilities.”
This isn’t about Iran’s human rights or a nuclear threat. It’s about contractors, client states, oil markets, and an imperial order that needs permanent danger to survive.
Jay says we must take up the recommendations of the 1934 Senate Nye Committee: take profit out of war.
What if the arms race isn\'t a problem to solve — it\'s the business model? Paul Jay, founder of theAnalysis.news and director of the upcoming documentary How to Stop a Nuclear War, breaks down the machinery behind Golden Dome, lunar data centers, AI militarization, and the trillion-dollar boondoggle playbook that\'s been running since the Cold War. Plus: why \"corruption\" misses the point, the Pentagon as America\'s largest socialist institution, and what a bipartisan Senate committee concluded in 1933 that nobody wants you to remember.
James Early argues the indictment of former Cuban President Raúl Castro is less about prosecuting a decades-old case and more about creating a political and legal framework for intensified U.S. pressure against Cuba. He says the move fits within a long history of American efforts to destabilize the Cuban government through sanctions, economic isolation, and covert pressure dating back to the Eisenhower administration.
Gerald Horne joins Paul Jay to break down how the U.S. war on Iran has isolated Washington on the world stage, fractured the political right at home, and handed Tehran leverage it never had before. From anti-Trump summits in Barcelona to Jamie Dimon urging the elites to "finish the job," they examine whether the American establishment has any real exit strategy, or whether it's heading toward another Iraq War.
Next week, Paul Jay talks with historian Gerald Horne about what may be a genuine rupture in U.S. political life.
Unlike Iraq in 2003, the elite consensus has fractured. The right is divided, corporate America is nervous, mainstream media is using the words “war crimes,” and polls show most Americans want no part of this war. The Israeli genocide in Gaza already cracked a consensus that held for decades— has the Iran war shattered it? Can the progressive left seize the opening?
Leave your questions below— Paul may raise them with Gerald on air. Subscribe and join us next week on theAnalysis.news.
Daniel Ellsberg was the whistleblower who leaked the Pentagon Papers, exposing U.S. lies about the Vietnam War and helping trigger the crisis that brought down President Richard Nixon. He went on to spend the rest of his life as an antiwar activist, focused above all on the dangers of nuclear weapons. In this conversation, Barry Stevens speaks with his son, Michael Ellsberg, about Truth and Consequence, a collection of Daniel’s writings that blends personal memoir with decades of political and ethical reflection. Together they explore his evolution from nuclear war planner to whistleblower and activist, and his uncompromising view that the deliberate targeting of civilians—including through nuclear threats—is terrorism, a standard that casts a harsh light on todays' U.S. leadership and its contempt for international law.
In this conversation with Barry Stevens, Col. Larry Wilkerson argues that the United States has utterly destroyed the international legal order it once led in creating, eroding its legitimacy, and turning it into a global pariah. He says the war with Iran is strategically self-defeating: to win, Iran only has to survive, while the U.S. and Israel require a decisive victory that remains elusive. One consequence could be a global recession. Meanwhile, China benefits from American overreach without direct confrontation. In the long run, Wilkerson warns, the real danger is not just war itself but the collapse of cooperation on the defining challenges of climate change and nuclear weapons—problems no country can solve alone.
This interview was originally published on May 19, 2023. We are republishing it as the war in Iran continues to escalate.
Historian, Assal Rad, explores identity formation in modern Iran, both under the Pahlavi dynasty as well as after the 1979 Revolution under the Islamic Republic. Her book “State of Resistance: Politics, Culture, and Identity in Modern Iran” examines top-down and bottom-up manifestations of national identity as narrated by state structures and popular culture, respectively. Her fascinating analysis is based on a historical assessment of how modern state-building in Iran inculcated a sense of national belonging in the population, as well as on interviews with people in Tehran and examples taken from popular music and film. Can national identity play a positive role in liberation struggles?
Miloud Chennoufi, professor of International Relations at the Royal Military College of Canada, tells host Barry Stevens that the rapidly escalating war on Iran is not about democracy or self-defense, but a dangerous and illegal conflict driven by Israel, which has long sought to reshape the Middle East while avoiding a resolution of the Palestinian question. He claims the United States has been drawn into a war it did not need to fight, launched despite ongoing diplomacy and in the absence of any imminent threat. Far from bringing freedom, Chennoufi warns, such violence is more likely to produce shattered states and prolonged chaos. He insists that non-violent political solutions are not just morally preferable but strategically smarter—offering the only real path away from endless violence and toward an elusive peace.
Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), joins Barry Stevens to discuss the alarming wave of complaints from U.S. military personnel. Over 200 service members from 50 installations have reported that commanders in their chain of command are framing the war in Iran as part of God\'s divine plan to bring about the Battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming. Weinstein describes how Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth holds monthly Christian Nationalist prayer services in the Pentagon\'s largest auditorium during the duty day, and how this top-down signaling is emboldening commanders to push religious ideology on their subordinates. Weinstein also confirms that some of the Christian Nationalists within the military are in positions involving nuclear weapons.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson — former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell at the State Department and Joint Chiefs — joins Paul Jay and gives his unfiltered assessment of the U.S. war on Iran. Wilkerson argues the conflict is unconstitutional, unwinnable, and strategically catastrophic. Topics include: Iran\'s military resilience and long-term strategy, Israel\'s nuclear threats, the depletion of U.S. and Israeli air defense munitions, China\'s push to replace the dollar with the renminbi, the collapse of American alliances worldwide, the threat to the 2026 midterm elections, and whether impeachment proceedings against Trump are inevitable.
Trump’s State of the Union and Marco Rubio’s speech at the Munich Security Conference reveal a sweeping — and deeply troubling — vision for American foreign policy. Historian Gerald Horne (University of Houston) and journalist Jonathan Katz (The Gangsters of Capitalism) join Paul Jay to break it down.
What emerges is less a foreign policy than a neo-colonial project: regime change in Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba; a reordering of Europe under American dominance; and an ideology rooted in Christian civilization, white supremacy, and the Nazi theorist Carl Schmitt’s concept of Grossraum — the world divided into spheres where great powers do as they please.
Katz decodes the fascist dog whistles embedded in Trump’s speech — including a number that traces directly to Nazi message boards — while Horne connects Rubio’s Munich address to a broader rollback of the anti-colonial gains of the post-WWII era and the civil rights movement at home.
Is this the return of unapologetic imperialism — a neocon project stripped of any pretense of democracy and freedom? And what does Trump’s self-styled role as “king of the world” through the so-called Board of Peace mean for the United Nations and global governance?
The Epstein files are naming names — CEOs, politicians, a current and former president. This is the stratum of people making decisions about nuclear weapons in an uncontrolled arms race with no arms limitation treaties, no diplomatic channels, and AI now integrated into nuclear command systems.
Paul Jay talks with Matt Korda of the Federation of American Scientists about where the U.S. nuclear modernization program actually stands — the Sentinel ICBM, hundreds of billions in cost overruns, the Golden Dome fantasy, and a launch-on-warning doctrine that even its defenders can’t rationally explain.
The logic behind ICBMs collapses under scrutiny. The Golden Dome can’t work. The real objective, as with every arms race boondoggle from SAGE to SDI, is the money. As Paul puts it, “It’s not about the dome, it’s about the gold.”
Meanwhile, Russia and China aren’t talking to Washington. The arms control architecture is gone. And the media is barely covering any of it.
We need an anti-nuclear movement like the one that existed in the early 1980s. Midterms and a presidential election are coming. Make this an issue.
Matt Korda is a senior researcher at the Federation of American Scientists.
Paul Jay joins Maria Hall, Jim Lafferty, and Michael Smith on the Law and Disorder radio show. They discuss his upcoming documentary How to Stop a Nuclear War, based on extensive interviews with Daniel Ellsberg and narrated by Emma Thompson. Jay reveals how post-World War II economic decisions drove nuclear weapons expansion, explaining why the Soviet threat was largely manufactured according to declassified CIA documents. He breaks down why Trump’s proposed “Golden Dome” missile defense system actually increases nuclear war risk, discusses the dangers of AI in nuclear command and control, and outlines seven concrete steps citizens can demand to reduce the threat of nuclear catastrophe, including ending presidential sole authority to launch nuclear weapons and negotiating new arms control treaties. Learn more at stop-nuclear-war.org or visit theAnalysis.news for ongoing investigative journalism.
In 1947, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created the “Doomsday Clock” to draw attention to the existential dangers posed by human technology. The time was set to seven minutes to midnight, with midnight symbolizing the destruction of life on Earth. Just two years before, in 1945, the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The world saw firsthand the potential of nuclear annihilation.As World War II was ending, a different kind of conflict was underway: the Cold War. And over the next four decades, the United States and Soviet Union competed for nuclear dominance—not only through foreign policy and military strategy, but also on the home front, using propaganda and retaliation against critics. Throughout this period, people of conscience, like Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers in the early 70s, repeatedly sounded the alarm. Ellsberg and others warned that there was no way to “win” a nuclear war. If one side launched a nuclear weapon, the other would inevitably respond, leading to mutual destruction.Today, more than 30 years after the end of the Cold War, the nuclear arms race continues. According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, nine nations continue to stockpile nuclear weapons, including the US, Russia, China, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, France, the United Kingdom, and North Korea.On January 27, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved the Doomsday Clock forward to 85 seconds to midnight—the closest humanity has ever come to global catastrophe. The question remains: Is there time and the will to change our trajectory, to learn from the past, and avoid a path to global destruction?
Gerald Horne, Johnathan M. Katz join Paul Jay: Trump’s ICE killings in Minneapolis have exposed deep splits inside the Trump camp and among business and political elites, many who now see him as dangerously unstable for capitalism itself. These fractures create a rare opening: massive street protests and sustained organizing can push harder than ever, while progressives use the crisis to run bold anti‑ICE, pro‑worker campaigns and turn elite disunity into real electoral gains.
Mark Carney’s Davos speech was widely praised as a bold stand against the breakdown of the so-called “rules-based order” and the rise of naked great-power politics under Trump. But speeches do not change power relations. In this wide-ranging analysis, Paul Jay argues that Trump did not rupture the global order so much as strip away its cover—exposing a U.S. system in internal crisis, increasingly authoritarian at home and openly coercive abroad. From hemispheric dominance to trade war and militarization, Jay situates Canada inside that system: deeply embedded in U.S. military strategy, financial capitalism, and projects like missile defense and Arctic militarization. Without a break from those foundations, talk of sovereignty and middle-power independence risks becoming performance rather than substance. The issue is not tone, but whether Canada—and others—will challenge the economic and military structures of U.S. power, or merely bargain for a safer place within them.
Director Paul Jay discusses his upcoming documentary How to Stop a Nuclear War, featuring Daniel Ellsberg's final interviews before his death. In conversation with Cole Smith, a former Air Force nuclear missile operator, Jay explains why Ellsberg's journey from Cold War hawk to whistleblower provides the perfect lens for understanding our current nuclear crisis. The discussion covers Cold War lies, the risks of AI-controlled nuclear systems, and concrete steps toward disarmament, including phasing out ICBMs and ending launch-on-warning policies.TranscriptListenDonateSubscribeCole SmithIt's a privilege to be here, obviously, in a space that's strange for me because I used to work in these silos or ones that were very similar to these. For five years, I was a nuclear missile operator in the Air Force from 2012 to 2017, during which time many journalists, including Geoff Brumfiel, who's here somewhere, did fantastic reporting on some of the shortcomings of the missile force. Anyway, that's a whole other story.It does strike me after the last panel that what we've moved into after lunch is something that is sort of a tone shift in some ways. There's an old quote that you might have heard that a lot of people attribute to Damon of Athens, which is, "Show me the songs of a people, and I care not who writes the laws." I think in some ways, that is not to say that policy is not important, but that one of the ways that we have to move forward on this subject is through the stories that we tell.So, Paul, if you could begin by telling us where you're at with your film. If you could also just catch us up on how you came into your career to be a filmmaker on this subject.Paul JayHi. I think it's a brilliant idea to have the meeting here. Seeing that missile out there. I grew up at a time when I was... I have a young son, he's 13. He's actually up here. I made a deal with him. If he sat through all the panels, he gets to go trail riding in Bentonville.Cole SmithCan I get in on that deal?Paul JayAbsolutely. Please, because I won't get on a bike. He could use some company. So I was around his age during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I was well aware. I was into newspapers when I was six, seven years old, so I was as scared to death as everyone was during that time. By the time I was in high school, I had quit in grade 10 and never went to university because I was absolutely sure I'd be dead by the age of 20.It's interesting because my film features Daniel Ellsberg. When he worked at RAND Corporation, he was offered a pension, and he laughed and said, "I'm not putting money into a pension fund. We're not going to be here."But by the '90s and the end of the '90s, I was pretty much in as much denial about the risks of nuclear war as most others. Then, in around 2018, I read Dan Ellsberg's book, The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner, and that book scared the shit out of me. I said to myself, "This is the most important book I've ever read in my life because of what's at stake." So, I interviewed Dan, and eventually he agreed that I could make a documentary film featuring him, and so the more I get into the topic, the more I realize how dangerous the moment is.Before we watch the trailer, I would like a promise from everyone. Of course, you're not going to make it, but I'm going to ask anyway. Can everyone please stop saying, since the end of the Cold War? It did not end. The Cold War wasn't just about the Soviet Union. The Cold War was about suppressing domestic dissent, weakening workers' unions. It was about exaggerating the external threat, whether it was the Soviet Union or now China.Listen to the rhetoric of President Trump. Is it different than McCarthy's? Is it different than the 1950s? How about Joe Biden saying he's going to defend Taiwan and risk nuclear war? How is that different than what we heard all throughout the Cold War? The Cold War didn't end. We are in the midst of it, and most of us are looking at the world through the filters that we were taught as children, a fabric of lie after lie after lie.If I had more time, I could give you the whole history of the lies, but Dan Ellsberg asked us with this film, he said directly, he said he thought we had the opportunity to do what the Pentagon Papers did, which is uncover the lies of the nuclear era. And then we also want to propose solutions, which you'll see a little bit teased in the trailer, because I am a clinical optimist. Every rational bone in my body says there's nothing to be very optimistic about, and we'd better face up to this.You know, the danger of the moment we're in, yes, since the Cuban Missile Crisis, and probably far more dangerous because maybe we'll talk a bit about AI. We're at a convergence of the existential threat of climate, the existential threat of nukes, we don't know about new pandemics, and the financial architecture. '07, '08, if you listen to the business community that really knows, '07, '08, it was a whisper of what's coming. It's all coming at the same time.So are we humans going to make it? Well, every rational bone in my body says, probably not. As I said, I'm a clinical optimist, and I really do think we can make it, but we'd better face up to this crazy fabric of bullshit that we swim in.Cole SmithTo pivot back to you, Paul, a trusted voice to me, and obviously to you as well, one of the most trusted voices in terms of patriotism to this country, for me, is Daniel Ellsberg. But one of the things that I come up against as a former nuclear missile operator is when I talk to people under a certain age and tell them what I used to do, they look at me like, "What are you... People still do that?"Not to be disrespectful, but Daniel Ellsberg may fall into that category as well for a lot of Americans, where it's become a name that means a lot to maybe fewer amount of people, which, of course, is all the more reason to make a film about him. But I wonder if you could speak a bit about Daniel Ellsberg, and the question that every filmmaker gets is, why now? And so why is it important to lead into this conversation with his voice, specifically at this point in time?Paul JayWell, first of all, it's not a film about Daniel Ellsberg. It's a film about our current moment, what's at risk, and what we can do about it. My approach, my belief is we cannot really face up to the reality of the risk and what solutions are if we don't get past our Cold War mentality. Because we have such a built-in belief system that's been deliberately fabricated, promoted, and inculcated in Americans, in Canadians, and Europeans, right from 1945, '46, at the very least. The reason Ellsberg is a good way to tell the story, part of the story, is because he was a true believer. Ellsberg was the most militant Cold Warrior you could possibly find. I don't know if you know who Curtis LeMay was, but he was almost on the same page. He didn't want to launch. Curtis LeMay was, for people who don't know, the head of STRATCOM, the guy who actually firebombed Japan, ordered the dropping, and actually engineered the dropping of the nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ellsberg was on his page.And then over the course of his time working at RAND Corporation, advising the Pentagon and the White House during the Cuban Missile Crisis, he started to realize this is all based on lies. They lied about the bomber gap. They said the Soviets had 1,000 nuclear bombers, when the Americans only had about 300, 400. The truth turned out to be completely the opposite.Then they had, and out of that, by the way, I'm going to cover some things pretty fast here, but if you want to know more, I'm around. They created something called the SAGE Radar System that came out of the bomber gap, where, "Oh, they're going to come get us with bombers. We're going to have a radar system in Northern Canada that's going to have BOMARC missiles. When they come in, we're going to shoot them out of the sky because they have the advantage; they have more bombers."First, it was a lie. There were no bombers. Second of all, the bloody thing never worked because they never figured out how to deal with radar jamming. But get this, and how come none of you... Raise one person who has ever heard of the SAGE radar system before. Maybe Matt. Not even Matt. Okay, here's one. Oh, two, three. That's remarkable. I almost never get-Cole SmithYou're in good company today.Paul JayI don't know if you know this, but the SAGE Radar System... Now, the Manhattan Project was the biggest industrial project in the history of the United States, and SAGE cost three times more than the Manhattan Project. Did you know that? I didn't know that until recently. It was a boondoggle. It was a scam. It never worked.Then they have the missile gap. You saw it here. "Oh, they have a thousand. We only have 40." It turned out the Soviets had four. But out of that, they created a program called BMEWS, B-M-E-W-S. This was linked to SAGE, and it was going to have a system that could knock out ICBMs on the way in. Never worked. The whole thing was nonsense. Another in today's dollars, billions and billions of dollars.It's been lie after lie, and you can draw a line from this lying right to the Golden Dome, because the anti-ballistic missile systems... I mean, my line about it is, "It's not about the dome, it's about the gold." These are boondoggles, but they're very dangerous boondoggles because they can destabilize the whole balance of nuclear power. Because the problem... I'm jumping way faster, but we don't have much time. The problem with the Golden Dome is that it's SDI of Reagan, but with AI.So, is it possible, and you know that they've always said it's impossible to hit a bullet, meaning an incoming missile, with a bullet, meaning a missile. Now they're saying, "Oh, no, with AI, now we can hit a bullet with a bullet." But it's an entire lie, because even if you can,
Venezuela’s oil industry has long been a site of struggle—between national sovereignty and foreign control, between social development and extraction for profit. In this wide-ranging conversation, Gregory Wilpert situates today’s crisis in that longer history, from the Chávez government’s effort to reclaim PDVSA for Venezuelans to the current U.S. strategy of tying sanctions relief to oil exports. As Washington pushes Caracas to increase production and redirect crude away from China, Wilpert examines whether interim leadership in Venezuela is navigating an impossible economic bind—or whether the country’s oil and sovereignty are once again being bargained under coercion.
Richard Sakwa and Volodymyr Ishchenko on what is misunderstood about this war — and why it matters for the peace we need so badly. In Part Two, Sakwa and Ishchenko turn to NATO’s expansion, Russia’s internal politics, and the peace proposals now being pushed. Sakwa dismisses the claim that NATO is merely defensive and rejects the idea that Russia poses a serious military threat to Western Europe. He traces the crisis to post-war settlements that shut Russia out of Europe’s security order — even after Moscow sought NATO membership. Ishchenko argues that Central European states joined NATO less out of fear of Russia than from a desire to become “European,” while Putin’s own political fears at home partly shaped the invasion. Both are skeptical of existing peace plans — yet argue that Trump’s blunt proposal, however imperial, may come closer to confronting reality. The priority: stop the killing, save as many people as possible, and prevent the ultimate catastrophe.
Richard Sakwa and Volodymyr Ishchenko on why peace was lost—and who helped destroy it.Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine did not come from nowhere. In this first of two parts, Richard Sakwa and Volodymyr Ishchenko cut through the common narrative that reduces the war to Putin alone, without excusing the invasion itself. The failure — and in key moments, US sabotage — of an inclusive European security order after the Cold War helped lay the ground for conflict. Inside Ukraine, post Soviet class conflicts led to the weaponization of language, identity, and nationalism. And the far right used the threat of violence to block President Zelensky’s early efforts to pursue peace. Sakwa and Ishchenko show that understanding history is not justification — it is indictment.
President Donald Trump entered office backed by fossil-fuel executives, hedge-fund financiers, and the AI-military industrial complex, then used sanctions, military pressure, and trade coercion against Venezuela to dismantle national control over its oil sector—culminating in a $2 billion crude deal that redirects Venezuelan exports from China to the United States and rewards major political donors. Prof. Steve Ellner and Journalist, Ricardo Vaz explain, this outcome is not an aberration, but rather the latest chapter in a long-standing struggle over PDVSA, oil sovereignty, and U.S. hemispheric dominance—where economic warfare supplants diplomacy and state power is deployed for private gain.
Following overnight U.S. airstrikes on Caracas, the seizure of President Nicolás Maduro, and President Donald Trump’s declaration that Washington will take control of Venezuela’s oil and effectively run the country, analysts Steve Ellner and Ricardo Vaz warn that the operation constitutes an unlawful use of force. They cite the combination of military assault, extraterritorial abduction, resource seizure, and alleged extrajudicial killings at sea as violations of international law and Venezuelan sovereignty.
Paul Jay and host Barry Stevens analyze rising progressive movements, from Mamdani's victory in New York City to Sanders and AOC drawing massive crowds in red states, and why working-class consciousness has always been the real threat to American elites. They discuss why fossil fuel companies have known about the climate crisis for decades but chose denial, why AI could plan a sustainable economy, but is being used for profit and war. They examine the specific dynamics of Christian nationalism, the role of Silicon Valley in the authoritarian turn, and why the 2026 midterms could see significant progressive breakthroughs.
Paul Jay rejects the false choice between "Putin as a new Hitler" and the anti-NATO Left's defense of Russia. Under the UN Charter and Nuremberg principles, Russia's invasion is a war of aggression — there was no imminent threat and no "sphere of influence" justifies it. At the same time, NATO expansion was provocative and deceptive, and the U.S. refusal to take it off the table helped set the stage for war.The discussion highlights:•The Ukrainian people's right to self-determination and to overthrow their own oligarchy;• how the Iraq War normalized lawless aggression and weakened global norms;• the role of Russian, Ukrainian, U.S., and European oligarchies in prolonging the conflict;• why parts of the Left blur first principles by excusing one imperialism to oppose another;• China's strategic interest in sustaining the conflict;• Ukraine and Gaza serve as "battle labs" for AI weapons and companies like Palantir.• NATO functions as a "protection racket," getting Europe to increase military spending to 5%.• and why a negotiated peace — even with territorial concessions — may be necessary to create space for democratic struggle against oligarchic power on all sides.With host Barry Stevens.
Paul Jay breaks down what’s really driving Trump’s aggressive moves against Venezuela in 2025. Spoiler: it’s not about drugs or democracy—it’s about pushing China out of Latin America. In this conversation with Barry Stevens, Paul explains how China has become the dominant trading partner across South America without military projection, why the US is reviving the Monroe Doctrine, and how manufactured pretexts (from “Soviet expansionism” to “weapons of mass destruction” to “the war on drugs”) have justified American intervention for decades. Also discussed is why the Venezuelan economy is such a mess.
In Part Two, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson confronts the U.S. attacks on civilian boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific—killings now broadcast openly on television—and says they violate not only international law but the military code he lived by as an Army officer. With Pete Hegseth installed as Secretary of War, Wilkerson argues that the United States is sliding into a new era of impunity, where the drug “war” becomes a pretext for murder, the laws that govern armed conflict are discarded, and the nation risks its own Constitution and a real war.
In Part One, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson explores how Trump’s new National Security Strategy revives the Monroe Doctrine in a sweeping attempt to reassert U.S. dominance across the Americas. Pushing China out of Latin America, he argues, will not prevent a showdown—only shift its timing, as the United States simultaneously pours resources into Indo-Pacific military power. With Washington drawing back from Europe and targeting Venezuela and its neighbors under the convenient banner of the "war on drugs,” Wilkerson suggests that this doctrine risks undermining the Constitution and edging the country toward a real war. With host Barry Stevens.
Opposition figure María Corina Machado dedicates her Nobel Prize to Trump, even as analysts argue her path to power has relied on destabilization rather than peace, according to Venezuelanalysis Ricardo Vaz.
In part two of his conversation with Barry Stevens, nuclear weapons expert Hans Kristensen warns of mounting tensions with China, driven by exaggerated fears of its nuclear buildup and the growing risk of a Taiwan conflict. The U.S. response — including Trump’s push to resume nuclear testing — is dangerously accelerating the arms race. A critical failure, Kristensen says, is the near-total lack of Congressional oversight, with defense policy shaped by the entrenched power of the military-industrial complex. In this climate of collapsing arms control, he makes a powerful case for renewed public pressure to help prevent catastrophe.
In this powerful and timely conversation, Dr. John Izzo and Alain Gauthier sit down with award-winning filmmaker and journalist Paul Jay, whose upcoming documentary How to Stop a Nuclear War dives deep into the existential risks humanity continues to ignore. Together, they explore why the Cold War never truly ended, how nuclear weapons remain an urgent and immediate threat, and what each of us can do to break the silence and reclaim our collective future.This episode is not just about nuclear war — it’s about truth, power, media silence, and our responsibility as citizens of a shared planet.Jay shares the untold story behind the nuclear threat and the making of his new film inspired by Daniel Ellsberg’s The Doomsday Machine. He argues that the Cold War didn’t end — it simply evolved — and that the same forces of fear, profit, militarism, and denial continue to push humanity toward catastrophe.You’ll hear why policymakers rarely talk about nuclear weapons, how media myths shape public perception, why dialogue with our “enemies” is essential, and how ordinary citizens can influence extraordinary change by confronting the “house of dynamite” we all live in before it explodes.
As Trump vows to resume nuclear explosive testing, Hans Kristensen — Director of the Nuclear Information Project at FAS, the world’s most authoritative source on global nuclear arsenals — joins host Barry Stevens for an urgent conversation. Kristensen calls the move “chest-thumping,” with no strategic justification, warning it would likely trigger a disastrous chain reaction of testing by China and others.
Dick Cheney, architect of the Iraq War, died on November 3rd. The next day, democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani won New York's mayoral race. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff, calls the timing symbolic of America's potential turning point. Speaking from inside the Bush administration, Wilkerson delivers a scathing account of how Cheney became "co-president," systematically lied about Iraqi WMDs, and led the nation into an illegal war. He explains why Powell's UN presentation was built on false intelligence, how the administration abandoned international law and authorized torture, and why Obama failed to hold anyone accountable. "We should have all been tried for war crimes," Wilkerson states. From the lies that killed a million Iraqis to complicity in Gaza's genocide, this is essential viewing on American empire and accountability.
Filmmaker Paul Jay discusses his upcoming documentary "How to Stop a Nuclear War" with historian Christian Appy. They explore why the nuclear threat remains largely ignored in public discourse, how Cold War lies continue to shape our worldview, and why Daniel Ellsberg's journey from insider to Pentagon Papers whistleblower matters today.
Complete recording of filmmaker Paul Jay's presentation and Q&A at UMass about his upcoming documentary "How to Stop a Nuclear War," based on Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg's book "The Doomsday Machine." Moderated by historian Christian Appy, Jay traces American militarization from slavery and westward expansion through the Manhattan Project to today's trillion-dollar nuclear modernization. The discussion explores why nuclear threats remain taboo in public discourse, BlackRock's role in nuclear financing, how the climate crisis amplifies nuclear risk, the dangers of AI-controlled missile defense, and why elite interests might actually align with working people on this issue.
In this episode, Jay Shapiro opens with a fast essay on kayfabe, heels and faces, and why the ring is the best way to read the national psyche. He looks at Trump’s WWE arcs, from Battle of the Billionaires to the “I bought Raw” storyline, and how that performance grammar ported into real politics. Then Jay Shapiro speaks with Paul Jay about the theater of power, the post-9/11 security state, nuclear policy, and why the official script keeps breaking.
In part two of this interview, historian Peter Kuznick — co-author (with Oliver Stone) of The Untold History of the United States — joins Barry Stevens to reflect on the USA’s lost chances for peace. He traces a throughline from the sidelining of VP Henry Wallace to the aggressive Cold War policies of Eisenhower and Reagan, who, while avoiding outright nuclear war, escalated militarism to unprecedented levels. Today’s panic over China, Kuznick argues, revives that same dangerous playbook — but with even fewer constraints and less public awareness.
Raj Patel and his fellow IPES-Food experts stress the centrality of addressing food systems, a key pillar of the Action Agenda for the COP30. The message uncovered by Lula’s bold policies is clear: ending hunger rather than perpetuating it under agribusiness goes hand-in-hand with tackling inequality and climate change. Lynn Fries interviews Raj Patel on GPEnewsdocs.
In part one, Peter Kuznick warns that Trump 2.0 is more dangerous than the original. The generals and advisors who once called him a "moron" are gone — replaced by sycophants in what Kuznick calls a “kakistocracy,” government by the worst people. From threatening to seize Panama, Greenland, and Canada to leading the most corrupt administration in U.S. history, Trump now faces little resistance from Congress, courts, or his own party. Kuznick and Barry Stevens explore how the takeover of cultural institutions mirrors past fascist movements — and how America’s lack of historical memory leaves it vulnerable to repeating old disasters. The most urgent threat: Trump’s unpredictable stance on Ukraine could trigger the war he claims to oppose.
In this episode, Paul Jay and Col. Lawrence Wilkerson analyze a chilling message from Donald Trump to roughly 800 generals: a straight-up demand for loyalty — “If you don't like what I'm saying, you can leave the room. Of course, there goes your rank, there goes your future... we know everything about everybody.” Fall in line or be purged — as Trump lays out a plan to use U.S. armed forces to occupy large American cities labelled “radical left” strongholds.
In this talk, Jay exposes the hidden history of U.S. nuclear policy—built on lies, profiteering, and Cold War paranoia—and explains how those same forces shape today’s politics, from NATO and Trumpism to the growing danger of war with China.Journalist and filmmaker Paul Jay speaks at the Emergency NGO conference in Reggio Emilia, Italy. Sign up for the “How to Stop a Nuclear War” mailing list at stop-nuclear-war.org.
Paul Jay joins Patrick Lovell to trace how Wall Street profiteering—from slavery and the Civil War to J.P. Morgan in World War I and today’s BlackRock and Vanguard—created the militarized economy driving nuclear risk.
This episode examines how Trump's futuristic promises - impenetrable missile shields, Mars colonization, weaponized AI - mask an old playbook: funneling public wealth into private hands through military contracts. While selling fantasies of space salvation, the same system commits atrocities in Gaza, while the earth burns.
On August 12, 2025, Donald Trump sent the National Guard into Washington, D.C., just months after deploying troops and Marines into Los Angeles. While militarizing U.S. cities, he stands by as a genocide unfolds in Gaza — shielding Israel diplomatically while U.S. defense contractors profit.This republished investigation, Trump's Unholy Alliance, exposes the billionaire-tech, Christian nationalist, and far-right networks behind Trump’s rise. They plan to weaken — or dismantle — what’s left of American democracy. From Peter Thiel’s Palantir AI systems aiding Gaza airstrikes, to Lockheed Martin’s jets and bombs, these same firms stand to cash in on Trump’s “Golden Dome” missile defense and militarization of space — a project that could make nuclear war more likely.January 6 was only the rehearsal. This is the playbook — at home, abroad, and in orbit.Watch the full investigation now.
James K. Galbraith (Entropy Economics) argues that economics cannot keep ignoring that energy and resources for production are no longer abundant and easy to access. Drawing from the fundamental laws of nature, he proposes a viable framework of economic analysis to envisage the future of human society. Produced by GPEnewsdocs.
The Biden administration has been pursuing a reckless policy in the Middle East in which Israel's massacres in Gaza and now in Lebanon are unconditionally supported with deliveries of 2,000 lb bunker-busting bombs and diplomatic cover. Col. Larry Wilkerson, who served as former Chief of Staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, discusses Iran's policy of strategic patience in which a response to Israel's extra-judicial killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July, as well as a fatal strike on Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, possibly came too late according to Iran's hardliners.
Given voters’ concerns over rising food and housing costs, Kamala Harris has pledged to combat price gouging if elected president, though she has yet to clearly lay out the hallmarks of the rest of her economic policy. In part 2, Bob Pollin, economist and advisor to U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Pramila Jayapal on Medicare For All, explains the meaning of price gouging and delves into the causes of inflation during the COVID pandemic.
In part two, American theologian and priest Matthew Fox traces out the links between the fascist wing of the Catholic Church, Opus Dei, American Cardinal Burke, and Steve Bannon, former Trump advisor and former Executive Chairman at Breitbart News. He explains how Cardinal Burke and other neofascists in the Catholic Church opposed the Second Vatican Council, which sought to update the Catholic Church. He then explains how both Co-Chairman of the Federalist Society, Leonard Leo, who drew up lists of potential conservative judges to be appointed to the Supreme Court, and President of the Heritage Foundation, Kevin Roberts, share a right-wing Catholic ideology.
The issue of banning (or not banning) fracking has been at the forefront of the 2024 presidential debates between former President Trump and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. Fracking, a technique that involves horizontal drilling to extract gas and oil from shale rock, risks methane leaks and other environmental hazards. Professor Bob Pollin, economist and Co-Director of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), lays out the elements of a Global Green New Deal to avert climate catastrophe and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Can we frack and still reach this goal?
At first glance, an impressive fresco in San Brizio’s Chapel in the Orvieto Cathedral appears to show Christ addressing a crowd – but after closer inspection, one realizes that the main figure is, in fact, the Antichrist, with a demon speaking into his left ear. Luca Signorelli’s painting, The Preaching and Punishment of the Antichrist, inspired artist Michelangelo and psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud to produce some of their greatest works. It also inspired American theologian and priest Matthew Fox to write his new book Trump & The MAGA Movement as Anti-Christ: A Handbook for the 2024 Election. In part 1, Fox argues that the archetype applies to the darker sides of MAGA and its Christian-nationalist backers.
The First Amendment guarantees religious freedom and the separation of Church and State, basic tenets of American democracy which conservative think-tank the Heritage Foundation is intent on undermining. Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, describes how the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 would upend military protocols to eliminate civilian oversight. He believes a dystopian future in which the rights of racialized and marginalized groups are denied would be in store under a second Trump presidency. TranscriptListenDonateSubscribeGuestMusicTalia BaroncelliHi, I'm Talia Baroncelli, and you're watching theAnalysis.news. I'll shortly be joined by Mikey Weinstein, the founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. We'll be speaking about Project 2025 and the implications it has for the U.S. military.If you'd like to support the work that we do, you can go to our website, theAnalysis.news, and hit the donate button at the top right corner of the screen. Make sure you're on our mailing list; that way, you're always up to date every time a new episode is published. You can like and subscribe to the show on YouTube or on other podcast streaming services such as Apple or Spotify. See you in a bit with Mikey.Project 2025 is a lengthy policy agenda authored by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative and Christian nationalist think tank. Investigative outlet ProPublica recently obtained Project 2025 private training videos, which involve several former Trump officials. This corroborates the connection between former President Trump and the Heritage Foundation.One of the videos features Bethany Kozma, a former Deputy Chief of Staff at USAID during the Trump administration. In this video, she discusses Project 2025's opposition to legislation trying to mitigate the effects of climate change. She reads from page 364 of Project 2025's Mandate for Leadership, which states that "In the name of combating climate change, policies have been used to create an artificial energy scarcity that will require trillions of dollars in new investment, supported with taxpayer subsidies, to address a problem that government and special interests themselves created." They don't perceive climate change or carbon-intensive industries as posing a threat to society or to the environment but as a set of policies meant to create energy scarcity and benefit a certain segment of the elite.Joining me to discuss these issues is Mikey Weinstein. He is the founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which is a nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring the constitutional right of religious freedom for the U.S. Armed Forces. He is also a lawyer and a former Air Force officer and served as White House Legal Counsel to the Reagan Administration. He also served as first general counsel to Ross Perot, the Texas billionaire who ran for president twice. He's the author of several books, including Was God on Our Side and No Snowflake in an Avalanche. It's great to have you again, Mikey.Mikey WeinsteinThanks, Talia. I'm looking forward to it as well.Talia BaroncelliBefore we get into Project 2025, can you explain to our viewers what you do at the Military Religious Freedom Foundation?Mikey WeinsteinAbsolutely. We are a weapon, and we've been fighting Christian nationalism and calling it out before anybody else did, that I'm aware of, going back to the early 2000s. Our job is to protect the U.S. Constitutionally mandated wall, separating Church and State in the technologically most lethal organization ever created by humankind, which is the U.S. military: the Marine Corps, Navy, Army, Air Force, and Space Force.We have clients in all 18 national security agencies. Some are well-known, like the FBI, the CIA, the DIA, etc. We have clients in the U.S. Coast Guard, which is not the DOD; that's the Department of Homeland Security, and even the U.S. Maritime Service,
John Bellamy Foster points to "Beyond Leviathan" by István Mészáros for insights into the ancient origins of the state and nature of its evolution over thousands of years, the necessity to move beyond the state, and how to meet that challenge. Lynn Fries interviews John Bellamy Foster on GPEnewsdocs.
In part two, historian and genocide scholar Omer Bartov discusses Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decisions to prolong the plight of the Israeli hostages and the slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza in order to remain in power. Bartov also derides the U.S. billionaires who pressured university presidents to break up pro-Palestine student encampments.
In a much-anticipated ruling, the ICJ has unequivocally denounced the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip as illegal. Israeli-American historian and genocide scholar Omer Bartov contextualizes Israeli society's widespread justification of the occupation and how Israeli politicians and mainstream media pundits are cheering on the torture of Palestinian detainees. He discusses the recent release of footage documenting the rape of Palestinians at the Sde Teiman detention center and the storming of several detention sites by Israeli far-right mobs in defense of Israel's "right to torture."
By calling snap parliamentary elections, French President Emmanuel Macron took a political gamble: it resulted in the left-wing alliance, the New Popular Front, winning the most seats, and Marine Le Pen's far-right National Rally failing to obtain a majority. Political analyst Yasser Louati breaks down Macron's crushing electoral defeat and his undemocratic tactics in delaying the appointment of a new Prime Minister until after the Paris Olympics. The results reflect an increasing rejection of Macron's neo-liberalism and anti-Muslim policies, such as his hijab ban for French female athletes at the Olympics.
Tune in as we peel back the layers of Elon Musk's surprising support for Donald Trump. Is the tech titan really championing meritocracy and free speech, or is there a hidden agenda? From self-driving cars to space rockets, we'll explore how Musk's business empire might benefit from a Trump presidency. We'll dive into the contradictions between Musk's green tech image and Trump's climate denial, and examine how the world's richest man views unions, regulations, and the future of AI. Plus, we'll uncover the personal drama fueling Musk's political shift.Get ready for a wild ride through the mind of a maverick billionaire and the potential consequences for us all. Is Musk's vision of "Making America Greater" a technological utopia or a dystopian nightmare? Listen now and decide for yourself!
The assassination of Hamas' top political leader, Ismail Haniyeh, on Iranian soil was an embarrassment to the Iranian regime and its new president, Masoud Pezeshkian. Trita Parsi, Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, lays out how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking to corner Kamala Harris - should she win the presidency - into steering U.S. policy in the direction of an all-out war in the Middle East. Yet neither is her bearhug of Netanyahu, nor a war, inevitable.
During the hyper-masculine clown car that was the Republic National Convention, Trump and his VP nominee, J.D. Vance, spewed absurd anti-migrant accusations and supposed pro-worker policies. Journalist and author Jonathan M. Katz breaks down the reactionary rhetoric of MAGA Republicans and argues that Vance’s populism is anything but worker-friendly, given his well-established ties to Silicon Valley.
Why governments further policy agendas that entrench and expand extractive industries that drive biodiversity loss is revealed in Exporting Extinction, a report exposing structural drivers incentivizing this extractive agenda and constraining what states can do to address economic development and ecological crises.
Against all expectations, the left coalition, aptly calling itself the “New Popular Front,” was able to win the most seats - 182 out of 577 seats - in the final round of the French parliamentary elections. French-Palestinian sociologist Dr. Sari Hanafi explains how the left quickly formed a political alliance to keep Marine Le Pen’s far-right party, the National Rally, from gaining enough seats to govern in the French parliament. He delves into the weaponization of antisemitism to smear Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the leader of France Unbowed, which is the largest leftist party within the New Popular Front.
A recent Reuters investigation uncovered a scandalous Pentagon operation that sought to discredit the Chinese Sinovac vaccine and sow distrust among the population in the Philippines towards China. Col. Larry Wilkerson discusses previous unlawful Strategic Information Operations (SIOs) launched by the Pentagon and the particular depravity of this operation initiated in Spring 2020 under President Trump’s administration, at a time when countries such as the Philippines did not possess their own vaccine manufacturing capacity and were accepting a free supply of vaccines from China.
As the war of attrition between Russia and Ukraine continues to exact a catastrophic death toll for civilians and military forces alike, the prospect of a lasting peace remains elusive. Latvian politician Igor Pimenov denounces President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, calling it a colonial war that also adversely affects the Russian population. Pimenov lays out his proposal for a multilateral peace agreement between Ukraine, Russia, and its European neighbors. This is part 1 of the discussion.
In recent EU parliamentary elections, Marine Le Pen's far-right National Rally party won 31.4% of the vote, while the coalition representing President Emmanuel Macron's Renaissance party garnered an embarrassing 14%. Renaud Lambert, journalist at Le Monde Diplomatique, contextualizes the rise of the far-right, and how President Macron's decision to call snap legislative elections on June 30 and July 7 has prompted the left to form the New Popular Front, an unlikely coalition of four left-wing parties. Will this left alliance garner enough support to torpedo a far-right victory in the French parliament?
As Israel continues its campaign of destruction in Gaza, the situation in the West Bank has deteriorated, with the Israeli Defense Forces as well as settlers killing over 500 Palestinians in the West Bank since October 7. Holocaust and genocide studies scholar Dr. Omer Bartov unpacks Israel’s genocidal strategy in the Gaza Strip, and describes the surge of settler violence towards Palestinians. Israel's far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir has not only armed the settlers but has been incorporating them into Israeli forces operating in the West Bank.
In part 2, political scientist Dr. Saeed Rahnema discusses his experience in the workers' council movement leading up to and during the Iranian Revolution of 1979-1980 and addresses the Islamic Republic's opposition to unions. He also contends that modern-day working classes in the West are ideologically and culturally segmented and that the left has failed to mobilize at numerous historical junctures.
The workers' council movement took shape in several forms across Europe, Russia, Tito's Yugoslavia, Algeria, and Iran. Political scientist Dr. Saeed Rahnema discusses the failure of workers' councils in these different historical contexts and traces out the tensions between workers' control and workers' participation under capitalism. Is real workers' control feasible under capitalism, and do struggles for increased workers' participation and higher wages necessarily lead to workers' control?
Paul Jay welcomes Adolph Reed, an academic, author, activist, and organizer, for part two of their discussion. Reed says there should be no illusions about corporate Democrats’ aggressive foreign policies, especially in Gaza and Ukraine, but there should also be no illusions that Trump won't be dangerously worse.
Adolph Reed argues that the left should vote for Biden in the coming presidential elections, even though Corporate Democrats defend the underlying system, Trump and the forces that back him represent a more overt form of fascistization.
The Biden administration has denounced ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan for seeking arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Ismael Haniyeh, and Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri. Middle East analyst Assal Rad underscores the U.S. government's complicity in Israeli war crimes in Gaza by arming Israel despite numerous ICJ rulings calling for Netanyahu's government to adhere to its commitments under the Genocide Convention, and most recently, to immediately halt its operation in Rafah. She also discusses the potential implications of the recent deaths of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian.
In part 2, journalist Tom Stevenson discusses the nuclear threat posited by the ongoing war in Ukraine, with Russia recently staging tactical nuclear exercises close to the Ukrainian border, allegedly in response to provocative statements made by U.K.’s Foreign Secretary David Cameron endorsing Ukraine’s potential use of British-supplied weapons to strike Russian territory. He also breaks down Israel’s destructive aims in Gaza and why certain bloody conflicts, such as the war in Tigray, have been forgotten.
The post-World War II era was characterized by decolonization in Asia and Africa, with resistance movements leading to the unraveling of the British empire in colonies such as former British Kenya, where the Mau Mau launched a lengthy uprising between 1952-1960, as well as in former British India, with the dissolution of the British Raj and creation of an independent India and Pakistan in 1947. Journalist Tom Stevenson provides historical examples illustrating how the rise of American hegemony following the decline of Britain’s imperial power was bolstered by British foreign policy at every juncture.
Due to its prime geographical location in maintaining global value chains and shipping routes, the U.S., via the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), as well as India’s Adani Group and China, are all investing in Sri Lanka’s ports. In part 2, sociologist Asoka Bandarage discusses how many countries and multi-national corporations treat Sri Lanka as testing and dumping grounds, exemplified by reports that the Dali ship, which crashed into the Baltimore Bridge, was carrying hazardous waste to Sri Lanka.
The Sri Lankan government turned to the IMF for a near $3 billion bailout to repay loans provided by India and Japan, as well as international sovereign bonds issued by foreign creditors such as BlackRock. Dr. Asoka Bandarage, sociologist and author of Crisis in Sri Lanka and the World, suggests that Prime Minister Wickremesinghe's declaration of bankruptcy in 2022 and the subsequent IMF bailout was not an absolute necessity but an attempt to shift Sri Lanka further under the umbrella of Western and Indian institutions, and away from Chinese loans.
Thousands of guns used by Mexican cartels, as well as other gangs throughout Latin America, have been traced back to U.S. gun manufacturers. Journalist Ioan Grillo describes how the flow of guns to Mexico from the U.S. exacerbates the drug war and its accompanying forced displacement of people. Baroncelli and Grillo debate drug legalization and whether it can break up cartels that use American guns to maintain global drug distribution. Cartels increase their profit margins by cutting their product with fentanyl and other lethal substances at the expense of people's lives.
Israel's accusations against a total of 19 UNRWA staff members alleging their involvement in the October 7 attacks prompted 16 countries to pause or suspend $450 million in funding to the agency. A UN investigation resulted in one of the 19 cases being closed and four suspended due to a lack of evidence. Of the 12 staff members initially accused by Israel, 10 of them were fired by UNRWA, while the other two were killed. Israeli claims that 10% of UNRWA employees have ties to Hamas have yet to be substantiated. As Sari Hanafi explains, UNRWA provides critical infrastructure, housing, and education to Palestinians in Jordan, Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza.
Paul is asked about the lack of healthcare resources and growing opposition to immigration in Canada.
Following Israel's killing of 7 WCK aid workers, Western politicians appeared to reconsider their unwavering support of Netanyahu's government, if only for a brief moment. Iran's attack on military targets in Israel, in response to Israel's strike on an Iranian diplomatic compound in Damascus, has since been cited by the U.S. and Germany as a justification for continued military support for Israel. Sari Hanafi, Professor of Sociology at the American University of Beirut, discusses Germany's past genocidal war crimes as well as the ICJ case brought by Nicaragua examining Germany's complicity in genocide in Gaza.
Paul Jay says while the Russian invasion of Ukraine is illegal, brutal, and unnecessary for Russian national security, it takes place within the context of U.S. aims to suppress the growth of potential regional powers like Iran and Russia. Russia was not incorporated into Western Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union because it could have challenged U.S. dominance in the region.
Israel's objective is to maintain Jewish-Israeli dominance in the region by imposing inhumane conditions on Palestinians, resulting in the forced displacement of the entire population of Gaza. Paul Jay, the founder of theAnalysis, states that in order to understand the Israel-Palestine conflict, one has to view it from the context of U.S. global hegemony and monopoly capitalism.
Gilles Billen shows that industrial agriculture, propelled by international trade and specialization, has disturbed the nitrogen cycle. This has provoked the crossing of planetary boundaries and endangered the possibility of feeding the world. Alternatives do not require new technologies but different ways of organizing production and regional networks. Lynn Fries interviews Gilles Billen on GPEnewsdocs.
The fatal crashes of the Boeing 737 MAX passenger aircraft and the recent Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 incident, in which a door-plug blew out after take-off, are consequences of Boeing's systemic incentivization of profits over safety. Katya Schwenk, reporter at The Lever, discusses the policies of recent administrations to enable Boeing's industry takeover and criminal negligence, as well as similar practices of covering up safety issues in the shipping industry, which potentially led to the Dali cargo ship's collapsing of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore.
The Israeli attack on a civilian aid convoy, which killed seven World Central Kitchen workers, has pushed U.S. officials to entertain policy alternatives to unconditional aid to Israel. Bill Hartung, national security and U.S. foreign policy analyst at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, discusses the Biden administration's weapons sales to Israel, many of which have not been reported to U.S. Congress. Hartung addresses the role of venture capital firms in shaping the U.S. defense industry, firms which advocate the development of dual-use technology or artificial intelligence as optimized tools to wage warfare.
Jay discusses his interviews with Sen. Bob Graham, who chaired the joint congressional investigation into the events of 9/11 and was the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Graham outright accused Bush and Cheney of facilitating the 9/11 attacks. Jay also discusses his interviews with former NSA official Thomas Drake, who says intercepts that could have prevented 9/11 were never acted on. Paul Jay was a guest on Law and Disorder, hosted by Michael Smith. This interview was originally recorded on October 18, 2021.
Paul Jay on 9/119/11 Lies and the National Security State – Thomas DrakeIntelligence on Bin Laden, 9/11 Targets Withheld from Congress’ Probe9/11 Not an “Intelligence Failure”From 9/11 to Mass Surveillance, The Man Who Knew Too Much – Thomas Drake on RAI Pt 6/6From 9/11 to Mass Surveillance, The Man Who Knew Too Much – Thomas Drake on RAI Pt 5/6From 9/11 to Mass Surveillance, The Man Who Knew Too Much – Thomas Drake on RAI Pt 4/6From 9/11 to Mass Surveillance, The Man Who Knew Too Much – Thomas Drake on RAI Pt 3/6From 9/11 to Mass Surveillance, The Man Who Knew Too Much – Thomas Drake on RAI Pt 2/6Sen. Graham: Bush/Cheney Misdirected Intel Prior to 9/11, Aggressively Deceived After – Pt 2/7Sen. Bob Graham: FBI Deliberately Covered Up the Role of Saudis in 9/11 Attack – (pt 1/7)Sen. Graham: President Must Side with Openness About C.I.A. and 9/11 – Pt 3/7Did Bush Cheney Create a Culture of Not Wanting to Know – Sen. Bob Graham on RAI Pt 7/7Revealing 9/11 Conspiracy Would Undo U.S. Saudi Alliance – Sen. Bob Graham on RAI Pt 5/7Saudi Government’s 9/11 Connection and the Path to Disillusionment – Sen. Bob Graham on RAI Pt 4/79/11 Redux – Pt 3/39/11 Redux – Pt 2/39/11 Redux – Pt 1/3 Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Music*
Michael Steven Smith This is Law and Disorder.
Heidi BoghosianToday on Law and Disorder, we interview Paul Jay for the full hour to discuss his investigative work about the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Michael Steven Smith Paul Jay has been following the 9/11 story for 20 years. He’s read the documents. He’s interviewed the key players in it. He tells a story that I think the listeners will be extremely interested in hearing.
The events of 9/11 were a crushing blow to democracy and the rule of law in our country. The attacks paved the way for two illegal wars. First, the American war against Afghanistan and then Iraq. It opened the way for the national security state to develop expansively and implement a vast surveillance program on American citizens. The attack on the World Trade Center and then on the Pentagon happened 20 years ago and, in retrospect, was a turning point in American and world history.
Law and Disorder radio was launched three years after 9/11. Our mission was to defend both democracy and the rule of law. The 9/11 attacks were a crime against humanity, but instead of treating them as a crime, it was turned into an occasion to launch aggressive and illegal wars.
The Nuremberg trials against the Nazis who started World War II defined aggressive war as the ultimate crime because it held within it all lesser crimes.
In our show today, we examine the new evidence on who is responsible for the attacks on 9/11. The new evidence is a six-year-old FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] report released on President [Joe] Biden’s order last month. Biden was told by the families of the victims of 9/11 that unless this report was released, he would not be welcomed at any of the memorial services.
The FBI report demonstrates the complicity of the government of Saudi Arabia in the attacks. It was two Saudi Arabian government officials who helped the first two hijackers when they came to America. They were given money and help to get into flight school. Then, they hijacked an American airline plane and flew it into the Pentagon.
Senator Bob Graham was the Head of the Intelligence Committee that investigated 9/11. Whistleblower Thomas Drake was a top official at the National Security Agency [NSA]. Lawrence Wilkerson was the Chief of Staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell. We speak today in a special one-hour show with journalist Paul Jay, who interviewed all three of them.
Paul Jay is a journalist and a filmmaker. He’s the founder and host of theAnalysis.news, a video and audio current affairs interview and commentary show and website. Jay was the founder of the Real News Network and is currently working on a documentary series with Daniel Ellsberg based on Ellsberg’s book, The Doomsday Machine. Paul Jay, welcome to Law and Disorder.
Paul JayThanks for inviting me.
Heidi BoghosianWe want to talk to you today about the continuing unravelling of the cover-up of the Saudi Arabian government’s involvement with the attacks of 9/11. President Biden was told by the families of the victims of 9/11 that he would be unwelcome at ceremonies honouring the 20th anniversary unless he released a six-year-old FBI investigative report. He did so. What did the report reveal?
Paul JayFirst of all, let me congratulate both of you because most journalists and other people in the media don’t want to even look into what happened on 9/11. Maybe we can talk about why that is. It’s a topic worth discussing in itself. Let me add one more thing for context here about why all this matters. Why are we revisiting the Saudi role, and why, 20 years later, is 9/11 significant?
The answer is probably obvious, but let me state it anyway. I don’t know if there’s been an American war that didn’t begin with a bunch of big lies or to establish pretext for what was almost always, or perhaps always, wars of aggression. You can even go back to the beginnings of the Cold War and the lies that there was a missile gap and the Soviet Union was planning to attack the United States, which was all a fraud. The Gulf of Tonkin, Vietnam, and it goes on from there. More recently and obviously, the lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. American wars begin based on lies.
Now, the other thing, and this goes along with lying, has there ever been a war anybody or any country waged that wasn’t a conspiracy? Countries don’t come out and openly say everything they plan to do or how they plan to engage in the war. So, this idea that there’s something outlandish about conspiracy theories is the most ridiculous thing that’s been out there in politics and media. Of course, there are conspiracies attached to warfare and other things. There are also phony conspiracies. Yes, there are conspiracy theories that have no basis, but what’s a bigger conspiracy than lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when they knew there weren’t any?
There were many people involved in that conspiracy, and it came out that it was a conspiracy. That’s the other side of all of this. There’s no accountability for what happened. Lying the United States into an illegal war, invasion of Iraq. Of course, there was a conspiracy to try to fake evidence and so on. Anywhere from the supposed yellowcake story and Niger trying to lean on the ambassador to lie about what he found. It goes on and on.
So the fact that there was, I think, a conspiracy in the surrounding and at the heart of the events of 9/11, it’s kind of ridiculous to say otherwise. You can’t get a bunch of hijackers coordinating their activities on airplanes without it being a conspiracy. Obviously, I think it goes much further than that, which means the involvement of the Saudi government and the involvement of the White House.
With all that being said, let me talk a bit about this recent reveal, or supposed reveal, in that declassified FBI document. I’m not completely in the weeds on this whole issue as much as I used to be. I’ve read through the recent FBI document, but I may have missed something. I don’t see anything in this FBI document that wasn’t already released by the Joint Congressional Investigation into the events of 9/11 that was released in 2002, Co-Chaired by Senator Bob Graham, who I interviewed. Almost everything that I saw in this recent FBI document, even though it’s dated and based on an interview with somebody who they don’t say, in 2015. When you read the 28 pages that were originally redacted by the White House of the Joint Congressional Investigation, the entire story that I see in this recent FBI release is all there in 2002, and it’s based on FBI documents, which means the FBI had all this stuff years ago.
What sparked this release now is that the 9/11 families are suing the Saudi government. I can understand why they wanted this document declassified. It’s perhaps harder evidence than the conclusions of the Joint Congressional Investigation. Still, it actually doesn’t say anything new about the involvement of Saudi officials in the Saudi Embassy and the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.
What’s missing? It is really critical what’s missing. In the media coverage of this recent FBI document, they don’t talk about the most important thing because it’s not in that FBI document, or it is, and it’s redacted. There are a lot of names redacted in this recent release, but the name is Bandar [bin Khalid Al Saud]. Prince Bandar, the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, whose nickname, if everybody remembers, was Bandar Bush. There’s this famous photograph of President Bush and Ambassador Bandar, Prince Bandar, sitting on the terrace of the White House just a few days after 9/11, smoking cigars and, frankly, looking very pleased with themselves.
So, the media coverage of this recent release is ridiculous, at least in the mainstream media that I’ve seen. They don’t hearken back to the conclusions of the Joint Congressional Committee [JCC]. Most importantly is the activity of these couple of people in the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles that this recent release talks about. Clearly, you put that together with what the Joint Congressional Committee found, and it’s all done under the auspices of Bandar. This isn’t some rogue character.
What the FBI found, it’s mentioned in this recent one, but it’s even more elaborated in the Joint Congressional Committee. These two guys, in particular [Omar al-]Bayoumi, I believe, is one, and the other one is [Osama] Bassan. In all likelihood, according to the FBI and many sources of theirs, they’re agents of the Saudi Intelligence Services, and they’re directly connected with facilitating the 9/11 hijackers, particularly, or specifically, in San Diego. There’s lots of evidence of a direct involvement, but it goes further.
If you go back to the Joint Congressional Committee, there are direct links between Prince Bandar and these guys. One of their wives was receiving, I think, it was two or $3,000 a month from Bandar’s wife. There’s a direct payment in the redacted 28 pages. A direct payment between Bandar’s bank account and one of the two people mentioned in this recent report. I think it was Bassan who got some money directly and then Bassan’s wife. Why the mainstream media isn’t using this as an opportunity to really, not just go after the Saudis, which is honestly so obvious that the Saudis were involved— I guess we’ll get into this, but clearly a direct line of connection to [Dick] Cheney and Bush.
Michael Steven Smith Paul, you interviewed Senator Bob Graham some years ago. He was in an important position to learn about the Saudi Arabian involvement. Who’s Bob Graham, and what did he tell you?
Paul JayYeah, the real significance of Graham’s interview is less about the Saudis and more about the role of Bush and Cheney. First of all, Senator Bob Graham was the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee [SSCI] for many years. He previously was governor of Florida. He’s the Co-Chair of the Joint Congressional investigation into 9/11, the one I was mentioning. They were at this for close to a year. They had millions of dollars and a team of investigators.
So, what I’m about to tell you is what Graham told me. It is not a view of some crackpot individual or even a rational individual. This is a guy who had a whole team of investigators looking into this stuff. He told me what went far beyond what’s in the 28 pages and the official report. I’m not sure why. There are other people who had to sign onto that report, including Nancy Pelosi, by the way, who signed that Joint Congressional Report. People were aware. Now, the report does not talk about the role of Bush and Cheney. It talks about the Saudis, so there’s nothing new. Pelosi and others in leadership, both on the Republican and Democratic sides, all know this stuff. But what he told me isn’t in the report and was an answer to my question.
I said to him in the first series of interviews. I’ve interviewed him about seven or eight times now altogether. The first series of interviews took place in 2010 if my memory serves me right. I said, “Do you think there was a deliberate attempt by President Bush and Vice President Cheney to create a culture within the intelligence agencies of not wanting to know?” I explained to him several examples of intelligence that had been generated prior to 9/11 that, if acted on, could have prevented 9/11.
In fact, Graham actually wrote a book about this, and he had a list of 10 reasons to impeach President Bush. Number one is failing to prevent 9/11. Anyway, his first answer to me was if all the players on a football team are running in the same direction, there’s got to be a coach.
Well, the first time I interviewed him, he was a little bit restrained with how far he would go. But after the declassification of the famous 28 pages— for people that don’t know this story, this congressional report, there were 28 pages the White House insisted on being redacted. It’s in those pages that you get very specific information about the Saudis and the role of Prince Bandar. Well, after a lot of pressure from the 9/11 families— again, they’re the ones that have forced this question out into the open or as open as it is. These 28 pages were declassified by [Barack] Obama, but still with a lot of redactions.
Once they were released, Graham felt a lot freer to talk, and I said to him— I actually played back that part of the interview where we talked about a football team and a coach. I said, “Listen, who’s the coach?” And he says, “President Bush and Vice President Cheney.” Then I said, “You’re saying they deliberately disorganized the intelligence committee?” I may not have used exactly those words, but more or less. He said, “Yes, but it goes further than that.” He said, “They did some acts that directly facilitated the 9/11 attacks, not just suppressed intelligence.” I’ll get into my interview with Thomas Drake about how intelligence got suppressed. Although I asked Graham about this, too. Listen to these examples; they’re outstanding. Outstanding. Outrageous, I guess, is the word. He gave me two or three examples of facilitating.
Number one, this famous memo, [Osama] Bin Laden plans to attack America. That is all that was talked about at the 9/11 hearings. It was read out on television during those hearings. Condoleezza Rice claims they’re a historical document. Ridiculous, after [George] Tenet and Richard Clarke: Tenet, Head of the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] and Clarke, the anti-terrorism czar. They’re saying their hair was on fire all summer, telling Condoleezza Rice something’s coming. Then she thinks this is a historical document, which is a joke.
Anyway, the document goes to Rice and Bush. Well, Graham tells me that the normal protocol is after the presidential briefing; there’s another briefing that goes out. It’s called the principal’s briefing. It goes to heads of agencies and undersecretaries of certain departments. Any information that’s in the presidential briefing that might require action by any agency shows up in the principal’s briefing. Well, if Bin Laden plans to attack America, you would think it might require some action. So, in the next principals briefing, Graham tells me, it’s omitted. He took this, and he believes that this was a conscious effort to stop, for example, the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] putting the airports on heightened alert or immigration on higher alert.
Number two, never mind putting immigration on higher alert. Now, by the way, I have all this on camera. You can go to theAnalysis.news. I have all the Graham interviews up there. Graham tells me that far from putting immigration on alert about potential terrorists coming in and potential Saudis, it’s the opposite. Graham tells me that the White House issued orders to immigration not to stop any Saudi citizen from entering the United States. Any! They get in without questioning. One guy, according to Graham, one immigration officer in Miami, stopped the Saudi, which Graham’s investigators concluded was actually meant to be one of the hijackers. He did stop him because he hadn’t read the memo and was actually disciplined for not reading the memo. It goes on.
Number three, people that followed this story— it’s 20 years now, so people probably forget that within just a few days of 9/11, when the airspace of the United States, if memory serves me right, is still closed to at least commercial aircraft, a whole plane-load of Saudis is allowed to leave including many members of the bin Laden family. Graham told me there were many people on that plane that his committee would have wanted to interview as part of their investigation into 9/11 and couldn’t. When they asked the Saudi government to allow them to be interviewed, they were told no. There are other examples Graham told me about, so it wasn’t just a suppression.
Heidi BoghosianPaul, you interviewed a top official in the National Security Administration, the NSA, and I’m talking about the whistleblower, Tom Drake. What did you learn from him?
Paul JayWell, this is the key that unlocks the dynamic of how all this worked. Graham essentially confirmed what Drake told me. Let me put this into a little context because people are sitting here listening to all this. Why would they do all of this? Well, the why is obvious. It was all about preparing American public opinion for the invasion of Iraq. If you go back to the document, the Project for the New American Century [PNAC], which a bunch of neo-cons wrote as a letter to [Bill] Clinton. That group of neo-cons who wrote that document, including [Donald] Rumsfeld and [Paul] Wolfowitz, formed the whole team around the Secretary of Defense. Cheney was a signatory to that document.
In that document, it says two things. This is the key to the why, and then I’ll get to Drake. Number one, the American people, I should say, will not support another major military intervention. Number two, they will not support a massive build-up of the American military, which means a large amount of money increase in the Pentagon budget without— and I’m quoting here, “another Pearl Harbor.”
Now, people who follow this story are well aware of this document, but a lot of people are not. Especially younger people. Well, it’s kind of obvious that 9/11 became Pearl Harbor, and it was the invasion of Iraq. It wasn’t just about Iraq. I think this is the critical issue to understand the Saudi interest here and the American interest. The ultimate prize was regime change in Iran.
In this document and other things that were written by these neo-cons, the agenda was to overthrow Saddam [Hussein] in Iraq and overthrow [Bashar] Assad in Syria. That’s to prepare the conditions for regime change in Iran plus a massive build-up, meaning a massive expenditure on the military-industrial complex.
Alright, so that’s the motivation here, and, of course, the Saudis are as interested in regime change in Iran, or even more than the Americans are or at least may still be, but certainly back then.
Alright, Drake. Drake was one of the American global leading minds in cybersecurity and dealing with digital data. He was hired by the NSA, and ironically, coincidentally, his first day of work was 9/11. In the morning, he goes there, and the attacks take place later that day. Within a week or two, a couple of analysts come to see him. Now, he’s very senior. He’s a Senior Executive who reports directly to the number three person in the leadership of the NSA. So, that’s a very senior position. A couple of analysts came to see him a couple of weeks after the attack. They show him, and they say— this is Drake telling me and again this on camera. We had the whole thing. According to Drake, the NSA had intercepted phone calls between all but three of the hijackers and an Al-Qaeda safe house in Yemen. The entire plot was known. They had recorded and intercepted telephone conversations and knew the whole thing. The analyst came to Drake and said, “This is crazy. We told the leadership of the NSA, and nothing was done with it.” Drake has told me this on camera.
He had actually seen the documentation of the intercept, and then I said to him, “Well, this doesn’t make any sense— the leadership of the NSA. Even if Bush-Cheney had created this culture the way Graham talked about, of not prioritizing terrorism, there’s no way they sit on something like this. They couldn’t take the responsibility.” He said, “Of course not.” He says there was a back channel to Cheney. This is the other kind of secret to understanding how they did this.
George Tenet testified at the 9/11 Commission Hearings that in his first presidential briefing, he told Bush the number one threat to national security was bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Now, let’s remember on the FBI’s most-wanted list, bin Laden had been number one for the previous five years. He was not some unknown quantity that just showed up on 9/11. The FBI already knew he was involved in the attacks on the Cole Navy ship. Whatever they knew about him was enough to say he was number one on the FBI’s most-wanted list. Tenet confirms he and Al-Qaeda are the number one threat to national security. So, what is one of Bush’s first moves dealing with national security? He demotes the anti-terrorism czar, Richard Clarke.
Richard Clarke, under Clinton, was in a cabinet-level position. He could call the principal— remember the principals. He could call a meeting of the principals on his own. He didn’t have to go through Condoleezza Rice. He gets demoted by Bush, now reports to Condoleezza Rice, and testifies at the 9/11 hearings that he couldn’t get a meeting of the principals called. Even though the quote from him and others, I think it was Clarke’s quote, “My hair was on fire.” There was so much intelligence coming in.
Now, there was a lot of intelligence coming in that Clarke was aware of, but some of the most critical intelligence he wasn’t aware of, for example— and this is a little piece of video, which I keep playing every time I do a report on this. I have to say here that I’ve offered everything I’ve got to mainstream media over and over again with no interest whatsoever, including my interviews with Clarke and Drake. I’m not like an unknown quantity here, even if they think I’ve been working in more independent, marginalized media. I come from CBC in Canada. I was the Executive Producer of the main political affairs debate show daily for 10 years. I’ve made documentary films for all the major broadcasters in the world, so I’m not a completely marginal character. Although I think they have tried to make me so. Anyway, nobody’s been interested in all this stuff I’ve got.
There’s a critical piece of video with Richard Clarke. I don’t know if he was drinking or what. He was interviewed by two University students, and he said the San Diego cell in California the FBI knew about and never told the CIA, and the CIA knew about and never told the FBI. The 9/11 Commission depicted that as if it was like Keystone Cops. They wouldn’t even talk to each other. Clarke says, “I was deliberately bypassed. Neither the CIA nor the FBI told me about the San Diego cell.” He says, “There’s absolutely no way that happens,” and I have him saying this on camera, “without a deliberate, conscious decision not to tell me, the anti-terrorism czar, who’s supposed to be the central repository for all of this information.”
What Drake adds to this is that they did report it to Cheney. What Cheney did was he got all the intelligence agencies to report to him, including military intelligence that also had pre-9/11 intelligence that could have prevented the attacks, and he just sat on it. He would let the information flow in, and he would give no instructions to any of the agencies to act. Quite the contrary, as I said earlier, he actually helped facilitate it, in other words.
Michael Steven Smith What do you think was known by the intelligence community, specifically that part of the community that reported to Vice President Dick Cheney before the events of 9/11? Is there evidence that he manipulated the intelligence and set up a backchannel?
Paul JayLet me answer, first of all, by saying what I know. I know from the people I’ve interviewed, most importantly, Graham and Thomas Drake, and to some extent also John Kiriakou and some others, but those two are the key. They’re awfully credible sources. As I said earlier, Graham was the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Drake a Senior Executive at the NSA. So, I don’t have any ability to have my own investigators. I can’t subpoena anybody. What I can say is what I’ve been told by them, and they say, without doubt, that’s what happened.
As I said earlier, Richard Clarke is on the record saying that he was bypassed on critical intelligence, and Drake says it’s reported to Cheney. The inference from Clarke is that it was reported to Cheney. One of the arguments that’s given about why the administration didn’t focus on terrorism and why, even after being told by George Tenet that terrorism was the number one threat to national security, and it’s this de-prioritization, is the reason that there was such chaos amongst the intelligence agencies.
For example, there’s this Coleen Rowley story. If people remember, she’s an FBI agent, I think, in Minnesota. She gets a phone call from a flight school, and the guy who teaches says, “I’ve got this guy from the Middle East, and he wants to learn how to take off, but he doesn’t want to know how to land.” So, she finds this suspicious. She sends this to FBI headquarters. Then she asks for a warrant to go into the guy’s computer, and it’s denied. She later became one of Time Magazine’s People of the Year as a whistleblower. She’s completely credible. This is what had been explained as this is part of the FBI and others taking the lead from Bush-Cheney in deprioritizing terrorism and prioritizing big state actors, meaning Russia and China.
There’s always this talk that Condoleezza Rice didn’t focus on this because her background was about the Soviet Union and Russia, and that’s what they were concerned about. They just didn’t think terrorism was a big deal and all this. It’s such obvious B.S., because we know now from many sources, including Richard Clarke’s book, [Robert] Gates book and others, that their priority wasn’t Russia and China. Their priority was Iraq from day one. Within days of the attack of 9/11, Bush is telling both the CIA and the Pentagon, “Get ready for Iraq. Focus on Iraq.” It was never even about Afghanistan. That became a requirement to attack and invade Afghanistan when it became obvious to everybody that bin Laden had operated out of Afghanistan. That’s a whole other story, which I can get into.
As you know, I made a film about Afghanistan because there’s all this talk about how the Taliban wouldn’t hand over bin Laden, and that’s the reason for invading Afghanistan, which is actually not true. If you want to know more, I’ve actually interviewed a member of the Central Council of Taliban; they were ready to hand over bin Laden. So, the evidence of the backchannel is based on Drake, Graham. It’s based on Richard Clarke saying it was bypassed on critical intelligence, and there’s a certain logic. I mean, is it really possible?
This is where you get a need for an inquiry because what I’m about to say is not hard evidence, but, God, a lot of people have been convicted of murder on a lot less circumstantial evidence than what I’m about to say. Is it possible that all the intelligence agencies that had so much pre-9/11 intelligence that could have stopped the attacks and they just sat on it? I mean, is that possible? If it didn’t go to Richard Clarke, and he claims it didn’t, all of them decided, oh, I’m not going to tell.
There’s one of the military intelligence— this is a report Jason Leopold worked on. I released on video a lot of his reports. The Joint Military Intelligence [JMI] was asked to model in early 2001, late 2000, what might another terrorist attack look like? They modelled— get this. They modelled: planes get hijacked and flown into the World Trade Center, and the buildings fall down. They modelled this before 9/11, did a PowerPoint explaining their modelling, and they gave that up the chain of command.
Now, when the leadership of the military intelligence was called before the Joint Congressional Committee and asked, “Did you have anything that indicated that these attacks might take place?” They said, “No.” So, the guy who led the military intelligence team was furious, and he made a report to the Inspector General of the Army saying, “It’s not true. We modelled what happened, and we had a PowerPoint.” He sent the PowerPoint to the Inspector General.
Well, the Inspector General comes back and says, “Oh, the leadership of intelligence did nothing inappropriate.” So, this guy is furious, and he leaked the stuff to Jason Leopold, and I think the other guy’s name was Jeffrey Kaye. The guy from military intelligence makes a FOIA [Freedom of Information] request to the Inspector General to get his PowerPoint, and he gets it. You can go to my site. I have it there. Jason had the actual Inspector General’s report with a stamp on his PowerPoint explaining how planes were going to hit the buildings and the buildings fall down. So, is it really possible that so many intelligence agencies just sit on this information without passing it up somewhere? It’s just impossible.
So, yeah, it’s kind of a supposition, but I think it’s enough of a supposition that there still needs to be an independent inquiry into what really happened because the truth of this has not come out. As I say, this isn’t just a problem of some history; this is a problem of such deliberate lying about 9/11 and deliberate lying about the Iraq war. Are we going to see it again? This time, if Trump had had his way, in fact, if Bush-Cheney hadn’t been blocked by the Pentagon, in all likelihood, we would have seen another example, except this time they’ll try to pin it on the Iranians.
Heidi BoghosianYou interviewed retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who was Secretary of State Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff prior to 9/11. What did you learn from Wilkerson? How does he feel about the speech Powell gave at the United Nations promoting the attack on Iraq?
Paul JayWell, first of all, he feels culpability himself. He went along with what he had, by then, come to know wasn’t true: Powell’s thing about Scud missiles surrounding Beirut [ED: Baghdad] armed with biological weapons pointed at Israel. He knew that a lot of what Powell said was being manufactured. And it’s not one of, but the greatest regret of his life that he didn’t quit before that speech.
Let me add a little note of my own. It’s my belief that if they actually believed any of what they said at the U.N., they wouldn’t have invaded. You don’t invade a country that has Scud missiles with biological weapons aimed at Israel. That’s a pretty good deterrent. You don’t risk it. Also, you look at the pictures of American soldiers driving across Iraq towards Baghdad; almost none are wearing masks. Anyway, we know the whole thing was a big lie.
Wilkerson, he once said, and he said it to me, and I think he said it elsewhere, “The people who work for Powell, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are war criminals.” He said, “If they go to jail, I probably need to go with them.”
I’ve interviewed him many times now, and I believe he’s sincere in this. The other most important thing about how sincere he is, he’s almost the only one and maybe the only one, but certainly one of the only ones who didn’t cash in on all this. All the other people are millionaires, multi-millionaires. They all got jobs in the military-industrial complex. They’re fabulously wealthy, and he certainly could have been. All he had to do was keep his mouth shut. He could have even just resigned and not said anything, but instead, he’s become one of the harshest critics of U.S. foreign policy and of the military-industrial complex.
I know he lives quite modestly at a professor’s salary. He got a job teaching afterwards, but nothing compared to what he could have been, I’m sure. He’s very smart and understands geopolitics. He easily could have been on the board of some big arms manufacturer. Basically, what he said, the essence of it, is how banal the whole motivation was. There was even less about the geopolitics of regime change in Iraq, Syria, and Iran, which it was, but it was more about money-making. We know about Dick Cheney and his ties to Halliburton. He was the CEO of Halliburton. He still owns stock in a Blind Trust, supposedly after he became Vice President, but Halliburton got a no-bid $7 billion contract days prior to the invasion of Iraq.
In fact, there’s a woman named [Bunnatine] Bunny Greenhouse who oversaw contracts for the Pentagon. A civilian looking for things that were wrong, and she actually reported to the Inspector General. Why was this in a no-bid contract? Because there are at least three or four other companies that could have done the same work, which is restructuring the Iraqi oil industry after the invasion. I mean, that’s what they were focused on, grabbing the oil. She also reported that this contract was being directly steered and navigated by Rumsfeld’s office, which was completely out of the norm. Normally, it would come out of some normal Pentagon acquisition office. She was demoted. She was put into some job where she had absolutely nothing to do. She never got promoted again and never got a wage increase. She sued the Pentagon later and won. She actually won almost a million dollars in a lawsuit over the Cheney-Halliburton contract. It was about money, and it’s always about more than one thing. It’s not like geopolitics doesn’t matter, but even geopolitics is mostly about money-making, and that’s Wilkerson’s main theme. Of course, in talking to him and [Daniel] Ellsberg, who I’ve been talking to, we also learn about the whole nuclear weapons plan, which is mostly about money too, except there they can end life on earth.
Heidi BoghosianDo you believe the 9/11 attack was a pivotal point in U.S. and world history?
Paul JayYes. In one obvious way, it was. As I said, it became the rationale for a massive expenditure in the Pentagon and massive growth in the National Security State. From the Patriot Act to the NSA spying on everyone, it became a justification for unmitigated spying on Americans, and certainly everyone else in the world too. The kind of safeguards that had existed, everything gets thrown out. Torture is allowable, and, of course, the most important thing is the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of people died. Millions of people were displaced. So, one of the great war crimes since World War II, maybe the greatest war crime since World War II— well, I don’t know. The Vietnam War, I guess, is the biggest war crime, but after Vietnam, you’ve got Iraq. It created, and not just in the United States, it created a rationale for this great strengthening of the National Security States in most states, if not all.
But the other thing it did, which doesn’t get talked about enough, is that the media was intimidated. I think it’s one of the most important points of 9/11. The media has been intimidated in looking into what really happened on 9/11. The media was intimidated in playing ball in the lead-up to the war in Iraq.
A quote from Dan Rather, the former CBS anchor— unfortunately, he said this to the BBC, and he didn’t say it in the U.S.. But he said, “After 9/11, if you critique the White House, it was like,” and I’m quoting him, I think, pretty directly, “It’s like having a flaming tire of patriotism put around your neck.” This is using an example of what happened in the South African townships. If they thought somebody was working with the police, they would set a flaming tire around somebody’s neck. That was the ability of the White House.
Now, President Bush, prior to 9/11, there was a television show on ABC Network T.V. called That’s My Bush. It was a parody of the Bush family directly. He was held in such contempt that you could actually have a mainstream T.V. show ridiculing the Bush family. Well, after 9/11, all of a sudden, he’s a hero. That show goes off the air, and the media plays ball. Now, I’m not saying there’s no media that wasn’t critical. I would give McClatchy some props— is that the word? They didn’t buy the whole weapons of mass destruction argument, but we know the New York Times did, and almost the entire network television did. It hasn’t changed that much. 9/11 changed the media culture to a large extent. It’s not that they were always fantastic. Look at how much trouble and difficulty it was to get the Pentagon Papers out, but it did get out. The Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg’s thing. Finally, the newspapers had the guts to do it, but it took a hell of a long time for the mainstream media to deal with the lies about the Iraq war, and they still haven’t dealt with the lies of 9/11.
So, yeah, it’s a very pivotal event in many ways. But let me focus on that, is that all the wars, every one of them, the whole history of the national security state, of U.S. militarism, is mostly a fabric of lies. People just don’t get it. In the schools, of course, it’s never really exposed, and the media that does it like yours, mine, or some others that do get at this stuff, we get so marginalized that they don’t really care that we can poke through the fabric of Americanism. Once in a while, events tear the shredding of Americanism, but it doesn’t take long for the media to close ranks again.
Michael Steven Smith Paul Jay, thank you very much. We truly appreciate your fine investigative reporting. This is what’s probably the biggest story of the last part of our lifetime.
Paul JayThanks, Michael. Yeah, you can find me at theAnalysis.news, and it needs the, as in theAnalysis.news.
Michael Steven Smith People will go to theAnalysis.news to fill in what you haven’t had a chance to tell us. Thank you so much, Paul Jay, for your extremely important work. We truly appreciate you being on Law and Disorder.
Heidi BoghosianThank you, Paul.
Paul JayThanks very much.
Michael Steven Smith If you have any comments or questions about this segment or any others, please visit us at lawanddisorder.org. One word, law and disorder dot O-R-G.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)User my donation to help support the upcoming documentary "How to stop a nuclear war" (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another storySubscribe to theAnalysis.news – Newsletter
Email(Required)Name(Required)
First
Last
Δ
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
Dr. Asoka Bandarage is an adjunct professor at the California Institute for Integral Studies and the author of a new book, Crisis in Sri Lanka and the World. Sri Lanka has had a minuscule carbon footprint, and yet the country is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, coastal erosion, and flooding. She discusses the convergence of existential climate and debt crises in Sri Lanka, the latter resulting from IMF debt restructuring and the lack of a globally coordinated multilateral sovereign debt mechanism that places traditional and private lenders on an equal footing.
Widespread corruption in Lebanon is fostered by the country's ruling class, whose business interests are enmeshed with those of international finance. Nadim Houry, executive director of the Arab Reform Initiative, explains how Lebanon's culture of political impunity is tied to the reconstruction agreements put in place in 1990, at the end of the 15-year civil war. The ongoing political deadlock shields the authorities from scrutiny and allows for vulture capitalists such as the former governor of Lebanon's Central Bank, Riad Salameh, to embezzle the country's resources. At the same time, ordinary people are faced with crushing inflation.
Contemporary statistical models are based on philosophical assumptions which facilitate capitalist accumulation and the functioning of digital control systems. Justin Joque is a visualization librarian at the University of Michigan and the author of the book Revolutionary Mathematics: Artificial Intelligence, Statistics, and the Logic of Capitalism. His book examines the statistical models on which our algorithms, machine-learning, and financial systems are built, highlighting the mechanisms of abstraction which lend these models an air of misleading objectivity. His book employs Karl Marx's theory of objectification to explore modern social relations mediated through technology. Can statistical models be used towards emancipatory aims?
Matin Qaim, Director of the Center for Development Research at the University of Bonn, examines the various aspects comprising food security, namely local and global supply chains, the generation of income for local farmers, investments in the production of nutritious foods, as well as accounting for climate externalities. Attaining food security has become even more difficult given the disruptions around the pandemic, rising inflation, and the failed Black Sea grain deal. He asserts that small-scale farming and agroecological approaches are not necessarily low-tech and that certain technologies, if applied correctly, can assist smallholder farmers.
Jomo K.S. warns U.S. policies are driving the world towards war and depression, leaving developing countries with a strong vested interest to reconvene a new non-aligned movement and strengthen democratic institutions of global governance. Lynn Fries interviews Jomo K.S. on GPEnewsdocs.
The Australien Government made an ad about its bid to host the 2026 UN Climate Summit (COP31) with the Pacific, and it’s surprisingly honest and informative. This video was originally published by The Juice Media on August 1, 2023.
Fernando Villavicencio, who was running for president of Ecuador on an anti-corruption platform, was assassinated in broad daylight on August 9th. Who stands to benefit from the assassination, and what does this mean for the upcoming August 20th presidential election? Joe Emersberger, a long-time analyst of Ecuadoran politics, discusses the situation.
Oppenheimer warned of a world with an unrestrained nuclear arms race on the edge of catastrophe. We are there, says Matt Korda of the Federation of American Scientists. Hosted by Paul Jay.
Russian anti-war activist Boris Kagarlitsky has been charged with supporting "terrorism" and faces years in prison. Katrina vanden Heuvel, who has known Boris for decades, says whatever your views, people should demand the charges be dropped.
Talia Baroncelli and Paul Jay discuss Russian threats to use tactical nuclear weapons against Western Europe and what role China can play in solving the existential crisis of climate and threats of nuclear war.
Paul Jay and Talia Baroncelli discuss the recent arrest of Russian anti-war sociologist and Marxist Boris Yulyevich Kagarlitsky. Boris was interviewed several times on theAnalysis.news. Talia and Paul dig into what a long-term stalemate and threats of nuclear war might mean for Ukraine, Russia, and the world—part 1 of 2.
This interview was originally published on February 23, 2023. Boris Kagarlitsky talks about the mood of the Russian people and the possibility that the Russian military leadership might insist on ending the war.
Oppenheimer is a creative tour de force that sparks a necessary debate about today’s nuclear weapons. Still, it reinforces a false narrative about the justification for a nuclear attack on Japan and the “first strike” underpinnings of U.S. policy. Peter Kuznick in discussion with Paul Jay.
Yasser Louati, political analyst and Head of the Committee for Justice and Liberties, highlights the brutal practices of the French police, as well as the proximity of the police unions to Marine Le Pen’s right-wing ideology. He discusses how French secularism, or laïcité, has been instrumentalized against racialized groups and minorities. Furthermore, he argues that France is at a crossroads; as seen in the anti-pension reform protests, different groups from the fringes of French society are uniting to protest the neoliberal state, as well as its policies which sustain religious and racial discrimination and the increased alienation of the poorer classes. Will French society keep fighting for justice and rise up against the regime, as it has done in various movements in the past?
By reducing our reliance on chemical fertilizers, policymakers could turn the food crisis into a genuine opportunity towards shifting subsidies away from agribusiness-led to agroecological-led farming systems and a managed transition to healthy sustainable patterns of production, explains Jayati Ghosh. Lynn Fries interviews Jayati Ghosh on GPEnewsdocs.
Éric Pineault, professor of ecological economics at the Institute of Environmental Sciences at the University of Quebec in Montreal, explains how the fires raging in Canada are a corollary of the paradigm termed Extreme Oil. He discusses various oil and gas projects across North America, as well as the Canadian government's support for the Trans Mountain Pipeline project, and how terms such as "net zero" and "carbon neutral" are misleading and conveniently serve Big Oil's aims.
His recent book A Social Ecology of Capital presents an empirical analysis of capitalist societies, which both builds on and enhances Marxist theories by accounting for the energy extraction and colonization of ecosystems, a characteristic of what he terms our "fossil-industrial" society. His conception of capitalist metabolism outlines extractivism, production, consumption, and waste dissipation, which leads to an absorption of surplus energy, capital accumulation, and profit maximization. Most importantly, how is this understanding of social ecology useful for furthering a project of emancipation?
Trita Parsi, Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, discusses reported negotiations between the U.S. and Iran to agree to an unwritten deal. The JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal, which was a legacy of the Obama administration, seems to be a thing of the past; yet de-escalation and an agreement on a smaller range of issues would be advantageous to both the U.S. and Iranian administrations. As in the case of Saudi-Iranian rapprochement, the role of China, Oman, and Iraq in facilitating these discussions is politically noteworthy. While the U.S. and Iran are nowhere near signing a comprehensive written deal which could be legally enforced and regulated internationally, a more limited unwritten deal would unfreeze at least 7 billion US dollars’ worth of Iranian assets, which would go towards purchasing food and medicine for Iranians.
One of the few working-class movements scoring victories, democratizing ownership, and gaining momentum is the method of economic development called Community Wealth Building (CWB). Colin Bruce Anthes interviews Neil McInroy of the Democracy Collaborative on how CWB works, what it has accomplished so far, and its potential to lead a "new common sense" movement beyond neoliberal capitalism.
The European Union is exporting more than 10,000 tons of bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticides a year to megadiverse countries despite having banned these chemicals from its own farms to protect pollinators, according to research by Public Eye & Unearthed. Lynn Fries interviews Laurent Gaberell on GPEnewsdocs.
In part 2, Jafrikayiti recalls that after Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was overthrown, Solidarité Québec-Haïti asked officials on Parliament Hill in Ottawa as to why free and fair elections weren't being held in Haiti. The response was that Lavalas, the movement headed by Aristide, "occupied too much space," and foreign actors wanted to "level the playing field" to ensure that Lavalas wouldn't regain power. Furthermore, he delves into the myths surrounding former policeman Jimmy "Barbecue" Chérizier. Chérizier, whose victims have notably not been members of the predatory Haitian oligarchy, has subsequently been armed and granted impunity from arrest. Jafrikayiti calls for genuine solidarity with Haiti from people in the U.S., Canada, and France in order for there to be a paradigm shift in policy.
A discussion about independent media and ownership, censorship, self-censorship in media and a discussion about hate speech laws.
On the occasion of the death of Daniel Ellsberg, we republish our interview with historian Peter Kuznick who looks at the significance of Ellsberg's fight against America's insane nuclear war strategy, his exposure of the lies of the Vietnam War and his continuing fight against the American war machine.
Daniel Ellsberg, an extraordinary hero, passed away on Friday, June 16, 2023. Dan fearlessly risked everything in his unwavering quest for social justice and opposition to war. He was not only a cherished friend but also a guiding light for me and countless others. I feel honored to have had the opportunity to engage in extensive interviews with Dan while working on our film, "How to Stop a Nuclear War." I will miss his wisdom and radiant smile, but his warning to the world will be delivered. Please click to watch our interview on the occasion of Dan’s 90th birthday and a collection of our interviews. – Paul Jay
Daniel Ellsberg, an extraordinary hero, passed away on Friday, June 16, 2023. Dan fearlessly risked everything in his unwavering quest for social justice and opposition to war. He was not only a cherished friend but also a guiding light for me and countless others. I feel honored to have had the opportunity to engage in extensive interviews with Dan while working on our film, "How to Stop a Nuclear War." I will miss his wisdom and radiant smile, but his warning to the world will be delivered. Please click to watch our interview on the occasion of Dan’s 90th birthday and a collection of our interviews. – Paul Jay
Jafrikayiti is an artist, author, activist, and radio show host, and works for Solidarité Québec-Haiti. Part 1 of his analysis of foreign intervention in Haiti presents a scathing critique of French, U.S., and Canadian powers who have dismantled Haitian democracy, as well as looted the country for countless decades. He argues that political leaders who are appointed by western powers, such as the current interim Prime Minister Ariel Henry, are illegitimate figures who continue to do a disservice to Haiti's political institutions. Furthermore, Jafrikayiti explains how the exploitation of Haiti cannot be understood without examining the racial underpinnings of imperialism and capitalism.
Famara Diédhiou is the West Africa Program Officer at the Alliance for Food Security in Africa (AFSA). He is also one of the producers of a documentary feature film called The Last Seed, which was produced by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation in cooperation with AFSA, Biowatch South Africa, and PELUM Tanzania. In this interview, Famara discusses why food security is not enough in a country such as Senegal, whose farming practices and dietary consumption have been negatively affected by agrochemical companies. He makes the case for food sovereignty, as well as the establishment of an agroecological approach to farming and rural planning which not only benefits local populations but also facilitates climate adaption strategies. What sort of socio-economic system would create the conditions necessary for this agroecological approach?
The South Australien Government has made an ad about its new anti-protest legislation, and it’s surprisingly honest and informative. This video was originally published by The Juice Media on May 28, 2023.
Paul Jay and Jyotishman Mudiar, host of India & Global Left, discuss and debate the war against Ukraine and the role of NATO and the US. Jay states, "NATO doesn't exist to invade Russia. NATO exists to assert American hegemony in Europe."
Paul Jay interviews Tom Ferguson about the debt ceiling crisis in the United States. Ferguson explains that the debate over the debt ceiling is largely theater, with both Democrats and Republicans working together to cut spending while maintaining the appearance of opposition. He criticizes the Democrats for not raising the debt ceiling earlier when they had the opportunity and suggests that their reluctance is due to their desire to secure more campaign funding for future elections. Ferguson argues that the spending cuts rolled back are not significant enough to impact inflation and proposes alternative measures, such as taxing the wealthy and reducing defense spending, to address the issue. He also discusses the influence of money in politics and the Democratic Party’s efforts to weaken the progressive wing.
Debt Ceiling Theater and the Trump Parallel UniverseYemen: Biden’s Hypocrisy and Possible Peace?Capitalism Has Never Been This Irrational – Paul Jay (pt 3/3)Donald Trump and the (Non) Prosecution of Presidential Crimes (pt 2/3)Debt and the Collapse of Antiquity – Michael Hudson (pt 1/2)Ukraine War & Pandemic Caused More Inflation Than Gov. Spending – WilkersonWill Jan 6 Committee Investigate Christian Nationalism? – Gerald HorneRising Fascism and the Elections – Chomsky and EllsbergBiden’s Bill has Significant Funding for Climate but 10% of What’s Needed – Bob PollinWhy Give a Damn About Pelosi? – Paul Jay pt 1Progressive Running Against a Corp Dem in Boeing CountryChris Hedges, Edward Snowden, Noam Chomsky, Paul Jay and Daniel Ellsberg on AssangeJFK’s Canadian CoupFascism and the Democratic Party – Paul Jay pt 3/3Weaponized National Identity, War and an Orgy of Profits – Paul Jay pt 2/3Paul Jay on 9/11Trump Saved Christian Nationalist Billionaires a Bundle in TaxesWhy I am Opposed to the War in Vietnam – Martin Luther KingWhat U.S. Foreign Policy and Pro Wrestling Have in Common – Paul JayResource Limits to American Capitalism & The Predator State TodayA Failed Coup Within a Failed Coup – Paul JayEllsberg & Assange: Exposing Lies of the National Security State – Paul JayWhy I am Opposed to the War in Vietnam – Martin Luther KingIn 2020, Trump Propped Up His Rural Vote with Massive Subsidies to Agribusiness – Tom Ferguson Pt 4/4Jan 6th: The Real Threat is Christian Nationalism in the Military – Mikey WeinsteinIs Biden Risking War by Pushing Taiwan Independence? – Larry WilkersontheAnalysis.news in 2022 – Paul JayIn 2020, Elites Bailed on Trump, Not on Republican Party – Tom Ferguson Pt 2/4Nuclear War is the Most Urgent Threat – Andrew Cockburn pt 2/2Risking Apocalypse for the Spoils of War – Andrew Cockburn pt 1/2A Perfect Storm for Democrats in 2022 – Tom Ferguson Pt 1/4Julian Assange & the National Security State | Interview with Paul Jay – Part 2Is the U$A a Democracy? with Tom FergusonWhy Are Tensions Rising in Ukraine? – pt 1/2YouTube Censorship & the Threat of Nuclear War With Paul JayCorporate Dems Won’t Push the Real Wedge Issue and Lose – Paul JayDaniel Ellsberg on Assange Extradition HearingPaul Jay on Assange Extradition HearingRunning to be Detroit’s Mayor – Against Democratic Party MachineA Conversation With Paul Jay – Pt 4The Whole Country is the ReichstagPt 2/2 – Paul Jay & Abby Martin on Afghanistan, 9/11 & Climate ChangePt 1/2 – Paul Jay & Abby Martin on Afghanistan and 9/11A Conversation With Paul Jay – Pt1A World Without PoliceA Failed Coup Within A Failed Coup – The Story YouTube Doesn’t Want You to SeeBill Black pt 9/9 — The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own OneFull Interview – Powerful Christian Nationalists in Military See Trump as Vehicle for Authoritarian Religious State – Mikey WeinsteinConfessions of a New York Times Washington Correspondent – Bob Smith Pt 2/2Confessions of a New York Times Washington Correspondent – Bob Smith Pt 1/2Washington Post Confirms Fear of Attempted Trump Coup – After Google Bans theAnalysis.news AdsWhy the Right Attacks Critical Race Theory – Gerald HorneTo Get Us Out of Poverty, We Need a Massive Infrastructure Plan – Ann Morrison / WisconsinHow Billionaires Pay Millions to Hide Trillions – Chuck CollinsUnanswered Questions About the Jan 6 Coup Attempt – Paul JayLiz Cheney & GOP: A Split Between the Hard Right & Far RightReagan, the Media and the United States of Amnesia – “The Reagans” Part 5“Why Should We Vote for a Party that Holds Us in Contempt?” – A Viewer CommentIs Biden a Transformational President? Rightwinger David Brooks Thinks SoShould Trump Be Charged With Treason? Paul Jay on Talk World RadioWorkers and Communities vs AmazonIs Trumpism Fascism? – Paul StreetGoogle Bans theAnalysis.news from Advertising on YouTubeJanuary 6th was the Final Act of a Failed Coup – Paul JayProgressives Must Revitalize the Labor Movement – Noam ChomskyTrump’s Treason and McConnell’s Mayhem – Paul JayReagan’s Racism the Model for Trump – Matt Tyrnauer (Pt3)No Honeymoon for Biden – Jeff CohenRashida Tlaib – Remove Members of Congress Who Incited Riot and Demand Real Change From BidenFinancialization, Fascism and the Jan 6th Riots – with Paul JayMatt Taibbi and Norman Solomon on the Progressive Movement and Rising FascismRacism and a Failed Coup – Gerald HorneDid Trump Walk Into a Trap? – Wilkerson and JayPolarization, Then a Crash: Michael Hudson on the Rentier EconomyDemocrats Stuck Between “BlackRock and a Hard Place” – Rana Foroohar and Mark BlythEconomics Not Culture Wars Drove Most Trump Voters – Thomas FergusonPotential Biden Cabinet Picks Lean RightElection Crisis and the Electoral CollegeTrump’s Coup, Biden’s Dilemma, and the Chinese Challenge – Foroohar and BlythA Dangerous Moment for the Democratic Party – Matt TaibbiThe Significance of the “Shit Show” Debate – Panitch, Day, Horne & JayWhy Criticize Biden Now, When Trump Fascism is a Threat? – with Paul JayNBA Players Resolved to Fight Systemic Racism – Gerald HorneBiden Blurring Almost Everything – Thomas FergusonIf Biden Picks Rice as VP, It Strengthens His Worst InstinctsThe Promise and Limits of Black Lives Matter – Cedric JohnsonTrump a Unique Danger; Unaccountable to Ruling Elites or Public – Phyllis BennisVijay Prashad: Cut the Umbilical Cord to the Democratic PartyConvert Military to Green Production, or Perish – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 13/13Dismantle the American Doomsday Machine – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 12/13The Doomsday Machine and Nuclear Winter – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 11/13A Strategy of War Crimes, Killing Civilians to Win a War – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 10/13The Discovery That Should Have Changed the Cold War – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 9/13Once Fired, There’s No Calling a Nuke Back – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 8/13U.S. Refuses to Adopt a Nuclear Weapon No First Use Pledge – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI 7/13U.S. Planned Nuclear First Strike to Destroy Soviets and China – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 6/13Russian Doomsday Machine an Answer to U.S. Decapitation Strategy – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 5/13The Largest Act of Terrorism in Human History – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 4/13Truman Delayed End of WWII to Demonstrate Nuclear Weapons – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 3/13Hitler Wouldn’t Risk Doomsday, But The United States Did – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 2/13The Doomsday Machine: The Big Lie of the Cold War – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 1/13The Rich Have an Escape Plan – RAI with Rana Foroohar Pt 5/6Sociopaths Rise to the Top RAI with Rana Foroohar Pt 4/6Clinton’s ‘Committee to Save the World’ Unleashes Wall Street – RAI with Rana Foroohar Pt 3/6Apple, Market Manipulation and the Cult of Personal Finance – RAI with Rana Foroohar Pt 2/6The Rise of Finance and the Fall of American Business – RAI with Rana Foroohar Pt 1/6Harvey Weinstein, the Democratic Party and the Power of the ‘Creative Class’ – Thomas Frank on RAI (9/9)Obama Chose Wall St. Over Main St. – Thomas Frank on RAI (8/9)Clinton and Obama Helped Make the Democrats a Wall Street Party – Thomas Frank on RAI (7/9)Prisoners of Hope – RAI with Thomas Frank (6/9)From Ronald Reagan to Bernie Sanders – RAI with Thomas Frank (5/9)Clinton Democrats Hate the Left – RAI with Thomas Frank (4/9)Liberal Elite Doesn’t Care Much About Inequality – RAI with Thomas Frank (3/9)Clinton Attacks Sanders in New Book – RAI with Thomas Frank (2/9)Corporate Democrats Have a Vested Interest in Not Listening to Workers – RAI with Thomas Frank (1/9)Reaganism and Thatcherism were Intellectually Dishonest – Heiner Flassbeck on RAI Pt 1/5Black Nationalism and the Peoples’ Movement – Glen Ford on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 3/5Kennedy Was A Cold War Warrior to the Core – Glen Ford on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 5/5Credibility of the Ruling Elite is Being Shredded – RAI with Chris HedgesThe Pathology of the Rich – Chris Hedges on RAI (1/2)The Kennedy Brothers Thought the Civil Rights Movement Was a Nuisance at Best – Glen Ford Pt 4/5Did Bush Cheney Create a Culture of Not Wanting to Know – Sen. Bob Graham on RAI Pt 7/7Revealing 9/11 Conspiracy Would Undo U.S. Saudi Alliance – Sen. Bob Graham on RAI Pt 5/7Saudi Government’s 9/11 Connection and the Path to Disillusionment – Sen. Bob Graham on RAI Pt 4/7Chris Hedges Answers Viewers Questions – RAI (7/7)As a Socialist, I have No Voice in the Mainstream – Chris Hedges on RAI (6/7)The Liberal Elite has Betrayed the People they Claim they Defend – Chris Hedges on RAI (5/7)“America is a Tinderbox” – Chris Hedges on RAI (4/7)We Must Grasp Reality to Build Effective Resistance – Chris Hedges on RAI (3/7)Journalism Should be About Truth, Not Career – Chris Hedges on RAI (2/7)Urban Poverty in America Made Me Question Everything – Chris Hedges on RAI (1/7) Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Guest * Music*
This is an autogenerated version of the transcript. An edited version will be arriving shortly.
Paul JayHi. Welcome to theAnalysis.news. I’ll be back in just a few seconds to talk with Tom Ferguson about the debt ceiling debacle, the debt ceiling crisis, the debt ceiling theater. I don’t know, take your choice. Be back in just a second.
Tom Ferguson is probably the leading expert in the United States on money and politics. He wrote the seminal, Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems. He’s also the Director of Research at the Institute for New Economic Thinking. Thanks for joining me, Tom.
Thomas FergusonGlad to be here. Now, as the Pope said, “I’m still alive.”
Paul JaySo in a recent piece in Naked Capitalism, Yves Smith referred to this debate over the debt ceiling as kayfabe. For those that don’t know what kayfabe is, this is a term about people who believe professional wrestling is real and report on the theater as if it’s actually the story. How much of this is theater? What is this thing really about?
Thomas FergusonWell, what it was about was an effort to cut spending, sort of jointly administered by the Democrats and the Republicans, in which the Democrats didn’t have to look like they were trying to cut spending, merely acceding to the pressure put under them unbearably by the Republicans. In other words, much closer to the professional wrestling example that you were just describing.
Legally, it was, are we going to raise the allowed level of borrowing by the government to pay debts, to pay off, in effect, the deficit to keep it going. What a surprise. All of the folks eventually decided they would do that. What they had to do to do it was to get a compromise between the two major parties on what they were going to chop out of the budget. That is the story in brief.
Paul JayNow they’re forcing cuts to legislation that Congress has already passed. So Congress has approved this spending, the House flips to the other party, and they’re undoing something that Congress already said should be done. Am I getting that right?
Thomas FergusonLook, forgive me, as an old fan of the Peanuts, do you remember when someone was holding the ball for Charlie Brown and then they would jerk it away when he went to kick it? That’s sort of what’s happening here. They’re snatching the ball when everybody thought it was going to be a kick. Yeah, that’s the theater aspect to it. That’s the part that my colleagues, Paul Jorgensen, Jie Chen, and I, actually focused on in our little piece on the debt ceiling debate.
The puzzle here is pretty simple, Paul. It’s like, as the New York Times put it, which must mean that it’s true, right? It said that the Democrats could easily have fixed this problem by raising the debt ceiling when they had control of both Houses of Congress. They chose not to do it, but instead waited. They could have done it in the little intersession before the new Congress took over. They didn’t do it. Instead they decided they’d negotiate with the Republicans. To which the only sensible answer is, why on earth would anybody try to negotiate with the House of Representatives run by [Kevin] McCarthy and company over, say, public spending if you didn’t have to do it? Far better to negotiate, even with Joe Manchin, as lots of people said, but they didn’t do that. That’s the theatrical look.
Paul JayThat’s the key to it. They had two opportunities to do that. They could have done that in the first two years of the Obama administration. They could have done it in the first two years of the Biden administration. So you got to go back to, I guess, your thesis on money and politics. Why didn’t they do it? They could have done it.
Thomas FergusonIt’s the perfect swindle, I’m sorry to say. You take a bunch of big donors. You’re Joe Biden, and you got elected by appealing to large numbers of big donors to beat down Bernie Sanders. At the same time, you’re having to run a political coalition with progressive Democrats. Biden didn’t do what Hillary Clinton did, which was to shut Sanders completely out of everything pretty much after she won control of the party. They were pretty careful not to do that. So they actually did run on what I’m tempted to describe as normal coalitional politics. With the progressive Democrats, they’ve actually tried to put people in charge of the Federal Trade Commission who actually believe in antitrust. No one has seen that in so long they can’t remember. Well, they didn’t do much in the CDC for that, but, well, all right, we’ll pass over that one. But they did make serious efforts on a variety of other domestic policy dimensions, including the initial big stimulus package, the one that got Larry Summers and so many other people, the exercise.
Now, their problem is that Biden wants to run for president again. He wants to get reelected. They have inplaced all these programs that were, in effect, coalitional programs with progressive Democrats. But now they’re trying to raise more than a billion new dollars. Now, you don’t have to be a genius to figure out the big no-no in American politics.
Paul JayLet me jump in for a second. Raise a billion new dollars to pay for the new presidential campaign?
Thomas FergusonYeah, they’re running a presidential campaign. Yes, exactly. It’s political money that we’re talking about here. So they want that cash. You have to face the fact here. You may remember when Biden proposed to minimize the hit to the budget deficit by very modest new taxes on upper income groups and business. Not a single business organization in the United States supported that package. There was a lot of clucking in some quarters saying, “Well, that’s really inconsistent, since they say they really like a lot of the stuff.” There was even a substantial business support for some of the climate change legislation, certainly for all the tax credits and things that make that go.
There’s nothing inconsistent about that, actually. If you sit around and you live in a money driven political system, of course they want to have tax credits to go green, if you like, for the people who favor that, not the legacy energy providers. We’ll set them off to one side right now. But if you like that stuff, there’s nothing inconsistent by expecting the people of the United States to pay for that, too. In other words, you want the tax credits but you won’t pay for it. That’s just big money politics. There’s nothing puzzling about this.
Now, the perfect swindle on this from a Democratic side is to actually vote the stuff, come out in favor of it, and then do a deal much later where you take back much of the spending on the very poorest people. I mean, the stuff about trying to make work requirements for eating and things like that, how low can we go? The answer, of course, as we all know, is very low. It’s a perfect swindle and that’s when you do this. They’ve been doing this for 40 years, Paul.
Note this. When the same type of situation occurred, they needed a debt ceiling raised after the Trump taxes were put through, the Democrats just waived the tax cut through. They did not seriously contest it. Obama did exactly the same thing in that fabled 2011, quote, “compromise” where most of the Bush tax cuts were put right in place. I remember and I may even have talked to you about it at the time; it was just ridiculous. How crazy is this?
Basically the Democratic aligned among big business, we’ll call them corporate Democrats, which is certainly the majority of the presidential party and a big chunk of the Congress, is don’t raise taxes on the rich. Do try to keep your credits going with your electorate, which doesn’t quite perceive this problem as you separate it in time and just keep going. It’s perfect. You can’t ask for it any better and they do it. They’ve kept it for 20 some years. It’s Groundhog Day every two years or so to raise the limit. Somebody put out a press release after we published our piece and said, “Why do the Democrats do Groundhog Day all the time?” That’s why.
Paul JayThe favored structure in Congress is one party controls the House, the other controls the Senate, so nothing serious can get done. Wall Street loves that structural paralysis. When you get the odd time when one party controls both, and the Dems have had two opportunities, this gives you a second kick at the can for Wall Street and such to roll back any spending they don’t like.
The underlying argument is the spending is inflationary. That’s supposed to be why the Republicans are pushing so hard, and that’s how they sell their positioning and all this. How inflationary is the spending, and is what was rolled back going to have any effect on inflation?
Thomas FergusonAll right, what was rolled back? Especially when you pick up the requirements. In effect, what you’re trying to do with the most famous one is add so many requirements for getting fed if you’re able bodied, that you just stop. You end up having to fill out forms and everything else. It’s just denial of benefits by another name.
Now think about this for a second. If you think you have an aggregate demand problem driving inflation, which is a separate conversation but they probably do, what kind of a debt are you going to make in that aggregate demand by just cutting some people off from some food aid or failing to make up the difference in inflation for lots of social programs? You’re not going to make much of a dent at all. If you want to deal with your aggregate demand problem, a much simpler thing would be– I’ll go back to the paper that Servaas Storm and I wrote. There’s lots of ways to deal with this besides throwing people out of work. To back up just a bit further; huge chunks of our current inflation haven’t got anything to do with aggregate demand. There’s supply shock after supply shock after supply shock. But there are a lot of wealthy people out there spending, still spending, even after the decline in the markets on the basis of fairly long-term rises in either their home values or stock market values from the time they originally bought the stuff. I say that knowing perfectly well that markets also went down there.
If you want to stop aggregate demand inflation, you’re much better off telling people, okay, look, if you’re rich, instead of throwing everybody out of work, we’re going to make you buy some bonds. We’ll pay you for the bonds. I’m not talking confiscation here. It’s just the old [John Maynard] Keynes, How to Pay for the War idea. You could pull money from the rich out, and that’s pretty easy to do in theory. Politically, you might as well try to force all your water to run uphill or something like that. We know what the problem is with that, but you could do it.
Look, they are in effect, hardly, I think, not even on paper are they trying to cut defense spending. Everybody agrees that in the end, after you sort of move all the money around, that it’s not going to be cut at all. That’s inflationary, too, isn’t it? If you think that you have an aggregate demand aside inflation and I would agree there is some. That’s why I would favor what I just said, which is let’s have people who are well off put some money away from spending right now . Save for everybody, including themselves. We’re going to pay them interest on that. That’s what I would do. That’s why the whole inflation argument hasn’t got any role in this thing.
Of course the other move you could make is you could take back some of the Trump tax cuts. Now they just somehow never get around to that. There is perfunctory noises followed by nothing. If the Democrats were interested in making a rise in taxes cut by Trump an issue, it’d be pretty easy to tell us about it and create a public opinion spiral that would push on that. If you see any trace of this, you let me know, would you? I mean you’re sitting in Canada so you can see the whole country at once, as it were. You just tell me. Don’t make me laugh. An unsympathetic being would say it’s just scandalous. I’m old fashioned, so I’m still appalled.
Paul JayThere were some senior voices in the Democratic Party, including [Janet] Yellen at one point, who were for getting rid of the debt ceiling. Apparently, constitutionally there’s a fairly strong argument that the legislation itself is unconstitutional. Biden is so committed to this bipartisanship when clearly it doesn’t play in the Democratic Party’s favor electorally, other than money. Is it just money or is there some electoral–
Thomas FergusonThere might be a tiny advantage, but it’s almost entirely to the Republicans anyway. There’s a few folks around who still believe that deficits by their nature are unhealthy. There is, I think, a tiny voting block there, but that’s already Republican. You’re not going to gain a lot of votes there.
No, I think this story is that we have a problem. Let me sketch it for you. An enormous chunk of the business community doesn’t trust Donald Trump. That’s clear. Some of them even promised in the wake of the January 6, 2021 storming of the Capitol, that they would even stop giving money to the Republicans who voted to unelect Biden, if I may put it that way, just for clarity. Now, nearly all of them have in fact gone back on that pledge. I mean, they still just want to with the Republicans, but they don’t trust Trump. So there’s a very strong presumption that somebody like Biden, who is basically a conservative Democrat, with a long history– when guys talk about cutting deals they’re not cutting the social program deals except generally to chop them. They are willing to live with Biden but they are very suspicious of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. The internal apparatus in the Democratic Party and the White House is very suspicious of that wing. I think a careful observer can see that they have tried repeatedly in both in the off year election and [inaudible 00:18:35] to weaken the power of the progressive Democrats a lot while having to also run a coalition. In the short term, they try to satisfy what they can’t, but what they must. In the long run, they try to whittle away their power.
This is a real unstable combination. It’s not guaranteed to stick around forever. After all, consider this. You’re in an incredibly volatile by its nature atmosphere. What’s the volatility? It’s this. The overwhelming bulk of the population has lost big on inflation. Hardly anyone now is even trying to claim that inflation has been wage led. I mean, you get these insane discussions and some weird ones. One of the weirdest was the [Ben] Bernanke and [Olivier] Blanchard thing where they basically said, “Well, it’s not driven by wages. But on the other hand, that’s what we really got to worry about.” It’s like what? I mean, come on. Why don’t we go after the things that actually are raising prices of which a profit led inflation is a pretty obvious one, but we’ll set that aside. That’s Brookings so what can you expect? There is that side.
It’s not, in other words, like Biden has a lock on everybody’s votes. I know the White House is sort of touting themselves as hugely worker friendly, and they have done a lot of reasonable things to the National Labor Relations Board, for example. But you know what, the percentage of unionized workers has dropped every year Biden’s been in power, and the losses on inflation, in general, are fairly substantial. That’s a problem as you go into an election.
Look, this is pretty obvious. They say it often enough that you don’t even have to reconstruct it. They think they need a billion dollars to win this election, and that money is not going to be coming from the workforce that is getting squeezed by inflation.
Paul JayWhy do they need a billion dollars to win this election? Let me add a piece to that. Some people suggest that if Hillary [Clinton], when she ran against Trump, if she had actually vigorously spent money and campaigned in the swing states, Trump would never have won. Why does it take so much money to beat Trump? I know he got 75 million votes, but in terms of what’s happened in Pennsylvania in the last election, what happened in Michigan, it doesn’t look all that great for Trump.
Thomas FergusonNo. Well, all right. As a matter of fact, I haven’t looked this week, but when I last looked in the polls, Trump was running ahead of Biden.
Paul JayWell, then the question, why Biden?
Thomas FergusonWell, yes, that is a question.
Paul JayDoes Wall Street want Biden?
Thomas FergusonThere are a lot of Wall Street guys saying, “We don’t want the choice between Biden and Trump.” They said this last week. I think, William Ackman started it, but there were lots of folks writing it up, and the burst of media frenzy showed you that you had a little burgeoning; I don’t want to say a mass movement, because I think he’d get 1% of the vote, but Jamie Dimon for president.
There’s a lot of folks that think Biden is in danger of going too far to the Left. What they really mean by that usually is they don’t like the Democratic Party. They don’t trust it. It has a strong progressive wing right now, and they don’t like having to deal with that. They’d really like to have a center-right Republican. There’s only one problem with that, and you know what it is. It’s that Trump keeps going up in the polls in that strange universe called the Republican electorate. It really is a parallel universe. In this world, he’s a potential winner. What does he refer to? ‘DeSanctimonious,’ the Governor of Florida.
Paul JayAre the Dems worried that Wall Street will go back to supporting Trump? When you go back to January 6, the doors of Congress were breached at 2:10 in the afternoon. At 3:10 in the afternoon, something happened which was reported, but is never talked about since.
The National Association of Manufacturers issued a press release calling on [Mike] Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Trump. They were the biggest lobbyist, pro-Trump organization for the four years he was president up until his refusal to transfer power. Would the corporate elites really switch back to Trump again?
Thomas FergusonRight now, no. But picture this. First question, nobody knows how deep the recession is going to be. That’s a huge imponderable. Then there is, of course, the question about how much the Democrats are going to try to make themselves over as Republicans. I am among those. In fact, I may have invented the argument in some readings of that, that thought that Hillary Clinton really fell down there thanks to Obama.
I do think that the 2011 deal with Obama, which took some years to really kick in because it was constraining spending going forward for quite some time. I actually read every single one of the American National Election Survey interviews in 2016, and there were a bunch of people that are just obviously saying, “We don’t see,” including some I remember from black women who were just saying, “We don’t see any difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.” Other people did, and a lot of people did, maybe after the election, but they didn’t see it at the time in terms of policy, particularly if you’re sort of looking mostly at contrasting the policy you just experienced with what somebody’s promising. I think Biden did start this. I don’t think the deal was as bad as it could have been when they started out talking about. In that respect, I think they didn’t collapse the differences between the parties in the way Obama did, for example, on a lot of spending programs. If you’re asking if this is a clinical appraisal, no. But the Democrats have probably hurt themselves with their electorate, I think, and that over the next year will become even more obvious.
Paul JayBut go back to this question with the corporate elites who, as I suggested, one of their most important lobbying organizations actually called for Pence to remove Trump.
Thomas FergusonYes.
Paul JayWill these same elites go back to Trump?
Thomas FergusonIn a deep recession, and if it looked like that. Here’s the other real element of instability here that nobody talks about, but which is obvious, which is, look, you’re now into your sort of third year or so of inflation running ahead of wages, mostly. The very poorest wages have come up for reasons that had nothing to do with federal policy. We can do that some other time or even later if you want. Basically, you couldn’t get anybody to be a nursing home person when you were being paid little, and it turned out to be very dangerous, which was not on anybody’s radar when they were doing low wage jobs before 2020. We’ll set that out to one side. People are losing three years in a row. You may see a strike wave. There is a lot of evidence of all kinds of small strikes, some bigger strikes once in a while. The railroad worker strike is real obvious, and that was settled by the Biden administration on terms in favor of the employers. This stuff could destabilize folks. A strike wave in a deep recession, you could see almost anything happen.
I hesitate to mention the Specter of Weimar, but this one has a similar look of that thing. I mean, that is to say, you have a substantial progressive group of people in one party, the leader of the country that is only partly on their side, mostly in the Weimar case, totally opposed. On the other hand, on the other side, well brand X with an altogether different twist. I think things are pretty weird. If there were a sort of VIX index for instability in politics that you could easily calculate, I’d say this thing is much dicier than people think. I repeat the point: we don’t know how in a deep recession with a strike wave that could strengthen the progressive faction; that’s what happened in the New Deal.
It’s worth making this point because I see all these contrasts between Roosevelt and Biden generally, obviously to the detriment of Biden. Roosevelt had to be pushed into moving Left in ’35 and ’36 after the collapse of the first New Deal and a strike wave then surged. That’s what actually happened.
I’ve written a lot about this in my papers on the New Deal. The strike wave often drops out in a lot of discussions, not in most historians, but in political studies. They don’t tend to take that much account of it. They should. If Biden falls down a couple more times, you may see an effort to find somebody else. Now, you heard it here first. I think they’ll go for a Democratic governor who appears to be far from the madding crowd in Washington and it will probably be a he.
Paul JayCould be a she from Michigan.
Thomas FergusonIf I had to bet, I’d say Gavin Newsom is the first one, but that’s just me. I mean, I could be wrong about that. This is a clinical judgment from a light year away on light for stars that haven’t actually begun to shine yet. This could happen. I think this is the most labile and unstable political situation I think I’ve ever seen.
Paul JayYou think Biden’s hanging on purely for personal reasons, like he just wants to be president again or is Wall Street saying, “You’re the only one we can really get behind.”
Thomas FergusonNo, I think both. A lot of people in the White House want him to stay in, he wants to stay in, and there’s a constituency that see he’s electable. They clearly think that they can beat Trump. They are basically calculating, I think, that the abortion issue will help them a lot, which I think it will. In a deep recession it may not be enough.
I repeat the point that nobody in the White House, and for that matter, nobody in Congress, can control what the reactions are on the streets as inflation just persists. Right now you got lots of people saying it’s going to drop. I think it’s going to drop too, but, well, let’s see how much it does and see what happens. Particularly, the White House moved way too fast to roll back all of the special provisions that they put in place under COVID, and in particular, the business about allowing people to do medical tests and paying for medical tests; that stuff’s virtually all gone now. In effect, I’ve seen it hyperbolized this way, but it’s very clear, if you just say it, they were almost running a small European welfare state for a while under COVID. If you needed medical tests, you could get them and you could actually get the treatment you needed too. That stuff is all gone now. Yes, COVID hasn’t disappeared, but neither has all kinds of other normal medical stuff. We haven’t seen how people will react to this, particularly as their real wages erode. This is a very interesting situation. I want to focus on that. The erosion of real wages and the possibility of strike waves. I mean, there’s clearly a lot of small strikes happening, and we’re just getting into the summer. We’re just getting into the summer.
Paul JayAll right, thanks very much, Tom.
Thomas FergusonWell, thank you.
Paul JayThank you for joining us on theAnalysis.news. Don’t forget the donate button and subscribe to the email list. If you’re on YouTube, subscribe. If you’re on podcasts, you can still come over to the website and donate.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)User my donation to help support the upcoming documentary "How to stop a nuclear war" (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another storySubscribe to theAnalysis.news – Newsletter
Email(Required)Name(Required)
First
Last
Δ
“Thomas Ferguson (born 1949) is an American political scientist and author who writes on politics and economics, often within a historical perspective.”
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
Noam Chomsky discusses the history of nuclear agreements and arms control treaties, highlighting their gradual dismantling by successive U.S. administrations. He criticizes the U.S. for its withdrawal from treaties and the deployment of military assets near Russian borders. Chomsky also expresses concerns about the dangers of artificial intelligence and the need to address larger-scale threats while working on immediate issues. He emphasizes the importance of understanding the world as it is and taking tactical decisions to achieve tangible progress.
Part 1
Part 2/2 – Chomsky on Ellsberg and the Danger of Nuclear WarChomsky on Ellsberg and the Danger of Nuclear War – pt 1Chomsky und Ellsberg über die derzeitige Bedrohung (Ukraine & Taiwan)“Take Arms Against a Sea of Troubles” – Chomsky and Ellsberg pt 2/2Chomsky and Ellsberg on the Present DangerDrone Whistleblower Hale is a Hero – Ellsberg and ChomskyRising Fascism and the Elections – Chomsky and EllsbergWhy is Biden Risking Nuclear War with China? – Chomsky and EllsbergChomsky and Ellsberg on the Death of GorbachevA Warning From Chomsky and EllsbergChris Hedges, Edward Snowden, Noam Chomsky, Paul Jay and Daniel Ellsberg on AssangeProgressives Must Revitalize the Labor Movement – Noam ChomskyThe Threat of Nuclear Weapons with Noam ChomskyJuice Podcast with Noam ChomskyChomsky, Walker and Ellsberg Defend Julian AssangeChomsky: Defeat Trump and Build a Popular Movement* Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Guest * Music
Noam ChomskyA nuke agreement was negotiated. It goes back to the 1950s when [Dwight D.] Eisenhower recognized that some steps should be taken to minimize and limit the threat of total destruction. He suggested an Open Skies Treaty, which would give each side, that’s the U.S. and Russia, some information about the other so they wouldn’t lead to accidental misunderstanding. It took a long time for that treaty to be established. Finally, it was.
In the 1960s and on, there were further steps towards limited arms reduction. In the 1980s, after massive protests, huge protests in Europe and the United States, [Ronald] Reagan agreed to [Mikhail] Gorbachev’s proposals for an INF Treaty, intermediate-range missiles, which was a great danger, that reduced the threat that went on with it. There was an ABM Treaty, which was very valuable in reducing threats, limited ABM installations to the capitals, Washington and Moscow, one missile place, and various steps were taken.
Starting around 2000, the United States started dismantling the whole arms control regime. It started with George W. Bush dismantling the ABM Treaty. Anti-ballistic missiles sound defensive, but every strategic analyst knows they are first-strike weapons. There’s no conceivable possibility that an ABM could stop a first strike, but it could imaginably; it’s dubious, but imaginably stop a retaliatory strike much weaker. Therefore, it’s essentially an inducement for a first strike. It’s understood on all sides. Furthermore, these systems are of enormous threat to Russia. The United States places ABM systems almost on the Russian borders with pretexts which are so absurd, I hate to repeat them.
Under Obama, the pretext was that we have to stop Iranian missiles, so we have to put ABM installations on the border of Russia. Furthermore, these systems can be adapted to first-strike weapons themselves by some technical manipulations. So to Russia, these are serious threats. Well, Bush eliminated them. He also refused to join in what was called the FMCT [Fissile Material (Cut-off)] Treaty, a treaty proposed by Russia to reduce the production of fissile materials. Refused.
Get to the Trump administration. Trump just wanted to eliminate everything. He got rid of the Gorbachev-Reagan INF Treaty, a very severe threat to Russia and to war, and made it very clear that he meant it. Immediately after the abrogation of the theory within the treaty, within weeks, the United States carried out missile tests violating the treaty, saying, “We’re serious about it.” Trump got rid of the Open Skies Treaty. He was about to get rid of the last treaty, the New START Treaty, but Biden was able to rescue it by literally a couple of days. As soon as Biden came in, he did accept the Russian offer to extend the treaty.
Regrettably, in his speech just yesterday, Putin announced that the Russians are going to suspend their participation in the treaty. Now they’re taking part in our effort to dismantle the arms control regime, which has, to some extent, reduced the severe threat of terminal destruction.
There’s a reason why the Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists was moved recently to 90 seconds to midnight. During the Trump years, the analysts abandoned minutes and moved to seconds. Now it’s 90 seconds to midnight. I think if they were to do it tomorrow, it’d go closer.
The nuke agreements, which did come about and had some impact, have almost all been gone and puts us in even greater danger, along with not only, first of all, the loose talk about nuclear war as if it’s something imaginable, but also the steps that are being taken both in Europe and in Asia to increase the likelihood of a nuclear war.
The United States recently established permanent B-52 installations. B-52 are, of course, the major bombers for nuclear weapons. Permanent B-52 installations in Darwin, Australia, that’s Northwest Australia and the closest you can get to China. Just recently, it’s doing the same thing in the U.S. military bases in Guam. All of these are running major military maneuvers, naval maneuvers in the Pacific, huge armadas; RIMPAC, it’s called.
NATO itself has expanded under U.S. pressure to include the whole Indo-Pacific region, meaning surrounding China. The Biden administration has established a policy in which China is to be, in their words, encircled by a ring of what is called sentinel states armed with high-precision weapons provided by the United States aimed at China. These are very provocative moves being taken with regard to the Taiwan ‘flashpoint.’ The economic war that Biden has announced is designed to try to prevent Chinese technological and economic development by denying them the core elements of advanced technology and semiconductors. The United States is trying to compel its U.S. firms themselves that are now denied the right to provide such technology. The U.S. is imposing the same conditions on other countries. It’s not clear how they’re going to respond.
One of the major industries that produce advanced elements for semiconductors happens to be in the Netherlands. If they lose access to the Chinese market, it’d be a very severe blow. It’s the same with Samsung in South Korea and the same with Japan.
The U.S. supply chain system for developing advanced technology is so intricate that parts are made everywhere. There’s almost nothing that doesn’t have some U.S. component in it, maybe a patent or something. If U.S. laws deny the right to use any of that, a large part of the industrial system in allied countries will suffer severely. But that’s all part of the effort to try to keep China from developing.
It’s kind of striking. It’s been pointed out by high-level analysts that U.S. policy today is almost entirely negative. It’s not something we can offer the world, but something we can prevent others from doing. We offer, of course, the standard shibboleth: democracy, freedom, and so on, but very few people pay attention to that.
In fact, there was recently an important international conference in Munich, the Munich Strategic Conference, in February, which was quite interesting if you look at it in detail. It’s been reported extensively in the Foreign Press. I didn’t see much here. But there was a struggle between the United States and much of the rest of the world over U.S. policy in Ukraine.
U.S. policy in Ukraine is officially to continue the war in order to severely weaken Russia. Most of the world doesn’t want that. Latin America, Africa, and Asia almost unanimously opposed it. They said, “No. We want to try to move towards some steps which will call off the horrors before they get worse instead of escalating them.” The U.S. was almost desperately trying to get some support for its policy of escalating and continuing the war. One after another, leaders from Latin America in our backyard, Brazil, Colombia, and other countries said, “Not for us. We want to move towards a peaceful resolution.”
You talk about rationality, I don’t know what to say about it. The U.S. is increasingly isolated. I assume that Biden’s trip to Kyiv a couple of days ago and then to Warsaw was mainly a PR exercise to try to mobilize some international support for the U.S. intention program of maintaining, even escalating the war in order to severely weaken Russia. He went to places where this would be, of course, welcomed (Ukraine and Poland). The Pole’s top priority is to kill Russians. They’ve been involved in conflicts with Russia all throughout their history, so there’s a warm reception.
For Europe, this means heading towards a significant decline for the third world. The Global South doesn’t want anything to do with it. India, Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa, everywhere you look, they say, “Let’s try to find a way out of this before it gets worse, before we move up the escalation ladder.” It’s a striking phenomenon right now.
How dangerous is it? Well, India and Pakistan are both nuclear powers, and both develop nuclear weapons outside the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Agreement that called into action the U.S. reactions to sanction them for this; that was done for a long time. In the case of India, they’ve since been relieved.
The Reagan administration pretended, I say pretended, that it did not know that the Pakistani dictator, the Zia-ul-Haq dictatorship, was developing nuclear weapons. They didn’t want to acknowledge that because the U.S. was relying on Pakistan as a base for carrying out its war in Afghanistan. Bear in mind that the goal of that war was not to liberate Afghanistan; it was to kill Russians. That was explicit on the part of the CIA chief, and [inaudible 00:14:07] was running it. Now we have internal documents, Russian-American archives, which show clearly that that was the purpose.
The main scholarly study on this was by Diego Cordovez, the UN negotiator who finally negotiated the Russian withdrawal over strong U.S. objections. He and Selig S. Harrison, a leading specialist on the topic, have a joint book discussing this: the U.S. effort to maintain, to sustain the war, to harm Russia, to kill Russians, whatever the impact on Afghans might be. Finally, the UN was able to negotiate a Russian withdrawal despite U.S. objections, and they put it straight. They say the U.S. policy was to fight Russia to the last Afghan. There’s quite remarkable material on this.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was [Jimmy] Carter’s National Security Council Advisor, took credit publicly for having convinced Carter to send weapons to the anti-government forces in Afghanistan to try to draw the Russians in to protect the pro-Russian government, called the Afghan Trap, to draw them into the Afghan Trap, and then to send more weapons, mobilize more radical Islamists to keep them there, even when the Russians were trying to withdraw, which is now pretty much demonstrated by the archives, but it was pretty well-known before. Well, Brzezinski was asked much later, what did he think about this? He said, “What is more important? Weakening and undermining the Soviet Union, or some agitated Muslims?” Like about a million cadavers, among others. Well, that’s the reasoning. We don’t care much about agitated Muslims. We got hierarchical’s like weakening our adversaries. I’m sorry, but that’s the way the world works. The U.S. didn’t invent it. Our predecessors in imperial sadism carried out similar policies.
The use of AI gives the impression of progress, but it’s very dangerous. Nothing works as predicted. For years Tesla and other companies have been working on self-driving cars, but something always goes wrong, something unpredictable. We’ve seen the recent catastrophes with the release of some of these large language models like Bing, which all of a sudden go crazy doing all kinds of things you never anticipated. You have to pull them off the market. What these systems basically do, we shouldn’t be mystical about it; they scan astronomical amounts of data and find regularities that they can make use of to make choices and decisions. In the case of large language models, the choice is to choose the next word after a sequence. But anyone who uses computers is familiar with auto-fill. You’re typing a message, and the computer says here’s the next couple of words you ought to use. It’s usually right, often uncanny. It’s exactly what you had in mind usually, but sometimes it’s wildly wrong. It’s inherent in the nature of these systems that they cannot be truly accurate. You can’t scan massive data, find regularities, and expect, yeah, that’s what you can do next. Usually, it works, but sometimes it does not. To put these things in control, Command and Control, is essentially asking for suicide.
We know case after case in the record in which human intervention stopped an automated response which could have set off a nuclear war. There are some famous cases like Vasili Arkhipov in the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Russian submarines were under attack by American destroyers, depth bombs. They had lost contact with Moscow. The commander assumed a nuclear war was underway and figured we might as well go out in a blaze of glory and send off our nuclear torpedoes. The protocol required that he had to get the ascent of two officers. One of them refused, Vasili Arkhipov. That’s why we’re around today.
There was another famous case in 1983. Reagan was running programs simulating attacks on Russia, including nuclear attacks. Reagan and his advisors assumed the Russians would understand that this was just for show. It turned out they didn’t understand that, and they took it seriously. There was an automated warning of a missile attack. It reached the Russian officer. [Stanislav] Petrov was his name. The protocol was he was supposed to send it up to the higher command, and they would have a couple of minutes to decide whether to launch a retaliatory attack. He just decided not to send it up. He said it wasn’t credible. There weren’t enough missiles. You couldn’t have a missile attack with just that small number of missiles. Okay, he saved us.
Now, there was another time with William Perry, Secretary of Defense under Carter. Information came about of a Russian attack; automated information came to Perry, and he was supposed to transmit it to Carter. According to what he says, he was practically on the telephone when information came along saying it was a computer error. Well, you just can’t go along like that. There are hundreds of cases in which there were errors, computer errors, and system errors. All of these complex systems have inefficiencies and unpredictable properties. Anybody who uses a computer is familiar with that. It’s even worse when you have complex systems. I think it’s just inconceivable that any system like this would be allowed to enter into Command and Control. Humans are capable of plenty of errors and plenty of mistakes, but at least there’s a possibility that human intervention might recognize something that was unanticipated and not programmed in and can say, “This can’t be. Let’s stop it before we’re finished.” AI systems can’t do that. It’s pretty hard to second guess.
People who are working on immediate issues like labor rights, racism, and Medicare, have to focus attention on what they’re doing if they want to achieve anything. In principle, they ought to be, at the same time, trying to educate their constituencies on the large-scale threats that are in the background and may render all of this moot by just destroying us. I don’t think it’s a tactical error to concentrate on local issues that are critical and get the attention of communities and groups focused on those to overcome them with an understanding in the background that there’s a lot more for us to do. These are basically tactical decisions, and I don’t denigrate tactical decisions. They’re of extraordinary importance. Those are the ones that have immediate human consequences. So you have to make them carefully and thoughtfully considering the circumstances that you’re facing. But I don’t think a blanket criticism of such tactics is appropriate.
It is of immediate urgency. But the fact is, we have to face the world as it exists. We can’t carry out activism programs in a world that we prefer to imagine. So what is the world as it exists? As it exists, the general population does not have serious concerns about nuclear weapons or climate destruction. I haven’t seen polls about nuclear weapons, but I’m sure they would show that that’s not considered a high concern by most of the population. We have extensive polls on the environment. Pew Research and others at Yale University carry out regular polls on this. The results are appalling. The latest Pew poll, a week or so ago, asked people to rank their concerns. They gave them a couple of dozen choices to rank in terms of urgency. Nuclear weapons did not even make the list. It was not one of the things that they even thought worth asking about. Well, that’s a reflection of their assessment of public opinion, and it’s probably accurate.
What about what they call climate change, meaning the destruction of the environment? It was lowest on the rank of 2021 issues; I think it was. Climate change was lowest among Republicans; 13% thought it was an urgent issue, 13%. It was much higher among Democrats but nowhere near high enough. Well, those happened to be realities. You can’t pretend they don’t exist. That means that an enormous educational and organizational effort must be made before we can hope that organizers will address these issues as things that they hope to mobilize people to respond to. You have to deal with the society and the institutions as they exist. It’s unfortunate, but there’s no choice. Thirteen is a lot in a swing state. Unfortunately, it’s not. Thirteen, even in a swing state, which is Republican. If it’s a Republican state, 13% isn’t going to do anything. It’s such a low number that it’s too appalling to discuss.
Here’s the major issue that has ever arisen in human history: whether humans can survive in any decent form for another generation or two, and whether your grandchildren will have a decent world to live in. Thirteen percent think we should consider it. I mean, it’s appalling, but it’s a fact, and we have to deal with it. We can’t overlook it.
Final thoughts about Dan and hopes for the film. Well, thoughts about Dan are easily expressed. As I said, he’s done a number of things which are literally incomparable in their importance. The Pentagon Papers is one, exposing the extraordinary dangers of nuclear war, and the planning is another. In between, he’s lived a truly exemplary life of acting on these concerns, always on the frontline. I’ve been in affinity groups and demonstrations where Dan was a participant and quickly became the leader, as he always does. But he’s just constantly working on this endlessly and tirelessly. It has had an enormous effect. Again, incomparable contributions.
What are the hopes? The hopes are that we must reach a point where when the Pew Research Center asks questions on what are the urgent issues they face and give a couple of dozen options, they not only include nuclear war, which now they don’t do, but they get an answer which says it’s the top. Climate destruction and nuclear war at the top. Everything else is lower. Got a long way to get there. If this film can contribute to that progress, it’s an enormous contribution.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)User my donation to help support the upcoming documentary "How to stop a nuclear war" (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another storySubscribe to theAnalysis.news – Newsletter
Email(Required)Name(Required)
First
Last
Δ
“Noam Chomsky is an American public intellectual known for his work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism. Sometimes called “the father of modern linguistics”, Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science.”
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
Noam Chomsky discusses the heroic contributions Daniel Ellsberg made by releasing the Pentagon Papers and revealing the madness of American nuclear war plans. Ellsberg uncovered shocking information about the planning for nuclear war in the 1950s, during his time within the system and with high-level access. He revealed details about the planning documents and the existence of a "Doomsday Machine," a system designed by both the United States and Russia that would ensure total destruction in the event of communication failure. He also discovered the delegation of authority to launch nuclear wars, with lower-level military officials interpreting instructions in a way that allowed them to initiate nuclear bombings.
Anas El Gomati is the founder and director of the Libyan think tank, the Sadeq Institute. He discusses how so much of Libya’s history has been shaped by European colonial powers and other foreign states meddling in its affairs. On the flip side, E.U. developments and the rise of right-wing populism and racist anti-migrant sentiment cannot be disentangled from what transpires in Libya. In light of the ongoing fighting between rival government structures, how can the control of oil resources and state assets shift from elite strongmen to civilian bodies?
Libyans Caught Between Warring Elites and Foreign PowersModern Iran: National Identity as a Tool of Resistance or Coercion?Yemen: Biden’s Hypocrisy and Possible Peace?U.S. Interference in the Middle East – 20 Years Since the U.S. Invasion of Iraq – Col. Larry WilkersonCensorship in Germany, Israeli Hacking & Saudi-Iran Peace Deal – Dr. Shir HeverSignificance of China-Brokered Iran-Saudi Agreement – Trita ParsiSaudis Hedge Bets, Iran Risks Increasing Isolation – Trita ParsiThe Iranian Revolution: The Fall of the Shah and the Rise of KhomeiniIranian Women-Led Resistance Independent of Western ImperialismWhy the Media is Now Supporting Julian Assange? – Paul Jay pt 2/2Retired US Army Colonel on Ukraine, Iran & the State of the US EmpireAnti-Regime Protests and the Devastating Effects of US Sanctions in IranPaul Jay on 9/11Biden Bows to the Saudis – Trita Parsi & Annelle ShelinePt 2/2 – Paul Jay & Abby Martin on Afghanistan, 9/11 & Climate ChangePt 1/2 – Paul Jay & Abby Martin on Afghanistan and 9/11Why David Clennon Refused Audition for Hit & Run, a Netflix Israeli Co-proAfter Forty Years of U.S. Destruction of Afghanistan, it’s Time for ReparationsIs BDS Effective Strategy? – Shir Hever Pt 3/3U.S. Sanctions Strengthen Iranian Theocracy – Hamid DabashiFighting for Peace and Equality in Israel – Rula Daood and Alon-Lee GreenWho Rules Israel – Shir Hever pt2Why Did 72% of Israelis Want Attack on Gaza to Continue?Is Israel a Strategic Asset or Liability? – WilkersonAbby Martin’s “Gaza Fights for Freedom”Israel’s War on Palestine – Ali AbunimahDoes the U.S. Owe Reparations to Afghanistan, Should U.S. Troops Leave? – Bennis & WilkersonBiden’s Syria Deception: The Norwegian ConnectionUS Bombing in Syria Illegal; Biden Should Rejoin Iran Agreement Now – Bennis/WilkersonIs Protecting the Murderous Crown Prince in the National Interest? – Phyllis Bennis and Larry WilkersonBiden’s Doublespeak About Ending Yemen War -Abby MartinThe Oil Interests Behind the War in YemenThe Disintegration of Israeli PoliticsEnding the War on Yemen?Biden’s Scary Foreign Policy Picks: A Blast From War Crimes Past – Abby MartinEmpire Update: Did Trump Order Iran Assassination? – Abby MartinEmpire Update: Afghanistan/Somalia Withdrawal Scam; Trump Weighs WWIII – Abby MartinElliot Abrams Tries to Tie Biden’s Hands on Iran – Trita ParsiTrump & Neocons Want to Destroy Iranian Society – Trita ParsiIsrael Wants U.S. to Weaken and Isolate Iran – RAI with Trita Parsi Pt 3/3U.S. Attempts to Destabilize Iran Have Failed – RAI with Trita Parsi Pt 2/3U.S. Refuses to Accept Iran as a Regional Power – RAI with Trita Parsi Pt 1/3Does Israel Have the Right to Exist as a Jewish State? – Ali Abunimah on Reality Asserts Itself (3/5)Gaza Under Siege – Eva Bartlett on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 2/2Gaza Under Siege – Eva Bartlett on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 1/2Class Struggle in Palestine – Ali Abunimah on Reality Asserts Itself (4/5)Palestinians can Learn From the African America Struggle – Ali Abunimah on Reality Asserts Itself (2/5)Awakened by the Palestinian Intifada – Ali Abunimah on Reality Asserts Itself (1/5)Justice Requires an End to Israeli Jewish Supremacy Over Palestinians – Ali Abunimah on Reality Asserts Itself (5/5)From a Zionist Youth to Outspoken Critic of a Jewish State – Michael Ratner on RAI Pt 2/7Are the Saudis Fueling a Sunni-Shia War? – Toby Jones on Reality Asserts Itself (2/2)Al Qaeda and the Saudi Agenda – Toby Jones on Reality Asserts Itself (1/2)One State or Two, Solution Must be Based on Palestinian Rights Phyllis Bennis on RAI Pt 4/4Fmr. Israeli Intel. Chief Says Palestinian Israeli Conflict Greater Risk than Nuclear Iran Pt 2/4Vietnam War Created Middle East Activist – Phyllis Bennis on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 1/4Syria’s Six Wars and Humanitarian Catastrophe – Phyllis Bennis on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 3/4Did Bush Cheney Create a Culture of Not Wanting to Know – Sen. Bob Graham on RAI Pt 7/7Revealing 9/11 Conspiracy Would Undo U.S. Saudi Alliance – Sen. Bob Graham on RAI Pt 5/7Saudi Government’s 9/11 Connection and the Path to Disillusionment – Sen. Bob Graham on RAI Pt 4/7 Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Guest * Music*
Talia BaroncelliHi, I’m Talia Baroncelli, and you’re watching theAnalysis.news. I’ll shortly be joined by Libyan analyst, Anas El Gomati, to speak about the situation in Libya as well as Libya’s role in the conflict in neighboring Sudan. If you enjoy this content, please consider donating to the show by going to theAnalysis.news and hitting the donate button at the top-right corner of the screen. You can also get on the mailing list so that you’re informed every time a new episode is published. Also, go to our YouTube channel, theAnalysis-news. Hit like on all the videos you want to watch and hit subscribe so that you’re notified every time a new episode drops. See you in a bit with Anas.
Joining me now is Anas El Gomati. He’s the founder and director of the Libyan think tank, the Sadeq Institute. Thank you so much for joining me, Anas.
Anas El GomatiThanks, Talia. I appreciate it.
Talia BaroncelliThere’s so much I want to speak to you about today, but I think we should start off with what happened after the NATO intervention in Libya in 2011, where Muammar Gaddafi was ousted from power. He was killed, and fighting continued afterwards. There was a UN-led process which tried to establish elections and a functioning government. I think it’s safe to say that the process has unfortunately failed and that there are two rival governments now; one in the West and one in the East. What’s going on right now in Libya?
Anas El GomatiWell, it’s a really complicated story, and it’s always good to start from where you picked things up. It’s difficult to look back in retrospect and try to condense those ten years together. But I would say for the first three years, things were not as bad as they are now. There was an episode of violence that was fairly limited in comparison to the last two conflicts that Libya has endured—one in 2011, one in 2014, and one in 2019. But I don’t know whether or not Libyans would always consider what happened in 2011 to be a civil war. Of course, as you alluded to, NATO’s intervention was heavy on that. I think it also limited a lot of the potential violence that could have occurred, as we saw in Syria. I think that’s one thing that has to be said about the 2011 intervention.
In comparison, the 2014 and 2019 interventions contained the very same players and contained more players. I think that’s where the UN remitted and turned a blind eye to the maligned influence of a lot of regional players and world players that have continued to destabilize Libya. That’s been forgotten.
From 2011 to 2014, Libya was fairly stable, and its progress was actually quite positive in comparison to right now. So there were elections in 2012, with an 80% turnout, very high numbers for Libya’s first elections. There was so much pluralism in that first Parliament that Libya elected that it was a hung Parliament. There were so many different groups there because 60% of the seats were given to independent candidates not running on a party list. Forty percent were given to a party list.
I think, in retrospect, some of those things might now look like a mistake. Maybe what Libya needed at the time was strong party affiliations so that a block could come to dominate and say, “This is the direction that we’re going to take after the elections.” Many argued at the time that we didn’t really know what the Libyans wanted. We don’t know who the Libyans are, so let them elect as many Libyans as possible and let them move forward.
So in retrospect, the first couple of years were okay. Yes, there were militias that were on the ground at the time, but they were not conducting the violence that we’ve seen them conduct since 2014 and since 2019.
So for the first three years, up until Libya’s second elections in 2014, the situation was fairly stable on the ground, and there was one single government. It was elected by the Libyan people en masse. I think, in that sense, there was much to be celebrated. I think Libya’s economic outlook, its political outlook, and its stability in the region were good.
In 2014, we had a civil war, and it came down from the rise of this actor who many may know of and many may not know of, but his name is Khalifa Haftar. I think your viewer should know who he is. He has the longest-standing political career of anybody in the entire Middle East and North Africa. It spans 54 years. He emerged in 1969 with Muammar Gaddafi in a coup against King Idris. He has gone on to launch seven power grabs over a career now that spans, as I said, 54 years. Those power grabs are not just coups. They are defections from the very partners that he launched those coups with.
If we start looking at today’s recent news, the last 24 hours of what has happened in Libya, which we may get into in a little while, you’ll see Khalifa Haftar’s fingerprints and his political DNA all over that.
To set the scene, the first three years were not so bad. I think NATO’s biggest mistake was most likely abandoning Libya’s political future and the role of regional actors and not immunizing Libya from those two things. There was the creation of militias that needed to be integrated into a unified military and a subservient military, which Libya had never experienced. The reason why Libyans overwhelmingly overthrew the Gaddafi regime was that they wanted to live in a society, in a state that was not controlled by a family or by personal militias but by a neutral state security service that respects human rights and allows you to have the same level of freedom no matter where you’re from, what your surname is, what your tribe is, or what part of the country you’re from.
Since 2014, that has been quite the opposite. Khalifa Haftar emerged and declared himself the leader of the self-styled Libyan National Army, or the Libyan Arab Armed Forces. With that, he launched this coup and a war on terror that split the country in two. He split the country between two rival parliaments, the first Parliament that was elected in 2012, a second Parliament that was elected in 2014, and then two rival administrations that were unified temporarily after Libya’s last war in 2019 that Khalifa Haftar launched, but has since, as you’ve mentioned, slipped back to another partition after he failed to have elections in late 2021.
So it is a bit of Groundhog Day in Libya because there have been lots of changes in the middle of the last 12 years. At the same time, for so much change, it’s almost like old wine and new bottles. The same actors are still there from 2011, and they’re still here in 2023. Despite the unification process, the UN process that was supposed to unify all these different parts and put Humpty Dumpty back together again, you still have two different governments under different acronyms. You still have two rival military formations. You still have two rival parliaments.
Talia BaroncelliWell, I would argue that the NATO intervention is what pushed Humpty Dumpty to fall off the wall, so to speak. Of course, Gaddafi was not liked by his people, or by some of them at least. Maybe some of them supported him, but a lot of people would argue that they were uprising against Gaddafi and they didn’t want him to be in power anymore. But the NATO intervention was not conducted in a way that would ensure that there would be something left of the country afterwards.
In 2011, you had so many people fleeing the country and refugees trying to escape Libya and get to Europe. A lot of people, unfortunately, died in the Mediterranean trying to make those crossings. So the intervention wasn’t benign. I’m sure the mandate was not conducted or not designed in such a way to ensure that there would be functioning institutions. We’re still seeing that there is a power vacuum. Now you have, as you said, Haftar, who has his own interests, and you have these rival governments.
Bringing it back to right now, you have a government in the West, the GNA [Government of National Accord], which is supported by the UN, but I think a lot of other European powers and by Turkey. Then in the East, you have a House of Representatives which has just suspended Fathi Bashagha. So what’s going on there? Why was he suspended? What was his vision, at least, of trying to unify Libya, or was he just trying to grab power and resources?
Anas El GomatiCan I just touch on your point? I actually agree with you. But just on your initial point about NATO.
Talia BaroncelliSure.
Anas El GomatiI think the question about NATO’s intervention, lack of planning, and the fact that members of NATO have since gone on to undermine Libya’s stability tells you a lot about the way that that organization functions. The reality is that why are these states, what we consider to be strong states, or thought were strong states, why are they so brittle? That’s really the reality. A lot of these states, the authoritarian states, the myth of the strong man, it comes down to Fathi Bashagha’s own personal story because that’s really the crux of this story with this parallel administration that was created. They’re brittle states. They look like they’re very strong, but the moment that you poke them, they start to disintegrate because there are no institutions. There is no plan for a day after, and they’re designed to be coup-proof. I think this is where a lot of these states, whether it be Saddam’s [Hussein] Iraq, whether it be Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, or whether it be Gaddafis Libya, or tomorrow, even Egypt’s [Abdel Fattah El-]Sisi, and as we’re looking at the fall of Saddam and its disintegration into a civil war, the rise of [Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo] Hemedti, these places, their institutions are so personalized. They’re so brittle that once there is any intervention from the outside or there is an uprising, they start to fall apart.
But let me come to this question about Fathi Bashagha because it’s a really interesting point that you’ve raised about what are his motivations. His own personal story is fascinating. What you have with the story of Fathi Bashagha is an individual who joined the revolution in 2011. He was a former Air Force pilot and led a revolutionary armed group, a militia from the city of Misrata, which became famous during the revolution for being a real kingmaker and power broker in Western Libya, where the capital is in Tripolitania. He went on to then join, over several years, the political class. He was elected as a member of Parliament in 2014; that second Parliament that we spoke about, the House of Representatives. Then he was appointed as the Minister of Interior to the Government of National Accord that was established in 2015 during the UN process to unify this first division after Libya’s first civil war in 2014. Four months into the job, Khalifa Haftar attacks the capital.
Now, we should remember that the GNA didn’t have a Ministry of Defense. It didn’t have a Chief of Staff. It didn’t have a Chief of Intelligence. So he was literally the last man standing in terms of Libya’s or Tripoli’s security. He goes on to defend the capital from Khalifa Haftar’s onslaught. What begins as just a normal war escalates into a nasty, brutal, personal war of words between Khalifa Haftar and Fathi Bashagha. Khalifa Haftar calls the GNA, the units, and the forces fighting underneath him that Bashagha was leading– he calls them terrorists; and says, “I will never enter into a dialogue with them.”
On the other hand, Fathi Bashagha calls Haftar a putschist, a coup plotter, a war criminal, someone whom he will never meet with. In fact, on the record, he says, “There will be no peace in Libya whilst Haftar enjoys a political role.”
Now, that was in 2019 and 2020. The civil war culminated in a stalemate around the summer of 2020. Within six months, there is a UN political process that says, “Well, there is a rival government here in the East. There’s a rival government here in the West. Let’s again unify these two separate halves.” They create a political dialogue forum where they bring in members of the status quo, Libya’s two rival parliaments, to appoint two figures, one president and one prime minister.
Fathi Bashagha enters into that race with the head of the Parliament in the East, who is considered to be Khalifa Haftar’s staunchest political ally. So people start scratching their heads, and they start wondering, what happened to all this anonymity?
Before the end of that year, before the end of 2021, Fathi Bashagha stood in Benghazi, the eastern city that has become infamous for the events in 2012, over the last ten years, and is the center of power of Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army. He shares a handshake with the man that he said there would be no political future for in the country and that there would be no peace with. Khalifa Haftar, the man who said that he emerged in Libya not for his own personal political gain or financial gain but to fight the scourge of terrorism, which he has said he will never enter into a dialogue with and shakes his hand. So the terrorists are shaking the putschist’s hand.
It’s an unusual place in Libya, but it’s a place where there are friends with benefits, but there are also enemies with benefits. That’s what happened with this creation of the Government of National Stability. These two figures emerged, and they have this narrative that surrounds them. Everyone has called Khalifa Haftar, or many people have called him ‘the strong man of the East.’ Fathi Bashagha, after his role in the 2019 civil war, became labelled ‘the strong man of the West.’
What happens is that these two strong men come together and forge an agreement, but they’re not strong enough to take the capital. They tried to overthrow the Government of National Unity that was appointed in 2021 under Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh, the current sitting internationally recognized Prime Minister, and they failed to overthrow him. What happened beyond failing to overthrow him, it actually dispels a lot of the myths around the “Arab strongman.” They’re only as strong as their rhetoric suggests. In a place like Libya, where there are no angels on either side of these civil wars, I’ll be very clear about that, but there are militias that have emerged that fight for greed. There are certainly militias and armed groups out there that fight for grievance. There are those that are going to end up supporting the revolution, and there are going to be those that oppose it and support Gaddafi. The question is not who is right and who is wrong. The question is, what are they fighting for, and how do you get them to stop fighting? And so that deal that was cut between the two rival strongmen of the last civil war, the two political polls of the last civil war, failed. It failed because these two strongmen assumed that they could buy their way out of a civil war.
Civil wars are there. There’s a lot of political rhetoric that is there. There’s always going to be financial gain. There are going to be geopolitical and economic interests that are there. In a place like Libya which has some of the highest levels of gold deposits and the highest levels of cash deposits in the world, of course, there’s going to be greed, but there’s also going to be grievances. Trying to meddle and mould both together and mesh both together has been one of the reasons why we’re struggling to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. You can’t buy out everyone. You can’t buy out people that may have supported Gaddafi’s regime. They’re principled, and they believe in what they fought for.
In contrast, you might not be able to buy out those that fought against him and have now fought against Khalifa Haftar and have now fought against Fathi Bashagha. But as you can see, over a decade, one of the things that no one really looks at is how we turn away from these places for a decade, and we look back, and we say, “Oh, yeah, it’s Groundhog Day. It’s just two governments. It’s just two rivals. They’ll fix it eventually.” You forget that on a dusty Tuesday in a place like Libya, there are war crimes that are taking place on either side or any of the sides that we’ve just mentioned that have been there over the last decade. The build-up of those grievances makes those states even more brittle. It makes it even harder to then address the number of grievances that have been there for the last decade. So when you look at the rise and the fall and demise of a player like Fathi Bashagha, it tells you a couple of things– strong men beware, and those that are buying, beware of what you’re buying because, to be honest, that is a myth that has now come down crashing on the plate of analysts, diplomats, and commentators across the country and further afield. But also that the serious work that needs to go in, as you mentioned, the serious work and planning that needs to take place after the fact of an intervention like what happened in 2011 or two serious civil wars that have erupted in the aftermath, you can’t put them to bed through a handshake in Benghazi and assume there’s nothing else to see here, and everything will be rosy.
Talia BaroncelliWell, yeah, why don’t we talk about that planning? Because you have this unlikely alliance, as you might call it, between Haftar and Bashagha. Are they in control of some of the oil reserves?
Anas El GomatiMhm.
Talia BaroncelliOr is it the UN-led or the UN-supported government in the West in Tripoli that’s controlling those reserves? Because the Libyan Coast Guard, for example, receives an incredible amount of money from the E.U. and especially from Italy to ensure that people on the move, that asylum seekers don’t leave Libya and that they don’t arrive in Italy or in other parts of the peripheral area of Southern Europe. So they’ve been systematically pushed back. This is, of course, against international standards and against international norms. It’s [inaudible 00:18:00]. It’s pushing them back to Libya. The Libyan Coast Guard has been fully complicit in these crimes, and they’re receiving money from the E.U. to basically do the E.U.’s dirty work and ensure that people don’t leave the country.
Anas El GomatiMhm.
Talia BaroncelliWho do these people represent? Are they from the West, so to speak, and are they also in control of some resources? The most important question would be, are the Libyans themselves, the Libyan population, are they benefiting from any of these resources and oil profits whatsoever, or are they just completely impoverished?
Anas El GomatiIt’s a number of questions you asked, and all of them are pertinent and straight to the point. So I’ll try and be as quick as I can to go through them.
Number one, I think when it comes to the oil reserves and how they’re controlled, that is a really unusual game that reflects the ways in which wars are fought now in the 21st century and how different they were fought in the 20th century. Libya is littered with mercenaries and foreign mercenaries. There is Russias Wagner Group that operates in Libya. There are other sides and factions that have delivered their own mercenaries. Libya is littered with militias and tribes.
If you ask Khalifa Haftar when he blockaded that oil, he said, “It wasn’t me that blockaded it. It was the Libyan tribes.” But then he’ll put out an order through the Libyan National Army to say that nobody can work from the Libyan military in any of those facilities.
In late 2021, I believe, in September 2021, after Libya’s oil was blockaded at the end of the civil war in 2019 and 2020, that oil blockade was lifted through negotiations in Moscow. So there was an element there that was hinting at foreign control. It was blockaded again after Khalifa Haftar and Fathi Bashagha established their own GNS, the Government of National Stability, that parallel government we spoke about a few moments earlier. After they blockaded the oil, Khalifa Haftar negotiated with Dbeibeh, the Prime Minister in Tripoli, and again stabbed in the back his own political ally, Fathi Bashagha, and lifted the blockade through negotiations in the UAE between, as I said, Dbeibeh and Haftar. Now, Dbeibeh and Haftar each control portions of the oil wealth. None of the oil wealth goes to the Libyan people. They’re yet to see any of it.
Basically, look at the pictures across the country. There is nothing that has been built in that country arguably since the late ’70s. That’s one of the things that Libya is desperately in need of. If you go to Libyan government estimates, Libyan is in the region of $100 billion of investment in its infrastructure alone, and that’s telling. What it’s telling is that the $100 billion is there. It’s in the Libyan coffers. They could spend that money if they wanted to. So much of that money goes into the hands and pockets of Libya’s unelected and expired political elite.
When it comes to the Coast Guard, it’s a very different question. I think it’s really important. It is one of the things that the European Union is certainly guilty of. If you look at the UN panel of expert reports, not only are they training and equipping the Libyan Coast Guard in means that are deeply contrary to international humanitarian law, Libya’s own law, and Europe’s own responsibilities and maritime responsibilities, but more peculiar than that is that many of the individuals that are responsible for the smuggling of humans and human trafficking, they’re the ones that are now part of the Libyan Coast Guard.
In the West of Libya, you have individuals known as [inaudible 00:21:45] and other people like that. The town of Az-Zāwiyah is a critical departure point for refugees and migrants fleeing to Europe. By the UN’s own admission and its own panel of expert reports, there are individuals that were smugglers that attended training courses under the E.U. and were received by the E.U. themselves. They’ve either taken material support or support of some kind from the E.U.
What is getting worse now is that for the first time in the modern history of Libya, departures are exceeding in the East of the country where there has been a smuggling empire under Khalifa Haftar. Sixty percent of departures today, the 57,000 that landed on the shores of Italy over the last year, have come from Libya, at least 60% from Eastern Libya. Khalifa Haftar today has moved from being the commander of the Libyan National Army to being the commander of a smuggling network. You would think that this would also irk the European Union or member states. He was received by the Meloni administration two weeks ago and given red-carpet treatment in Rome.
It’s one of those places where when you look at the political landscape, you look at the political fingerprints on the crimes that have taken place; Libya is like living in the upside down. Nothing makes sense. The more crimes that you pursue, the more spoiling that you pursue, the more reward you get. It also tells you a number of other things. The harder you push, the more you can get. For every Khalifa Haftar, you have a plastic one sitting behind him thinking, “I could be next,” and that’s damaging. That’s why what you were talking about, international norms, they’re not just words and abstract terms that people use to describe phenomena in textbooks. They matter on the ground because if you keep breaking these rules over and over again, then everyone thinks, “If he can do it, so can I.”
Talia BaroncelliUnfortunately, it is a lot of the western actors, such as the E.U., are involved indirectly or directly with their money, perpetrating these crimes against humanity. There was a UN report saying that the crimes against a lot of the migrants and asylum seekers who are detained in Libya amount to crimes against humanity– rape and all sorts of inhumane conditions in which they’re detained. Yet the E.U. policymakers, as well as the U.S. policymakers, keep talking about this rules-based order, which they stand behind in European values. They’re just complete hypocrites when it comes to actually trying to implement policies that would foster those values.
Another area that we could speak about is how the E.U. has welcomed so many refugees from Ukraine who have been forced to leave their country. They should accept these people and treat them with respect and give them asylum. At the same time, there have been no legal channels for people to leave Libya or other countries in Africa that have been stricken by conflict and other calamities and crises.
Anas El GomatiYep.
Talia BaroncelliIt’s just unfortunate to see that because the E.U. has been so present in those regions and in contributing to those crises. Yet there’s a racist element to it because when these people want to come to Europe and seek protection, then it’s, “Oh, these people are just economic migrants, so they’re not really deserving of any protection.”
Anas El GomatiI couldn’t agree more, honestly. I think the dilemma that I have in my mind, there are two things. The first is that racial discrepancy; it’s certainly not lost on an Arab audience because they started scratching their heads and saying, number one, “How come we’re not received in that way?” Number two, they don’t want to be received in the first place. They want to stay at home. There’s no refugee on Earth that ever wants to leave their home and take a boat, most likely die, be ignored and forgotten about and be described as cockroaches by other European heads of state and otherwise.
There’s something that is to be said about the fact that the best way and best policy for reducing a refugee crisis is to prevent violence from taking place in the first place. That’s where you find, unfortunately, the role of regional Arab states, the role of other European states, the role of the U.S., and Russia in Libya. They have their fingerprints all over that. I think some countries don’t care because they’re not on the receiving end. Libya is considered to be NATO’s southern flank and Europe’s soft underbelly. In many ways, the only thing that is of importance for a lot of policymakers today about Libya is to just stabilize it, and give it to someone to stop those boats from coming in. I think that’s really when you start to interrogate what their policies could have been over the last several years; why don’t you stop the malignant influence of regional actors? Why don’t you stop your own malignant influence of working with smugglers and calling them coastguards? I mean, there’s a lot more. I know this sounds strange saying this as a political analyst, but in a philosophical sense, there’s a lot of soul-searching that needs to be done when it comes to not only the policy-making on Libya but also the rhetoric. The rhetoric is deeply dehumanizing when it comes to places like Libya and places like Syria. If they’re called a human, that’s the best possible outcome. More often than not, they’re either, as it is, like a wink and nod or whatever, the idea that they’re either terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, or parts of criminal networks. It’s the most deeply dehumanizing thing to say about those that are fleeing from conflict and fleeing from terror, fleeing from criminal networks and fleeing from violence. Violence [inaudible 00:27:21] perpetuate.
Talia BaroncelliIt reminds me of Josep Borrell, the High Representative of Europe. He gave a speech; I think this was eight months ago or so, in which he characterized Europe as a garden which needed to be protected from the jungle. Just that metaphor; it’s so colonial. When he was called out as opposed to apologizing, he double downed on it and said that he didn’t mean it in a racist way but that Europe represents these lofty values that need to be protected from places like Libya, alluding to the warfare and the deaths and the horrible bloodshed that’s going on there. He missed out on the important part, and that’s how Europe has contributed to the perpetuation of these crimes in the region.
I think the Arab regional actors also play a role. The Emirates, the United Arab Emirates have played a huge role. I think initially they did not support Haftar, and now they do support Haftar. If you look at–
Anas El GomatiNo, they were the first.
Talia BaroncelliOh, they were the first.
Anas El GomatiYep.
Talia BaroncelliOkay. They’re also involved in a neighboring conflict in Sudan. So in Sudan, there’s a war between the army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, which are led by General Hemedti. Haftar and Hemedti are also buddy-buddy.
Anas El GomatiThey are fellows.
Talia BaroncelliSo how is the conflict in Sudan playing into the conflict in Libya?
Anas El GomatiSo this is fascinating for me because I think what it tells you about the brittle states, states where elements like the RSF [Rapid Support Forces] in Sudan or the LNA in Eastern Libya are on the rise is because of these interdependencies that they’ve created with their patrons. It used to be the case that you would think of patron and proxy as being big and small. One giving the orders and the other one following the orders. It’s not quite like that anymore. What happens is that it’s much more flat, it’s much more heterarchical, and it’s based on these interdependencies that are hand-in-hand. Each one requires the other. It’s much more equal, and there’s much more equity and dependability on both.
I can go through what I think about how these things that are taking place and what the effect on Libya is. Hemedti’s history in Libya is longer than history, arguably, politically in Sudan. He came to Sudan to be involved in Sudan after the events that led to the second revolution or the uprising in Sudan and the establishment of the Transitional National Council there. That brought together the military, the RSF and civilian bodies from the street and street protests.
The RSF, its paramilitary history, goes back to the days of the Janjaweed in South Sudan, but also its days in Libya. It has been a longer presence in Libya, arguably, than it’s had in Sudan. It’s fought more wars in Libya critically than it has fought in Sudan. Hemedti’s forces were fighting in Libya in 2019. They were brought in as mercenaries. This isn’t just some two-bit relationship between two people that have some alliance; you’re an authoritarian, and I’m an authoritarian. These guys work together.
The second element that is really critical and is important is Khalifa Haftar’s son, Siddiq Haftar, was pictured in Khartoum two weeks before the events that led to the recent civil war. Siddiq Haftar, according to a lot of journalists that had been reporting about this recently, was in Khartoum to give Hemedti a whisper in the ear and give him vital intelligence. He told him, “Your friends, the military, are moving against you.” So he gave him the vital intelligence at the time when he needed it and then moved to supply weapons, intelligence, and fuel supplies from Libya’s Southeast border in the town of Kufra, over the border of northern Sudan to the RSF. In so many different factions and so many different facets, Khalifa Haftar has been critical to helping Hemedti stay alert and stay alive, but also to thrive and sustain this latest conflict.
The rise of someone like Hemedti is because you have a rise in these new burgeoning strongmen who have created these interdependencies. You need my fuel from Libya, but I need your money. As we said, Khalifa Haftar is not part of this internationally recognized government. He doesn’t have any money. He gets his money from the Sudanese military that is paying for the fuel that he’s smuggling over the border.
On the other hand, he also gives him intelligence when he needs it. He’s also getting forces, the RSF. When the fighting finishes in Sudan, if there’s another civil war in Libya, who do you think is going to go and fight it? It’s going to be the RSF fighting on behalf of Libya’s National Army. It is such an unusual sense of dependability and interdependencies. These are the new burgeoning alliances in the region that are going to be so difficult to get rid of.
Sudan’s own crisis, which could have been mitigated, could have been stopped a long time ago. It is most likely now going to spark a migration crisis into Southern Europe. That migration crisis is going to put us right back to square one. Europeans are going to pick up the phone and say, “Who do we speak to? Let’s speak to Haftar.” Why? This is the individual that helped spur that war on in Sudan. He’s fueled that war. He’s also making money out of the migrants and refugees that are crossing the sea. So instead of being the cure, so many of these actors are like the cancer.
Talia BaroncelliYeah, they have too much power, and they’re exacerbating the situation on the ground. They’re controlling everything on the ground, and they’re building up their power so that when it’s time for the E.U. to step in and try to find a solution, they’ll keep going to the people who are feeding into the bloodshed.
Anas El GomatiWell, there is a way around it. I think there’s no way around political will. There’s no way around that. I mean, I think the political will that should have been there a decade ago, right now, this is the asset test. There are so many different frontiers and geopolitical strategic lenses that you can adopt when looking at a place like Libya. As I said earlier on, the reason why the world’s attention is faced on Ukraine is that it is this frontier line. It is considered to be NATO’s eastern flank. No matter which way you look at it, that is a critical border between two major superpowers. On the other hand, Libya is NATO’s southern flank. It’s also the European Union’s soft underbelly, the Mediterranean region. So much of Libya’s history has been impacted by European colonial powers but also by foreign states meddling in their affairs.
You could also argue in the same breath how much of European populism, how much of Europe’s recent history with Brexit and its own recent history of far-right movements rising up, how much of that has been impacted by Libya. They’re kind of like two glasses filling one another at different times.
These regions are interconnected. What happens in Libya really matters for Europeans, and what happens in Europe really matters for Libyans. They’re going to have to change that political will. I look at a situation like today, I can’t think of any more urgency than the fact that you have conflicts that are no longer easy conflicts to solve.
These interdependencies are not just ways of looking at how friendships matter and why these bonds are so deep. What it means is that in a place like Sudan, when you get into the nitty gritty of conflict mediation and resolution, how do you solve a civil war? You bring the two local players together, and you say, “Figure it out.” What they always have to bring in are the civilian parties that are from the street that had no role in that conflict. They should have their finger on the pulse. They should be saying this is a measure that is acceptable to the broader community, the broader public, and the broader society.
You can’t do that today when you have these interdependent networks. What is the difference between what Hemedti is doing, what Haftar is doing, and what their patrons in the United Arab Emirates are doing? They are shipping in so many more weapons, ammunition, and fuel, as we said. Russia’s Wagner Group is also playing a massive and critical role in playing the logistics of not only bringing in weapons and training fires in the RSF but also helping take out to the tune of around $17 billion a year in illegally exported and mined gold from Sudan and bringing it to the market in the UAE where there are shell companies waiting there and where there is the second or third, I think, after Hong Kong, the second or third biggest global market for gold in the world.
What you see is this really vicious cycle and interdependencies that when it comes to resolving their conflict, do you speak to Hemedti of the RSF, do you speak to Burhan of the Sudanese military, or do you have to also bring in Russian mercenaries, Libyan mercenaries, if you want to consider them, to be that, UAE patrons, the Egyptians that are supporting the other side? It just complicates, and it crowds the space for conflict mediation. It’s almost like the old saying of ‘all for one and one for all,’ because if I, the weakest node in that link or in that chain, as Hemedti say, “I don’t want to keep fighting anymore,” then the UAE or Haftar will turn around and say, “Well, no more fuel for you in peacetime. No more gold for you on the international markets.” So there is so much more leverage. They can’t just defect, or they can’t just walk away and be [inaudible 00:35:40]. This is really going to make conflict mediation in the coming years more difficult. This form of warfare, this alliance building, these new alliances, it’s going to make civil war mediation and conflict resolution so much more difficult that we could see long wars on the horizon, or what they call forever wars. You can just start seeing forever wars there because no one knows who to negotiate with to end these civil wars. The interdependence is so strong that you can’t just get one signature on a paper, you need three or four, and they might end up not being signed locally. They might end up being signed somewhere else.
Europe needs to wake up because these are the kind of conflicts that they could have managed a long time ago. They still have leverage in many ways over it, but the political will and savviness are sorely, sorely lacking in my eyes.
Talia BaroncelliWell, the framing needs to shift from these elites who have the resources and control of the military to the civilians as well. I mean, it seems like there’s no representative of the civilian populations or civilian structures within any of these negotiations or lack of negotiations. Whether it be in Sudan or in Libya, they’re just not part of the political process because they, unfortunately, they don’t have any control of the resources of the country. So the outside actors don’t even go to them. They just go to the ones who wield power and will have military power.
Anas El GomatiWell, what’s interesting to me is that the last individual that had that appeal in Sudan was [Abdalla] Hamdok. He just lost credibility because, again, that lack of power meant that he just was a nice civilian face to a military skeleton behind him in the institutions. When it comes to the lack of a role for these civilian forces, I would go back to the phenomena of Libya. I mentioned this earlier on, and I wanted to say with a caveat, there are no angels in a place like Libya. When you have a brutal civil war like this, you have crimes being committed across the board. One has to ask why someone is fighting so you can understand what it will take for them to put their weapons down.
It comes back to this point that we were talking about with Fathi Bashagha and who he came to represent as this strong man of the West versus the strong man of the East. In the east of the country, the project has been the revival of Gaddafi Jamahiriya. The Jamahiriya was not the [inaudible 00:37:59]. It wasn’t the green [inaudible 00:38:00]. It wasn’t the outlandish outfits of Gaddafi. It was his socio-political engineering of a patronist structure that led to Libya’s state being very brittle. It was all personalized underneath him. There were certain tribes that held military power. They probably accounted for around 12% of the population in the east of the country. There were certain tribes, 88% of the population, that don’t consider themselves to be tribal.
If we really delve into what that word means, a tribe is a structure above you. So if there is a war or an incident revolving around blood, then your tribe gets involved, if you have one. If you don’t, then the courts get involved. Eighty-eight percent of the Libyan people don’t subscribe to that model. So calling Libya a tribal society is really not accurate in any academic or any meaningful sense. The reality is that those systems are established around this.
What happened in 2011 is that the other 88% that never had weapons, they developed the capabilities. As we said earlier on, there was this problem of controlling the arms supplies and the arms controlling Libya. They were dispersed, and this rise of militia and revolutionary armed groups took place. Those individuals, they wouldn’t consider themselves to be militias. We can sit and talk about them that way and academically scrutinize their role and put them into nice boxes, but if you ask one of these militiamen yourself and say, “What are you?” “I’m a civilian that’s got a gun.” That might look like Texas to me. That might be a place where there’s a high proliferation of weapons. Each socio-cultural lens has to be adopted.
In a place like Libya, where you have a lot of people who have weapons, choose not to use them, but choose to use them at moments, these big political lightning rod moments, like in 2011 when there was a revolution, and there was a choice to be with or against. In 2014 when there was a civil war, where Haftar rose up in the east of the country, it was with or against. In 2019, when he came to the West and attacked the Libyan capital, it was with or against. You saw that the small number of militias or mercenaries, or, “military forces,” they’re around 10% of the number of forces that turn up when there’s a civil war. Who are the other 90%? They’re civilians that are taking up weapons. What matters and the relevance of all of this is that if you don’t include the civilian forces in your political debates, they will take up weapons themselves. If you don’t include them when they’re taking up weapons, then you’ll never get the military and the institutional stability and security that Europe and the West have been craving from Libya.
Again, it goes back to the basic question when it comes down to these wars, it’s planning. It’s also understanding that if you don’t do something now, things will always get worse before they get better. I just fear that we’re so far away from the right diagnosis of the situation that we’re nowhere near the cure. That’s really what keeps me up at night when it comes to a place like Libya.
Talia BaroncelliWell, thank you so much for your time, Anas. It was great speaking to you. I’m sure there’s so much more that we can speak about next time. I hope to have you on again soon.
Anas El GomatiFor sure, thank you.
Talia BaroncelliSo thank you for joining me and thank you for watching theAnalysis.news. If you’d like to contribute to this show, you can go to our website, theAnalysis.news, and hit the donate button at the top right corner of the screen. Also, get on the mailing list so that you’re notified every time there’s a new episode. Like and subscribe to the YouTube channel, theAnalysis-news. See you next time.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)User my donation to help support the upcoming documentary "How to stop a nuclear war" (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another storySubscribe to theAnalysis.news – Newsletter
Email(Required)Name(Required)
First
Last
Δ
“Anas El Gomati is the founder and current Director General of the Tripoli-based Sadeq Institute, the first public policy think tank in Libya’s history, established in August 2011. The Sadeq Institute conducts qualitative and quantitative field research across East, west and South Libya. He has held several positions in the region and Europe, as a visiting fellow at the Carnegie Middle East Centre in Beirut, Lebanon and visiting lecturer at the NATO defense college in Rome, Italy.”
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
Historian, Assal Rad, explores identity formation in modern Iran, both under the Pahlavi dynasty as well as after the 1979 Revolution under the Islamic Republic. Her book “State of Resistance: Politics, Culture, and Identity in Modern Iran” examines top-down and bottom-up manifestations of national identity as narrated by state structures and popular culture, respectively. Her fascinating analysis is based on a historical assessment of how modern state-building in Iran inculcated a sense of national belonging in the population, as well as on interviews with people in Tehran and examples taken from popular music and film. Can national identity play a positive role in liberation struggles?
Modern Iran: National Identity as a Tool of Resistance or Coercion?Significance of China-Brokered Iran-Saudi Agreement – Trita ParsiSaudis Hedge Bets, Iran Risks Increasing Isolation – Trita ParsiThe Iranian Revolution: The Fall of the Shah and the Rise of KhomeiniIranian Women-Led Resistance Independent of Western ImperialismWhy the Media is Now Supporting Julian Assange? – Paul Jay pt 2/2Retired US Army Colonel on Ukraine, Iran & the State of the US EmpireAnti-Regime Protests and the Devastating Effects of US Sanctions in IranU.S. Sanctions Strengthen Iranian Theocracy – Hamid DabashiEmpire Update: Did Trump Order Iran Assassination? – Abby MartinElliot Abrams Tries to Tie Biden’s Hands on Iran – Trita ParsiIsrael Wants U.S. to Weaken and Isolate Iran – RAI with Trita Parsi Pt 3/3U.S. Attempts to Destabilize Iran Have Failed – RAI with Trita Parsi Pt 2/3U.S. Refuses to Accept Iran as a Regional Power – RAI with Trita Parsi Pt 1/3 Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Guest * Music*
This is an unedited version of the transcript. An edited version will be arriving shortly.
Talia BaroncelliHi, I’m Talia Baroncelli, and you’re watching theAnalysis.news. Assal Rad, a historian as well as the author of a recent book State of Resistance, will be joining me today to speak about national identity formations in Iran.
Assal RadBut then, in a lot of cases, as I said, I didn’t say I was doing an interview. I would just go to a store, I wanted to buy a CD. If there was a dance party and you wanted to give somebody a CD of all the best songs right now, what is that? Chat up the person who’s going to sell you what is, by the way, not an official CD. It’s like an underground CD because it’s officially allowed to be sold.
Talia BaroncelliIf you enjoy this content and would like to contribute to the show, please go to our website, theAnalysis.news, and make a donation by hitting the button at the top right corner of the screen. You can also get on our mailing list; that way, you’re notified whenever a new episode drops. You can also like and subscribe to all of the videos on our YouTube channel at theAnalysis-news. See you in a bit with Assal.
Joining me now to speak about Iranian national identity is Assal Rad. She’s a historian and author of the new book State of Resistance. Thanks so much for coming back onto the show, Assal. Thank you. Thank you for having me.
Talia BaroncelliWell, your book is a really fascinating excursion into Iranian national identity, and it juxtaposes different identity formations, such as top-down formations led by the former Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and the Islamic Republic. It sets that up against different bottom-up formations and ways in which Iranians contest these limited notions of identity. Before we get into the details, I wanted to ask you why you wrote this book in the first place.
Assal RadWell, it was a very personal project, if I’m being honest. As an Iranian American, as someone who was born and raised in the United States but to parents of Iranian immigrants, my own navigating that hyphenated identity made me really interested in the notion of belonging and identity. When you grow up, especially within that generation where there’s a lot of anti-Iran sentiment in the United States that creates a sense of alienation, you want to always have this idea of belonging.
I travelled to Iran as an adult, thinking in my mind, I’m like, oh, I’m going to go to this place where I’m going to get that sense of belonging for sure, because this is really where my core identity comes from. I travelled there, and I realized that that’s just not the case. It’s not that it wasn’t wonderful for many reasons, visiting your family, being with people who understand certain aspects of your culture that might not be understood in the state that you live in. My idea of Iranianness was so distinct from theirs. It was so far removed. What I had expected when I visited there because I had grown up in this bubble of not only my own Iranian household but the community that we had built here, that’s really what I expected. It was a very different situation. So I became very interested in understanding that more and understanding Iran more. It also made me realize if I, as someone of Iranian heritage in the United States, didn’t really understand the complexity of the population, the culture, and the politics of that country, then how can I expect an American of non-Iranian heritage to understand? I became really fascinated with trying to understand those things.
As someone who decided to study history, there is that ubiquitous phrase, “History is written by the victors.” You understand the importance and the power of narrative, how important the story is, and people believing that story. It’s almost the story, and whether or not people believe it is more important than the reality on the ground. People in religious studies and historians of religion do this all the time, they’re like, “Oh, such and such story that’s in this religious text is disproven by this information.” It doesn’t matter oftentimes to the believers. So all of that I found really fascinating. I wanted to, as much as possible, try and understand how those narratives played into contemporary Iran.
I tried to trace that back to how having a national narrative and condition of nationalism was tied to the idea of the modern nation-state. In order to have a modern nation-state, you had to have the trappings of a modern nation-state in terms of modern infrastructure, an organized military, a bureaucratic state, all of those types of things. The story was so important, too, that people understood how they belonged to this, as [Political Scientist and Histortian] Benedict Anderson has put it, “imagined community.” That was such an integral part of that project. You could see that unfolding under both the Pahlavi dynasty and then continuing under the Islamic Republic.
Talia BaroncelliThese historians, like Benedict Anderson, and [Historian] Eric Hobsbawm, play a really important role in how you make sense of identity making and identity formation. I think the Haitian anthropologist [Michel-Rolph] Trouillot also plays a big theoretical role in terms of looking at how certain narratives are silenced over time and which contested narratives actually have supremacy or are more recognized as being valid or authentic over other ones. I think in your book, by reading it, it seemed like you weren’t trying to argue that any one identity is actually more authentic than the other. If you have all these different identities, which one do you then choose? Or is it all relative?
Assal RadI think there’s definitely the idea of it being relative. Yeah, I would never want to. I think anybody who tries to choose a definitive or authentic identity is doing a disservice to understanding the whole point. The point of it is, in scholarship, at least, there’s this idea that the nation-state is a construct, race is a construct, and gender is a construct. Sometimes to the nonacademic, that’s a meaningless statement. It’s like, what do you mean that there are social constructs? What it means is basically that they can change their dynamic—someone who’s wielding power at the top. A state can try and wield that narrative, and people can do the same thing. There’s a negotiation that goes back and forth. Nobody has the power to control that narrative because it’s so dynamic and fluid, and it can change over time.
But then what happens is if you take that argument to an extreme, the idea that it’s a construct, you see sometimes in scholarship the idea that then it’s inauthentic, that it’s not real, it’s fake, or it’s made up. I think that also does a disservice because the reality of it is once you as an individual psychologically attach yourself to an identity, it’s very real. It’s a very real experience, and it has very real consequences. You can say that borders are made up, and they are. If you look at a picture of the Earth, there are no borders on it. We’ve created those borders. But the experience of existing in those borders is very real. The inability to move across those borders is very real.
I wanted to be on that fence of understanding both sides of the argument, that it’s constructed in the case of, say, Iran, where I’m looking at national identity. Those national identities are constructed both from above and from below, but it’s still a certain set of characteristics and symbols that they can choose from. An Iranian identity is not… it’s going to take different symbols that are part of its very long and rich historical and cultural history. That was really what I wanted to get at. Yes, it is imagined, and yes, it is constructed, but it’s still very real, and it has very real consequences for those who are experiencing it.
Talia BaroncelliYeah, and you were looking at the former Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and how he would use certain cultural or historic symbols from Iran’s pre-Islamic age, so to speak. He kept referring to the 3,000-year history of Iran and how it was this Aryan civilization—trying to sanitize Iranian history from Islam, basically. Whereas I guess after the revolution, there was resistance to that. An opposite identity formation was taking place but in the same manner.
Assal RadYeah, so one thing to be clear about with the Shah is that the cultural pillar that he tried to use in terms of the national narrative was tied to monarchy. Remember that when he’s asked, “What ties the nation together?” He literally responds with himself, the monarchy, the monarch, the king is like the father of the nation. So in seeing that identity for himself, he tied the identity of the nation-state to this history of the monarchy; that predates Islam. He was also very much a Muslim himself. Especially with the recent protests, the anti-compulsory hijab protests that we saw in Iran, although those protests obviously went beyond the concept of the hijab, but the idea that there is this compulsory hijab in Iran, a lot of people brought up the fact that, “Oh, the former Shah outlawed the veil.” The reality of it is that it was his father. Reza Shah outlawed the chador in the 1930s when he tried to enforce this idea of westernization. But his son, who would become the last Shah, didn’t enforce those restrictions on whether or not women could wear the veil. You could say culturally, those groups may have felt more alienated because westernization and westerners were set higher in terms of something to aspire to. He wasn’t anti-Islam; that’s not the point of it. It’s more that that’s the cultural factor that he tried to bring into his national narrative.
I bring up two other elements to these three elements that make up his nationalism. It’s the concept of revolution, ironically, and the concept of independence. You see those same threads go into the revolution itself by 1979. Revolutionaries are using the idea that Iran is not an independent state, not a fully independent state. Going back to the coup of 1953, going back to the idea that they see some of these tendencies, the appetite towards westernization that the Shah had as being alien to a lot of the indigenous cultures within Iran. Obviously, they are revolutionaries. But he’s using this discourse in a historical context where you have a lot of anti-colonial national independence movements around the world. So you see that rhetoric everywhere around, and he’s trying to tap into that.
You see that in the White Revolution of the 1960s. He has an entire book called The White Revolution. So he’s using revolutionary discourse, he’s using the discourse of independence, and he’s infusing cultural symbols that predate Islam and go back to the Iranian monarchy as far back as the Achaemenid monarchy, that of Cyrus the Great, and really directly tying his own dynasty to that era.
Iranian revolutionaries then use Islam as a counterpoint in a certain way. It’s someone like [Iranian Revolutionary and Sociologist] Ali Shariati, whose discourse becomes very popular, especially in the 1970s, when he is saying we need to go back to our indigenous roots. Now, who is he getting influenced by? It’s a figure like [Psychiatrist and Political Philosopher, Frantz] Fanon. This is quintessential anti-colonial resistance. But whereas Fanon is saying we have to leave history behind and forge new identities; Shariati is saying, “No, we have to reclaim our indigenous identities and take pride in those identities rather than trying to emulate the West.” And that’s a sentiment that you see in other thinkers at the time. Someone like [Author and Anthropologist, Jalal] Al-e Ahmad, who writes the classic Westoxification—the idea that this obsession with the West, wanting to emulate the West, is almost like a malady that exists within Iran and within maybe the greater region arguably. So that’s the historical context in which the Shah is creating this narrative.
Talia BaroncelliI mean, you do see the Shah’s obsession with the West, and that’s probably what was one of the factors in leading to his downfall and leading to the Iranian Revolution; his constant reference to the West being more modern and that Iran is, because of its history, also a modern civilization, they just needed to emulate the West to drag themselves out of the impoverishment that had been brought on them by imperialists. Not that Iran was ever colonized, but its resources were colonized. I think in the ’70s, he had more of an anti-imperialist rhetoric when speaking about the oil crisis, for example.
Assal RadRight. I mean, he did. There are interviews with the British. Up until 1953, Iranians tend to have a very positive view of the United States. Their negative view, vis-à-vis colonial powers or foreign powers trying to exert control over Iran, is really against Imperial Russia and the British Empire. In the ‘Great Game,’ these are the powers that are trying to influence and really control resources and even land in Iran. It was after 1953 that Iranians start to have a negative view of Americans because that’s when Americans start to impose their will as well. He has these interviews in the 1970s where he is very much talking about a confrontation with the attempt of British control over Iranian resources.
Talia BaroncelliWell, you mentioned Ali Shariati, and he was an Islamic Iranian thinker. I’m wondering how you think he would have influenced modern Iranian identity because he did say that Islam was the greatest victim of colonialism. I wonder if that idea of being a victim plays into the Islamic Republic’s idea of itself as being the underdog, as having to stand up for revolutionary struggles around the world, stand up for Palestine, whether they actually do so or not is, of course, a different story. I’m not trying to equate Shariati with the Islamic Republic or with [Former Supreme Leader of Iran, Ruhollah] Khomeini, but do you think some of his views imbued the identity of the state which came after the revolution?
Assal RadWell, what I think the state does, the Islamic Republic does, is it really appropriates that language from revolutionaries. Shariati is someone who’s influencing that discourse very much so. You point to something that’s really important, and it’s actually [Professor and Author] Hamid Dabashi and his book on Shi’ism where he writes about this. He says, and I thought this was so fascinating, it’s basically this idea that Imam Husayn in the Battle of Karbala in the seventh century when he’s martyred with his 72 companions, he is victorious in his defeat. It’s the fact that he’s fighting against tyranny and dies fighting for justice that makes him this heroic figure.
What happens with the Islamic Republic, especially, is when you become the person in power, when you become the power, you’re now the flip side of that. You become the symbol of injustice. You very much see that with the Islamic Republic. The reason it appropriates that language is that it tries to maintain this image that it is a continuously revolutionary state. As such, it is supporting resistance movements worldwide. You mentioned the Palestinian cause is one cause.
You see Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, talking about figures like Malcolm X or mentions of things like BLM. Why? Because they’re trying to take this facade. They’re like the modern-day Imam Husayn. They are fighting injustice, all while trying to divert from the fact that they are carrying out their own injustices and they’re actually the ones in power.
That language is very much, I think, taken up by the Islamic Republic. There’s this attempt to pretend like they’re the guardians of Imam Husayn. Why tap into that imagery? Arguably, one of the reasons is because it’s so powerful. It’s really powerful imagery. Shiite motifs and symbols lend themselves very easily to resistance, whether it’s through stories that were told to galvanize Iranian troops after Iran was invaded in 1980 by Saddam Hussein or whether it was the revolutionary cause itself because that’s the story of the martyrdom of Karbala. This isn’t unique to Shiites. This story, these lores are ubiquitous in other cultures. It’s the David and Goliath story. It’s the Battle of Thermopylae and 300 Spartans against, in this case, thousands of Persians.
You see this story because the images are so powerful. They really tap into that. Revolutionaries tap into that imagery, and then later, the Islamic Republic appropriates that and tries to use it as one of the ways to get that rally around the flag effect in order to fight back against the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980. Of course, that’s also infused with a lot of nationalist rhetoric. It’s not just these symbols, it’s not just Shiism, but it’s Iranian Shiism. You’re not just defending the religion; you’re defending the land. That’s very much the sentiment that so many of the people who fought in that war had. It was a very, very nationalist cause because it was defined by these two nation-states that were fighting each other. So even though Iraq had a large Shia population and Iran, although it did not have a large [population] but still had, especially in the Southwest where Iraq initially invaded, an ethnic Arab population. Neither fought for the other side. Iraqi Shiites didn’t fight for Iran, and Arab Iranians didn’t fight for Iraq because they were very much defined within these national borders. It’s fascinating.
[inaudible 00:19:30], of course, dies in ’77, so it’s before the revolution even happens. You would imagine that all of the revolutionaries who died before or soon after the revolution would take issue with the way that the Islamic Republic has manifested because of its actual actions, not its rhetoric, but its actual actions fly in the face of (A) why Iranians had a revolution. They had a revolution to dismantle tyranny, not to replace it with another one. Also that it was based on this idea of justice, and so many injustices are carried out in its name right now.
Talia BaroncelliWell, Iran is an incredibly diverse place. Farsi isn’t the only language that is spoken there. I think many different languages are spoken. The Shah did embark on this nation-building project in which he made Farsi the official language of the country. You could argue that that erased a lot of the cultural diversity.
Would you say that the Islamic Republic is equating Iranianness with Islamicism? Essentially another way of trying to potentially erase some of the cultural and religious diversity? I’m also asking this question, given that my mom’s out of the family is Baháʼí, so they’re a religious minority from Iran. They had to escape Iran and go to Canada during the revolution, unfortunately. I’m asking this question from that position of knowing that there was and there continues to be large-scale persecution against certain minorities in Iran.
Assal RadAbsolutely. You bring up one of the most important examples of that silencing. That’s one of the things that Trouillot is talking about. Inherently, when you elevate one narrative, you’re silencing others. Both states, both the monarchy and the Islam Republic, participate in that erasure. It was actually the father, Reza Shah, who established Farsi as the official language. It’s not unique. That’s part of a nation-state project. In order to bring people under this umbrella of the nation when you have so much ethnic language and religious diversity, there has to be something that formalizes that. It’s formalized through, for instance, secondary education.
The United States is a country that has lots of different ethnicities, languages, and minorities, but we tend to have a formalized system where everybody is educated at least– now we see a lot more dual language programs, but still, English is the dominant language in which everybody is educated in.
Something that’s interesting about that on the language front, by the way, just to understand how new this actually was. For instance, for me, my maternal grandparents are Azeri Turks. My maternal grandparents, this is not so many generations ago, this is two generations before me, spoke Persian with an accent. They spoke it with an Azeri accent. It was their second language. Their first language was Turkish. For my mother, Persian became her first language, and she spoke Turkish with an accent, so it reversed.
In terms of the minorities that you’re speaking of, yeah, the Islamic Republic tries to present itself as a country that is tolerant or actually has religious freedom. If you are Christian, there’s a large Armenian population in Iran. If you are Sunni, if you are Jewish, Iran is home to the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East. These are all supposed to be protected religions.
Well, let’s start with them. First of all, they’re not really. They’re treated differently. Anytime you have a country that identifies itself as a particular religion, I mean, it’s the Islamic Republic. You’re automatically second class if you’re anything else because you’re not part of the identifying feature of the state. Baháʼí specifically are persecuted. This isn’t just you don’t get the same treatment. This is that you are basically not recognized. It is difficult to get an education. It’s difficult to own property, which is to the point that you just made why many Baháʼís have left Iran. Iran is the home of Baháʼísm. It’s a religion that emerged in Iran in the 19th century. That group, unfortunately, has been persecuted from the very beginning, from the 19th century, in part because they’re seen as heretics because, obviously, anything that comes before Islam is different. But when you have the seal of the Prophet, anything that comes after Islam is considered heresy because Islam is the last religion, and Muhammad is the last Prophet. Anything that comes afterwards is considered, in theory, heresy. That’s one of the reasons why Baháʼís are targeted the way that they are.
Also, of course, when you have a new religion emerge, and you have a Shia clergy in Iran, that even in the 19th century have already become an autonomous body, who already wield a certain amount of power– maybe not political power at the time, but they have their large landowners, they have mosques, they have religious taxes that they collect, and they have a significant following. Anything that might compete with that also creates challenges to the power of the clergy. These are the reasons why Baháʼís are persecuted, unfortunately, from the very beginning, and it continues in a much harsher fashion under the Islamic Republic.
Talia BaroncelliThere’s a part of your book where you’re talking about different symbols and military symbols. You’re speaking about the Iran-Iraq War and the Basij. The Basij being a paramilitary group which formed during the Iran-Iraq War. Then you were also speaking about the museum in Tehran, the war museum. There’s a photo of different religious symbols and how they are representative of the different Iranians who engaged in this struggle. Again, emphasizing their Iranianness, even though they came from different religions and how they were all fighting together to face Saddam represented as Yazid in a way. But of course, Baháʼís were not included in that, so that was significant. I guess there was a time when it maybe wasn’t as bad as today, and I think that might have been under President Khatami in the early 2000s when I think he was even talking about extending certain social rights to Baháʼís at the time, whether that was implemented, I’m not to sure.
Assal RadI’m actually not sure about that. I’m not specifically privy to Khahtami wanting to expand rights for Baháʼís. But I will say I find it believable. I don’t know personally and so I don’t want to speak to it in that sense. It would fit with the general change that occurs with at least the rhetoric of someone like a figure like Khahtami. He gets a lot of criticism for his failure to fundamentally change the system or to change the system, really, in any significant way. But I think that also misses the fact that he was very different than previous leaders in the country, and his vision of the country was quite different. Things did change under him in terms of at least newspapers opening, artistic expression, and a lowering of repression. There’s this ebb and flow in Iran since the 1979 revolution, depending on who is the President and which political faction has more power. It’s always a repressive state. It’s always an authoritarian state. I’m not saying that any of those things change, but the atmosphere on the ground does change to a certain extent.
What we’ve seen in the last five years or so is this consistent trend toward more repression. That’s why I’m saying this fits in, I think, with that logic. You’ve seen that with the Baháʼí community as well, that increased repression and the further persecution of the Baháʼí community. We’ve seen it in terms of arrests and punishments of human rights activists.
You had someone like Nasrin Sotoudeh, who I believe had been arrested under the Ahmadinejad presidency and was released in 2013. Then again, I think it was in 2008, if I’m not mistaken, somewhere in the last five-year span that she was rearrested again. So in the last five years, you see crackdowns on labor movements, crackdowns on protests, a crackdown on any voice of dissent, and then further repression, I think, of groups like the Baháʼís as well, unfortunately. I think that all fits into that trend. It’s just gotten worse under the Raisi administration who took over in 2021. One of the things that they tried to implement more strictly was the hijab. The hijab law has always existed and women have always been stopped in order to have it enforced. The morality police, I should say, so-called morality police predate the Raisi administration. However, it is under this stricter enforcement that we see young woman, “Jina” Mahsa Amini, killed by the so-called morality police. That’s the spark of the most recent iteration of protests that we’ve seen in Iran. So that further repression is not forcing Iranians to stay quiet. They continue to come to the streets. They continue to protest. They continue to show different forms of resistance whether it’s to the state as a whole or particular policies within the state.
Talia BaroncelliWell, we will come back to the current iteration of Iranian identity or iterations. I did want to ask you about the method you used in writing this book. You’re a historian, so typically historians will spend countless hours sitting in archives and just pouring through different documents. You actually went to Iran multiple times and interviewed people. So your work almost comes across as being a bridge between a historical endeavor as well as being very sociological and looking at culture. Maybe you can talk about your first experience going to Iran and when that was. I don’t know if it was actually under President Khatami or if it was already in the Ahmadinejad period. Explain how you decided to interview certain people. How did you pick those people?
Assal RadOne of the things is that when I was doing my graduate research, I had an anthropologist on my committee, very intentionally, because I wanted to do fieldwork. To your point, yeah, I wanted it to be a history text, but I also wanted to have very contemporary elements to it. That’s where I think the interdisciplinary approach comes across, and that’s why I wanted to do interviews and use really contemporary work.
My archive is not the same dusty archive that we think of. I’m listening to contemporary music, films, and television. Specifically in terms of interviews, there are a couple of things that went into it. The most important part was accessibility. The ability to access people. One of the things I tried to avoid when possible was the formal interview process because I came to notice that once you’re discussing these topics, especially identity and things like that in a very formal setting, the tone and the responses become much more politicized. Whereas in a lot of cases, I’m like, I’m not asking for your political identity. I’m just asking, how do you identify? What does being Iranian mean to you?
In some cases, they were very formal. I went in with the idea of I want to interview people, for instance, families of people who were either involved, who were soldiers in the Iran-Iraw war, or families of people who were martyred in the war. Those were much more formal because I didn’t have that access myself. Then in other cases, I really started with a small network. I think it’s called the snowball method. I tried to expand from that network, and it started with people that I knew. Then from there, I tried to get as many different perspectives as I could, but that’s why in the book I also give a basic description of the person I’m talking to. A lot of the reasons why I don’t use their names is because of the nature of the research, the fact that it’s very contemporary and it could be very contentious. In an authoritarian state like Iran, that’s the other layer of it. Accessibility in terms of people you can get to and in terms of people who are willing to talk to you. There becomes an unwillingness for a lot of people to speak because you’re in an environment that might feel like it’s dangerous. Assuring that anonymity is very important.
But then also in a lot of cases, as I said, I didn’t say I was doing an interview. I would just go to a store. I wanted to buy a CD that would have… if there was a dance party and you wanted to give somebody a CD of all the best songs right now. What is that? Chat up the person who’s going to sell you… was, by the way, not an official CD. It’s like an underground CD because it’s not officially allowed to be sold. Chatting with someone who’s a taxi driver. Finding other situations where you could interact with people and talk as much as you can, but get a much more organic conversation that way. So the central limitation, though, is accessibility because I wanted it to be as under the radar as possible, both for myself and for anybody who would be willing to speak to me.
Talia BaroncelliWell, one of my favorite parts of the book is where you’re talking about popular culture and pop music. There’s this one section where you’re speaking about Black Cats and Andy [Andranik Madadian]. These are very famous Iranian pop singers or pop bands from the ’90s and early-2000s. There’s this one part that just really struck me because you’re speaking about Andy’s song, Dokhtare Irooni, the Iranian girl, and you’re explaining how the lyrics paint this picture of Iranian women in general, the figure of the Iranian girl and how that ties and plays into certain stereotypes or notions of national identity.
In the next breath, you then bring up the Frankfurt School theorist Theodor Adorno and his manuscript on popular music from 1941 in which he’s talking about how pop music really standardizes the idea of individual identity and national identity. So I just thought that was so brilliant how you took this pop culture example and then analyzed it through the cultural lens or theory of the Frankfurt School. My question would be, looking at these really popular artists, Andy and Black Cats, when you were in Iran, did young Iranians think of these artists as being Iranian, or were they considered to be artists who were then traitors or from the diaspora because they had left Iran and gone to the U.S.?
Assal RadFirst of all, thank you. That’s a great anecdote from somebody who read the book. I never got the sense that they were seen in a negative light in that sense, like a traitor or anything like that. They were also distinct. There’s a period in which soon after the revolution, music is outlawed at the beginning, and then it’s very limited. There’s very limited space for any music; both production and consumption. Of course, it’s still limited to this day. For instance, women cannot be vocalists. Women can still not be vocalists.
I talk about a band, Arian Band, that emerged in the late ’90s or early 2000s that used women and men, but the women vocalists were just background vocalists. They couldn’t sing lead. But that was a big deal at the time because it was like, “Oh, look. Women are sort of back in the scene.” This is a country before the revolution that had, maybe you can’t necessarily say the most popular artists, but at least some of its most popular artists were women. You have a singer like [inaudible 00:37:07] or Hayedeh, pop staples of pre-revolutionary Iran. They still tend to be popular figures because they’re these famed female vocalists of that era.
In the ’80s and ’90s, especially, when you don’t really have a burgeoning musical scene in Iran, they relied a lot on these diaspora artists. They were very popular in the consumption of that music. I don’t remember the theorist right now, or I don’t remember the author that wrote this, but I want to clarify, this is another author who wrote about this. The author is cited in the book at least, who basically talks about how the consumption of this music in and of itself was a form of, I don’t know if she calls it resistance, or it’s more like it’s a way of pushing the limitations that they have because you’re listening to this pop music that’s not even allowed to be consumed in the country. This has evolved over time. As I said, when you have a period like Khatami in the late 90s and early 2000s, you see the beginnings of the Iranian musical scene inside of Iran really start to flourish. You get all sorts of genres, which were much less popular. The diaspora had its own pop music genre.
Whereas inside Iran, when the music scene starts to evolve, you have rock and heavy metal. In the early 2000s, you have a lot of rap music that becomes very popular. Of course, you still have the pop ballads and melodies and things like that as well. Later, you see a lot of infusion of traditional vocalists, people like [Mohammad-Reza] Shajarian, who then his son, Homayoun Shajarian, uses those traditional styles but then meshes them with more contemporary styles. You get this very diverse music scene in Iran. When that happens, I think they start to shift away from the diaspora musicians a little bit more.
What I saw when I was there in the field work and when you would ask if it was a DJ or if it was somebody who was selling music and it was for parties that they were having at the time, just things that you consume in passing. This is not a political statement at all. It’s just what do you listen to when you’re at a party? Then you’d see these songs like, Dokhtare Irooni would be playing, or they would have a song if it was at the time popular by Black Cats or something like that. So the diaspora music was still, and I assumed to today that would be the case. I haven’t been. My field research ended in 2015, so it’s now been several years, so I don’t want to speak to that.
If you look at a site like Radio Javan, which is basically an iTunes-type site. No, it’s Spotify. Maybe that’s a better equivalent. It’s like a musical streaming site for Iranian and Persian music. They have artists inside Iran as well as diaspora artists. They have a lot of views, listens, and all of that from both sides of the spectrum. I think inside of the country, they more heavily listen to artists inside of Iran because the musical taste in the country have evolved probably more distinctly than that within the diaspora, which would make sense. The cultural center is the country itself, and so it has a lot more diversity within it.
Talia BaroncelliYou spoke to so many young people when you were there. I wonder how they think of their own history. Now I’m generalizing, but young people are Generation Z as a group. How would they see the revolution? Do they think of their history in terms of this historical rupture of pre, post-revolution [inaudible 00:41:06]?
Assal RadThe people that I interviewed, I didn’t make it to Gen Z because most of Gen Z were born after the 2000s. When I was there, they were far too young to be part of the group. I would be fascinated to actually go back to Iran if it was possible to do that field research. It’s not unique to Iran, but this new generation, Gen Z, is changing things everywhere. That’s just the nature of generational change and transition. Whereas I think previous generations, the post-revolutionary generation, which is a lot of the subjects that I spoke with. I spoke with the post-revolution generation, who are probably now in their 30s and early 40s, and folks who were there before the revolution– a slightly older generation, people in their 50s and 60s.
Gen Z, as opposed, I think, to the previous generation in Iran, which was more open or more, I think, strategically thought more in terms of reform, less in terms of revolution, like having another revolution. If they had grievances and discontent with the system, they thought more of the idea of reform, which is why we saw so much engagement with the political system for so many years after the revolution. This generation, and we can’t paint everybody with one brush and draw this conclusion or generalize, but there’s at least a significant portion, and we saw this in the protests in 2022 into 2023, that believes that reform is not possible. As such, they have gone a step further in the way that they protest and the way that they air their grievances. So I’d be very interested in really looking at that group distinctly.
What you mentioned, though, the [inaudible 00:43:11], before and after the revolution, that’s very much of the people that I interviewed, that’s very much a language that they would talk about. There were two periods that they would always talk about if you wanted to have this conversation, and it would be talked about in very unique ways.
One was periodization, before and after the revolution, and also the war. The war was such a huge thing. I knew people who were born in 1986. This is the tail end, the last two years of the war. You would think they have no recollection of the war. You were a toddler when the war ended, and they were very much like, “No, I remember this.” The war was also very much, I think, a part of that generation’s experience. It affected, especially for those who were children during it, it affected their childhoods, and they have these childhood memories from it. It literally changed the landscape. So many of the murals, if you go anywhere in Iran, this is not just Tehran, this is anywhere in Iran if you go, you will see street signs and streets named after martyrs of the war. Murals everywhere, either about the revolution or especially the war. That’s changed as well over time. The amount that you can really allow that, the more history is removed from it. The further away we get from that history, the less it resonates with people. But you still see something like that museum in the middle of Tehran. It’s like a giant piece of land that’s been dedicated to the war, to the revolution and the war. I’ll tell you, somebody who visited it, there wasn’t a lot of people there. How popular was it? This was in 2015. I would not describe it as the Louvre, where you go, and you have a lot of people.
The state can still try to use those stories, but how Iranians themselves consume war stories is also very different. You can see that in the cinema of it.
Talia BaroncelliYeah, I think the state probably exaggerates the importance of some of those symbols. It’s like they play a role in this cultural sense-making, as you call it. But they’re not the only symbols that matter, and pop culture does matter.
My other question would be, your book really looks at identity as a construct. Of course, you mentioned that people who identify in certain ways or live these identities have a very visceral, a very real experience of it. So I wonder what your prescription would be. Identity, it seems to me, can have disadvantages and advantages in terms of how you strategize in a political struggle. Would you say that national identity in the current context of the protests could maybe serve a political ideal of liberation, or would other forms of identity, maybe across class lines or other shared universal experiences, would that be more important?
Assal RadIt’s a great question. It’s hard for me to answer because on the front of nationalism, let’s say this about nationalism, using nationalist rhetoric can be liberating or extremely dangerous depending on who is wielding it and how they’re doing it. That’s very important to say. Yes, in terms of resistance movements. For example, in the state of India in the 1940s when they were trying to liberate it from British colonialism, Indian nationalism became a force for resistance. When partition happens, it can become something that’s not as good. It can create that Indian nationalism, which can then create violence against other groups. It depends on the situation. It’s really dependent on how it’s used.
It’s funny because when you talk about nationalism, I think it’s like any other ideology. This happens a lot with religion. I think when you talk about religion, you’ll often get… I’m not talking about in academia, I’m saying across the board, when people talk about religion, there’s a sentiment that religion is a wildly dangerous thing. Look at how many people have been killed in the name of religion. The counter-argument to that is that people have been killed in the name of everything. Nationalism is not religion, but in the name of certain nationalisms, we’ve carried out genocide, and many atrocities. These are tools in our repertoire that can be used for liberation, but can then also be used for oppression. When you use it as a way to silence minority voices, in the case of Iran, if you use it as a way to silence Baha’is, that’s a danger of nationalism.
In some circles, the nationalism you see about Iranian identity can elevate the idea of Iranianness as being tied to Arianism and whiteness. That carries some dangers within it. When it becomes exclusionary of other groups, whatever those groups are, whether they’re religious minorities, racial minorities, or ethnic minorities.
In a revolutionary movement or in a social movement, especially one that uses discourse like liberation or democracy, inclusiveness, human rights, all this very powerful and ubiquitous discourse– everybody uses this discourse now. That’s what everybody is claiming to be. But if you’re going to use it, then you have to actually execute that in reality. For instance, class struggle, I think it is very important for that. It’s one umbrella in which people can really be united across. That also carries its own dangers. As soon as you say class struggle and then you bring in words like socialism and then it goes communism. What I’m saying, what I’m trying to get at, essentially, is any of these identifiers, any of these ideological tools, any one of them can be used in a way that’s potentially good, but also potentially bad. It’s really the people who are wielding that identity and how inclusive they want to be.
What I’ll say about these protests that we saw in Iran, inside of the country, inside of Iran, is some of the images that I saw that were heartening, at least, where I thought, well, this is hopeful. It was images of women with their backs turned and you would see very different variations of how they were dressed. That was actually very intentional and very symbolic. A woman in chador, a woman in hijab, a woman in nothing, dressed how she wants to; a T-shirt and pants, holding hands. That solidarity to me is much more positive because it’s creating that larger umbrella. That’s not about nationalism necessarily, it’s just about choice. It’s about freedom. That’s what they’re really trying to talk about. These aren’t protests that are anti-Islam. They’re not anti-hijab. They’re anti-compulsory hijab. They’re anti-repression. They’re anti-authoritarianism. I think that positive messaging resonates more because it’s more inclusive. If you want to be inclusive, I definitely think you have to take class into consideration.
If you want a successful movement, you probably want to involve the workers of a country because they’re the backbone of that country, whatever country it might be. Iranian workers have been organized politically since before the revolution and after the revolution. In recent months, it’s a continuity. When we saw some attempts at labor strikes, these aren’t unique. This didn’t happen starting in September 2022. This has been happening for years. Remember that five-year period where I said you’ve seen more repression? You see more repression of the labor movement as well.
I don’t know if that answers the question fully because I feel like I’m evading the question just a little bit because it’s hard to articulate whether something is good or bad. It’s really the way that it’s used. I would urge that the more inclusive we can be, the more I think that reflects the ethos of the discourse that we hear people use.
Talia BaroncelliEven though the movement can be described as a feminist movement, it’s very inclusive because they’re not talking about women’s rights in terms of it being a zero-sum game. It’s not women’s rights at the expense of the right of men or anyone else. It’s women’s rights so that everyone else can have more freedom as well.
Assal RadAbsolutely.
Talia BaroncelliIt’s anti-repression. It’s repression of all groups and not just specifically Iranians or minorities such as Kurds.
Assal RadI also want to say since you brought up women’s rights, these are conversations that transcend Iran’s borders. This isn’t just happening in Iran. That’s the solidarity that you can see. When it becomes nationalist, that’s one of the limitations of it. When it’s about your borders, then it limits the discourse to your borders. But when you look at it as women’s rights, there’s no border that it doesn’t transcend. Women’s rights is an issue everywhere in the world. Women’s rights is an issue right now in the United States. It’s a very important issue actually right now in the United States. Despite all of the freedoms that we have, this is a huge issue in the United States because we’re seeing those freedoms be stripped away. We’re seeing a regression of those things.
Workers’ rights transcends borders. When you can look at these movements, these social movements and see parallels in other places in the world and build that solidarity, I think those also become, in a very different way, more inclusive and, I think, more effective.
Talia BaroncelliWell, I do have one last question if you have time, if you have a few more minutes. It’s just a very, maybe, I don’t know if this will elicit a short or a long answer, but what would you change or add to your book in light of the current protests? Your book does such a good job of giving the historical context to understand the protests, but I wonder if there’s anything that you would maybe add now.
Assal RadOh, yeah. I think I touched on this earlier. There’s a whole generation that it’s now missing. That generation emerged on the political scene in a very potent way starting in the protests of September 2022. It’s not to say that they were never on the scene, but not in this fashion.
The saddest thing, the saddest evidence of that, is in the people who were killed. When you look at the age of the people who were killed. Those are the people protesting. Something else you saw is you saw a lot more women killed because they were the ones out there again. If I wanted to add a chapter, and I would love to, it would be to look at this generation as another watershed moment. Not these protests necessarily, but what these protests represent about a generational shift. That’s where I think the fieldwork in Iran would be invaluable because then you could actually be on the ground to see what the distinction is between this generation and previous generations.
Talia BaroncelliWell, Assal, it was really great to speak to you. I hope everyone reads your book because even though you write it in a somewhat academic context, it’s not an incredibly dense, unreadable academic book. It is very easy to understand and it’s incredibly interesting. You also bring in these amazing historians, and you weave that in. I really loved reading it. I hope that everyone reads it. I don’t have a physical copy of it to show here, but I really hope that everyone reads it.
Assal RadThank you.
Talia BaroncelliThank you for watching theAnalysis. If you’re able to donate to the show and contribute, you can go to theAnalysis.news. Hit the donate button at the top right corner of the screen and also get on the mailing list so that you’re notified every time a new show drops. Also, please go to our YouTube channel, theAnalysis-news, and hit like and subscribe. Hopefully, we’ll have Assal on again soon to speak about Iran.
Assal RadI would love to. Thank you. Thank you so much for having me and for the very generous review of the book.
Talia BaroncelliYou’re welcome. You really deserve it.
Assal RadThank you.
Talia BaroncelliTake care.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)User my donation to help support the upcoming documentary "How to stop a nuclear war" (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another storySubscribe to theAnalysis.news – Newsletter
Email(Required)Name(Required)
First
Last
Δ
“Dr. Assal Rad is the Research Director at the National Iranian American Council, where she works on research and writing related to Iran policy issues and U.S.-Iran relations. Her writing can be seen in Newsweek, The National Interest, The Independent, Foreign Policy, and more. She has appeared as a commentator on BBC World, Al Jazeera, NPR, and others. She completed a Ph.D. in Middle Eastern History from the University of California, Irvine, in 2018 and has a forthcoming book titled, The State of Resistance: Politics, Culture, and Identity in Modern Iran (Cambridge University Press, 2022).”
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
The Reserve Bank of Australia has made an ad, and it’s surprisingly honest and informative. This video was originally published by The Juice Media on May 6, 2023.
Honest Government Ad | Reserve Bank of AustraliaHonest Government Ad | Visit New South Wales!Honest Government Ad | the Safeguard MechanismHonest Government Ad | AUKUSHonest Government Ad | Julian AssangeHonest Government Ad | Visit Western AustraliaJuice Media Satire: Australian “Values”News Corp Bargaining Code – Biting Satire From Juice MediaJuice Media Nails Australien Government Climate “Policy”Juice Media Take Down of QAnon – we wish it was just satire Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Music*
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)User my donation to help support the upcoming documentary "How to stop a nuclear war" (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another storySubscribe to theAnalysis.news – Newsletter
Email(Required)Name(Required)
First
Last
Δ
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
Renaud Lambert, journalist at Le Monde diplomatique, discusses the nationwide anti-pension reform protests in France, which have consisted of over a million people taking to the streets on more than one occasion. He underscores how French President Emmanuel Macron’s tax cuts for the wealthy have increased the current deficit, exposing how workers will now need to work longer to make up for the decreases in government revenue.
Massive French Protests Continue – Renaud LambertChris Hedges, Edward Snowden, Noam Chomsky, Paul Jay and Daniel Ellsberg on AssangeLeftist Mélenchon as French PM Would Shake Europe – Renaud LambertClinton, Blair, and Obama Destroyed the Idealism of Politics – Gabriel Byrne on RAI Pt 3/4The Miners Strike Taught Me to Think Critically – Gabriel Byrne on RAI Pt 2/4From Priesthood to Actor to Activist – Gabriel Byrne on RAI Pt 1/4Corporate Media Perpetuates Climate Science Denial – Gabriel Byrne on RAI Pt 4/4 Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Guest * Music*
Talia BaroncelliHi, I’m Talia Baroncelli, and you’re watching theAnalysis.news. I’ll shortly be joined by French journalist Renaud Lambert to speak about Emmanuel Macron’s pension reforms and the massive protests against this in France. If you enjoy this content, please go to the website, theAnalysis.news, and hit the donate button at the top right corner of the screen. You can also get on the newsletter; that way, you’ll be notified every time there’s a new episode. Consider going to our YouTube channel, theAnalysis-news, hit like and subscribe on all the videos. I’ll see you soon.
Joining me now to speak about the French pension reforms is Renaud Lambert. He’s a journalist at Le Monde diplomatique. Thank you so much for joining me, Renaud.
Renaud LambertThank you for having me.
Talia BaroncelliWhy don’t we start talking about the response to Emmanuel Macron’s pension reforms? We’ll get into the details of this throughout the interview because Macron extended the retirement age from 62 to 64, and there are lots of really nitty gritty details around that. Why don’t we first start talking about the eventful past few months and how so many people in France have been going out on the streets and protesting for weeks on end?
Renaud LambertYeah. To give you an idea of where we are at in France, at the moment, the authorities have passed a new law whereby it’s forbidden to walk in the street with pots and pans. Why have they done that? Because people have taken to accompany ministers and the president wherever they go to talk or to inaugurate something. They are there, surrounding them, beating on pots and pans to mock them. This is something that we have never seen in France before.
I’ll go back to where it started, but at this stage, this social movement is something that is incredibly joyful, happy, and humorous. The anger has turned into mockery. The power is no longer legitimate, and people make fun of them. It’s gotten to the stage where ministers avoid having to come out of the ministries for fear of being welcomed by these types of gatherings. The Minister for the Interior, two days ago, pretended that he had cancelled the meeting in order for the gathering not to be there when he actually went. So they have to organize these types of things in order to not be faced with people’s discontent. Even more than discontent at this stage is people’s total, well, I guess, irony.
How did we get there? Initially, when the reform was presented, nobody was sure what was going to happen. Trade unions in France tend to organize marches, but it’s a one-off march, and we don’t know where it’s going to go. They were quite big. They gathered over a million people not once or twice but up to 10 times. I think we’ve passed the 12 demonstrations. The amount of time the government failed to address people’s anger at the reform has increased that anger to a level that is quite rare in France.
Now, apart from the initial trade union movement, a lot of young people have gathered and helped organize these demonstrations. This has raised a lot of questions because people have said, “Well, why do young people care about retirement?” Of course, right-wing pundits have complained about how young people only think about retiring and don’t think about work. I think what people have understood and the younger people have understood is that the reason why people don’t want that reform is because retirement is the end of everything they don’t agree with. The power of your employer, all the little vexations you receive at work, and everything that doesn’t work are supposed to end when you finally retire. Fighting for retirement is fighting against everything that is not functioning in society, which means that this movement against pension reform is a lot larger than a movement against a specific attempt at increasing the age at which you can retire.
Talia BaroncelliIt has unified so many people across, I would say, maybe not even the political spectrum but the age spectrum. As you said, there are so many young people out on the streets, older people, and I guess not just people from the Left, but all sorts of people of different political ideologies are protesting. In particular, the unions, how have the unions come together in this particular instance to protest against these reforms, more so than they did in the past?
Renaud LambertAn answer about the union. I want to bring to your attention the fact that, that cross-spectrum of mobilization is quite unheard of. A couple of days ago, a very upper-class conservative politician gathered with the leader of the CGT [General Confederation of Labour], which is very red, and linked to the Communist Party. They gathered to unite against that project. As you said, across the board, there are a lot of complaints, whether it is regarding the law, the specific aspects of the law, or the way Macron went about it.
It is true that the way trade unions have united is quite unique. I think it’s the first time in about ten years. One of the reasons for this is that the attempt at promoting social partnership, unions that developed in 1980 through the 1990s with a specific trade union in France, CFDT [French Democratic Confederation of Labour], has come to an end. Macron, as opposed to previous presidents, didn’t take the time to organize his project or his bill with that specific trade union. He didn’t take the time to discuss it with them. They had a specific proposition, a proposal that I didn’t agree with personally and most of the Left didn’t agree with, but he could have negotiated this with them. He didn’t do that. So he failed to organize his support base in the trade union movements, which meant the road was clear for unions to unite against this attempt at bulldozing any type of concertation.
Talia BaroncelliIs that because primarily in the past few decades, there have been more so-called ‘yellow unions,’ unions which weren’t necessarily completely independent or didn’t have members who were paying for the union to represent them, but they were more tied to the state. Has that really played into this?
Renaud LambertWell, we don’t have ‘yellow unions’ that would have that much of an impact. But part of the Left, and I would have been guilty of this, would have tended to call so-called social democratic unions ‘yellow.’ There is a saying in the social movement in France about one of the leading unions in the current demonstrations against the bill. A couple of years ago, the saying was that if employers wanted to impose a golden chain on workers, that union would negotiate the weight of the ball. I don’t know if it’s clear, but they would negotiate. They are negotiating, and they would sign agreements. So, of course, they played a particular part in the reorganization of labour regulations. What happened this time that was different from the past was that the president didn’t discuss with them and didn’t take into account their own proposal for the reform. So he went into the fight without their support, and they’re making him pay for this.
Talia BaroncelliWell, I think 70% of people in a recent poll said that they don’t agree with the reforms, and something like 90% of people who are economically active don’t agree with the reforms. In the first few decades of the 1900s in France, when there were big social movements, there was lots of negotiation with the government, maybe less so in the past few decades. But what seems to me, at least, so very specific about Emmanuel Macron and his party is that there’s no sense whatsoever of the protests being a form of political participation. He says people voted in the elections, and that was their way of expressing their political views. People going out on the streets, I respect them. I don’t think he actually does. He says he respects them, but he doesn’t see that as a legitimate political act of voicing what their views or grievances would be. I recently saw, I think it was, Jacques Marilossian, who was a former MP of the Renaissance Party, of Macron’s party, saying that I’m ashamed of these people who don’t recognize that we have a pension reform issue. How can they not get this through their heads? Why are they still demonstrating? So it seems like there’s a real contempt on the part of the government towards the people and also the right to protest. Are you seeing that as well?
Renaud LambertOh, yeah. Big time. There’s an attitude to Macron. It is a very aristocratic attitude. We have compiled little sentences, little snippets of things that he said, which are humiliating people looking for a job or people demonstrating. There is a very superior, condescending tone to him. I think he politically represents a last attempt at the ancien régime to perpetuate itself. When he was elected first, we had witnessed the collapse of the traditional Left and traditional right-wing in France, as in many places: Greece and Spain. Macron turned up as something new. He received support from the traditional Left and traditional Right. That meant that in order to get him to be President, they had to abandon the idea that you had pluralism in that democracy, that you could choose either the Left or the Right because they all supported him. It was him or chaos. At this stage, we have seen that he’s pushed the same logic further. At this stage, the system is quite ready to impose a very high degree of violence in order to have its way.
Now, another reason why people are mobilizing is that the government has been lying so much, and the demonstration has shown that it’s been lying on a lot of issues. One had appealed to quite a few people. During the campaign, Macron said, “I’m going to do reform, a pension reform, and everybody will receive €1,200, no matter what.” I actually just listened to the clip again. One day there was this economist that came to the number one radio station in France, and he was talking with another economist, someone close to the government. He said, “Well, no, that’s not true.” The journalists were there saying, “What? But the government has been saying that it was. Yeah, but the government has been lying.” He made the example that what had been presented as a measure that would offer everybody at least €1,200 was a pure lie. There were other lies of this type.
For instance, we have to do this reform because we need to balance the budget. It’s been demonstrated that the reason why we need to balance the budget is because Macron cut taxes on rich people. So he created a deficit that he then needs to compensate for, and he’s giving to the rich. It’s literally taking from the poor people that depend on their pensions to live. He also said, “Well, we need to do this because we need to reassure the financial markets. We are going to get a rate downgrade if we don’t do this.” But then we did get a rate downgrade. The reason why we did, I think, is because the demonstrations were so big. As you know, rating agencies, they don’t rate countries; they rate populations. The French people saw their rate downgraded because they were so militant and adamant that they would not accept that reform.
So at this stage, there’s no political base. There’s no rationale that the government can use to say, we need this reform. All their arguments have been destroyed. I think the situation in France at the moment is a tug of war. It is similar to the one that opposed Margaret Thatcher to the miners in the U.K. in ’84 and Reagan to air traffic controllers earlier on in the ’80s. I think the stakes are quite high.
For the social movement, if we fail to get Macron to cancel this reform, it will take a toll. Seeds have been planted, and perhaps we can talk about it. Seeds have been planted. But there were more than 12 demonstrations, with over a million people taking to the street. Polls are sky high saying how much French people don’t want this. So losing would be quite hard. For Macron, at some stage, the private sector and people are going to pick up their phones and say, “Well, you need to do something because we can’t work anymore. This has to stop. The institutions are being delegitimized. You have to stop this. It can’t go on.” If that happens, and I’m crossing my fingers, when that happens, Macron will find it very hard to carry on with his neoliberal project.
Talia BaroncelliWell, I think it’s also very ironic that Macron is often one of the first people to condemn authoritarianism and autocrats in other parts of the world. But if you look at his own approach and policies in France, he’s been rather anti-democratic. The government has used this very controversial Article 49.3, where they’ve pushed pension reform using this method. It bypasses the National Assembly or the Parliament, which means that it’s the Senate who then votes on it, and the Senate is an unelected body. So it is a very undemocratic way of pushing through reforms. I think this year alone, they’ve already used this mechanism ten times.
Renaud LambertThat is right.
Talia BaroncelliOf course, it is in the Constitution, so it still is technically legal, but it’s probably not the best way to engage and address an issue which clearly has lots of opposition. People on the street have demonstrated that opposition. So you speak about how he’s delegitimized, or he’s eroded a lot of these democratic institutions by doing so. I wonder, what will be the response to that long term from these social movements? The next election is a few years down the road, and Macron already has a very, very thin coalition or mandate because he didn’t have a large majority. The election went into a runoff into the second stage, where he beat Marine Le Pen. So how do you think this is going to impact social movements, in general, over the next few years?
Renaud LambertWell, I wouldn’t try and predict anything, but I think the situation is as I said. Neoliberal social democratic Left and traditional conservatism joined forces to push Macron to become the next president. Something is going to rise against this.
Now, in France, we have a very strong far-right movement that is there waiting for its turn to take the presidency. Chances are that for part of the population, Marine Le Pen, who embodies that movement, is going to be a solution. In France, we talk about [foreign language 00:18:55], which means anybody but them. For some people, Marine Le Pen will mean that it’s not the old traditional political people that are in power. Of course, there is also a far-right movement composed of people who believe in that ideology. We’ve seen them marching in the streets of France last week. So that is something that will be there and that we will need to fight against.
At the same time, there is a Left force in the Parliament, and they’ve been doing a very good job. I think the social movement will blow into their sails. Now, to what extent? It’s difficult to say. The next presidential election is in [20]27.
On the trade union side, the opposition to the reform has been a lot stronger than the upper echelons expected. That has imposed some soul-searching on the main trade unions. Now, they have had to turn to reorient their line to the Left. There were major conventions for both CFDT and CGT, leading to a left-wing inflection. That is positive, obviously. But the most positive aspect is the amount of young people taking to the street at the moment. They are encountering firsthand what a police state is; a new horrible state that is only kept together by people being clubbed over the head. Now, obviously, that is very sad, but it’s a very intense political school that French streets are very intense. It is a new political school at the moment.
Talia BaroncelliWhy don’t we talk about the actual reforms? We’ve spoken about the social movements and the political context, but perhaps we could get into the reform itself because I’ve seen all sorts of information and reporting on it, which is a bit confusing at times. My understanding is that Macron has increased the pension age from 62 to 64, but that you would have to work for a minimum of 43 years or pay contributions for at least 43 years, whereas before, it was 42 years. According to the reforms, after these 43 years, then you would get €1,200 a month. But there are certain exceptions for people who have more physically demanding jobs. Is that really the case? And who actually is disproportionately affected by these reforms? I mean, there have been talks about women who have kids and that sort of thing, or is that just a side issue?
Renaud LambertThe reform is mainly impacting women because it means that women who have been working and have paid into the system for 42-43 years will still have to work until they are 64. They will have to give another two years into the system, even though their right to retirement is already achieved.
As I said, Macron is trying to balance a budget, and the pressure is coming from the European Union. His plan is to reach the level of a 3% public deficit by [20]27. In order to do this, he needs to fill the hole he’s dug by reducing taxes on richer people. So he’s cutting on public spending because he’s cut on earnings for the state. So that is the logic that he’s following.
Talia BaroncelliThere was also, I think, a pension reform committee of the government which came up with, I think, eight different scenarios in the future. I didn’t look into this in detail, but it seemed like all of the eight scenarios looked pretty bad. Was that a cover-up to cover up the fact that they’re just not doing enough taxation on the rich, and they’re treating this issue as if it’s, oh, we now have a problem? We need to ensure that people work longer so that we can pay for people’s pensions.
Renaud LambertThe organization you’re referring to is called COR [Conseil d’orientation des retraites]. They did have a report saying that in the next couple of years, there would be some deficit, but only for a couple of years. The government used that to say, “Well, we are facing chaos.” The government actually talked about a €100 billion deficit. They turned it into something major. There’s no problem in financing the pension system in France if you don’t touch taxation. If you decide to destroy the system by preventing sources of earnings for the state, obviously, you’re running the balance. It’s a created problem.
Talia BaroncelliJust to be a bit contrarian, France does spend 30% of its GDP on social welfare. So could you make the argument that they really are… this deficit is real and that they can’t come up with this money from any other source, and that they’re already paying so much into the system. People are getting paid for maternity leave, and that’s not the case in a lot of other countries. They get other sorts of subsidies, so they should stop complaining and work a bit longer.
Renaud LambertWell, I appreciate the effort to be contrarian. A lot of the media are already doing it in France, but not on the analysis. More seriously, France is a country where GDP is highly dependent on consumption. If you prevent people from consuming, then it’s the entire economy that is going to collapse. As I said, there was no financing problem with the system before Macron actually cut taxes on the rich. Why did he do that? He said that if we cut taxes on the rich, then it’s going to trickle down, and jobs are going to be created. Jobs have not been created. So basically, you have the same argument whereby you need to take care of the rich and the poor need to make an effort because tomorrow, this is going to pay off. It hasn’t paid off. So really, there’s no reason why, even trying to be contrarian, you should do this to the pension system in France.
Talia BaroncelliWell, he has been trying to answer some questions on corporate greed. Just seeing some of his speeches. It’s not like he’s not aware of the fact that companies are profiting from inflation, from the COVID crisis, from supply chain issues, and that sort of thing. I did hear him say that companies which have extremely high profits should direct some of these profits to the workers. They should make sure that stock buybacks are not allowed. But as far as I’ve seen, I haven’t seen any concrete measures as to how the workers in those companies would benefit from those profits. Have you seen anything?
Renaud LambertNo, I haven’t. Obviously, all these snippets need to be put into the context where they appear. Obviously, Macron is going through a very difficult patch. Macron has been the President under which the richer part of the population has increased its wealth fastest. He’s called the ‘Président des riches,’ the ‘President for the rich.’ He hasn’t done anything to limit their capacity to get richer. Now he’s discovering that discourse. He’s making these speeches at the moment. His Minister for the Economy, Bruno Le Maire, is famous for having asked companies to try and make an effort. Please, I’m asking companies to try and make an effort not to raise prices. That’s the extent of how much they want to fight against corporate greed and the like. So no, Macron is not going to curtail the way the rich are becoming richer in France at the moment. Definitely not.
Talia BaroncelliWell, we were speaking about how a lot of young people have been out on the streets because they know that this erosion of democracy and also these neoliberal policies will ultimately affect them, regardless of when they actually start working. But which generation is actually right now most affected by this reform? Is it the people who are born in the mid-60s to mid-70s?
Renaud LambertPeople who are most affected by the actual reform are people who are today between 55 and 60 years of age. Obviously, it’s not the younger people who are taking to the street at the moment. There is a conflation of events. Now, the way Macron has sent police forces against demonstrations, this has happened as well during the demonstration in favor of climate responsibility, very radical, root-based movement’s, militant green activists. They faced a lot of police repression as well. It is the same for the trade unions and people taking to the street against the pension reform. This has created a realization. People have understood that it’s all part and parcel. The pension reform, the promotion of pollution, that logic whereby you need to produce more and more neoliberalism, all of this, this is called Macron today. People are joining forces against him because he’s become the embodiment of everything that is not working.
Talia BaroncelliWell, it’s also very telling that the initial name of the party, En Marche, is actually his initials, Emmanuel Macron. So that really does show how full of himself and arrogant he is and how he, in my view, doesn’t really fully believe in these democratic principles that he keeps bringing up. He’s been travelling the world to distract from the mess that’s at home, giving speeches in China, different climate speeches in the U.S., a 60 Minutes interview, going on MSNBC, and just having all these different media appearances and trying to make himself appear like a strong statesman who knows what he’s doing. I almost feel like this quality of not listening to people on the streets is, in his view and according to his party, something that’s to be respected. We know what the answer is. We’re the technocrats. We have the expertise, and so we’re going to push through these reforms regardless of what people think and how they feel. So there’s this disregard for the general public.
Renaud LambertI don’t really buy into the idea that we should have technocrats guiding us. But let’s say we did believe in this. Well, Macron’s failed in that respect as well. His government has had more problems with justice than any in the last 15 years. One of his closest aides is facing difficulties with justice because of conflicts of interest. So many of his ministers are faced with similar issues. So even that, even the idea that they know best, they’re not very sympathetic, they’re not very nice people, but they know best, let them do what they know how to do. Even that is not working anymore. They can’t play that card.
Regarding the way Macron feels about himself, yesterday, I think he got his representative in the National Assembly to pass a law whereby it is now compulsory for town halls to put up a portrait, a picture of him as president.
Talia BaroncelliReally?
Renaud LambertYeah.
Talia BaroncelliSo what happens if you throw an egg at it or graffiti? Is that then the destruction of property?
Renaud LambertWell, no, no, no. That’s disrespectful to the president. People have had to answer questions at police stations for putting up signs saying, ‘Macron face de cochon,’ ‘Macron is a pig face,’ or things like that.
Talia BaroncelliWasn’t there a woman who posted on Facebook, I believe, just showing and expressing her opposition to Macron, and I believe she was arrested, wasn’t she?
Renaud LambertIt’s very possible. I haven’t heard that story, but it’s very possible. Now, people watching us now should know that last week a neo-Nazi organization marched in Paris, and they not only were allowed but they were accompanied by the police. There was no problem with this. Now, if they had had a banner saying ‘Macron, tête de con,’ which is a very polite insult, they would have had problems with the police. That’s where we’re at, at the moment.
I started by saying there was something joyful about the demonstration, and it’s because we do believe that this is not possible. It cannot stay like this. But it’s also quite scary. The level of police violence and the impunity they’re receiving and they’re benefiting from. The fact that neo-Nazis… and this is not an expression. This is not me saying, oh, they’re right-wing; therefore, they are neo-Nazis. No, they are neo-Nazis, and they’re marching in the streets of France.
Talia BaroncelliThe narrative has also focused so much on the “violence of the people.” Macron keeps saying that these are unacceptable acts of violence. I support protesters and respect them, but not these unacceptable acts of violence on the streets, which is to deflect from, I think, a lot of the police violence that we’ve seen; beating up protesters, some people have lost eyes, and more horrible things.
Renaud LambertYep.
Talia BaroncelliI wanted to ask you one last question, which is a bit more economical. Looking at the 2010 economic crisis, what they call the Sovereign Debt Crisis in Europe, that a lot of economists have actually explained was a banking crisis which involved German and French banks over lending to Greece. So when Greece had to be bailed out, a lot of the money that went to Greece ended up going back to paying the loans and paying the interest on those German and French bank loans. How do you think the austerity politics, which was implemented at the time to cut public expenditure, how did that play into the current moment?
Renaud LambertWell [pause].
Talia BaroncelliIt’s neoliberalism, and Macron is the representative of these neoliberal policies. But at the same time, I feel like there was some tension or resistance to austerity in France, and that was the debate between France and Germany.
Renaud LambertYes.
Talia BaroncelliGermany was all for austerity, whereas France was, on paper, at least, not really for austerity, and they had more debt.
Renaud LambertWell, it’s quite a long sequence, that sequence that leads from the subprime debt crisis to today. There were several moments, each of which certainly played some part. I think one of the big moments in France for French people, for the Left and for the Right, even the far-right, was the Greek crisis. Now, what happened during the Greek crisis and the near collapse of the Eurozone was what had been presented as the bee’s knees just didn’t work. That single currency didn’t work. It cost populations too much.
Now, in 2017, during the presidential election in France, out of, if my memory is correct, 11 candidates, I think nine of them were in favor of leaving the European Union because of the pressure that the European Union, the neoliberal pressure of the European Union is putting on France. Now, the next sequence that was, I think, that played into what we’re living at the moment was COVID. At that time, Macron said, “Whatever it takes.” That was a very important speech. So much money was poured into private companies to save them. But people have said, “Well, there is money,” in spite of what they said before. So okay, now the tap is turned, and we are going to receive some money, but it was not the case. Now they’re saying, “Well, we need to make an effort. We need to balance the books.” But listen, last year, only two years ago, you said we needed to support companies in the private sector, and there was so much money. I think people are coming on to all of this. So yes, certainly, it is playing into that sequence of events. You’re probably right.
Talia BaroncelliUnfortunately, a lot of this disillusionment with the government is also playing into the right-wing parties.
Renaud LambertYes.
Talia BaroncelliThese current reforms. So hopefully, it doesn’t lead to any more support for Marine Le Pen and her national rally party.
Renaud LambertNo. There is something that the Left cannot avoid seeing, and even people who are not strategists for the Left. Now, this movement has lasted a couple of months in France. We’ve had, like I said, over 12 demonstrations of over 1 million people in France, with a very wide majority. Even despite that, we haven’t managed to win a struggle that is only a defensive struggle. We’re not fighting to conquer any new Right, any new disposition. We are preventing the neoliberal state from crushing us further. That shows the level of the amount of effort and the struggle we will need to put in the day we’re ready to go for a positive struggle to conquer new rights. That is daunting.
Talia BaroncelliIt is a very daunting task ahead for the French population, but also for other people throughout Europe. I think this is something which is a similar experience shared by different people in Europe and also in North America—austerity politics, cutting the budget, cutting public expenditure at the expense of the most vulnerable.
Renaud LambertYep.
Talia BaroncelliWell, Renaud Lambert, it was really great having you on the show to speak about Macron, the pension reforms, and social movements in France. I hope we can have you on again; hopefully, once there’s some positive news coming out of France.
Renaud LambertWith pleasure.
Talia BaroncelliThank you for watching theAnalysis.news. If you’ve watched this episode and liked it, please go to our website, theAnalysis.news, and consider making a contribution. Most importantly, get on our newsletter. That way, you’ll be informed every time a new episode drops. Go to the YouTube channel, theAnalysis-news. Click on the like button for all the episodes you want to watch and hit subscribe. See you next time.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)User my donation to help support the upcoming documentary "How to stop a nuclear war" (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another storySubscribe to theAnalysis.news – Newsletter
Email(Required)Name(Required)
First
Last
Δ
Renaud Lambert is a deputy editor and journalist for Le Monde Diplomatique, a French monthly newspaper offering analysis and opinion on politics, culture, and current affairs.
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
Shireen Al-Adeimi, Professor of Language and Literacy at Michigan State University, lays out the U.S., U.K., and Canada’s role in perpetuating the brutal Saudi-led blockade of Yemen. She exposes Biden’s continued military support of Saudi Arabia, despite the administration’s pledge to only send defensive support, and calls into question the misleading dichotomy of “offensive” vs. “defensive” military support. Is a peace deal more likely now that the Houthi and Saudi representatives have met in Sana’a?
Libyans Caught Between Warring Elites and Foreign PowersModern Iran: National Identity as a Tool of Resistance or Coercion?Yemen: Biden’s Hypocrisy and Possible Peace?U.S. Interference in the Middle East – 20 Years Since the U.S. Invasion of Iraq – Col. Larry WilkersonCensorship in Germany, Israeli Hacking & Saudi-Iran Peace Deal – Dr. Shir HeverSignificance of China-Brokered Iran-Saudi Agreement – Trita ParsiSaudis Hedge Bets, Iran Risks Increasing Isolation – Trita ParsiThe Iranian Revolution: The Fall of the Shah and the Rise of KhomeiniIranian Women-Led Resistance Independent of Western ImperialismWhy the Media is Now Supporting Julian Assange? – Paul Jay pt 2/2Retired US Army Colonel on Ukraine, Iran & the State of the US EmpireAnti-Regime Protests and the Devastating Effects of US Sanctions in IranPaul Jay on 9/11Biden Bows to the Saudis – Trita Parsi & Annelle ShelinePt 2/2 – Paul Jay & Abby Martin on Afghanistan, 9/11 & Climate ChangePt 1/2 – Paul Jay & Abby Martin on Afghanistan and 9/11Why David Clennon Refused Audition for Hit & Run, a Netflix Israeli Co-proAfter Forty Years of U.S. Destruction of Afghanistan, it’s Time for ReparationsIs BDS Effective Strategy? – Shir Hever Pt 3/3U.S. Sanctions Strengthen Iranian Theocracy – Hamid DabashiFighting for Peace and Equality in Israel – Rula Daood and Alon-Lee GreenWho Rules Israel – Shir Hever pt2Why Did 72% of Israelis Want Attack on Gaza to Continue?Is Israel a Strategic Asset or Liability? – WilkersonAbby Martin’s “Gaza Fights for Freedom”Israel’s War on Palestine – Ali AbunimahDoes the U.S. Owe Reparations to Afghanistan, Should U.S. Troops Leave? – Bennis & WilkersonBiden’s Syria Deception: The Norwegian ConnectionUS Bombing in Syria Illegal; Biden Should Rejoin Iran Agreement Now – Bennis/WilkersonIs Protecting the Murderous Crown Prince in the National Interest? – Phyllis Bennis and Larry WilkersonBiden’s Doublespeak About Ending Yemen War -Abby MartinThe Oil Interests Behind the War in YemenThe Disintegration of Israeli PoliticsEnding the War on Yemen?Biden’s Scary Foreign Policy Picks: A Blast From War Crimes Past – Abby MartinEmpire Update: Did Trump Order Iran Assassination? – Abby MartinEmpire Update: Afghanistan/Somalia Withdrawal Scam; Trump Weighs WWIII – Abby MartinElliot Abrams Tries to Tie Biden’s Hands on Iran – Trita ParsiTrump & Neocons Want to Destroy Iranian Society – Trita ParsiIsrael Wants U.S. to Weaken and Isolate Iran – RAI with Trita Parsi Pt 3/3U.S. Attempts to Destabilize Iran Have Failed – RAI with Trita Parsi Pt 2/3U.S. Refuses to Accept Iran as a Regional Power – RAI with Trita Parsi Pt 1/3Does Israel Have the Right to Exist as a Jewish State? – Ali Abunimah on Reality Asserts Itself (3/5)Gaza Under Siege – Eva Bartlett on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 2/2Gaza Under Siege – Eva Bartlett on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 1/2Class Struggle in Palestine – Ali Abunimah on Reality Asserts Itself (4/5)Palestinians can Learn From the African America Struggle – Ali Abunimah on Reality Asserts Itself (2/5)Awakened by the Palestinian Intifada – Ali Abunimah on Reality Asserts Itself (1/5)Justice Requires an End to Israeli Jewish Supremacy Over Palestinians – Ali Abunimah on Reality Asserts Itself (5/5)From a Zionist Youth to Outspoken Critic of a Jewish State – Michael Ratner on RAI Pt 2/7Are the Saudis Fueling a Sunni-Shia War? – Toby Jones on Reality Asserts Itself (2/2)Al Qaeda and the Saudi Agenda – Toby Jones on Reality Asserts Itself (1/2)One State or Two, Solution Must be Based on Palestinian Rights Phyllis Bennis on RAI Pt 4/4Fmr. Israeli Intel. Chief Says Palestinian Israeli Conflict Greater Risk than Nuclear Iran Pt 2/4Vietnam War Created Middle East Activist – Phyllis Bennis on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 1/4Syria’s Six Wars and Humanitarian Catastrophe – Phyllis Bennis on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 3/4Did Bush Cheney Create a Culture of Not Wanting to Know – Sen. Bob Graham on RAI Pt 7/7Revealing 9/11 Conspiracy Would Undo U.S. Saudi Alliance – Sen. Bob Graham on RAI Pt 5/7Saudi Government’s 9/11 Connection and the Path to Disillusionment – Sen. Bob Graham on RAI Pt 4/7 Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Guest * Music*
Talia BaroncelliHi, I’m Talia Baroncelli, and you’re watching theAnalysis.news. I’ll shortly be joined by Professor Shireen Al-Adeimi to speak about the war in Yemen and the role of the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Canada in fueling this conflict. We’ll also speak about the history which led up to this conflict and potential ways to put pressure to ensure that it is brought to an end.
Shireen Al-AdeimiThe only reason Yemenis needed humanitarian aid was because they were blockaded and prevented from trading. It’s because their water facilities were being bombed. It’s because their hospitals were being bombed. It’s because, heck, even their schools, their homes, and cars were being bombed.
Talia BaroncelliBut first, please consider donating to the show by going to our website, theAnalysis.news, and hitting the donate button at the top right corner of the screen. Most importantly, get on our mailing list. That way, you’ll be emailed every time a new episode drops. You can also go to our YouTube channel, theAnalysis-news, hit the subscribe button and hit the bell; that way, you’ll get notifications if you have your notifications enabled every time a new show is published. See you in a bit.
Joining me now to speak about the war in Yemen is Shireen Al-Adeimi. She’s a Professor of Language and Literacy at Michigan State University and is a non-resident Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. So thank you so much for joining me, Shireen.
Shireen Al-AdeimiThanks for having me, Talia.
Talia BaroncelliA few weeks ago, on April 9, we saw a positive image. We saw a handshake between the Houthi political leader, [Mahdi] al-Mashat and Saudi Ambassador to Yemen, Al-Jaber. Did you think we’ve reached a sort of breakthrough in this war right now?
Shireen Al-AdeimiI think the peace talks have been very encouraging. Of course, we know that a ceasefire was reached back in April of 2022. For about a year, or more than a year now, there have not been Saudi-led airstrikes in Yemen, and that’s a positive development. That’s what we’ve been asking for, one of the things that we’ve been asking for so many years. It represents a change, at least in the war. The war is still ongoing, but it represents a significant change in the war.
I think the handshake and the meeting are certainly positive. I think it surprised a lot of people because it represents a Saudi recognition of the de facto rule of the Houthis. For the Saudi representative to go right into the heart of Houthi control, which is in Sana’a, and to meet with them, recognizes, I think, or shows that the Saudis finally understand who they’re dealing with. They’re not dealing with rebels, as they’ve been calling them for the last several years, even though, of course, the title still fits in many ways. They have organized themselves into a government over the last several years. They have been the de facto rulers. They control an area of Yemen where over 70% of the population, close to 80% of the population resides. I do think it’s positive. There’s still a long way to go before peace can be achieved. I think anytime people are talking to one another instead of dropping bombs, that certainly is a development that we should be looking at positively.
Talia BaroncelliDo you think this potential peace deal would have legs if it doesn’t really incorporate some of the other political actors who have been involved in this conflict, actors besides the Saudis and the Houthis?
Shireen Al-AdeimiI think for lasting peace, it absolutely has to include everybody. There is no getting rid of the Islah Party or members of the GPC Party, which is the party of President Hadi or former President Hadi, or the Southern Transitional Council, which is the separatist group, or the Houthis. There is no getting rid of any of these elements, no matter what people or how people feel about them. I do think that a lasting peace settlement needs to include all of these parties.
Now, the other thing we have to realize, too, is that the Houthis have been fighting all of these factions alongside those who are in the same camp as the Saudi-led coalition. So the STC is only powerful because they are backed by the United Arab Emirates. The Islah Party and President Hadi– President Hadi is not powerful, but members of his party and the Islah Party are only powerful because the Saudis have been funding them over the last several years. They’ve been based in Riyadh for the most part. I think we have to understand that when the Saudis are speaking to the Houthis directly, they’re not just representing themselves. In a way, they’re representing these other groups that they have been training, backing, funding, and hosting in their countries over the last several years.
Now, after a Houthi-Saudi settlement is reached, and if these foreign entities stop funding these groups and other groups, then I think there’s hope for Yemenis to actually sit around the table with one another and discuss a settlement and reach an agreement that works for all of them. As I said, nobody’s leaving the country. Nobody’s going to give up arms. Nobody’s going to give up their claims. Yemenis have to live with one another. They have to reach some agreement among themselves.
Talia BaroncelliWhat do you think led to this particular moment right now where we’re seeing more dialogue, we’re seeing different leaders and representatives meeting in Sana’a? What led to this particular moment?
Shireen Al-AdeimiSo, if you remember, in early 2022, there were strikes in Sana’a that disabled Yemen’s internet for four days. No country has ever done this to another country and outright shut down its communication with the rest of the world. In that same week, there were attacks that killed 70 people at a detention center. There was this escalation of attacks, and it followed the UN not renewing this expert group which was supposed to hold the Saudi-led coalition accountable for some of what they were doing in Yemen. There were escalations on the part of the Saudi-led coalition, but at the same time, the Houthis escalated their strikes against both Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E.
For the very first time in the last several eight years, they were able to successfully, I would say, target some areas. There was an oil refinery in Jeddah that was hit. There was also a facility in the U.A.E. that was hit and it was not rebuffed by the U.A.E. or Saudi in time. So I think everybody had a reason to talk to one another. The Houthis were not able to rest Marib, which is a gas and oil-rich province, out of the hands of the Saudis and their coalition. At the same time, the Saudis were not able to move forward. There’s been a stalemate for several, several years, and now they saw that the Houthis were actually going to be able to cause some economic disruptions in their countries. I think everybody was incentivized to actually sit down and come up with an agreement that’s negotiated and mediated by Oman and come up with some kind of agreement that would work for all sides.
The Saudis, I think, have been exhausted by this. They have spent, by some accounts, $200 million a month on this war over the last several years. To spend that amount of money and not see your goals achieved in any way. They weren’t able to reinstate President Hadi’s power. Eventually, they ended up setting him aside. They weren’t able to recapture territories from the Houthis. What is it all for? I think there’s a recognition that, well, there’s all this pressure from U.S. Congress not wanting to support the Saudi-led coalition anymore. The Saudis are seeing that this was actually a war that they could not win. The Emiratis have a big question mark about their interests because they remain entangled in Yemen. I don’t think anybody’s really focused on their role or focused as much on their role. I think, at the very least, on the Saudi side, there’s an interest in extracting themselves from this war.
Talia BaroncelliYeah, the Emiratis are occupying an island just south of Yemen, and I know that they have played a role in this conflict. What has the role of China been given the recent rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which was in large part negotiated by China, but also by Oman? You also referenced Oman’s role in these negotiations. What is China’s role?
Shireen Al-AdeimiI think it would be interesting to see what their role could be. China did not sell weapons to the Saudis or the U.A.E. They didn’t get involved in any way in the war. I think Oman is one of those other countries, and uniquely Oman, because every other Gulf country and many other Arab countries and African countries joined the Saudi-led coalition in one way, shape, or the other. Oman stayed neutral and has been hosting these talks for several years. This is not the first time they’ve hosted talks.
China worked with Iran and Saudi Arabia directly and reached some kind of agreement to reinstate diplomatic relations and whatnot. I think that’s a positive role. As for what they’ve done in Yemen, I would say, sure, any kind of peace talk or recognition of the resumption of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia is a positive move and does relieve some of those tensions. Iran’s role in Yemen has been overstated over the last several years, so it doesn’t directly affect the peace talks that have been happening between the Saudis and the Yemenis themselves. Although, of course, it does help that a major ally of the Houthis, Iran, is now not in conflict with Saudi Arabia.
Talia BaroncelliDo you think Iran’s, I would say, economic isolation, as well as the backlash against Iran, given the protests a few months ago, does this play into negotiations at all? Are the stakes higher for them to see peace in Yemen now, more so than before?
Shireen Al-AdeimiI’m not sure what the Iranian intentions are. Again, I think that Iran’s role has been overstated in Yemen. When the war began, this was just a few months after the Iran deal was negotiated with the Obama administration. So for Iran to risk the Iran deal, I think, would have been foolish. There have been allegations by the U.S. that Iran has been involved. The Houthis have always said that they are not acting on behalf of Iran. There have been key moments where, for example, when the Houthis took over Sana’a in late 2014, the Iranians were very vocal about their stance against that takeover. The Houthis were like, well, who are you to tell us what to do? That was a pivotal moment. That is what set the spark that eventually led to this war in Yemen. So, of course, they’ve been supporting them in some ways, but not to the extent that they would be considered a proxy war or not to the extent that they were supporting, let’s say, the war in Syria. There are no Iranian Generals on the ground.
The country has been under blockade– air, land and sea blockade for the past several years. Journalists have to smuggle themselves in to report from inside Yemen. People are starving to death. There’s no medicine that’s allowed to enter the country that has been approved. Pharmaceutical companies have been trying to send medicine, for example. Aid has been rotting in ships because they’re not allowed to enter the ports of Yemen. Fuel that has been rerouted to Jeddah. Yet these allegations that Iranians are somehow getting through all of these blockades and supporting the Houthis have just been preposterous. They’re supporting them in other ways, just not in that way. Whatever support they’ve shown for the Houthis has been minimal compared to the ways in which the international community has supported the Saudi-led coalition. I think Iran wouldn’t want to risk it. I think it looks good for Iran to show that they are interested in peace in Yemen, even though the conflict itself has very little to do with Iran. It’s an internal conflict. It’s a conflict between Yemen and Saudi Arabia. It is a culmination of decades of intervention by Saudi Arabia in Yemen and decades of intervention by the United States in Yemen. This is not an Iran-Saudi conflict that’s happening at the borders of Yemen. This is a Yemeni-Saudi conflict that, unfortunately, is not even a war. It has been an asymmetrical attack on the country.
Talia BaroncelliWell, before we speak about the humanitarian crisis in the country, you did touch on the history a bit. To give our viewers a bit more context, it would be good to speak about how this conflict came about. In 2011, there was an uprising in Yemen which ousted Ali Abdullah Saleh, if I got that correct. He was an authoritarian president, and he was forced to give power to his deputy, Hadi. So maybe you can explain what led to that and what people were protesting or uprising against, and how the Houthis came in to essentially take power from there.
Shireen Al-AdeimiYeah. Arab Spring, early 2011, Yemenis were watching what was happening in Tunisia and then Egypt. It seems like the protests were leading to positive change in these countries. I think for the first time, Yemenis, for the first time in a long time, not for the first time ever, because we have a history of uprisings and revolutions, but for the first time in a while, in, like, three decades, they found that maybe we could bring about change through these peaceful protests.
In January 2011, Yemenis started protesting. Now, they weren’t necessarily protesting Ali Abdullah Saleh himself, and only Ali Abdullah Saleh. They were protesting the entire system, which Saleh used to keep himself in power and to enrich himself at the expense of the Yemeni people. Yemen is the poorest country in the Middle East, has been for many, many years, and is now among the poorest in the world. Yet Saleh was, by UN estimates, one of the richest men in the world. Where is this man getting his resources from? Obviously, there was a lot of corruption. There was a lot of wealth that he, his party, and the Islah Party, which he essentially created as a controlled opposition in the early ’90s; this is like the Islamist Party in Yemen; they were all part of that system that people were uprising against.
Now, the movement was peaceful until members of the Islah Party saw this as an opportunity for them to co-opt the revolution from the people. Even though they were part of that system and they were long-time Saleh allies, they took the opposition. They went in opposition to Saleh himself and turned the conflict into a bloody mess. There was an assassination attempt. There was armed conflict. When he survived that assassination attempt, that’s when he agreed to transfer power to his Vice President, Hadi. Nobody wanted Hadi. They say he was elected if he ran in a one-man election, but that’s not an election; that’s an appointment. It was supposed to be a two-year term. It was extended by one more year. He resigned at some point and then unresigned. He was flailing around over the next few years, not knowing how to bring all of these different factions together.
Now, one of these factions was the Southern Secessionists, who didn’t even want to be part of the Union, and they didn’t want to be part of the Union since 1994 when there was a civil war between the North and South. They eventually reorganized themselves into the current STC, which is, as I said, funded and trained by the U.A.E. They had legitimate concerns that weren’t addressed.
The Houthis are a group from northern Yemen who initially started off in the late ’90s as a vocal opposition to Saleh’s corruption and Saleh’s rule, but also Saleh’s very close relationship to Saudi Arabia, which was becoming detrimental to Yemeni society. Here enters the sectarian conversation. This is not a sectarian war. The Houthis follow a version of Islam called Zaidi Islam, but they’re not a minority. Forty percent of Yemenis are Zaidi Muslims, and we don’t have a history of fighting along sectarian lines. What was happening in the late ’90s, early 2000s, and early ’90s as well is that Saudi Arabia was exporting their version of Islam, Salafi Islam and Wahhabi Islam, to all of these other countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen. I remember when the textbooks changed in school, and they came printed from Saudi Arabia. Now, what that was doing was an attempt to erase Yemen’s rich history of both Shafi’i-Sunni Islam and Zaidi-Shi’a Islam.
The Houthis were a family of scholars, and they had a representative in parliament. They were among the only people who were vocally outwardly speaking out against this, even though many people within Yemeni society did not like these changes that were happening. So that put them in opposition to Saleh, who, by the way, himself was a Zaidi, so this was not a sectarian issue. He didn’t handle critique very well, so he fought six different wars against the Houthis and was not able to get rid of them. In some of these wars, he enlisted the Saudis for help because he made the argument that these people are at your border, and they’re your problem as much as they’re mine.
So that’s the history with the Houthis. They became one of the groups, in post-2011, who were trying to have their voices heard. You know, they come from a province that was severely underdeveloped. We’re talking about no running water or electricity in many parts of the province. They had economic concerns as well. All of these different groups had their own concerns. Hadi was just not bringing together people in any meaningful way, and that’s what led to a lot of tensions leading to 2014, when the Houthis up and took over the capital, Sana’a, in an attempt to force Hadi into doing something about it.
I know I’ve spoken a lot, but I also want to highlight a key moment that happened between the Houthi takeover of Sana’a in late 2014 and the Saudi-led bombing in March 2015. During that time, there were still talks that were happening. The UN envoy to Yemen at the time, Jamal Benomar, writes about this in Newsweek. He writes about an agreement that was essentially reached between all of these different factions. He says it was ten painful weeks. He says the different parties agreed on the legislative and executive agreements. It was a power-sharing deal that was supposed to work for people. They were ready to sign the peace deal, and only two days later did Saudi Arabia start bombing. So that was the context. It wasn’t an all-out civil war. There was a lot of tension in the country. There was a Houthi takeover. There was a lot of resentment. There were a lot of parties who were left unheard, but they were still able to negotiate something. Now, we don’t know what would have happened with that, but they were able to negotiate a deal that was essentially derailed by Saudi Arabia intervening in 2015.
Talia BaroncelliI have read about that. I was wondering, what was it that actually made Saudi Arabia intervene at that moment, what you say was two days after this potential peace deal had been negotiated? Did they already have U.S. support at that time, or did they think that they would be militarily supported and they were overly confident that they could push through their own agenda?
Shireen Al-AdeimiI mean, they had U.S. support on day one. The day they announced their war, which was, by the way, in English from D.C., not in Arabic from Riyadh. They made the announcement that they were leading this war in Yemen called a ‘Decisive Storm,’ and that announcement was made in D.C. That very same day, the White House released a statement of support saying that they already created a Joint Planning Cell that they were supporting and that they were not at war because that was illegal. The Obama administration was very careful to say that they were not at war, but essentially everything they were doing signified that they were a party to the war and that they might as well have been part of that coalition because they were setting up Generals in the command room and supporting them with targets. Of course, most of the weapons that Saudi Arabia has comes from the U.S. So from the very, very first day of the war, they knew that they had full support from the United States, and the United States was very vocal about that.
Now, why did they intervene? They intervened in Yemen in the past. They intervened in the civil war in the ’70s. They intervened when northern Yemenis were trying to oust the imamites: the father, son, and grandson monarchy that was taking shape and turned Yemen into a republic. Saudi Arabia supported the monarch for the next eight years, even though he was a Zaidi, so religion here didn’t matter. They just needed another monarch or another ally. So when the monarchy failed in Yemen, and we turned into a republic, we’re the only republic in that part of the region and part of that world. All of our neighbors are monarchies. They made sure that they had an ally in Yemen, a very close ally in Saleh.
When Saleh was gone, they knew that Hadi was a very close ally. Now, they knew that the Islah Party would be allies as well. I don’t think they were too worried about the STC. The one group they certainly did not want in that agreement, in that power-sharing deal, was the Houthis because they had just spent the last several years fighting alongside Saleh to get rid of the Houthis and were really embarrassed by the fact that they weren’t able to control this group who has not backed away from speaking outwardly against Saudi interventions in Yemen or Saudi interference in Yemen. They didn’t want the Houthis in power, which is why they wanted to– what they said is intervene on behalf of the UN-recognized, legitimate president of Yemen, which years later, they had no problem setting aside, literally told him and woke him up in the middle of the night, said, hey, why don’t you resign and transfer power to these eight guys that we support? So that was the plan.
Now, the miscalculation happened when they thought this was going to be a quick two-week war, and they didn’t realize that when you attack people, they fight back. That’s the calculation that they did not make very well.
Talia BaroncelliWhat was the extent of the support of the Houthis in 2014? What would you say characterizes their group? Allah is also the other name of the Houthis. What characterizes them? Do they have a specific long-term goal or political ideology that you think engenders broader support, or are they just filling in this sort of power vacuum, so to speak, and just fighting against the Saudi-led invasion, and that’s what’s perhaps giving them some more popularity?
Shireen Al-AdeimiI think it’s a bit of both. When they took over the capital Sana’a, they were still some small group from northern Yemen. Yes, they had been gaining a lot of sympathy from their general population because, frankly, they were the only group that was able to stand up to Saleh and who seemed to not back down. I lived in the South when the South declared secession from the North, and Saleh responded by bombing us for the next three months until all of the leaders in the South fled, and the South was forced back into unity. Southerners and secessionists are looking at this, saying, oh, wow, we weren’t able to succeed. When we spoke about Saleh, your average Yemeni could not speak about Saleh without getting disappeared or being assassinated or something. This was a country that was under political repression.
The Houthis were seen as this group that raised armed conflict in response to Saleh’s attack on them because initially, they were speaking, and he attacked, and they fought back. They still weren’t anything significant. They weren’t a significant political party or anything like that. I think once they took over the capital in late 2014, people realized that they must have had support.
Now, who did that support come from? It turns out it came from Saleh, which is very ironic here. They had been enemies for many years, but Saleh, even though he resigned, he wasn’t your average Arab Spring president. He wasn’t assassinated. He wasn’t kicked out. He wasn’t jailed. He, in fact, remained in Yemen. He negotiated a deal under the GCC that would prevent him from being persecuted for any crimes that people were accusing him of and remained in control over large parts of the Yemeni army.
When the Houthis were able to very simply take over, march over from the North and take over with very little resistance, people felt like, well, Saleh’s telling the army not to act. That’s likely what happened because when the Saudis started bombing in 2015, very quickly, Saleh and the Houthis joined forces. He was able to mobilize parts of the Yemeni army that he still controlled, and they formed a unified resistance to the intervention. It didn’t last. It lasted for a good two and a half years. At the end of 2017, Saleh decided to switch sides. He saw that this was not going anywhere, and he thought maybe this was his second coming. He decided to switch sides, and within days, he was killed by the Houthis.
The Houthis then found themselves in Sana’a, now forced to rule. They did form a political group, an alliance with people from Saleh’s party. Initially, I don’t think they had any ambitions to govern, but that’s the role they found themselves in. Over the years, there has been no security situation in northern Yemen where they rule.
Now, if these were a very small group with no political power, every Yemeni would be armed to the teeth. You would see a lot of resistance against the Houthis. We don’t see a lot of that going on. In fact, we see the Houthis working with many northern tribes to gain their support and their trust. I think they’ve been able to do alliance-building work over the last several years and have been able to fold into their group many swaths of the Yemeni population who previously would not have been identifying with them at all. So they were seen as the people who stayed to defend the country, and that’s why I think a lot of people support them in northern Yemen. If the Saudis, U.A.E., and Americans were worried about the support that the Houthis had, well, now they really have something to worry about because now they have a lot of support from the population, whereas before, they didn’t.
Talia BaroncelliWell, we can’t speak about this conflict without addressing the United States’ role in providing weapons to Saudi Arabia. If I recall correctly, the U.S. even sent in Green Berets at some stage in the conflict, and they’ve sent over $50 billion worth of military funds, weapons, and that sort of thing. Can you speak more about the role of the U.S. as well as the War Powers Resolution of 2019, which was vetoed by the Trump administration and which was recently rediscussed? I think Bernie Sanders was a bit reluctant and said that he wanted to speak to the Biden administration once more before putting it to a vote.
Shireen Al-AdeimiYeah, almost $60 billion have been sent from the U.S. alone to Saudi and the U.A.E. between fiscal years 2015 and 2021. So this doesn’t count (2022-2023). That adds up to about $22 million a day. We have that much in weapon sales just to those two countries. Then, of course, the Saudis and Emirates purchase weapons from Canada, Australia, Germany, Spain, Italy, Britain, and all of these countries. The other way that the U.S. supports the Saudi-led coalition and has throughout the years is through, as I said, the Joint Planning Cell. They actually have U.S. and U.K. commanders in the command room helping them with targeting. Up until late 2018, they were refuelling Saudi jets in midair. They weren’t only training their pilots and helping them with maintenance, spare parts and weapons, and helping them choose the targets, but these jets were flying midair over Yemeni airspace, and the U.S. was helping them refuel. That ended with the Trump administration in late 2018. So in every way, shape or form, logistics, intelligence sharing, choosing targets, weapons, every single way that a war operates, the U.S. had a hand in operating.
Now that essentially amounted to a violation of the Constitution. There’s a 1973 bill that was passed called the War Powers Act, and it became federal law in 1973 when journalists found out that the Nixon administration was secretly bombing Laos. They found out that and said, well, actually, we should not allow this to happen. We need to make sure that war-making is something that only Congress can authorize and not a president. Now, of course, we know every president has violated that since 1973: maybe not every president, but most presidents. Congress never really stood up to any sitting president until 2019. This was years of effort by activists in the making. Finally, in 2019, War Powers was passed in a bipartisan way, you could say by both chambers of Congress. It was largely seen by Democrats as Trump’s war in Yemen. There was no recognition of Obama’s role when we tried during the Obama years to end this war and hold the Obama administration accountable for what they were doing in Yemen. It was easier for Democrats, at least, to see this as Trump’s war, and they had the willingness to stand up against it. Trump vetoed it, and we didn’t have the two-thirds majority needed to undo the veto, so that fell apart. That was an effort to end U.S. participation in the war. It wasn’t going to end up in sales because, apparently, those are separate transactions. It was going to end all of these other logistical ways that the U.S. was supporting the Saudi-led coalition.
Now, Biden’s administration, here we go, 2021. In the very first policy speech that Biden gave, he made a promise to end what he called ‘offensive operations’ in Yemen. So this random dichotomy showed up in the vocabulary here, which it turns out that the Biden administration was not willing to define this for Congress, who was actively asking, hey, what does this mean? Not just that, but there’s a Government Accountability Report that came out last year that shows that the Biden administration didn’t have a definition for what is ‘offensive’ versus ‘defensive’. So it just said, we’re ending offensive participation in the war in Yemen, but continue to support the Saudis in the exact same ways that they’ve been supporting them throughout the last couple of administrations. We see here an unwillingness to break that alliance with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia needs the U.S., and the U.S. needs Saudi Arabia. No matter what somebody says to get elected, these are the commitments that they have to answer for.
Biden did assign a special envoy to Yemen, [Tim] Lenderking. Honestly, when I spoke to him, I met with him when he was here in Michigan, meeting with Yemeni Americans. He sounded, and I told him this, I said, you sound like somebody who is a neutral party to the war. You can’t just go in and think that you’re going to make peace with Houthis who are refusing to meet with you and the Saudis when you have been a partner with the Saudis throughout these years. So the Biden administration, I think, is not willing to see itself that way. So we have a lot of work to do still.
It was really disheartening when, as you said, Bernie Sanders made another attempt at War Powers only to withdraw it because, frankly, the Biden administration threatened to veto it. He knew that it would be vetoed, and he felt like he needed more support. We saw an unwillingness by many Democrats to now stand up to a Democratic president again. Many of them were saying, well, we trust Biden. He said he was going to end it. Let’s just give him time. Meanwhile, the Saudi-led coalition was still getting a lot of support from the U.S. People start wars on a whim, and then it takes all of these years and sometimes decades to end them. Unfortunately, that’s what we’re seeing in Yemen.
Talia BaroncelliThe U.S. continues to supply weapons to Saudi Arabia, but it seems like they have also obstructed negotiations in the past. I don’t know if this was from the Pentagon leaks, but I think Tim Lenderking, who you mentioned, the U.S. envoy to Yemen, refused some of the Houthis’ demands, calling them maximalists when Houthis were calling for public employees, civil employees, government employees to get paid because their salaries hadn’t been paid out for years on end. He seemed to not think that this was worth negotiating and that it was a maximalist position. How can the U.S. even be considered to be an arbiter or neutral in this conflict when they’re still supplying weapons and actively obstructing some of the negotiations?
Shireen Al-AdeimiExactly. Let’s look at what he’s calling a maximalist demand. So, when the Central Bank was moved from Sana’a to Aden in 2016, they were using the Central Bank to pay government workers in the South, which, again, the South is 20% of the population and 80% of the population lives in the North. Those 80% of government workers were not getting paid. So all of these years, they were not getting paid. The Houthis, as one of the demands they made, is, again, this is not something that benefits the Houthis. This is something that benefits the average Yemeni. They were asking for this average Yemeni to get paid. They wanted to use oil and gas revenues to pay government workers. So we have oil and gas revenues that are being exported to other countries. This money is being pocketed by the coalition or their representatives in the South, certainly, not the average Yemeni because people are still starving to death. Eighty percent of the population is still in need of humanitarian aid. The Houthis eventually ended up in late last year when the Presidential Council essentially refused to use that money to pay for government workers, they ended up targeting those shipments. They said, well, you can’t export Yemen’s oil. That’s one of the very few times we’ve seen Houthi attacks in South Yemen since the war began. They basically gave up on the South in mid-2015, July 2015. In that instance, they said, well, if you’re not going to use that money to pay government workers, then we’re going to shut this operation down.
The Saudis were actually willing to say, okay, fine, let’s use those revenues to pay for government workers. Here we go with Lenderking saying these are maximalist demands. He kept repeating that term as though this was such a preposterous position. We see [Brett] McGurk showing up in Saudi Arabia and [Antony] Blinken talking to the Saudis, and the Pentagon leaks, of course. So you’re wondering, why is the U.S. trying to derail this? Frankly, it’s been big business for the United States, as I mentioned. The other thing is that they don’t want to seem like they’ve been sidelined. They were already sidelined by China when China negotiated this return to diplomacy between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Now they might be sidelined again by Oman, this time to actually negotiate a peace settlement in Yemen.
Talia BaroncelliWell, you’ve spoken about how so many people have died in this conflict. There are different estimates, but approximately 375,000 people have been killed in the war in Yemen over the past eight years. Millions of people have been displaced internally, and some people have had to flee the country. The media coverage of the war has been few and far between. The coverage that we have seen, I feel, at least misses the mark and doesn’t really encapsulate the extent of the destruction and the gravity of this war. I’d be interested to hear your view on the lack of media coverage of this war.
Shireen Al-AdeimiWe have free press in the U.S. I have to remind myself that we have a free press in the U.S. I say that because many mainstream sources have not behaved that way in the context of Yemen. They have operated almost like government spokespeople to show a side of the conflict that the government approves of, to repeat Saudi lines and U.S. government lines very uncritically, without really looking at the root of the conflict. When they reported on this conflict, you often felt that this was some faraway thing, that, oh, it’s this proxy war, a civil war, or all of these terms that were just thrown around with no critical examination of them and no accountability for how the U.S. has been driving this war.
Literally, this war would not have continued for eight years. Maybe it would have lasted a couple of months without U.S. support, but certainly not to this extent and not for this long without U.S. support. Nobody asked Hillary Clinton when she was campaigning. Actually, one person asked Hillary Clinton when she was campaigning about the role of the U.S. in Yemen. She just looked at the reporter and walked away. She didn’t even respond. She didn’t even feel the need to respond to this reporter. There was no will to talk about Yemen.
Many of us Yemenis have wondered over the years, what is it about Yemen? Are we poor? Yes, certainly, we’re poor. We have no representative on a global stage who would stand up to what’s happening in Yemen. We don’t have all of these countries talking about, like, oh, poor Yemenis are being attacked by Saudi Arabia. In fact, everybody was lining up to make money out of these defense contracts with Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. because they knew that they had deep pockets. Unlike Ukrainians who were trying to flee the country and people were opening their doors to them, Yemenis found themselves shut in. That’s why you have four million people internally displaced and very little mention of any Yemeni refugee crisis because people were literally trapped. Countries that were previously giving visas to Yemenis were now no longer giving visas to them to even start off in those countries. Only the very rich and the very well-connected were really able to leave the country.
The U.S. supported the Saudi-led coalition instead of holding them accountable. It’s nauseating hearing what they talk about with Russia, not because it’s wrong, but because it has not been applied to the U.S. in the same way. Yes, Russia should not be attacking its neighbors. Yes, Saudi Arabia should not be attacking its neighbors. We shouldn’t be jumping to the defense of Saudi Arabia and helping them. Oh, you need weapons, you need logistics, you need training, or you need spare parts and maintenance? Sure, we’re here to help. That was the U.S. position. You would imagine that, especially post-Iraq war, when everybody was trying to be critical and self-reflective about how we let this happen, how did we let our government essentially lie to us about waging this war? You felt that maybe they wouldn’t do it again, and here we are. They did just that, and they let our government wage war. Now, it looks different. There are no boots on the ground except Green Berets, as we mentioned earlier. It was just a complete letdown. I think of Yemenis and their rights to life and their rights to freedom. A complete vilification of anything that was happening in Yemen. A mischaracterization of the war as either civil war, proxy war, and certainly shutting down any humanitarian avenue.
The only reason Yemenis needed humanitarian aid was because they were blockaded and prevented from trading. It’s because their water facilities were being bombed. It’s because their hospitals were being bombed. It’s because, heck, even their schools and their homes and cars were being bombed. It is not because there was some kind of drought and not because this was some kind of symmetrical war and they were inflicting similar harm to Saudi Arabia. We talk about Saudi and U.A.E. citizens who have been killed in this war, and maybe you can count them on one hand compared to the millions of Yemeni lives that this war has certainly affected through either starvation or the hundreds of thousands who have been killed.
Talia BaroncelliIt’s kind of ironic that so much humanitarian aid has gone to helping Yemeni people, and yet there is a Saudi-led blockade on the country, and that’s funded by the U.S., the U.K., France, and other countries. It’s almost like people are throwing money at the problem, but the political will is really not there to resolve this issue because so much money is there to be made.
Shireen Al-AdeimiHumanitarian aid is a drop in the bucket compared to the need that this war has created. When somebody doesn’t know where their next meal is coming from, and that is millions of people in the country. Even with all of this humanitarian aid, we see a child dying every 75 seconds. Think about the gravity of the situation here. It wasn’t called the world’s worst humanitarian crisis for no reason. Yet you see the UN thanking Saudi Arabia and U.A.E. donors every time they needed to fill those pledges, or U.S. donors. Why? These are the people who have created this crisis to begin with. This is nothing compared to what they’re spending to destroy the country. They’re throwing crumbs at the Yemeni population as this charity, and getting thanked on a public stage, even though they’re the ones who have caused the Yemenis, by and large, to starve to death and to need this aid to begin with.
Talia BaroncelliYeah, they’re not making it possible for Yemenis to leave the country either. You could talk about Russia again and Ukraine and some of the double standards. I think, rightly so, Ukrainians have been accepted by neighboring European countries, but the destruction and the terrible conflict in Yemen should also necessitate a similar program, a coordinated program, which would also intake people who are internally displaced, but also refugees who are fleeing the country and fleeing this war, poverty, and devastation. At least in the European context, that hasn’t happened. I’m not quite sure about the U.S. context, but I would doubt that there is.
Shireen Al-AdeimiNo, it hasn’t happened anywhere. It hasn’t happened with Yemen’s neighbors. It hasn’t happened in all of these countries involved. Our airports were shut down, our ports were blockaded, and they were restricting movements within and outside the country. It just showed that human lives are not equal. You would hope that human lives are equal, but they’re not. We see the response to the humanitarian crisis and the war in Ukraine, and we’ve seen the response over the last several years to what’s happened in Yemen and, frankly, other countries as well, not just Yemenis. I think Yemen represents the most egregious because of how widespread this conflict is. Within months of the war, I remember reading a quote from the head of the ICRC at the time, I believe, and he said, Yemen in five months looks like Syria in five years. That’s how widespread the destruction was right away, right off the bat, in the first few months of the Obama administration getting involved in this. That’s how widespread it is. Humanitarians were telling us that this is how widespread the destruction is across the country. Yet the international community decided to let it happen, to try to throw money here and there at the crisis and not really think about why this is happening. We need to stop this immediately. We cannot stand for our government supporting this war and making so much money out of the misery of Yemenis.
Talia BaroncelliOne last question. You did speak about the press and how you were disappointed in the American press. I don’t want to generalize, but the majority of the mainstream press has essentially served as corporate shills for defense contractors, for the Biden administration, and Trump administration. They haven’t really held them to account and put pressure on them to end this war. Do you see certain potential positive changes coming about from the press shifting its role, or do you think civil society needs to put more pressure on the government for that to happen?
Shireen Al-AdeimiYeah, I don’t see the press all of a sudden changing. Some notable exception, I would say, is Nima Elbagir. She is a CNN reporter of Sudanese origin. She literally smuggled herself into northern Yemen and was the first in the mainstream press to talk about the blockade so openly because they didn’t want to call it a blockade. Lenderking denied the blockade even existed. Right now, we’re seeing [inaudible 00:46:38]. I mean, it feels like we’ve been gaslit for the last several years. Yemeni Americans and Yemenis said they feel like we’ve been gaslit.
Now, as part of the agreement with the Saudis and the Houthis, the Saudis have lifted the blockade off of South Yemen. What is there to lift if there is no blockade? They’ve apparently always acknowledged that there’s a blockade, but they’ve spent all of this time mincing words and saying, no, there are some restrictions, and we check for cargo and whatnot, and there’s an arms embargo, but it’s been a blockade since 2015. We see that in that report from [inaudible 00:47:17], this humanitarian crisis that was unfolding and the role of the United States in supporting this war. But that’s far and few between examples that we talk about in mainstream sources.
Now, non-mainstream forces have been all over this issue, and it’s been great and very critical. I do think civil society, we have to care about this war. Just because there are no boots on the ground, it doesn’t mean that the U.S. is not involved in a war. Why would Congress, in a bipartisan way, approve and vote for a measure that directs the president to end hostilities in Yemen if there are no hostilities in Yemen carried out by the United States? Like, that makes no sense. We have these lawmakers who all agreed that, yes, actually, the U.S. isn’t illegally involved in Yemen. We should stop them. Yet the average person here in the U.S. doesn’t really recognize Yemen as an ongoing war.
Now I see there’s even less of an incentive to do anything about it because there’s the sense, well, Yemenis, Houthis, and the Saudis are talking to one another, and so the war is going to end. Why should we bother with the War Powers Resolution? I do think we should bother with the War Powers Resolution because, frankly, it doesn’t matter what’s happening on the ground. It matters what we allow our sitting president to do or not do. The very least Congress can do is reinstate its authority over this thing that the Constitution allows them or gives them the authority to do.
Now, if the peace talks break down and Saudi Arabia begins bombing tomorrow, who knows? We need to send a strong message that whatever happens, the U.S. is not going to be supporting them in this war in this way anymore. I do think that pressure needs to remain here in civil society and also in countries where, sure, maybe the U.K. is a big partner in this war, but countries like Canada, for example, have benefited. The biggest arms deal was negotiated under the [Stephen] Harper government, but Trudeau’s government saw it through, and they’ve always made the case that, well, we can’t back from a deal. All of these legal scholars are saying, actually, you can back away from a deal that you know is involved in killing innocent humans, innocent people. We need to hold our own governments accountable for our own role.
Yemenis, they don’t want charity. They want accountability. We need reparations, and we need people to let Yemenis be and let them resolve their own issues. None of this would have happened if Yemenis were allowed to enact the peace deal that they were more than capable of making in 2015 and are more than capable of making in 2023.
Talia BaroncelliWell, thanks for driving that message home. I think it’s really important for people to know what’s currently going on and how various powers such as the U.S., Canada, and Great Britain have been involved in this conflict and have pretended not to be involved, have had a very hands-off approach, or have actively derailed negotiations. This has been shown by some of the recent leaks. So I hope to have you on again, Shireen Al-Adeimi, to speak about Yemen. Hopefully, there’ll be some more positive developments in the very near future.
Shireen Al-AdeimiI hope so, too. I hope we’re not talking about war anymore when we talk.
Talia BaroncelliI hope so. Maybe we could speak about Yemenis culture or something more positive.
Shireen Al-AdeimiWouldn’t that be great?
Talia BaroncelliThat would be great. Well, thank you for watching theAnalysis.news. If you’re in a position to donate, please go to the website theAnalysis.news, and hit the donate button at the top right corner of the screen. Get on the mailing list so you don’t miss any future episodes. Please also go to our YouTube channel, theAnalysis-news, and hit the bell and the subscribe button. See you next time.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)User my donation to help support the upcoming documentary "How to stop a nuclear war" (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another storySubscribe to theAnalysis.news – Newsletter
Email(Required)Name(Required)
First
Last
Δ
” Shireen Al-Adeimi is an assistant professor of education at Michigan State University. Since 2015, she has played an active role in raising awareness about the Saudi-led war in her country of birth, Yemen, and works to encourage political action to end U.S. support. She is a non-resident fellow at Quincy Institute.”
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
Talia Baroncelli interviews Paul Jay; “The financial elites know how dangerous the climate crisis is, but they won’t acknowledge the only solution is central planning, government regulation, and intervention. They know market mechanisms won’t work within a time frame that matters, if at all. They’re not against central planning. What is the Pentagon if not central planning? What is the Fed and bank bailouts if not central planning? Central planning in their interests and under their control is okay. But government planning that transforms the economy and phases out fossil fuel is unacceptable. They hate any form of socialism more than they hate risking the end of civilization.”
Watch PART ONE
Watch PART TWO
Capitalism Has Never Been This Irrational – Paul Jay (pt 3/3)Donald Trump and the (Non) Prosecution of Presidential Crimes (pt 2/3)Class and the War in Ukraine – Paul Jay (pt 1/3) Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Music*
Talia BaroncelliHi, I’m Talia Baroncelli, and you’re watching theAnalysis.news. You’re watching part three of my conversation with Paul Jay on global capitalism, the climate crisis, and U.S. competition with China. Before we get to it, it would be great if you could go to our website, theAnalysis.news, to support the work that we do. You could hit the donate button at the top right corner of the screen and get onto our mailing list; that way, you’ll receive an email every time there’s a new episode. You can also go to our YouTube channel, theAnalysis-news, hit the subscribe button and hit the bell. The bell ensures that you’ll get a YouTube notification every time a new episode drops. See you in a bit with Paul.
Well, it seems like the unifying thread throughout all the Biden administration’s foreign policy is not appearing weak. They do not want to appear weak. So you could say that, for example, looking at Biden’s policy on Iran, his whole campaign was about getting the U.S. back into the JCPOA, into the Iran nuclear deal. Even before the protests, he didn’t seem keen on doing that. Then with the protests in Iran, he didn’t want to appear weak by rejoining a deal with a government that was oppressing its own people, or at least that was the perception. He didn’t want to potentially lose the 2024 election. Well, if he runs again, he wouldn’t want to lose the 2024 presidential elections.
It seems like the policy has no real continuity. I’m not advocating any weapons deliveries here, but if you look at the U.S.’s commitment to Taiwan, they have contracts with Taiwan where they need to deliver a certain amount of weapons. They’re not necessarily producing more weapons, they’re sending their weapons stocks to Ukraine, but they’re not necessarily fulfilling their obligations or contractual obligations to the Taiwanese. If there were to be a war with China, let’s hope there won’t be, but if there were to be one, there could be actual issues with weapons deliveries.
Paul JayI think the Milleys of this world, the Chair of the Joint Chief of Staff of the Biden administration, anybody that really knows, knows that we are not in any way going to see an imminent threat from China to Taiwan. The Chinese have no plans to invade Taiwan, certainly not anytime soon. Their plan over time is Taiwan will be even more immersed in the Chinese economy. How can they not be? The Chinese semiconductor company, which is, I think, the biggest in the world, one of their biggest plants is in China, mainland China. The Chinese are still a big market for Taiwan, very big. As time goes on, that will increase. Whether it’s 10 years or 20 years, there’ll be a more natural progression.
In fact, if it hadn’t been for the Chinese so coercively cracking down on Hong Kong after it was returned to China. The people I’ve talked to in Taiwan and polling I’ve seen, most of the Taiwanese were resigned or welcomed the idea of one country, two systems. Taiwan would have a special status within China and carry on the way it is because it’s not like China can’t live with a capitalist Taiwan. After that crackdown in Hong Kong, it really changed a lot of the Taiwanese mindsets. Even with that said, there’s no need or impulse for China to start some invasion of Taiwan. I think the American leadership mostly knows that. I don’t know that the Christian nationalist Trumpists would be very rational about that. What I’m describing is a rational imperialist policy where there’s just no point in trying to start something in Taiwan.
Larry Wilkerson has said many times, “Every game, every modelling of a fight over Taiwan that the armed forces have done goes nuclear because they can’t deal with Chinese conventional forces.” There’s no way. So the United States gets to a position where they’re going to be humiliated, and rather than be humiliated, the Americans will use nuclear weapons. I don’t think we’re going down that road with corporate Dems. The finance sector, the Apples, and all these guys, do you really think they’re going to give up on a billion-and-a-half people market? Not easily. That’s not what they want.
The basic problem, I think, for the American elites, excluding the fanatics on the far-right, they don’t know what the hell to do. When you say the policy seems confused, well, it’s very confused. I’ll give you an example. There’s one company that epitomizes the problem, Boeing. One of their important clients or markets is Taiwan. They sell lots of weapons to Taiwan. I think it’s in the top 20 of purchasers. In 2020, at least, that’s the last number I could see, the number one customer for Boeing domestic aircraft was China. So in one company, one division wants ‘almost war’ over Taiwan so they can keep selling shit military supplies. The other side wants to reduce tensions because they want to be able to sell domestic aircraft.
The fundamental thing is capitalism has always been basically irrational, but it’s never been as irrational as it is now. So you can’t get a coherent strategy because there’s such conflicting interest. This is what differentiates, to some extent, corporate Dems and the finance sector from the Trump types. They know there’s a climate crisis. You can hear John Kerry, you can hear Al Gore, you can even hear Biden. They know how to describe it. They know how dangerous it is. They know it’s coming. They also know, but won’t say, that the only way to deal with it is central planning, government regulation, and intervention. They know the market mechanisms aren’t going to work within a time frame that matters, if at all. They’re not against central planning. I mean, what was the bailout of the banks if not central planning? What is the Pentagon if not central planning? What is the Fed if not central planning? Central planning in their interests and under their control is okay. But government regulation and central planning that’s going to start transforming the economy to phase out fossil fuel, which probably means having to nationalize the fossil fuel companies and then phase them out, and then a real impetus of government planning for sustainable energy, they don’t want to go there. They being the financial sector or the corporate Dems. As I said before, they hate socialism more than they hate the end of the world or the risk of the end of the world because they think they’re so rich they won’t really be hurt by it anyway.
Their policy towards China and many other ways is confused because there is no answer for them within the paradigm they’re used to working in. You can’t use force against China that’s going to matter. So it doesn’t matter how many bases, aircraft carriers, or whatever you got, it ain’t going to help because you cannot overthrow the Chinese Communist Party and the government. It ain’t happening. You can’t invade. Even if you were to defend Taiwan, which is a ridiculous thing to try, but let’s say, then what? Does it stop China from being the major trading partner of practically every country on Earth? It doesn’t change the fundamental equation. China has a billion and a half people, a very successful capitalist economy run by a state. I’m not going to right now get into an argument about whether it’s toward socialism or not. I don’t see it, but whatever. Either we’re going to get there, or we aren’t going to be here. What we need is for some sections of American capital to wake up and say as FDR did in the ’30s. It’s not like there’s no precedent for it. They need to say, “For the sake of the capitalist system, we need to mitigate what’s going on here. We got to find a way to cooperate with China on climate. We got to nationalize or pass regulations.” The easiest way would be to pay or buy these fossil fuel people out. Who are the fossil fuel people that need to get bought out? It’s Wall Street. Who the hell owns the fossil fuel companies? It’s primarily the same financial institutions.
Talia BaroncelliAsset managers.
Paul JayYeah.
Talia BaroncelliYeah, I did see a report; this is more in the E.U. context, but there was a report on, I think it was BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard and how they’re heavily invested in Chevron and Exxon.
Paul JayAll of them. Name the oil company, every one of them.
Talia BaroncelliExactly. In essence, they’re contributing to the climate crisis by investing in these companies. The effects of these companies that are contributing to climate disasters, to climate migration, and so European policymakers are so acutely aware of the fact that a lot of people will have to flee African countries because of the climate crisis. In turn, European lawmakers are investing more in border and surveillance technologies to patrol their borders to ensure that it will be much more difficult for people to arrive in Europe. It’s crazy because these same asset managers are also involved in these border and security companies such as Accenture and all these other surveillance companies. They’re exacerbating the climate crisis that they’re invested in, but they’re also invested in the companies that have the so-called dual-use technology solutions for this crisis. They’re just perpetuating it all, and obviously, someone needs to put a stop to it. I don’t think that will happen until people seriously organize and put pressure on the politicians, whether it be in the European context or the American context.
That also brings me back to what we were talking about with the oligarchic system in the U.S. and the two-tiered justice system there. A racialized poor person can go to jail for possessing a bit of marijuana, but the bankers and other white-collar criminals will commit crimes with impunity, and they won’t get prosecuted. You’re older than me. What was it like in the ’80s when you saw bankers going to jail during the savings and loans crisis? Comparing that to today, where I feel like so many of these crimes are legitimized, encouraged, and are so part of the system that if you were to prosecute all of them, the whole thing would completely crumble.
Paul JayWell, I don’t know about crumbling, but there’s a process that’s been going on since the early development, late 19th century and early 20th-century development of American capitalism. Because of the needs of modern industry for capital for these massive factories and machines, banks became much more dominant in their role in the economy. You can even see that by the 1920s. The banks had so much money they didn’t know what to do with it. They encouraged speculation. Everybody was supposed to buy stock. They would loan money left, right to anybody who would go buy stock, and the whole thing became a shell game. It reduced during the crash, which was, to a large extent, caused by this.
Since World War II, the size, importance, and dominance of the financial sector have gone up like a rocket ship if you look at the charts. Well, the concentration of ownership has never been as concentrated. The amount of wealth in fewer and fewer hands has never been as it is, which means there are less places to invest in productively. The financial sector has gotten more and more parasitical investing in crazy synthetic investments. Subprime was an example. I think the global size of the global derivatives market, which is all these crazy things they create to invest in. The size of the derivative market is like five or six times larger than the whole global GDP. It’s insanity.
I did a report earlier. The Bank for International Settlements did a report which got some coverage in the Business Press but almost nowhere else. It warned that there was an impending disaster. There are these swaps that take place between currency swaps where, for example, the Japanese loan to the Europeans, and they agree, okay, we’ll pay each other back later. For now, what’s at this exchange rate, and later you get the euros, and we get the yen. Anyway, they warned that there is somewhere between 60-70$ trillion outstanding in these swaps. The Bank for International Settlements, which is described as the Central Bank for Central Banks, says, “Well, what happens if, when it comes time to reverse the swap, this side doesn’t have the money? What if we get into a bit of an 07/08 situation where more than one of these swaps that can be millions and millions of dollars, what if this starts cascading, and these big sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, and governments can’t fulfill their side of the swap?” The whole thing unravels. The BIS was warning that this is like another financial 07/08 waiting to happen. That’s just one. It is what they call the financial architecture.
Look at what just happened with this Silicon Valley Bank. There are all kinds of weak points, fracture points in the global finance system because so much of it is bullshit. So much of it is smoke and mirrors. So much is a shell game. They have so much money they don’t know what to do with it. So that parasitism goes right into politics because these are the guys who can afford to buy Congress or much of Congress. These are the guys that can afford to fund presidential runs, presidential campaigns, and then at every level of the state, national assemblies, and every state senator. The clause of the financial sector and how they manipulate the political system, I don’t know if they get involved in the race for dogcatcher, but it comes pretty close. It wouldn’t surprise me if someday they’ll start financing the dogs. The system itself is getting corruptor and more parasitical. So they get myopic. They don’t want to see past how much money I can make today. It’s not just the internalized worldview if there’s something real to it.
Larry Fink from BlackRock made this great speech about getting out of coal. He made this speech saying, “Oh, we’re going to reduce our coal use.” Even then, it was mostly BS. But let’s say they did it, and they got out of coal. Well, Vanguard gets into coal. They’ll pick up what BlackRock sells.
In fact, there is a group of Republican governors that was created by a guy named Mark Carney. He used to be President of the Bank of Canada, and then he was Head of the Bank of England. Now he’s a Special Advisor to the UN on climate. He put together a group of financial institutions to develop investing in green, sustainable stuff. From what I know, it’s a lot of greenwashing and a lot of nice talk, but nice talk is better than no talk. Anyway, a group of Republican governors told Vanguard and the elders that if you don’t get out of this and stop getting on this climate change train, our states won’t do business with you anymore. Vanguard pulled out of this group which was supposedly going to save the Earth.
They know that only with government intervention, the government saying, “Get out of coal,” the market can’t get out of coal. Only state regulation and central planning for unfolding green stuff can. We need to tell people this and say don’t vote for somebody except, as I say, it can get complicated with a Christian theocrat. We have to go knock on doors and talk to people, including people who vote for Trump. Talk about what’s at stake.
You know, West Virginia, which was primarily a pro-Trump state, they have a very active union movement. There are lots of people organizing there. You look at West Virginia and what’s coming at two degrees of global warming. Half the state is going to be flooded. I know we’re talking global warming and droughts, but in some places, it’s severe storms and severe weather. You look at the weather map, and there ain’t much left of West Virginia. They got to get how immediate the threat to their own families and livelihood this is.
Talia BaroncelliHow do we prevent Big Oil from continuing to engage in enhanced oil recovery? Which means using carbon capture and storage to get more oil out of the ground. They have all these ESG and nice terms that they use, and they’re getting money. The IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act, allocates some money to these companies so that they can engage in policies or practices that would get them to net zero by 2030 or by 2050. But if so much of what they’re doing is actually contributing to more combustion, which is the case, then we’re all screwed. How do we get out of this conundrum and rein in Big Oil? That’s the big question, right?
Paul JayYeah. Biden’s plan relies way too much on carbon capture of one sort or another to meet the target. As far as I understand the situation, there is no evidence that this can be done on a scale, at least in a time frame that’s meaningful. We’re talking seven, eight years to supposedly not get to 1.5 and then two. As I said, James Hansen and others think two might already be baked into the system. It’s not just carbon capture. I ran into two guys at the airport when I was flying to go see Ellsberg.
Talia BaroncelliYou shouldn’t have been flying out there. [Laughs]
Paul JayThere were two tech guys sitting and waiting for our plane, which kept getting delayed. I listened to them, and they’re obviously at a very senior level. So I said, “Listen, I can hear you guys talking, and you guys are senior executives in tech. You must make a lot of money. You must be very smart because I assume people at senior levels are very smart.”
Talia BaroncelliAlthough a lot of people fail upward. They just know how to play the system, sorry.
Paul JayWell, maybe, but I think a lot of them are smart. When you’re talking hard technology, it’s not like Procter & Gamble, which is a lot of bullshit marketing. But anyway, let’s assume they’re smart. I said, “Are you guys not concerned about the climate crisis?” One guy starts going on about, oh, this tech solution and that tech solution is coming. Then the other guy is sort of nodding his head along with him. I said, “Okay, let’s say you’re right, and there’s some great tech coming. Is there a single piece of evidence that it’s going to come in a time frame that wouldn’t require us to phase out fossil fuel? Maybe some of this tech stuff will do something?” He was dumbfounded. He didn’t know what to say. He was kind of, “Well, I guess not.” Then to the other guy, I said, “Well, don’t you guys in tech have to take a stand on this? It doesn’t matter. Sure, let’s have some great tech solutions. If it’s possible, who would be against it? But every single piece of evidence is that none of it could be effective without phasing out fossil fuel quickly.” He agreed.
I said, “I made this film about wrestling.” I said, “You, and I guess I include myself too, and others.” I said, “When you go to a wrestling show, you suspend disbelief. You don’t believe it’s real hitting and kicking, but enjoy it and get on with your life. You suspend your disbelief, and then you talk yourself into believing it really is.” Well, I said, “That’s what we’re doing with climate.” We know these guys, the government and the elites, are not going to deal with it. Market forces aren’t going to deal with it, but we suspend that disbelief and get on with our lives. So we have to get people to stop doing that. This whole culture is based on suspended disbelief. When everybody in their heart of heart knows, maybe some people don’t believe in climate, but they also don’t think the elites that do believe in climate are going to do anything good. So wake up.
Talia BaroncelliYeah, we need to somehow communicate that to people because I think over several decades some climate movements have thought that you don’t want to scare people too much because then that will make them not want to do anything. It will make them passive, or it will just incapacitate them, and they’ll get so frustrated or lose all sense of hope that they won’t do anything whatsoever. I don’t know. I hope that the younger generations as well, that they really realize that they don’t own the means of production. The amount of assets that they have, especially people who are 20 to 25, compared to previous generations, they really are in a terrible financial position. They have an incredible amount of debt. I think they’re really acutely aware of how expensive things have become and how scarce resources are. I think that is definitely the generation who hopefully will put more pressure on politicians to do something. But again, if these politicians are completely bought out by the Big Oil lobby, then what do you do? That’s the big question.
Paul JayWell, what the Biden administration has done on climate is far, far from what’s needed; it is something. This last big piece of legislation, this anti-inflation thing– I don’t know why they called it that– it is more money into sustainable energy, electric cars, and this and that. There are some other policies that are reducing carbon emissions in the United States. It’s certainly not nothing, but it’s not enough. It’s not climate science denial.
Going back to where we started this conversation, if you get Christian nationalist Trump or Trumpism without Trump in power, say goodbye to all that, any kind of climate legislation. Say goodbye to anything to do with reducing fossil fuel and so on. The rollback will be enormous if they start getting more power again in state governments. Recently this abortion issue and some other issues, some of the far-right have lost elections. Trump didn’t win the last election. In certain states like Michigan, they were able to defeat the far-right. It’s not nothing. The other issue is maybe it won’t be in the United States, not maybe, but more than likely, where a breakthrough will happen. Maybe in Brazil if Lula gets it together there. Maybe there’ll be some other big economies. The economy, in some ways, I don’t quite understand why they don’t do more, for example, China.
China is not a fossil fueling fuel producing country. They don’t have something so direct to gain. I know they seem to have a plan to transition, but it’s, from all accounts, as I understand, not nearly quickly enough. They’re still building what is a new coal electric outfit every week. They’re still producing and buying coal. The U.S., in many ways, is worse, but it doesn’t matter. The U.S., I think, is the number one producer of fossil fuel in one way or the other. They say natural gas is so much better, but my understanding is maybe it’s better than coal, but it’s still not helping us avoid the crisis that we’re heading towards. Again, it’s funny. China is in the position, for its own narrow self-interest, to be far more of a leader on this than it is. Right now, I don’t think there’s any climate negotiation between China and the United States going on at all.
Talia BaroncelliWhich Is nuts because we all live on the same planet. The West needs to actively negotiate with China to meet any climate goals in the future. There’s no way around that, especially after years of outsourcing emissions to China by exporting all the manufacturing jobs to China. The West has essentially outsourced all of its emissions to China; that’s why China is the largest emitter. If you want to include China in that to tackle climate change, you have to work together with China.
Paul JayYeah, there’s no doubt. It’s not all on the American side. The Chinese could be doing more to try to negotiate and make more of an issue out of it than they are. What would that mean with Russia? It’s mostly a fossil fuel economy. One can just hope that by supporting those organizers, that amongst ordinary people everywhere, there’s a movement that embraces the climate crisis, the risk of nuclear weapons, and people’s economic issues not just in the U.S. but in other countries. We need to try to tone down the war hysteria that’s going on because it’s drowning out the dire threat we’re facing.
Talia BaroncelliWell, I do wonder if the war hysteria is actually just more apparent where we are in the West. I have a feeling that people in other parts of the world maybe don’t pay attention to that as much. They’re more acutely aware of some of the economic issues they’re facing, and they know that that’s, of course, tied to the global economy, to the war in Ukraine, and other issues. They probably have a completely different perception of it, and maybe they’re not–
Paul JayYeah, I think you’re right. I think people in the Global South, large numbers get the climate threat, and they’re going to be immediately affected or are already being immediately affected. Yeah, I agree with you. I think the war hysteria over Ukraine is far more in Europe and North America than a lot of other places. It’s understandable, but I don’t know how we break through the fog except to do what we’re doing.
Talia BaroncelliWell, it was great talking to you, Paul.
Paul JaySame, thank you.
Talia BaroncelliThanks for making time for this conversation. Thank you for watching theAnalysis.news. If you’re in a position to donate, please go to our website, theAnalysis.news. Hit the donate button at the top right corner of the screen, and most importantly, get on the mailing list. Sign up for the mailing list so that you’ll be informed every time a new episode is published. Also, go to our YouTube channel, theAnalysis-news. Hit the subscribe button and hit the bell. Make sure that you select all episodes so that you’re notified every time an episode drops. See you next time. Bye.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)User my donation to help support the upcoming documentary "How to stop a nuclear war" (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter
Email(Required)Name(Required) First Last Δ
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
In part two, Michael Hudson discusses his new book “The Collapse of Antiquity.” Hudson challenges the traditional beliefs about the fall of the Roman Empire, arguing that it was caused by a financial crisis brought on by excessive debt, wealth inequality, and the concentration of economic power. Hudson draws parallels to modern-day economies and highlights the dangers of financialization and wealth concentration.
Watch part one here.
Part 2: Debt and the Collapse of Antiquity – Michael HudsonDebt and the Collapse of Antiquity – Michael Hudson (pt 1/2)44 Years in Prison, Still a Revolutionary – Eddie Conway Dies on Feb. 13, 2023Mini Doc: Why I am Opposed to the War in Vietnam – Martin Luther KingIs Russian War in Ukraine “Similar” to 1962 U.S. Blockade of Cuba? – Daniel Ellsberg (pt 2/2)Risking Nuclear War to Avoid Humiliation – Ellsberg (pt 1/2)Why the Soviet Union Imploded – Jeffrey Sommers (pt 2)Why the Soviet Union Imploded – Jeffrey Sommers (pt 1)Gorbachev Paved Way for Oligarchs – Aleksandr BuzgalinJFK’s Canadian CoupStand on Guard for Whom? – Canada and NATOOn Conspiracy and War – Paul Jay pt 1/3Paul Jay on 9/11Why I am Opposed to the War in Vietnam – Martin Luther KingWhy I am Opposed to the War in Vietnam – Martin Luther KingNuclear War is the Most Urgent Threat – Andrew Cockburn pt 2/2The Making of Global Capitalism with Leo PanitchRisking Apocalypse for the Spoils of War – Andrew Cockburn pt 1/2Canadian Profits and Nuclear Armageddon Pt 1Bill Black pt 9/9 — The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own OneConfessions of a New York Times Washington Correspondent – Bob Smith Pt 2/2Fannie Lou Hamer and the Racist Dixiecrats – Bob Moses on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 6/9The Road to Freedom Summer – Bob Moses on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 5/9Why the Right Attacks Critical Race Theory – Gerald HorneReagan, the Media and the United States of Amnesia – “The Reagans” Part 5“The Most Dangerous Man” Turns 90 – Peter Kuznick on Daniel EllsbergIs Trumpism Fascism? – Paul StreetYouTube Censorship and Now What’s Happening in Kansas – Thomas FrankThe Democratic Party and the War Machine – Vijay PrashadWhat’s the Matter with America? – Thomas FrankDemagogues: From McCarthy to TrumpWhy Did Americans Accept Barbaric Slaughter of Japanese Civilians? – Peter KuznickLiberal Elites Will Create Conditions for Another Trump – Thomas Frank (3/3)Corp. Dems Idolize FDR, but Hate His Policies and the Populists That Supported Him -Thomas Frank (2/3)Populism is Not Mob Rule – Thomas Frank (1/3)Unprecedented Intervention by Military Leaders Against Trump PR StuntConvert Military to Green Production, or Perish – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 13/13Dismantle the American Doomsday Machine – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 12/13The Doomsday Machine and Nuclear Winter – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 11/13A Strategy of War Crimes, Killing Civilians to Win a War – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 10/13The Discovery That Should Have Changed the Cold War – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 9/13Once Fired, There’s No Calling a Nuke Back – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 8/13U.S. Refuses to Adopt a Nuclear Weapon No First Use Pledge – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI 7/13U.S. Planned Nuclear First Strike to Destroy Soviets and China – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 6/13Russian Doomsday Machine an Answer to U.S. Decapitation Strategy – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 5/13The Largest Act of Terrorism in Human History – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 4/13Truman Delayed End of WWII to Demonstrate Nuclear Weapons – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 3/13Hitler Wouldn’t Risk Doomsday, But The United States Did – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 2/13The Doomsday Machine: The Big Lie of the Cold War – Daniel Ellsberg on RAI Pt 1/13Why Does the West Hate Putin? – RAI with Aleksandr Buzgalin (10/12)Why is Putin so Popular When People are so Poor? – RAI with Aleksandr Buzgalin (9/12)Is Putin’s Rule a Dictatorship? – RAI with Aleksandr Buzgalin (8/12)Putin is Anointed King, but Big Capital has the Real Power – RAI with Aleksandr Buzgalin (7/12)Shock Without the Therapy: A New Russia is Born in Chaos and Plunder – RAI with Aleksandr Buzgalin (6/12)I Returned from Vacation to Find the Soviet Union had Collapsed – RAI with Aleksandr Buzgalin (5/12)Turning Power into Money, the End of the Soviet Union – RAI with Aleksandr Buzgalin (4/12)Communism and Consumerism – RAI with Aleksandr Buzgalin (3/12)Success and Mutation in the Soviet Union – RAI with Aleksandr Buzgalin (2/12)Growing Up in the U.S.S.R. – RAI with Aleksandr Buzgalin (1/12)Clinton, Blair, and Obama Destroyed the Idealism of Politics – Gabriel Byrne on RAI Pt 3/4The Miners Strike Taught Me to Think Critically – Gabriel Byrne on RAI Pt 2/4From Priesthood to Actor to Activist – Gabriel Byrne on RAI Pt 1/4RAI with Former Weatherman Bill Ayers – Pt 3/3RAI with Former Weatherman Bill Ayers Pt 2/3RAI With Former Weatherman Bill Ayers Pt 1/3Corporate Media Perpetuates Climate Science Denial – Gabriel Byrne on RAI Pt 4/4‘We the People’ Force Confronts Democratic Party Leadership in ’64 – Bob Moses on RAI Pt 9/9The Constitutional People and Slavery by Another Name – Bob Moses on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 8/9An Earned Insurgency – Bob Moses on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 7/9Founding SNCC and Taking on Mississippi – Bob Moses on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 4/9The Respectable Face of Terror – Robert Moses on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 3/9Patriotism and Lynching – Bob Moses on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 2/9Civil Rights Leader Bob Moses Dies at 86 – Pt 1/9Black Nationalism and the Peoples’ Movement – Glen Ford on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 3/5Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report Tells Life Story – Reality Asserts Itself Pt 1/5Giving Grassroots Leaders a Voice – Glen Ford on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 2/5Kennedy Was A Cold War Warrior to the Core – Glen Ford on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 5/5The Kennedy Brothers Thought the Civil Rights Movement Was a Nuisance at Best – Glen Ford Pt 4/5 Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Guest * Music*
Colin Bruce AnthesWelcome back to theAnalysis for part two of our conversation with Dr. Michael Hudson on The Collapse of Antiquity.
Michael HudsonI think the character of early Christianity is what is in the Lord’s Prayer. “Forgive them their debts as we forgive the debtors.” Christianity, especially Roman Christianity, made a travesty of this. They used the word sins. “Forgive us our sins as we forget the sins of the debtors.” What they meant was every kind of sin except economic.
Colin Bruce AnthesA reminder, if you haven’t done so already, to like, subscribe, and ring that bell for notifications so you don’t miss our material.
I want to do a little bit of name-dropping here. It’s a surprisingly fun book to read because of how culturally rich it is and how many of these references to philosophers, playwrights, and reformers get thrown in there. People who are familiar with the plays of William Shakespeare might know Coriolanus, but there’s a very different take on him here as someone who was being protested by the poor indebted and basically joined the enemies of Rome, the Volscians, and attacked Rome because of his class alliance. It was not to his people; it was a class alliance.
Michael HudsonThe same thing happened in Greece under Alcibiades, who ended up as an opponent of Athens.
Colin Bruce AnthesThen we get to Julius Caesar. Julius Caesar, you’ve mentioned already, was a mild reformer. I think there was a concern that he was, at the risk of drawing too many contemporary comparisons, a bit like maybe an FDR [Franklin D. Roosevelt] figure who started out as a mildly reformist elite and became more of a reformer as time went on. There was that kind of fear about Julius Caesar as someone who was really alleviating things for the wealthy but that he might become more sympathetic to the plight of the masses. Something I didn’t know that was in this book was that Brutus was a money lender charging 48% interest.
Michael HudsonYes. Let me talk about Caesar first. He was very brilliant as a political manoeuvrer as well as as a General. He borrowed a lot of money to run for office and paid the money. He was able to play the political game as a very, very intelligent manoeuvrer. What people were really frightened about with Caesar was that he was independent, and they didn’t want independent people. Just like in American democracy, the last thing you want is a president who’s independent and who’s a leader. You want a president who’s working for his campaign contributors.
Well, that’s what most of the heads of Rome usually were. They were leaders of the oligarchy, and that was the job of the Senate. But here was Caesar being independent and trying to retain solvency for the economy as a whole. They didn’t want an independent head of Rome any more than you would have modern democracies wanting an independent president.
Caesar was accused of kingship. What did the kings do? The kings cancelled the debts and redistributed the land; that was the invective that was used against Caesar. For Brutus, that brings us back to Cicero. Cicero was appointed the local head of Sicilia, which controlled Cyprus at the time. One day, people came to him from Rome and said, “Since you’re the ruler here, we’ve lent some money. The local Sicilians have borrowed money at 42%.” Cicero said, “But the legal rate of interest is only 12%. I’m supposed to be the governor here, and I’m supposed to represent the rule of law. That’s what all my rhetoric is all about.” They said, “Well, here’s the document. What are you going to do?” Then Cicero found out that the so-called debt collectors were really working for Brutus, and it was Brutus who had made the loan at 42%. When his collectors asked for armed guards to go and kill everybody who wouldn’t pay the debt, grab all their land, and enslave their families, Cicero said, “he felt very bad about that. ” He wrote to his friends, “But what else could I do?” So, so much for Cicero.
Colin Bruce AnthesSo much for Cicero. You write that this was maybe the last chance for there to have actually been reform that could have gotten Rome back on the right course. The assassination of Julius Caesar was nothing particularly new. In fact, these assassinations had accelerated since Tiberius in 133 BC. Correct?
Michael HudsonThen in the whole 80s, you had the wealthiest Roman Generals opposed to a very popular military General who had the troop support. Each General began to put up lists of all the followers of their opponents who had to be assassinated. If you assassinated them, you got to grab all their property, or at least you got a portion of the property that they had after you’d killed them. So basically, if people wanted property, you would go and add the name of somebody whose property you wanted to the list of supporting the opponent of the General. You had a vicious civil war between Marius, who was the popular General at the time, and Crassus and others who were supporting the opposite end.
Colin Bruce AnthesRight. I guess this starts to move us into, and you’ve mentioned it already, Jesus and Jesus’s references to the Jubilee year. Can you talk a little bit about what this movement was and what the practices of early Christianity were, including their practices regarding usury?
Michael HudsonWell, when Jesus gave his first big sermon reported in Luke, he unrolled the scroll of Isaiah to the point where Isaiah was calling for the year of the Lord, meaning the Jubilee year. Jesus said that was what his destiny was, what he had come to proclaim. There was apparently wide support among the Jewish population advocating the restoration of the Jubilee year against the Rabbinical school that opposed it and represented it. Luke said that the Pharisees loved money, and their leading Rabbis had their debtors sign documents. They would borrow money and waive their rights under the Jubilee year. That’s what Jesus wanted to change. So after Jesus gave his sermon, a lot of the population got very upset because they didn’t think it was fair to cancel the debts. The leading Jewish leaders went to the Roman pro-consul and said, “Well, we can’t put him to death, but you can because he’s seeking kingship.” They knew the magic word of invective that the Romans didn’t like– kingship. It was the Romans who agreed to put Jesus to death. The movement was way beyond Christianity. It was beyond Jesus. We know from the scrolls, the Dead Sea Scrolls that I’ve described in the preceding volume of the trilogy I’m working on– On the History of Debt. I cite the scrolls that were sort of [inaudible 00:08:23] of all of the debt cancellation advocacy of the Bible.
Well, what developed by about the fourth century was something that occurred not only in Rome but all the way to Persia. Throughout the whole ancient world, there was a revulsion at the decadence of extreme wealth in the face of extreme poverty and bondage that had developed. This decadence, especially the women who were the wives of the leading aristocrats, became Christians. Finally, you had Constantine, who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Well, there’s obviously one problem. What do you do if you’re making Christianity the official religion? The origins of Christianity were centered on the Jubilee. You cancel the debts, you liberate the debt bondage, you restore the lands to them, redistribute the land, make people independent, and you protect the poor instead of enslaving them. Well, you had to change the whole character of this. I think the character of early Christianity is what is in the Lord’s Prayer. “Forgive them their debts as we forgive the debtors.” Christianity, especially Roman Christianity, made a travesty of this. They used the word sins. “Forgive us our sins as we forget the sins of the debtors.” What they meant was every kind of sin except economic sin, except the sin of creditors.
Under St. Augustine, it was largely sexual. All of a sudden, the focus of Augustinian Christianity became sexual egotism, not the wealth addiction of the creditors. After all, if the leaders of the Christian Church, the archbishops and the bishops, were all going to be taken from the wealthy families, you’d hardly have them criticize their own wealth. You stripped away from Roman Christianity the economic and social context that had guided early Christianity. The great aim of Christianity was its anti-Semitism. The last thing it wanted was Jewish Christians because they knew the original Christianity and because that evolved out of Judaism as a whole. You had the first great excuse for expelling not only the Jews but reformers, which was done by probably the most evil saint in Christianity– although it’s hard to say who’s the most– Cyril of Alexandria. Alexandria had a very large Jewish population, and Cyril organized big pogroms to kill the Jews and, in fact, anybody who could read the book. The one thing that the Roman Christians hated was people who could read. If you could read, you’d read the Bible. If you read the Bible, you’d know that there was a clash. So I think the most famous person that Cyril killed was Hypatia, a woman who was a mathematician.
Colin Bruce AnthesOne of the philosophers at the time, right?
Michael HudsonYes. He sent his thugs, Peter the Hammer, down to the seashore, where they grabbed her, grabbed seashells and scraped all of the skin off her body so there’d be no memory. That was the Christian way of killing.
First, Cyril had a consul at Ephesus calling on the Roman military to kill all of his opponents. You had Christianity hijacked by Cyril. The wealthiest part of the Roman Empire by this time, the fourth and fifth centuries, was North Africa– Egypt and Hippo. The old Carthaginian area was the breadbasket of the Roman Empire; that’s where the grain was made. The Christians there opposed the creditors. They opposed the Romans. They said, “No, what the Romans are doing is not Christianity.” Rome wanted them to turn over all of their sacred books so that they could be destroyed. You can’t have Christianity, as the medieval Christians realized, if people can read the Bible. If they read the Bible, they see that Christianity, under Roman Christianity, fights against everything that the Bible is all about. The North African Christians, many of them refused to turn over the sacred books, and they were killed.
Finally, Augustine came to power, and he sponsored the pro-Romans. There was a civil war that went on decade after decade, preventing the local Roman landowners from indebting the population, from enserfing them. Augustine called on the Romans to take away their churches and to give him their churches. So essentially, Augustine expropriated the Christian churches and made them his own deviant Christianity– I hate to even call it Christianity, it’s really Augustinianism– in a wave of violence.
Peter Brown, who’s the main writer and historian of this period, rightly states that Augustine is the true founder of the Inquisition ever since the Roman Church became the Church of the Inquisition. That’s what I talk about in the third volume of my trilogy, where I pick up matters with the Crusades. So what Rome bequeathed to the West was not only creditor-oriented law but a creditor-oriented Christianity. This is what you have in American Evangelism today. King Jesus will make you rich. Essentially, that became Christianity as it evolved in the West.
Finally, in the 11th century Roman Christianity, there were five churches that survived the decline of the Roman Empire: Antioch, Jerusalem, and Byzantium became the key. What survived the Roman Empire was the Byzantine Empire and its church, which was Orthodox Christianity. Orthodox Christianity maintained many of the qualities of original Christianity, including debt cancellations when there was a crop failure through freezing or a frost that killed the crops and caused a loss of land and indebtedness. You had Constantinople as the main bishopric, with Antioch and Jerusalem. Rome became a backwater until you had the Norman Invasion of Europe Rome made deals with William the Conqueror in England and, before that, the Norman Conqueror of Sicily. If you conquer the land, we will bless you if you agree that you are the feudal serf of the Pope. The kings of England, the kings of Sicily and southern Italy pledged fealty to the Pope, who organized armies to have new crusades with new inquisitions under the Dominicans against Christians who didn’t agree with Roman leadership, whether it was the French Cathars or ultimately the Crusades that looted Constantinople and destroyed its ability to resist what became the Ottoman takeover at the time.
So essentially, you had this split at the time, and most people look at Western civilization as the continuity of Rome without realizing how the Empire itself, under Augustine, made yet another break from the Near East that continued to be the wealthy, solvent part of the Empire in Constantinople and the Near East.
Colin Bruce AnthesYou say that by the time we get into the fourth century or fifth century AD, we get the vandals coming in and taking Hippo. You say that by that time, the economic devolution that had happened was such that there was practically no resistance. The fact that they had wiped out their opponents and instituted such a rentier state meant–
Michael HudsonIt’s not simply that there was no resistance, that people went over to the side of the vandals. You had a lot of churchmen saying, “Why is it that the Roman Christians are going over to the side of the vandals?” It’s because they have more freedom. They’re the Democrats. They’re overthrowing feudalism; that’s why they’re going over to them. There was an admiration of the vandals coming in the Germanic tribes because they were the progressives, and of course, the people went over to their side. You couldn’t have had just a few vandals taking over the vast armies of North Africa and the rest of Europe if the people weren’t supporting them.
Colin Bruce AnthesRight. I want to bring this into the contemporary moment, and we’ve already been, of course, connecting the dots throughout this conversation. You say there is a disturbing trend among contemporary classicists to sidestep the history that we have been going through today and that they’re really following the lead of neoclassical economists. Do you want to comment on that?
Michael HudsonWell, here’s the problem. Most historians don’t study economics. What they do study is the kind of economics that you’re taught in universities, and that’s neoliberal economics. Neoliberal economics doesn’t study history because if it studied history, it would know that societies polarize as a result of debt. They’d know what I describe in The Collapse of Antiquity. They’d realize that instead of there being automatic stabilizers that don’t require kingship, automatic stabilizers mean the free market, the market of wealthy individuals and that the market will always provide an optimum solution. You don’t need any regulator of the market. Any regulation of the market is bad.
Well, in all earlier civilizations, from the first time we could pick up written records in the Bronze Age, there was always a public override to the market. The role of kings, churches, and the whole ideology that people were taught in their religion and their politics was you have to shape the market in a way that would promote overall economic growth. The primary way in which you have to shape the market is to prevent the debt overhead from leading to a transfer of labor and property from debtors to creditors. You have to keep the economy free enough so that citizens can serve in the army and perform public work. You don’t let a creditor class evolve.
Today that’s called socialism. Biden will call it autocracy. Well, it’s not autocracy. That’s the irony. Greece, Rome, and medieval Europe have not done a good job in preventing oligarchy from developing as a financial oligarchy and as a land lordship oligarchy, with the financiers turning public utilities into private monopolies to get monopoly rent along with interest and land rent. Well, that’s the dynamic that occurs. Not only has economic history been taken out of the curriculum, but most classical historians begin the history of civilization with Greece and Rome as if it began without this mixed economy, without the 3,000 years of the Bronze Age and late Neolithic takeoff that I describe in the first volume– And Forgive Them Their Debts.
Colin Bruce AnthesIs it safe to say that we have adopted the model of a failed state, a failed state model, as our economic model?
Michael HudsonYes, you’ve put it quite succinctly.
Colin Bruce AnthesWhen we look at the practices of debt forgiveness and when we look at how people had understood these principles before and applied them very productively, is there any reason other than sheer political power and campaign contributions? Is there any reason we couldn’t take up that subject successfully today and reinstate citizenship, equality, a greater sense of equality, at least, and a productive economy again today?
Michael HudsonWell, in order to do that, you’d have to have a definition of what is the alternative. Neoclassical economics says there is no alternative. Margaret Thatcher and Ayn Rand are the economic models of today. If you believe there’s no alternative, then you’re not going to take steps to create a more balanced economy. In that sense, you could say that the fight between North America and the NATO countries against the remaining 85% of the world’s population is a fight between an oligarchic society and a mixed economy wanting to use governments to shape markets in order to promote general prosperity and liberty for the population as a whole.
Colin Bruce AnthesYou use the term in your book, you call that democratic liberty as opposed to oligarchic liberty.
Michael HudsonThat’s right. Except, the meaning of democracy seems to only be successful when you have a state strong enough to prevent a financial oligarchy from destroying democratic principles.
Colin Bruce AnthesWell, you’ve certainly given us a lot to think about in this conversation. I also really encourage people to pick up this book and read it. As I say, it is an authoritative account, but it also is a great joy to read because it is so culturally rich. People who have an interest in history, who have an interest in drama or an interest in philosophy are all going to find that this is a really invigorating book to read. So, Michael Hudson, thank you so much for being here. This was a pleasure. Thank you.
Michael HudsonWell, thank you for reading the book and understanding it so well and bringing it out in this discussion.
Colin Bruce AnthesIf you enjoyed that content, consider going to our website and hitting the donate button so we can produce more like it. Thank you so much for watching. Take care.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)User my donation to help support the upcoming documentary "How to stop a nuclear war" (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter
Email(Required)Name(Required) First Last Δ
“Michael Hudson is an American economist, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City and a researcher at the Levy Economics Institute at Bard College, former Wall Street analyst, political consultant, commentator and journalist.”
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
In part two of this three-part series, Paul Jay speaks about the grave war crimes committed by numerous U.S. presidents, which have gone largely unpunished. The current corporate political class is hyper-focused on President Donald J. Trump’s unlawful behavior as if it constitutes an anomaly in the historical trajectory of presidential crimes. Despite this double standard, Trump should not be exempt from judicial scrutiny and prosecution.
Watch PART ONE
Watch PART THREE
Capitalism Has Never Been This Irrational – Paul Jay (pt 3/3)Donald Trump and the (Non) Prosecution of Presidential Crimes (pt 2/3)Class and the War in Ukraine – Paul Jay (pt 1/3) Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Music*
Talia BaroncelliHi, I’m Talia Baroncelli, and you’re watching theAnalysis.news. I’ll shortly be joined by Paul Jay for part two of a three-part series where we’ll be discussing Donald J. Trump as well as Christian nationalism. If you’re in a position to donate, please do go to our website, theAnalysis.news. Hit the donate button at the top right corner of the screen, and most importantly, get on our mailing list. If you subscribe to the mailing list, you’ll get an email every time a new episode drops. We also recommend that you go to our YouTube channel, theAnalysis-news, and hit subscribe as well as the bell. The bell ensures that you’ll be notified every time a new episode is released. See you in a bit.
Joining me now is Paul Jay for part two of our three-part conversation. Let’s speak about the prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump. Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, has indicted Trump for 34 different violations of New York state law. He alleges that these misdemeanours are, in fact, felonies as they were committed to cover up an additional crime. In this case, the second crime would be violating federal campaign laws. So this is quite controversial, but some are arguing that this prosecution is far too political and that the case is actually quite weak against Trump. So what do you make of this prosecution?
Paul JayI personally enjoy it and think it’s good, mostly good, with some reservations. Good for the people when all these oligarchs fight each other. So I’m pleased as punch to see Trump prosecuted, assuming he did these things, and it seems like he did. A grand jury thought he did. I’m happy to see him prosecuted for his role on January 6. I’m happy to see him prosecuted for holding on to confidential documents. I’m also pleased as punch if they prosecute Hunter Biden if it turns out he did something corrupt. For that matter, if President Biden is involved, well, fine. The fighting among these oligarchs and wealthy people who are corrupt up to their eyeballs is fine with me as long as there is something about the integrity of the American institutions and legal system which is of value.
Now, if you’re poor and Black in Baltimore or much of America, you don’t actually have much access to institutions that have any integrity or justice. In fact, there was a DOJ report on the Baltimore Police Department just a few years ago, near the end of the Obama administration, which said that the constitutional rights of Black people of Baltimore are violated every single day by the Baltimore police. So when I say the institutions, to some extent, do function, and to some extent, it’s a good thing, it doesn’t mean that most people have access to that justice because it mostly depends on how much lawyering you can afford. But that doesn’t mean it’s worthless.
I think I said in a previous interview we did that there is something to preventing one small section of the oligarchs of Capitol from seizing direct control of the state and exercising a straight dictatorship, especially if that section believes in Christian theocracy. But it would be as bad if it was a Cheney-esque Patriot Act believing in Americanism. That could be another form of dictatorship. But on the whole, I’m fine. Go prosecute Trump and unravel this, but unravel it all the way. Meaning unravelling it back to what led up to January 6, which is far more important than what happened on January 6. People can go watch my reports. But the short of it is ten former Secretaries of Defense, the former Supreme Commander of NATO, and the editorial board of the Financial Times all thought on January 4 a coup was in progress. It’s clear that the coup were people like Michael Flynn and, within the military, Christian nationalists.
Now, they were able to put that down before January 6 because it seems too obvious. The plan was to create a shit show on January 6. A section of the military could intervene, declare martial law, stop Biden from becoming President, and call a new election or whatever. It didn’t work. By January 6, it had all fallen apart. The person that should be investigated here is Mitch McConnell because when the Chief of Police of the Capitol Hill Police asked the Sergeant of Arms of the Senate to bring in the National Guard the morning of the 6, he said, “Well, I got to go ask my boss, Mitch McConnell.” We know who his boss is because the Sergeant of Arms reports to the majority leader, and that was McConnell. Well, they never got back to the Capitol Hill chief, and they didn’t call in the National Guard. So at that point, they wanted a shit fest. I’ve always speculated it’s because McConnell thought it would be such a disaster for Trump. He could finally rid the party of Trump. How did that work out for you, Mitch?
But let’s be clear, whatever Trump did, even January 6, and the lead up to, even an attempted coup, pales in comparison to the war crimes of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, and then by implication, Obama for not prosecuting them.
So one, yeah, go ahead, prosecute Trump. I’m all for it. The more you guys fight, the better. When these guys fight each other, sometimes some truths come out of it. A leak or fall out of the legal case. There’s some interesting case coming out of the way Dominion voting machines suing Fox. I mean, the hypocrisy of the Fox host. If it wasn’t for that lawsuit, we wouldn’t know. But all that being said, we need to make as much as we can. People shouldn’t have illusions that this has anything to do with justice, democracy, and all of this. But yeah, I’m all for prosecuting Trump. He’s done worse things than what he’s being prosecuted for in New York. He is a danger, personally. He is. Because of the way the Christian Nationalist movement and much of the 75 million people that voted for him believe in a metaphysical vision about him, that, yes, he’s imperfect. Even if he did what you say he did with Stormy Daniels, even if he was unfaithful to his wife, even if he’s this and he’s that. Yeah, he’s a narcissist, and so on. They believe that God’s vehicles are imperfect because we all are imperfect. God does things in mysterious ways.
So the individual figure of Trump as a person who can galvanize millions of people in spite of what they know about him, it’s a real issue. I understand why it is of some benefit to the people to tie him up so much in legal cases that he can’t, at the very least, effectively run for President because I think the danger of a Trump-led, out-and-out Christian theocracy is very real. People that diminish that threat, I think, are wrong. I don’t think it’s deliberate, but they’re actually facilitating it in some ways by focusing on the crimes of Biden and the Democratic Party, which are many and need to be talked about. I don’t agree with soft-selling the corporate Democrats and the role they’ve played in facilitating or toiling the soil for the growth of this movement, this far-right movement.
If the corporate Democrats had actually given a shit about working people in states that didn’t vote Democrat, we, in all likelihood, wouldn’t even be seeing this. If Biden had actually been the guy of the modern New Deal, which he claimed he was going to be. If he really did something for working people and didn’t demonize working people in all these states that believe in or have been persuaded by this far-right ideology and done more– you want an investment. They could have invested serious money in the public education systems of all these states.
I’ve said this before, but I think it’s an interesting story. My kids were going to school in Baltimore, and they were asked in grade one and pre-K, they were supposed to stand up for the American National Anthem. I went to the teacher. I told the kids, you don’t have to. I explained that this flag that they want you to stand up for, well, there are untold crimes that have been committed in the name of this flag all around the world. It’s your choice, but I wouldn’t stand up for it. But I went to the teacher in Baltimore, and then when we moved to New York for a little while, the same thing in a New York school. I said to both teachers; I said, “I’ve told my kids they have a choice to stand up for this National Anthem and salute the flag with their hand on their heart, which is fascist to my mind. I said you don’t have to do it.” Both teachers said to me, “Oh, I’m so happy to hear you say that. When the announcement goes on, I don’t tell the kids to listen to the announcement. The announcement says stand up, so a lot of kids stand up. I don’t make anybody stand up.” Anyway, both teachers, one in Baltimore and one in an elementary school in New York.
Well, in much of the United States, I think, I can’t prove it, but from what I read, if a teacher did that, they’d be fired. There’s no way in much of Texas, and name the state, Florida now, especially, and other states. If a teacher said, it’s okay not to salute the flag and believe in Americanism, how long would you keep your job? If the Obama administration and then the Biden administration had invested in a public education system and paid teachers properly– of course, it’s done through the states, but there are lots of ways federal money can direct and influence this– and created a curriculum where people actually learned some science, including climate science, and didn’t promote crazy religious toxic nationalism, maybe we wouldn’t be seeing this movement at the scale it is. I mean, this movement has been there since slavery. This is essentially a movement rooted in the ideas and ideology of slave owners that believed white Christians were chosen by God to rule. Now the millionaires and multibillionaires believe they’ve been chosen by God to rule.
I mean, on Steve Bannon, in one speech he made to some multimillionaires at the Vatican, he came in by Zoom to a meeting there. He said it explicitly. “You’ve been chosen by God to be multimillionaires, and you have a responsibility to God to support the struggle, which will be a bloody struggle,” that’s quoting him, “against Islamism and Chinese Atheistic communism.” Now they’re far more focused on China than anything.
So yeah, put him in jail. What was his line about Hillary? Lock her up. Yeah, lock her up. I’m all right. Hillary Clinton committed plenty of crimes. Hacking the Democratic National Committee, lock her up. But lock Trump up. But let’s start with locking Cheney and Bush up, and others. But it isn’t going to happen. Let’s just not buy into the delusions that most of the media promote.
Talia BaroncelliYeah, Jeremy Scahill from The Intercept, a few days ago he wrote an article on exactly what you’re saying; how Nancy Pelosi decided not to impeach George W. Bush on those war crimes that were committed, but I think even more specifically on the torture that was committed under their watch all across the world. And so, yeah, it does seem like there is a very selective judicial system in place. That’s not to say that they shouldn’t go after him.
I think the issue that I have is that if it backfires, this could have huge political consequences because if the case isn’t that strong, then it does really look like a political prosecution of Trump, and that could play into more support for him from his base. But I don’t really know what to say because Alvin Bragg’s case, on the face of it, it looks pretty solid. But if the federal prosecutor is before him, like Cyrus Vance, for example, they refused to prosecute Trump according to federal election law because they thought it just wouldn’t work. So I really do wonder if Alvin Bragg has anything up his sleeve with maybe with New York state law, even with the taxation and election law in the state. If so, maybe you can get Trump that way. If you can’t, then it’s, I think, a political disaster.
Paul JayWell, I don’t think it’s a political disaster. I think it doesn’t matter whether the case is weak or strong. The Trump base is going to believe it’s politically motivated. It doesn’t matter. There are lots of other, in theory, charges coming down the pipe, which are apparently more significant. They will all be considered by Trump supporters as politically motivated. To some extent, they probably are politically motivated because what isn’t at this stage of things? But so what? Like I say, let them go at it. Let them all rip each other’s throats out.
Let’s just be clear when we’re talking to people that we don’t fall into the Trump is the devil argument any more than Trump is God’s vehicle argument. He’s neither. He’s part of a very corrupt system that has its roots. This is the most important thing we need to say, which no one ever says, maybe ever on mainstream media. This is about how stuff is owned. It’s about who owns stuff and the power that comes from that ownership. It’s about the concentration of monopoly ownership, particularly in the financial sector that now owns the entire stock exchange, essentially. What I mean by that is that big asset management companies like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, and others, they essentially own a controlling interest in terms of shares they can get to vote for virtually every company on the stock exchange. The concentration of power in the financial sector that’s the underlying root of this. The amount of corruption that surrounds that.
Remember the subprime mortgage? These banks couldn’t find the mortgage documents and hired companies to have automatic signatures on phony mortgage papers to then go to court to foreclose on people. Complete fraud. Who went to jail for that? The power of the financial sector is such that nobody holds them accountable. So sure, hold Trump accountable. Let’s hold Hunter accountable. But how about we hold the real lords of finance accountable? That’s the underlying problem that breeds such corruption. Trump is just a sub, a little subset of that. His wheeling and dealing in real estate in New York. It’s all within this culture of corruption in the financial sector.
When we talk to people about this, I don’t get into the weeds on whether this case against Trump is good or bad or whether it’s going to succeed or not succeed. I have no idea. I don’t think it’s any great tragedy, electorally. I don’t think anybody who, because of that case, is going to start voting for Trump, that wasn’t going to vote for him anyway. If he gets in enough legal jeopardy with all these cases, and it’s starting to look that way, maybe the far-right donors who made Trump possible, the Mercers, and there’s a whole list of them. The Koch brothers didn’t love Trump, but eventually, they certainly supported Pence and a lot of the other far-right stuff. If the far-right donors decide they’ve had enough of this guy, which it sounds that way, they may bury him in a way that he maybe even legally can’t run. Maybe in some of these cases, some of the outcome might be he won’t be allowed to run. I don’t know.
I know one thing is that the majority of the corporate elites didn’t want Trump anymore. The evidence for that is another thing I reported on in my January 6 pieces that YouTube kept taking down. But it’s a point that was in the press and then disappeared. The doors of Capitol Hill are stormed at 2:10 PM in the afternoon on January 6. At 3:10 PM in the afternoon, the Association of American American Manufacturers issue a press release calling on Vice President Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Trump from office.
Now, this is the corporate lobbying group that was probably the largest, most important supporter of Trump for four years. They got everything they wanted on their bucket list in terms of deregulation and lowering of taxes. They loved his policies, but they thought he lost his mind. Not to have a peaceful transition of power to Biden, who the corporate powers knew they could live with, even if there were some policies they didn’t like, to have, essentially, a coup would be bad for business. So they called for his overthrow on January 6. So the majority of elites don’t want him back. They want him buried. They want Trump without Trump. They want the policies. They don’t want the madman. We’ll see how it goes.
There was a time when the German oligarchs decided Hitler was uncontrollable, even though they brought him to power. There was a point, I think, it was in 1931, ’32, when the Nazi Party was bankrupt. They went to the Krupps and some others, and they came in and rescued them financially and really made the rise of Hitler possible. There are quite a few far-right billionaires out there who aren’t on the same page as the financial sector, who seem like they really believe in Christian theocracy and the God-given mission, their God-given mission. They have a lot of money. The system is very irrational. The institutions are very contradictory. Even in the FBI, apparently, there’s a lot of support for Christian nationalism. Certainly, in all the local police forces, Trump has a lot of support.
People who study this, like Mikey Weinstein, he thinks as much as 30% of the military could be Christian nationalists. Christian nationalists are actively recruiting in the military, using Chaplains. I’m told that perhaps a majority of Chaplains now in the army are Christian nationalists. The other thing that just doesn’t get talked about is Opus Dei, the far-right of the Catholic Church, who is trying to overthrow Pope Francis. Steve Bannon is connected to Opus Dei.
I interviewed Joe Wilson a couple of months before he died. He was the American Ambassador. He’s the guy who discovered the yellowcake in Niger was bullshit. He is the husband of Valerie Plame, who was outed by these neocons when she was in the CIA. He thought at least half the Supreme Court was directly Opus Dei and much of the congressional leadership, Opus Dei. Then there’s something called the Family, which are Christian nationalists, which has hosted every presidential breakfast since Eisenhower until very recently. Apparently, now, the last one, they’re going to change that they don’t direct, the Christian nationalists don’t host the presidential breakfast.
So this issue of Christian nationalism is a really serious issue that needs to be addressed. It’s a complicated fight because sections of the financial sector, which are venal, neoliberal predators, don’t like Christian nationalists. So it’s an interesting, weird contradiction for ordinary, for working people and others, the progressives. The Biden corporate types, which are connected to this financial sector, do, I think, want to stop Christian nationalists from coming and establishing a Handmaid’s Tale Christian nationalist dictatorship. So it’s a good thing to stop them.
On the other hand, we can’t create illusions about the corporate Democrats in the financial sector. We need to organize an independent people’s movement within what’s possible when you’re living in the heartland of such wealth of imperialism. You can see how, in the pandemic, how much money they can throw at people when they need to. So it’s a complicated situation. The best we can do right now is tell the whole truth of the situation.
Talia BaroncelliWith regards to the prosecution of Trump, you’re saying we shouldn’t take oligarchic sides, but you were at one point advocating that we vote or that Americans vote for Biden over Trump. So what would you say to that now?
Paul JayI’d say the same thing now. I think, as I said at the time, we have to tell people the whole truth as we know it. I thought and still think that as dangerous as the Biden foreign policy is on Ukraine and the provocations on Taiwan, and again, just to remind everybody, this is not in any way to excuse the Russian invasion. They are the primary villain of the piece, but it’s within the context of a world managed by another villain of the piece, which is the American oligarchs and so on. This is where it gets a bit complicated. But while it’s possible, not for sure, that a Trump administration maybe wouldn’t have been quite as provocative over Ukraine as Biden was, I don’t think that the reason Russia invaded was because of American provocation. I think, in fact, the blame on the Biden administration is more since the invasion of stoking it and not pushing to end it. From what I can see of arms sales, American arms sales to Ukraine were not significantly higher until after the invasion. In the year leading up to the invasion, there was an increase. But actually, the President who started sending lethal aid to Ukraine was Trump, and Obama had been against it. Obama had sent aid, but he said no lethal aid. Then Trump did send lethal aid, although he screwed around with it, trying to blackmail or pressure Zelenskyy to give information on Hunter Biden. But in fact, it was Trump that sent the lethal aid. I doubt very much that Trump would have bucked the arms manufacturers and the whole state. But whatever, let’s say maybe Trump may have been slightly more mitigated on the invasion.
The reason he might have been is that he’s a Christian nationalist and certainly supported by Christian nationalists, and they see Putin as a Christian nationalist. There’s a section of the far-right, even in Congress, who don’t want so much aid going to Ukraine and would like to dial back the tension with Russia. I think it’s because, as I say, they’re Christian nationalists. They see Putin as a great defender of white Christians in Russia. In a weird way, there might be a little positive in that if they put some pressure on the Biden administration not to be so gung ho about the war.
But, and this is a big but, what the Christian nationalists are focused on, and again, to quote Steve Bannon, “is a bloody struggle with China.” They are not peaceniks. Just because they may not be quite as aggressive towards the Putin administration, which is a mixed blessing for sure, because they may actually support some of Putin’s, what some people call, imperial ambitions if he’s spreading the white Christian culture that they like, but they’re very dangerous on Taiwan and China. You can see right now the speaker of the House was just meeting with the President of Taiwan. The language from the far-right on China is even more aggressive than Biden’s. Biden’s language and actions have been far more aggressive than he’s certainly promised in the election campaign. But a lot of his doing it is because he doesn’t want to be accused of being weak on China, weak on communism. I think they’re a bit caught because I think in terms of corporate interests that the Democrats represent, the Apples of this world and the finance sector– like BlackRock increased its investments in China, created a big index fund on the Chinese stock exchange. A lot of the corporate masters in the Democratic Party don’t want it to get so heated with China. But electorally, Biden is afraid of this looking weak on China stuff, so he keeps up the pressure.
The issue of the elections is what’s more dangerous in terms of having to decide in the election? The position I took at the last election, I would take again, if the election was today and Trump was the candidate, DeSantis, or somebody else of that mould, even Pence. Tell the truth about the corporate Democrats. Don’t create illusions about what Biden is. I don’t agree with Bernie Sanders, even though some of the legislation that they’ve been able to pass domestically. I saw him on TV the other day on one of the late-night talk shows, and he went on about Biden’s achievements. If I was a Senator, maybe I’d do the same thing. He plays that inside electoral game. But he did say at one point the problem in the United States is the American oligarchs, and you can’t not talk about Biden’s role in supporting that system of American oligarchy. So I advocate telling the truth, but part of that truth is Christian nationalism, and Christian theocracy is even more dangerous. Look at what’s going on in Florida. The legislation DeSantis is passing to restrict not just women’s reproductive rights but education, anti-science and anti-climate. This is what a Christian theocracy will look like, and worse. We are talking about a real theocratic dictatorship.
The corporate Dems, one, the finance sector, aren’t, on the whole, Christian nationalists. They don’t want that far-right culture themselves. A lot of them live in New York, and their kids go to school there, and their wives work and live there. They don’t buy into these Christian far-right social values, although they see no contradiction in being so predatory. But still, they do want to push back. For working people, ordinary people, there is a real immediate threat. I told you the example before about the DOJ investigation of the Baltimore Police Force, which found that every single day the police violated their rights. There was an agreement between the police and the Department of Justice about things they had to do to reform. I don’t know if it worked or not. But when Trump was elected, he got rid of all of that. All these consent decrees and things where they were trying to mitigate the violence, not eliminate it, because, again, the finance sector, and corporate Dems, they want a certain amount of violence from the police against poor people, especially poor people of color because they don’t want to change a system where they get so much cheap labor out of these places. One of the driving things behind all these institutions in Baltimore is they have access to such cheap labor through the poor Black working class.
There are no good guys when you’re talking about the oligarchy, but it doesn’t mean you don’t and shouldn’t make choices tactically or strategically. For example, if there was somebody running for Senator who was a right-wing libertarian anti-interventionist, including China, that didn’t want to provoke war, I might support that person over some corporate Democrat. Now, I probably would choose a progressive Dem who also was antiwar, but if it was a choice between a corporate Dem and a legitimately, and as far as I know, I would say Ron Paul; I don’t know about Rand Paul, but Ron Paul seems like a fairly consistent anti-interventionist. I might support that person over a corporate Democrat.
Talia BaroncelliBut he has all sorts of ties to corporations as well, right?
Paul JayOh, yeah. None of them are good guys. This isn’t a morality play. This is a straight tactical decision on how to avoid war and how to avoid a full-out Christian dictatorship. Of course, the most important thing is to try to elect progressives who are both antiwar and anti-corporate. And that’s a whole other argument. At the moment, I think in most elections, it has to be done through the Democratic Party and primaries. But anyway, that’s a separate argument.
In terms of the overall scheme of things, right now, the Democratic Party is pursuing a very dangerous path in Ukraine, but they seem like they will contain it short of nuclear war. Meaning, for example, and this is where Hillary Clinton is out of her mind, the no-fly zone. At least Biden said no to a no-fly zone. He seemed to slow down the issue on the tanks. He seems to want to contain this in a way that the Ukrainians don’t lose, but they don’t have a complete all-out humiliating Putin defeat, although maybe he wouldn’t mind a slower one if it implodes on the Russian side. But I don’t think Biden would take things as provocatively over a line with China, even though, rhetorically, he’s coming very close.
Tesla just opened up a big battery factory in Shanghai. Big investment. They already have a big Tesla manufacturing plant. Apple announced, even though they’re pushing more manufacturing into India, they also announced the big expansion of Apple products being made in China. I think I may have mentioned this before, BlackRock just expanded their investment into Chinese asset management and stock exchange. So the American ruling elites don’t want to get into some real conflict with China, and it’s not part of their ideology to do so. It is in their interest both to stoke arms sales to Taiwan because Taiwan has a lot of money. So when they sell arms to Taiwan, it’s not like some other places. They’re actually getting paid for them by Taiwan. They’re not just giving them. The geopolitical interest in defending Taiwan is at the core of American foreign policy, going back to right after World War II.
In fact, Eisenhower, this is part of the film I’m doing with Ellsberg; we have some of the documents for this. Eisenhower authorized the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1958. If they couldn’t hold Taiwan through conventional power, he authorized them to use nuclear weapons against China in 1958. It was up to them. He said, “I’m authorizing it. If you need them, use them.” There are actually minutes of a meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which Ellsberg has. “Why?” And one of the Joint Chiefs says it. It’s the craziest conversation in the minutes of this meeting. One of the Generals says, “Eisenhower has authorized the use of nuclear weapons if we can’t defend this place with conventional.” Another General says, “Why?” The first one says, “Because our prestige and the perception of our power in Asia will be so diminished if we have to give up on Taiwan.” Another General says, “Well, what if the Russians retaliate?” He says, “Well, probably.” “They’ll probably nuke Taiwan.” The guy says, “Yeah, probably.” “Well, then we’re going to have to respond to that.” The guy says, “Yeah.” “Well, isn’t that nuclear war? All-out nuclear war.” The guy says, “Well, it might be, but the alternative is worse.” Losing prestige and authority in Asia is worse than a nuclear war, which goes back to this issue of how Kennedy wanted to avoid humiliation, risking nuclear war by blockading Cuba. The risk of losing in his election by being humiliated, and nuclear war was going to be not as bad. So this is crazy, crazy shit. This is also built into the mindset of Democratic Party cold warriors and neocons, many of them who are anti-Trump, and merged with the Democratic Party, like Bill Kristol and others.
All that said, there’s no imminent threat of China invading Taiwan. If the Americans would shut the eff up about it and stop provoking, but they don’t want to look weak on China. So Pelosi goes, and even Biden people felt and said it was stupid for her to go. The Trump camp is very, very anti-Chinese, and it’s part of their ideology and faith base that China is this atheistic monster, and it’s part of America’s destiny to go to war with it.
This American four-star General, Mike Minihan, head of Air Mobility Command with 50,000 service members and 500 planes under his control, said just recently, “We’re going to be at war with China in 2025.” He told his troops “to get your affairs in order.” Meaning get your wills ready and get ready to fight to kill the enemy, he says. He actually says killing your enemy makes your life better. It will make you happier. He actually said this shit, and he didn’t get removed from his position.
Flynn’s brother is one of the more senior commanders. General Flynn, who worked with Trump on the coup, is one of the main commanders in the Pacific. So it’s a very complicated, dangerous situation. I don’t think corporate Dems, meaning the financial sector, which to a large extent, they represent. Two, they do care about the urban vote. It’s the only way they get elected. The urban vote is primarily antiwar, although it’s a little split on the Ukraine thing. Certainly, they don’t want a war with China. So I think it’s far less likely the Democrats will provoke things to the point that there’s an actual military conflict with China. If the Christian nationalists get involved, while their main objective is Christian nationalism in the United States, they might find a much more serious, even some fighting with China to help that process. Declare martial law because of war with China. Start rounding up anyone that speaks against Christian nationalism and the war with China. It’s a more dangerous situation. So yes, I would still say better the corporate Dems than Trumpists and the far-right, but better not the corporate Dems either.
It is better to organize, elect progressive, and defeat, maybe split the Democratic Party so that you get an actual progressive party that emerges. And especially get ready for when the financial house of cards calls the financial architecture, global architecture. When that house of cards falls, and likely it will, like it did in ’07 and ’08, but in all likelihood worse, and then tens and millions of people are unemployed, and then people are really angry and ready to do something, well, then we better be ready for it, because if we’re not, the far-right will be.
Talia BaroncelliWell, it was great to speak about Christian nationalism with you and the prosecution of Trump. Thank you for watching theAnalysis.news. If you’d like to donate to this show, you can go to theAnalysis.news and hit the donate button at the top right corner of the screen. Most importantly, please do sign up for our newsletter. That way, you’ll receive an email every time a new episode is released. You can also go to our YouTube channel, theAnalysis-news. Hit the subscribe button, hit the bell, and then click on all so that you’ll be notified every time an episode drops on YouTube. See you next time.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)User my donation to help support the upcoming documentary "How to stop a nuclear war" (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter
Email(Required)Name(Required) First Last Δ
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
We get a first look at the new book by renowned political economist Michael Hudson on the age-old battle between creditors and the real economy. Ancient Rome refused to adopt the practices of debt forgiveness and land redistribution previously understood to be essential. Instead, they instituted a rigid pro-creditor legal system, assassinating anyone who remotely threatened it–including Tiberius Gracchus, Julius Caesar, and Jesus. The empire devolved into a rentier economy, ultimately collapsing from within. Today’s neoliberal establishment increasingly defends this failed state framework, even as the same disastrous dynamics intensify.
Watch part two here.
Bill Black on SVB: A Bipartisan Clown Car CrashNo Evidence to Support FED 2% Inflation Target – Robert Pollin 50 Years After Allende at the UN: A Corporate Triumph Named MultistakeholderismTime Bomb in Global Finance – Rob JohnsonMonopoly Power vs Democracy – Matt Stoller Capitalism’s Structural Crisis and the Global RevoltThe Story Behind “The Con”Why the Media Doesn’t Understand Control FraudMichael Hudson: Biden Between BlackRock and a Hard PlaceBill Black pt 9/9 — The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own OneBill Black pt 8/9 — The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own OneBill Black pt 7/9 -The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own OneBill Black pt 6/9 – The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own OneBill Black pt 5/9 – The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own OneBill Black pt 4/9 – The Best Way to Rob a Bank is To Own OneBill Black pt 2/9 – Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own OneBill Black pt 1/9 – The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own OneCan You Destroy $20 Billion in Wealth Without Committing a Crime? – Bill BlackPolarization, Then a Crash: Michael Hudson on the Rentier EconomyPeoples’ Lives vs. Profits of Pharmaceutical Monopolies – GPE NewsdocsFED’s $10 Trillion Defends Assets of the Rich – Michael Hudson Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Guest * Music*
Colin Bruce AnthesWelcome to theAnalysis. I’m Colin Bruce Anthes. In a minute, we’ll be taking a first look at Michael Hudson’s new book, The Collapse of Antiquity.
Michael HudsonWhen the emperors cancelled the debts, it was largely cancelling the debts of the wealthy. Sort of like the recent bank bailouts of Silicon Valley Bank and the banks in the United States. The wealthy don’t have to pay the debts, but if you’re not wealthy, you do have to pay the debts. That’s the basic Roman principle, and that is what America calls democracy.
Colin Bruce AnthesPlease remember to like, subscribe, ring the bell for notifications, consider hitting the donate button to support our work, and stay tuned.
Dr. Michael Hudson has long brought historical clarity to political economy. In his books like J Is for Junk Economics and Killing the Host, he showed how neoclassical economists morphed the terms of classical political economy into their opposite, creating markets that were free for rentiers rather than free from them. His research into the early practices of creating and forgiving debt was central to David Graeber’s runaway hit, Debt: The First 5,000 Years.
Now Dr. Hudson is about to release a new book entitled The Collapse of Antiquity, looking at how practices that became problematic in the ancient Greek Empire and accelerated in the ancient Roman Empire led the Roman Empire to devolving into a rentier state and collapsing from within. It’s a compelling trajectory that includes the ancient Greek philosophers and reformers, the assassination of Julius Caesar, the rise of Jesus, the inversion of Christianity and the rewriting of the Lord’s Prayer. But Dr. Hudson is not merely giving a historical account, he is also attacking a disturbing trend among contemporary classicists to sidestep the historical record on the battle between creditors and debtors following neoclassical economists as the same problems accelerate today.
Dr. Hudson has been a professor in both the United States and China. He has advised governments, including in my own country of Canada. He has both worked on Wall Street and exposed the practices of Wall Street in great detail. We are privileged to have a first look at his new book today. Michael Hudson, welcome back to theAnalysis.
Michael HudsonWell, it’s good to be back. Thanks for having me.
Colin Bruce AnthesI thought a good way to begin would be to take a look at a couple of quotes that you cite in the book that are contrasting quotes from ancient sources, one from Cicero and one from Plutarch. Cicero was very opposed to debt forgiveness, and Plutarch was very opposed to those who were collecting on debts. I thought I’d have you comment on how this is a trend that echoes through the ages. So here’s Cicero first:
“The men who administer public affairs must, first of all, see that everyone holds on to what is his and that private men are never deprived of their goods by public acts for political communities, and citizenships were constituted especially so that men could hold on to what was theirs.”
Sounds a lot like the political establishment today. Here’s Plutarch:
“The greed of creditors brings neither enjoyment nor profit to them and ruins those whom they wrong. They do not till the fields which they take from their debtors, nor do they live in their houses after evicting them.”
So do you want to comment on how those quotes reflect a battle that’s been going on for several thousand years?
Michael HudsonWell, what Rome bequeathed to the West was creditor-oriented law. That really means the financial claims of the oligarchy, the 1% on the rest of the economy, instead of protecting the economy at large, which is very largely composed of debtors. So when you say you’re supporting the rights of creditors, that means their rights to deprive the rest of the economy, their debtors, of their liberty. That’s celebrated today as if it’s individualism. But individualism, certainly Roman style is not egalitarian; it’s oligarchic. The Roman idea of liberty was the privilege of the oligarchy to indebt, expropriate, and deprive the bulk of the population of its liberty, of its means of support, of its access to the land. That’s what made classical antiquity so different from the 3,000 years that had gone before in the ancient Near East, where there was the takeoff.
In all the rest of the ancient Near East, you had rulers restoring access to the land, cancelling the debts, and liberating the debt slaves. While Greece and Rome were developing from the 7th century BC to the 1st century BC, even in contemporary Babylonia, you had very little debt bondage. You did have slavery, largely girls who were captured in the mountains. The Sumerian and Babylonian word for slave is ‘mountain girl,’ but you didn’t have debtors, citizens falling into bondage for their debtors irreversibly.
What Rome did was make this loss of liberty, this dependency, this bondage, irreversible and permanent. And that really is what made Western civilization different from everything that went before, and we’re still in that period.
Colin Bruce AnthesCan we go back a little bit before that and go into some of that stuff about Sumerian and Babylonian leaders regularly forgiving debt? There were even attempts to systemize that practice that we have records of.
Michael HudsonWell, the Jewish Jubilee year of Leviticus 25 is word-for-word from the debt cancellations that Hammurabi’s dynasty proclaimed early in the second millennium BC. It was normal for Sumerian, Babylonian, and even Assyrian rulers of the 7th century BC. At around the time that trade was revived with Greece and Italy, even they would cancel the debts, liberate the bondservants, and restore the lands that had been turned over to creditors. Rulers saw that if they did not proclaim this debt cancellation and restoration of normal economic relationships, then the debtors would owe their labor to the creditors. They’d have to work on the creditors’ land and the creditors’ estate, and finally, they’d lose the land of the creditors. Well, if they did that, they wouldn’t be able to work on infrastructure projects and corvée labor, and they wouldn’t be able to serve in the army. So they had to keep restoring normal citizenship rights. The citizenship rights before Greece and Rome included guaranteed access to the land and self-support.
So if you’re looking at it, say, in terms of Karl Polanyi, the land was not commodified, labor was not commodified, and money and debt really were not commodified beyond a temporary transfer. You had continual economic renewal and growth in the Near East. Rome and Greece stopped that process of economic renewal, and more and more of the population fell into bondage. The economy polarized, and the result was the Roman Empire. We all know where that led.
Colin Bruce AnthesRight, and so with that, you’re saying there is both this element of fairness citizenship that comes into debt forgiveness but also pure pragmatics. The real economy cannot flourish unless you have these periods in which the question of debt is addressed.
Michael HudsonYes, that’s exactly right. Modern ideology thinks that, well, you have Western democracy, Greece, Rome, and today, the United States, as opposed to other countries, and they’re called autocracies, meaning just single rulers. There was one virtue that kingship had in the ancient Near East, and that was the ability to prevent a domestic oligarchy from developing.
When Greece and Rome were opened up to trade in the 8th century BC, they had chieftains, but they didn’t have any independent rulers. There was no independent palace, no independent temples. The chieftains became the oligarchs, basically without any external check on their aggrandizement. Very quickly, you had, certainly both in Greece and the Italian cities, you had mafia-like local city-states taking over. In Italy, the situation was so bad that there was a lot of flight from the land. People didn’t want a mafia-type state taking over, and a lot of them went to Rome because Rome wanted to attract immigrants. Labor was still the short supply factor in the 8th, 7th, and 6th century BC. Everybody wanted labor. In order to attract labor to your land, you had to give it some degree of freedom, not bondage.
In Greece, you had reformers overthrow the mafia states, and they were called tyrants. Tyrant wasn’t originally a bad word. It was, I think, taken over from the Persians and just meant the person in control. The people in control, the so-called tyrants, paved the way for democracy by getting rid of the sort of autocratic leaders, cancelling debts, and redistributing the land. That was basically what tyrants did. It seems to be, according to Roman historians, what the early Roman kings did. They’d support the debtors. In other words, the population at large. They didn’t want a takeover by a small group of people.
Colin Bruce AnthesSo this is very interesting because the term tyrant comes to mean something, of course, with a very negative connotation. But really, what we’re talking about are people who had appeals to the population and could therefore challenge the system.
Michael HudsonWell, the word and the linguistics are very much like today. When President Biden says that the world is dividing in the next 20 years between democracy and autocracy, what he means by democracy is what Aristotle called oligarchy. Aristotle said democracies turn into oligarchies. So Biden is really saying it’s oligarchy versus autocracy. What he means by autocracy is what the Romans meant by kingship, and the Greeks meant by tyranny. That means a strong government, strong enough to prevent a creditor oligarchy from emerging and taking over the land and expropriating the economy and reducing it to serfdom. You need a mixed economy. You need a public sector and a private sector to act together. The role of the government is to prevent the private sector from polarizing society in a way that imposes austerity. Well, that’s exactly the usage that you found in Greek and Roman rhetoric against kingship and tyranny. It is exactly what you find today in the speeches of the American State Department.
Colin Bruce AnthesAs we get into Rome, we’re going to look at how the way they set up the Senate was very class-oriented. It was basically a class dictatorship. Or did you want to comment on that before?
Michael HudsonRight. Voting was weighted according to how much wealth and land you had and later how much wealth. Each room was– the voting classes were divided into wealth groups. The wealthiest, the small wealthy classes, were given such a heavy voting weight that the three or four wealthiest classes, still, maybe 1-3%, could outvote the whole population at large. Today, we do it through campaign contributions. We’ve also privatized the electoral system, but we don’t let the wealthy people’s votes count more than the votes of anyone else. We just let the wealthy people contribute more money to anyone else, to the political campaign. So we’re doing our best to emulate the Roman constitution.
Colin Bruce AnthesLet’s take a little bit more of a look at the rise of tyrants and the way that this reflected that kind of conflict. You say that interest-bearing debt did not really take hold in Greece until about the 8th century BC. Then we have this series of tyrants who continuously challenge the system. Their reforms were almost always centered around at least some form of debt cancellation and land redistribution. Those are the common elements, correct?
Michael HudsonYes. That also was exactly the same program that the Jubilee had under Judaism. You can imagine the problem that modern civilization has and that Rome had. Once Constantine made Christianity the official Roman religion, how are you going to make the official Roman religion what Jesus was talking about in his first sermon? He said he had come to restore the Jubilee year. Well, obviously, it was all changed. I guess we’ll get to that later at the end of the discussion.
Colin Bruce AnthesAll of these dots are going to connect. But of course, this was, as you write in this book, this was a lot of the push towards– as much as we think of tyranny today, because of the way these terms have changed over time as the opposite of democracy– this was really the driving force towards the development of democratic systems in ancient Greece.
Michael HudsonYes. The question is, what is democracy? Aristotle put forth the whole idea that there was a circular, triangular flow eternally. He said originally people were under autocracy, and then some of the wealthy families emerged, usually the minor aristocracy, as it was in the early Greek city-states. They broke, and they took the people into their camp. That’s what Cleisthenes did in Athens in 506 BC. Then they established democracy, but within a democracy, some people get richer than others, and democracy evolves into an oligarchy. Aristotle said that there are many constitutions that call themselves a democracy, but they’re really oligarchies. He didn’t mention the American Constitution because it wasn’t written yet, but I think the same principle applies. Then he said then the oligarchy makes itself hereditary into an aristocracy. Life polarizes until, finally, some members of the hereditary aristocracy say, we’re killing the whole economy, and we’re going to never be able to fight and win wars if we don’t lighten up, and they have a democratic revolution and restore democracy. You have the same cycle again and again and again. That was his view of history.
Colin Bruce AnthesAs we go into these ancient Greek philosophers and we see those warnings from Aristotle and his particular concerns about democracy and about oligarchy, and we also see Plato and the Republic, and Socrates was his mouthpiece, his character in those writings. Still, perhaps this could be traced back to Socrates’ own visions. These were not people who were necessarily revolutionaries. They were affiliated with the aristocratic classes themselves in many ways. But they saw the pursuit of an addiction to wealth as being the main corruptor and the destroyer of society.
Michael HudsonWell, that’s right. That was the common denominator in the plays of Aristophanes, in Socrates, and in Plato’s dialogues. It was sort of the politically correct thing to do, to say greed is bad and we don’t want to have wealth addiction. Yet society was wealth addicted. There was a basic hypocrisy in the ideology of the ruling class that was very egalitarian among each other, but the fact is that they were all addicted. So what you had was a much more sophisticated economic theory in antiquity than you have today.
All of today’s economic models are based on diminishing marginal utility. If you have a banana, then the next banana you eat is going to be worse. By the time you have your 10th banana in a row, you’re really sick of bananas. Supposedly the more you have, the less you want.
Colin Bruce AnthesIt doesn’t look that way.
Michael HudsonWhat Aristotle and Aristophanes said was that wealth is addictive. Again and again, in Aristophanes’ plays, and I quote them in the book, the more money you have, the more you want. Money is addictive in contrast to food and other things. Somehow that wealth addiction does not play a role in the utility theory that is taught to economic students as the basic premise on which economic models are based. There’s no idea that you can have wealthy people come in and try to take over the economy out of a rising egoism.
Even before that, to bring back Babylonia, the Babylonians had a mathematical model that was far superior to any mathematical model that is used anywhere in the United States or the Western world. It was a very simple model. On the one hand– and we know what it was because we have the textbooks that scribes were taught around 1800 BC. The first mathematical exercise of Babylonian scribes was how long does it take a debt to double. Any debt, interest-bearing debt, is a doubling time. They found that’s exponential growth. Doubling, doubling, doubling, doubling. That’s the S-curve. It’s an exponential upsweep curve.
They also had quotes or studies that calculated the growth of a herd that was sort of a proxy for the economy. The growth of a herd sort of tapered off in an S-curve like you have today. So what the Babylonians realized and the whole Near Eastern realized is that the mathematics of debt is different from the mathematics that describes the economy of production and consumption. Debt grows exponentially and inexorably in excess of the real economy’s ability to grow. The job of a ruler is to restore order by bringing debts back in line with the ability to pay. Nothing like this occurred in Greece and Rome. When people couldn’t pay, they lost their land and they lost their liberty. They fell into bondage to their creditors. That’s what made Western civilization so different from the rest of the world up to that time.
Colin Bruce AnthesThat’s absolutely fascinating because it’s not only saying that debt has a problematic character to it or that sometimes you have a crisis; it’s actually saying that this is something that has to recurringly be taken care of. This is going to be a recurring issue. Debt is going to eat the real economy if we do not have regular intervention.
Michael HudsonThat’s exactly right.
Colin Bruce AnthesI would actually like to go a little further into what Plato was talking about with Socrates because Socrates, the character of Socrates in the Republic, is very kind of antagonistic towards democracy in some ways. He sees a sort of slippery slope with democracy, which you’ve talked a little bit or hinted towards already. But he believes that basically you need politicians who are kind of without– without really funding, in a way, or without being other than a basic income. They shouldn’t be really in the world of trying to accumulate wealth.
Michael HudsonWell, the whole setting for Plato’s Republic has been pretty much misrepresented. I went to the University of Chicago as an undergraduate, and much of our– my favorite course was Organizations, Methods, and Principles of Knowledge, OMP, and we all had to study the Republic. I was about 17 years old at the time, and the talk at that time, they acted as if Socrates was talking about a noble king, a noble despotism, or his guiders. Well, that really misrepresents what Socrates was saying.
The whole Republic begins with Socrates asking someone, “Should you repay the debts that you owe somebody?” Socrates says, “Well, what if somebody borrows a weapon from a very destructive, aggressive person, and you borrowed it? Should you give your sword or your weapon back to the person that you’ve borrowed it from? Because if you do, he’s a violent person, and he’s going to do something with the weapon, maybe, is it really right to repay him?” He said, “Well, no.” The person he’s talking to says no. Then Socrates said, “Well, what if you borrow money from him and you pay your debt to him, and he uses this debt just like an egotistical, violent person will use a weapon? He uses the debt to take away your freedom, to take away your land, to essentially do to you what he would do with a weapon. And, in fact, there have been a lot of political assassinations, is that right?” The student he’s talking to gets a little confused. Socrates said, “Well, here’s the problem. Most of the rulers today are creditors. The rulers, the politicians who get elected and who run most cities, are from the leading families. They’re the richest families. They’re the creditors. Being creditors, they’re going to act in their own self-interest, and they’re going to promote a creditor-oriented law, and this is going to destroy society. So is this really right?” Then he comes up with what seems to be an impossibility. He said, “Well, I guess what we need would be the guardians.” This was the noble despot. The guardians of the state would be people who didn’t have property of their own and who didn’t have a lot of money of their own. Not having money and property, they’re not wealth addicted. By not being wealth addicted, they’re willing to try to develop society as a whole and what’s good for the overall society growing, instead of what’s good for me in getting my power by taking away your liberty and monopolizing all the wealth in my own hands and those of my fellow oligarchs who are running society.
So that is really what the Republic is all about. Socrates made it just as clear as he could, and so did Aristophanes in the plays that he was writing at this time. Somehow, none of that got into the curriculum that I learned as an undergraduate at the University of Chicago, hardly by surprise.
Colin Bruce AnthesWell, I have to say that, unfortunately, the way that that text was introduced to me was in much the same way that it was introduced to you. I wish that that had changed more over the years than it has, but maybe people watching this video will change that moving forward. You mentioned assassinations. I suppose that’s a good place to segue into Rome. So let’s go into ancient Rome and let’s talk about this foundation of pro-creditor laws that really plagued it for about a millennia until it really finally collapsed without much resistance. Can you talk a little bit about what that foundation was going around in 500 BC?
Michael HudsonIn 506 BC, you had the oligarchy getting together and overthrowing the kingship. There’s sort of not that good documentation from this period, but it seems that most of the Roman historians said that while Rome was letting people come from other cities to join Rome, not only did cultivators and peasants come to Rome, but also some aristocrats came to Rome. Especially some aristocrats who couldn’t take over their own cities and came to Rome. They tried to get all the aristocrats together, and they said, “Kings are not letting us make money off the rest of the economy.” So they overthrew the kings and said, “We’re restoring kingship.” This was the whole myth of the Rape of Lucretia. The last king of Rome was accused of raping the daughter of one of his friends. The aristocrats got so upset at this overreaching sexual aggression of kings that they overthrew them and restored liberty.
Well, what they restored was the ability of the aristocrats to reduce clients to slavery and rape their wives and daughters. Just the opposite of what happened. Well, they took over, and immediately the aristocracy reversed everything the kings had tried to do and ruled with an iron hand. The Romans had enough class consciousness that they withdrew from the city. They said, “Well, okay, these are not the rules of the Rome that we joined.” They had a secession of the plebs around 490 BC. They just walked out until, finally, there was a negotiation of what kind of political structure Rome would have. They created officials who were supposed to at least protect the plebs, the plebeians.
But it really wasn’t a very good deal because 50 years later, there was still so much abuse by the aristocracy, the oligarchy, yet, not quite an aristocracy yet, that the judges were all basically the wealthy people. And so the Romans insisted the laws be written down, not led to the judges. It had to be the rule of law, not just the autocratic rule of the wealthy people who controlled the judgeship. So these were the twelve tables that were written down that set a maximum interest rate and various rules. Almost immediately, the oligarchy simply refused to obey them and said, “Okay, these are the rules. What are you going to do about it?” It’s sort of like the United States saying, “We want the rules-based order, not the rule of law.” That could have been the slogan of the oligarchy, but they didn’t have President Biden, to put it quite that way.
The result was, for the next five centuries, again and again, you would have leading patricians, the wealthy people, and then leading plebeians. Many official plebeian families also became very wealthy. You’d have political leaders who tried to protect the economic role of debtors, to prevent people from falling into bondage, and in fact, to ban debt slavery when there were particular abusive examples that got the population riled up. So basically, you just had what seemed to be a nice paper constitution and paper laws just being autocratically administered, sort of like trying to apply the law in New York City courts. Good luck. It didn’t get very far.
All of this basically began to polarize after about 200 BC when Rome conquered the Greek world and absorbed Greece and went on in around 150 BC to destroy Carthage and conquer Greece all over again. And you had, at that point, already in the second century BC, you had Rome developing into an empire. It really began in the second century. And because it was impoverishing its own population, the character of the army changed, and it became more or less a mercenary army that was loyal to its Generals. You had the usual kind of infighting between right-wing oligarchs and more populist oligarchs, and each of them became Generals commanding opposing armies. You had a civil war, really, from, you could say, from 133 BC on to the eruption with the Catiline organizing an army of debtors to try to cancel debts. He lost. He’d been sponsored somewhat by Julius Caesar. Finally, Julius Caesar came back. Even though his first act was to cancel the debts of the rich people, but not of his class, but not of the people as a whole, there was general fear by the oligarchy that Caesar was actually going to cancel the debts of the poor people as well, not just other rich people, and they killed him. There was a long fight for succession, and you had the empire really taking over under Octavian, Caesar’s adopted nephew, who became Augustus.
Colin Bruce AnthesRight. You write in this book– something that’s very clear in this book is that Rome was different in character in a few different ways. One was that it was based on a kind of war economy and the appropriation of land continuously because it was not rooted in supporting a domestic economy.
Michael HudsonYes, it basically made its money by conquering other regions and looting them. It would impose tribute. The wealthiest part of the Roman Empire for many years was Asia Minor, what is now Turkey. You had decade after decade of war by the leader from Pontus on the Black Sea, Mithridates waged a war against the Romans, who collected by– their tax collectors, were called publicans or publicani, the agents. Things got so bad that around 88 BC, there were the Vespers of Ephesus, the Near East, all over the Ephesus and Near Eastern cities. The Near Easterns rose up, and they killed almost every Roman they could find and every Italian who came with them, except for the few Romans who’d supported local rights and went native, as it were, such as Lucellas, who was a very good guy. Rome just came back and essentially looted the temples. There was no rule of law at all. The phrase was, where the publicans go, the rule of law ends. Very much like the United States when it went and took over Russia in the 1990s. It was looted.
By the first century AD, one-third of all of the Roman Empire’s revenues came from tariffs imposed on trade with Egypt. So Egypt, along with Asia Minor, remained a large part of the Roman Empire that was essentially using its revenue just to hire mercenaries. Increasingly, it moved into Europe, North of the Alps, and began to hire Germanic tribes as fighters for it. Usually, the Generals began to fight against each other, and each of them wanted to be emperor, and they would hire the tribes, and finally, by about the fifth century, the empire simply dissolved.
There was already, in the third century, which was supposed to be the golden age of emperorship; the taxation of the areas controlled by Rome was so great that you had the emperors finally doing what seemed to be what the Near Eastern rulers were doing. They’d cancelled the debts. Well, the debts they cancelled were mainly tax debts because the economy was so heavily indebted that people couldn’t afford to borrow anymore. The only people who could afford to borrow were wealthy people from each other. The main cause of borrowing was to pay the taxes that Rome insisted upon. So when the emperors cancelled the debts, it was largely cancelling the debts of the wealthy, sort of like the recent bank bailouts of the Silicon Valley Bank and other banks in the United States. The wealthy don’t have to pay the debts, but if you’re not wealthy, you do have to pay the debts. That’s the basic room in principle, and that is what America calls democracy.
Colin Bruce AnthesYeah, that looks a lot like on a massive scale, and we’re seeing it on a massive scale, what Socrates said about giving a weapon back to someone who’s become a lunatic.
Michael HudsonIndeed.
Colin Bruce AnthesWe’ll be right back with part two of our conversation with Dr. Michael Hudson on the fall of the Roman Empire and its implications for contemporary political economy. Thanks for watching. We’ll see you soon.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)User my donation to help support the upcoming documentary "How to stop a nuclear war" (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter
Email(Required)Name(Required) First Last Δ
“Michael Hudson is an American economist, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City and a researcher at the Levy Economics Institute at Bard College, former Wall Street analyst, political consultant, commentator and journalist.”
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
Paul Jay is back to speak about the war in Ukraine, the irrevocable effects of climate change, and the ever-present but often downplayed danger of nuclear warfare. He explains how the transnational capitalist elite continue to benefit from the war at the expense of the average Ukrainian and Russian worker. He also speaks about his new documentary film project on nuclear winter and his recent trip to visit political activist Daniel Ellsberg, whose insights on the Cuban Missile Crisis and potential human error leading to nuclear confrontation are heavily featured in the film. This is part one of a three-part series.
Watch PART TWO
Watch PART THREE
Capitalism Has Never Been This Irrational – Paul Jay (pt 3/3)Donald Trump and the (Non) Prosecution of Presidential Crimes (pt 2/3)Class and the War in Ukraine – Paul Jay (pt 1/3) Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Music*
Talia BaroncelliHi, I’m Talia Baroncelli, and you’re watching theAnalysis.news. I’ll shortly be joined by Paul Jay for a three-part series on the war in Ukraine, the prosecution of Donald J. Trump, as well as global oligarchy and capitalism. But first, please do go to our website, theAnalysis.news, and hit the donate button at the top right corner of the screen. Most importantly, get on our mailing list; that way, you’ll be emailed every time a new episode is released. You can also go to our YouTube channel, theAnalysis-news, and hit the subscribe button as well as the bell. The bell ensures that you’ll be informed every time a new episode drops. See you in a bit for part one of our three-part series with Paul Jay.
Joining me now is Paul Jay, your favorite host at theAnalysis.news. It’s really good–
Paul JayOh, not anymore.
Talia BaroncelliIt’s great to see you, Paul. How are you doing?
Paul JayI’m doing good, thanks.
Talia BaroncelliSo you’ve been really busy lately, and we haven’t seen you. What have you been up to?
Paul JayI’ve been up to my eyeballs in a documentary film I’m working on called How to Stop a Nuclear War, which is based on Daniel Ellsberg’s book, The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner. So I was out twice in the last few months in Berkeley, where Dan is, filming more interviews with him. I’ve actually been interviewing Dan on and off for the last three years, but we’re getting much more into the thick of the production now. When I came back last time, I had COVID, and I was out of it with that. The cough is a residual of that.
Talia BaroncelliYeah, we can see that, unfortunately.
Paul JayYeah, I apologize if I’m coughing during this interview. But the work’s going very well. Dan, a lot of people may know, is ill. He’s 92 years old and diagnosed recently with pancreatic cancer. He sent an email or a message out letting all his friends and everyone know about it. It went viral. Apparently, two or three million people have seen his note. He’s been interviewed many times now on mainstream media. Right now, he’s doing pretty well. But sadly, he probably won’t be for long, but he’s still quite energetic.
Talia BaroncelliWell, in all your recent interviews with Dan, and you’ve known him for so many years, what has his core message been recently, especially with regard to climate change and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
Paul JayWell, he’s feeling frustrated, I guess. He was hoping all the work he had been doing would have had more effect than it had. Although I think it has had more than he thinks it has. But he thinks the danger of nuclear war is as great now as it’s ever been, and perhaps even more dangerous now– and obviously, climate change.
One of the things he said, if people watched his interview, which I thought was quite profound and important, was comparing the Cuban Missile Crisis to what’s going on in Ukraine. The Russian Foreign Minister [Sergey] Lavrov compared the American blockade of Cuba to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The United States was threatened by Soviet missiles in Cuba and had a blockade against Cuba. Russia, threatened by the expansion of NATO and even possibly nuclear weapons in Ukraine, had a right to what they’re calling the “special military operation,” which is– they use those words because to say war opens it up to a question of whether this is a legal or unjust war, illegal war. So they come up with this terminology of “special military occupation,” which is nonsense.
When I asked Ellsberg about comparing the Cuban Missile Crisis to Ukraine, he said, “Well, there is a comparison, but it’s not the one Lavrov is making.” In fact, the Soviet missiles in Cuba were no additional threat to the United States, even though there were nuclear weapons in Cuba. It didn’t actually alter the geopolitical equation at all because the Soviet Union already had submarines that could fire on Washington or New York. So nothing was added to the threat. In fact, the blockade that [John F.] Kennedy put up around Cuba, while it was better than an invasion, which is what the Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted, and it seems Bobby Kennedy wanted, and Jack Kennedy and maybe Adlai Stevenson were almost the only ones that really didn’t want the invasion and risk where that would lead. The blockade itself was illegal. To blockade a country is itself an act of war, an act of aggression. Kennedy had no right to put up that blockade. So to compare Cuba to Ukraine and Russia is actually not a favorable comparison for the Russians.
Ellsberg argues the Ukraine situation is very similar in that even if Ukraine joined NATO, it’s not an imminent threat to Russia. I mean, Estonia is already in NATO, and there’s no threat from Estonia to Russia. In fact, Ukraine wasn’t about to get into NATO anyway. I mean, people have heard me say this a hundred times, and it’s easily verifiable. Both France, Germany and, in all likelihood, Turkey, were not going to allow Ukraine into NATO. If there isn’t consensus, they can’t do it. So there just was no imminent threat. The underlying comparison that Ellsberg makes is that Kennedy was so afraid of domestic political forces, the Republicans accusing him of being soft on communism, soft on the Soviet Union, soft on Cuba, that he had to look tough. He couldn’t be humiliated by these missiles in Cuba because [Nikita] Khrushchev had promised him there wouldn’t be any missiles in Cuba, and Khrushchev put them in any way. That’s a similar situation to Putin.
If Ukraine was to be a NATO, if Ukraine was to have these kinds of weapons, it would be a humiliation for Putin. Not a real threat to Russian national security. Ukraine was not about to invade Russia. But you can’t underestimate these factors. Kennedy’s fear of humiliation and Putin’s similar, both dealing with domestic situations. In Putin’s case, rising alienation and opposition to the Russian oligarchy. We’re not the only ones that see pictures of these Russian oligarchs living on these enormous yachts in the Mediterranean or wherever. Much of Russia or the Russian people are living in poverty.
Ellsberg condemns the Russian invasion. But– and this is the big but, the danger of nuclear war because of the Russian invasion and the danger of nuclear war because of the American role, perhaps provoking this with talk of NATO expansion– but like I say, they’ll see no evidence it was really going to happen. But since the invasion, the U.S. has certainly embraced this as an opportunity to try to weaken Russia, perhaps bring Putin down. They are doing everything they can to stoke and provoke this war to go on, perhaps even for years. The phrase has been used over and over again. The Americans will fight for the right of NATO to take in new members to the last Ukrainian– until every Ukrainian is dead. While he condemns the invasion quite unequivocally, he also condemns the role of the U.S. in NATO, and in particular, the Americans, in not pushing for compromise now and continuing to flood arms into Ukraine.
Talia BaroncelliWhat do you think Ellsberg would say to the fact that, yes, of course, NATO has been expanding and has been pushing those red lines, so to speak, but what about Russia’s imperial ambitions? Maybe they would have gone ahead with the invasion, regardless, and were just using the specter of NATO expansion as a pretext to invade Ukraine.
Paul JayWell, I don’t know the answer to that question because we never got a chance to see it. Certainly, a lot of Russians I’ve talked to in Russia do think it was a pretext. The point is, even if Ukraine did join NATO, how does that really change anything from Estonia? In fact, what they’ve accomplished now is now Finland is in NATO. Now they have an even bigger NATO border, Russian-NATO border. So it certainly didn’t minimize the threat from NATO.
I think, to step back a bit here, without mitigating the message that there was no imminent threat to Russia, which makes this a war of aggression, and everything I understand about the Nuremberg decisions, international law, and the UN Charter, the right to self-defense only kicks in if there’s an imminent threat. Imminent really means imminent, like you’re about to get attacked, and there’s no other way out of getting attacked but a preemptive defense. Short of that, it’s a war of aggression, period.
Talia BaroncelliRight, and it has to be an imminent threat, spatially, so territorially, but also temporarily. So in terms of it being an imminent threat right then at that very moment or in that time frame and not a few months prior.
Paul JayThat’s the essence of it. Imminent.
Talia BaroncelliExactly.
Paul JayImmediate. In the moment. Yeah, that’s the essence of it. At the time of the Russian invasion, there were 150,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border. Even if there were Ukrainian troops near the Donbas, and there’s a claim, and the numbers go all over the place. Lavrov has said 75,000. Others have said 50,000. I saw the head of the Russian Communist Party say there were 150,000 or something Ukrainian troops about to invade Donbas. Well, there’s no evidence of any of that. The OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe] that does these reports, reported an increase in shelling, but that shelling was back and forth from the Donbas region into the Ukrainian government-controlled area and Ukrainian missiles going into the independent or autonomous-controlled regions, some people say Russian-controlled. There’s a lot of shelling going on, but there were very, very few deaths, if any. The number of deaths in 2021 leading up to that– the 150,000 Russian troops– in the whole of the region, according to the OSCE, there were 10 deaths as a result of the fighting, and maybe it could be attributed to the Ukrainian side. I mean, there were more people that were killed in car accidents.
So there certainly was no imminent threat for Ukraine to invade Russia. I don’t see evidence that there was an imminent threat to Donbas. Even if there was, which again, I don’t know that there was, but let’s say there was, how likely is it that they’re going to do that when there are 150,000 Russian troops on their border? If there were Ukrainian troops gathering, it’s probably more likely they’re doing it because there are 150,000 Russian troops on their border. Even then, Donbas was still part of Ukraine. It was still an internal matter of Ukraine. It’d be like if Quebec was trying to declare independence from the Canadian federal government and Canadian troops were massing to go in and suppress, I don’t know, the Quebec provincial police or whatever it would be. The Americans don’t have a right to come in and get involved in that. It’s not a complete stretch of the imagination either. Some crazy neocons once talked about how the U.S. should intervene and support the Quebec independence movement.
Anyway, all that said, the focus of Ellsberg is on the threat of nuclear war and the climate crisis. The Americans are playing a role now to provoke, stoke, more than provoke, to sustain this war in a way that the Ukrainians don’t feel any need to negotiate. There’s some evidence that Zelenskyy, at one point, did want to negotiate. Boris Johnson went in and trounced it. I think there were meetings going on in Turkey. So there’s no doubt that the Americans are trying to keep this war going to weaken Russia, so it cannot be a rival in Europe. On so many levels, it’s insane.
Talia BaroncelliWell, you have heard different Ukrainian higher-ups in the government speaking about Crimea. I think recently some of them are saying, perhaps we can negotiate Crimea, and we won’t need to take it back for us to have some final victory. But then some other diplomats or officials were walking that back. It’s hard to really gauge what the flexibility is and how diehard they are on having complete territorial integrity, and how long they want to fight for. If you look at the recent Pentagon leaks that were showing U.S. and NATO military plans and assistance to the Ukrainian military, it does seem like there is a spring offensive underway. So do you think maybe that’s why they haven’t been investing much political capital in diplomacy?
Paul JayYeah, sure. First of all, it’s been said over by many people, but the American military-industrial complex, arms manufacturers are having– this is heaven for them. They’re talking about how depleted American weapon stocks are now. Well, what does that mean? You got to resupply American weapon stocks. Apparently, Raytheon was saying that it’s going to take them years to catch up with what’s been depleted in Ukraine. Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman love this. There’s this great economic pressure on the Biden administration. There’s no doubt that a just position, anyone that cares at all about peace in this world, and even more importantly, anyone that cares about– actually people focusing on the climate crisis and reducing the risk of nuclear war. The pressure needs to be, yes, denounce the invasion, but at this point, there have to be negotiations. Everybody knows more or less what the end game of this negotiation is.
Thomas Pickering, who’s a former American Diplomat, writes in Foreign Affairs. I mean, he laid it out, but he’s not the only one. It’s pretty clear. One way he suggests is to take all the disputed territories in Luhansk and Donetsk and put them under UN supervision, then have legitimate referendums and let the people decide what status they want. Do they want to be a part of Russia? Do they want to be part of Ukraine? Do they want to be autonomous and independent? I don’t think, from what I understand, that there’s any doubt that the people of this region have a right to self-determination. The same thing goes with Crimea. The only difference with Crimea is that it’s a little more complex, given its history of being in Russia and then being in Ukraine and back in Russia. More important to me than these border histories is that quite a few of what seem like legitimate polls were taken after the referendum in 2014. The majority of people in Crimea apparently do support Crimea joining Russia. But let that be certified again. If that’s the case, then fine. People have a right to self-determination, but countries have a right to defend their sovereignty.
Sometimes these are contradictory principles. Let’s take Taiwan. Does Taiwan have a right to self-determination? I think so. I’m not a lawyer, but you go into all the various ingredients of what would give a province of China, like Quebec is a province of Canada, what would give Taiwan the right to self-determination? From what I know, I think it meets those criteria. But China has a right to defend its sovereignty, and that includes Taiwan. In the same way, Canada, even if Quebec has a right to self-determination, it doesn’t mean Canada doesn’t have a right to defend its sovereignty, including Quebec. For example, if the U.S. were to try to intervene to facilitate Quebec’s independence, that would be illegal in international law. It would be a crime of aggression. It doesn’t matter whether there’s a right to self-determination. So they’re complicated, sometimes contradictory principles. But the underlying fundamental principle is the well-being of the people involved; peace as a primary principle, and the working people of each country should not slaughter each other for the sake of the oligarchs of their countries. The same thing goes for Ukraine.
I’ve been saying– it’s easy for me to sit here in Toronto and say this, but I would love the Ukrainian working people to have a way to organize and say to the Russians, you want to denazify? Great. Go denazify Russia because you’re surrounded by Nazis all around Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church. Even the Russian Communist Party is virulently nationalist and, to a large extent, anti-semitic too. The Ukrainian workers should take all these guns they have now and point them at the Ukrainian oligarchy. Okay, that’s a nice dream. But that said, that class struggle in Ukraine, which up until the Russian invasion was there boiling, I don’t know how strong the workers’ movement was, but there were unions. It all came to nothing because of the Russian invasion. Like when you’re invaded, that national contradiction with the invader becomes far more primary. It’s very difficult.
In China, when the Japanese invaded, Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party were able to mobilize such a force that they could focus on the Japanese invasion and the Kuomintang, who were sometimes fighting the Japanese and more often than not fighting the Peoples’ Liberation Army and then wound up holding themselves up in Taiwan.
Conditions don’t exist like that in Ukraine right now. If the problem is the Ukrainian oligarchy, then it’s the Ukrainian people that have to deal with that. Criminal, kleptocracy, yes, with Nazi influence. But the oligarchs in Russia are no better. They’re not the ones that are going to clean up and denazify Ukraine. If they had succeeded in invading Kyiv, and if they had succeeded in putting in some Ukrainian puppet, then Ukraine would have been ruled by a corrupt Russian kleptocracy. So let’s not forget Ukraine and Russia are class societies.
Now, here’s the big problem here in terms of international public opinion and such. The country that’s leading the charge to denounce the Russian invasion is a rogue state. The United States is, certainly, with the invasion of Iraq and many other things, but let’s just focus on that, it is a rogue state. So what credibility have they got denouncing Russia for being an aggressor, a war of aggression, violating international law? They have zero credibility because of not just what they’ve done in Iraq, but the pressure and interference in other places, backing the Saudis in Yemen and on and on. So that’s the complication. But just because the United States is a rogue state, and just because they’re denouncing this Russian invasion, doesn’t mean we as progressives don’t have to first and foremost have solidarity with the people, not the Russian oligarchy, but the Ukrainian people who are being invaded. We must also point out what the Americans really are.
Talia BaroncelliI think it’s also really important to recognize that so many people have been displaced as well. So when we’re talking about referendums, if we’re going to have referendums in certain areas of Ukraine, so many people have been forced out of those areas. So you would have to have it in a way that includes them and that maybe has them come back to the country under conditions of peace because it is a bit disingenuous to say, oh, we’ll have a referendum now after thousands of them have left and only a few of them are remaining. That’s a bit of a skewed picture of who’s there. Maybe their opinions have changed in the meantime since the invasion. I think a lot of working-class people, just by reading certain Ukrainian groups who are more working-class and have typically been opposed to the elite and have been opposed to Zelenskyy even, are now unified because they’re threatened by the Wagner group or by Russian forces who are killing them. So it’s ironic how their attention has been now forced against the other kleptocracy and not the one who is also oppressing them within their own country. Hopefully, there will be peace soon so that they can actually focus on the corruption and the problems within their own country and not just dealing with an aggressor.
Paul JayYeah, I would expect this wouldn’t be the first time a referendum has to be organized, even by the UN, where a lot of people have been displaced. So I think you’re right. There has to be a process that people can prove they were residents at such and such time and have a right to vote. If it was under UN jurisdiction, Donbas, then people, in theory, could return to their homes.
The problem here is, what’s the overriding objective for each of the players here? If you look at the Americans, the overriding objective, and is always their overriding objective is global hegemony. If you want to be the global hegemon, you got to be the hegemon in every region. So any regional power that’s a threat has to be subdued. The underlying problem here is the way global monopoly capitalism works, and there’s nothing new about it. Capitalism strives at the individual corporate level for monopoly and at the level of the country for monopoly within a region. If you’re a superpower monopoly globally, whether monopoly corporately, whether your companies can actually control certain sectors of the economy. Most importantly, and this is what exists in most of the world, American finance is the dominant financial player and is the creditor. I don’t know if it was Lenin or somebody who divided the world in various ways. One of the main ways you can divide the world is by creditors and debtors. Up until recently, the United States has been by far the number one creditor country, and more so, global capitalism depends on American management.
When the Pentagon sits down with the politicians who happen to be in power and the whole foreign policy complex, all the think tanks and everybody that feeds into this U.S. foreign policy, it’s a whole class of people, really, who is driven partly by the motivation for profit making for the arms making companies, but also an internalized view of the world. America is the beacon on the hill. America’s needed, or the world goes to anarchy. Democracy versus authoritarianism. Now, of course, that means “democracy”– I’m doing quotation marks here, especially for people listening to the podcast. I got to keep remembering more than half our audience is listening, not watching. But anyway, when they talk about “democracy,” they primarily mean the freedom of capital to move freely around the world. So they can go invest where they want. They can get countries in debt to them where they want, and so on. Then a certain amount of democracy for the people– you get to vote every few years. It’s not nothing. It sure ain’t, I don’t think, a real democracy, especially in the U.S., where people barely can even vote properly. But even then, in all the Western capitalist countries, and I include Canada in that, none of the parties really represent working people. I won’t get into that in detail. But a certain amount of democracy amongst the ruling classes themselves, when they talk about democracy, I think that’s the democracy they’re most concerned about.
They don’t like, and FDR articulated this really clearly in 1938 in the speech on monopoly, the Western capitalist on the whole, and there are some that don’t agree with what I’m about to say; they don’t want one section of capital to seize hold of the state and be beholden to a small group of capital. So democracy for the Americans, and for most or all of Western capitalism, is a democracy where the institutions maintain certain rules of the road. So these institutions play a moderating role between sections of capital so that they don’t go to war with each other, which they did in the United States.
During the American Civil War, it was primarily a war of different sections of capital and elite power fighting over how labor was going to be exploited and which section of, whether it was North and industrial capital or the Southern agricultural slave-based capital, was going to be dominant. They don’t want to do that again. They don’t want a war. So they’ve worked out these institutions that can moderate between sections of capital without the way feudalists used to rally peasants to their side. Some peasants would fight for this aristocrat, and some for that. There were endless wars. That’s not good for business, modern capitalist business. So they want some democracy. They prefer it. They like the freedom of capital, but they hate socialism. They hate the idea of public ownership and some democratization where people actually have a say in that public ownership. When faced with that, they don’t mind, especially in other countries, dictatorship. I mean, Saudi Arabia. It has gone on and on since World War II. How many dictatorships have the Americans supported? Socialism is the greatest enemy to them.
They’re balancing this. How do you have freedom of capital? A kind of democracy, not democracy for the people, but some, at least some, that looks that way. They don’t like even a [Jair] Bolsonaro situation that much in Brazil, where a group around Bolsonaro was starting to really take control of the state. But still, they had elections, and the institutions played a role.
Anyway, when they look at Ukraine, what’s their primary objective? To assert their hegemony over Europe. They don’t want Russia to be a big player in Europe because it could be too competitive to American power in Europe. They hate the idea that there would ever be a Russia-German cooperation or alliance because imagine if you had a Russia-German alliance in Europe, who needs the U.S.? There’s no longer even a role for NATO at all, and it would change everything. So the Americans, that’s their primary objective.
What should their primary objective be? What should we be demanding their primary objective should be? Peace? Yeah, of course. But it’s more specific. The great threat facing us is the climate crisis and then the threat of nuclear war. You can reverse it because of what’s happening right now. If there’s a nuclear war next week, no one’s going to be around to worry about the climate crisis. So you can’t even compare these two in a way. They both have to be dealt with. It’s too obvious. It can’t be dealt with without an international agreement that includes China and Russia, especially China, but also Russia.
What good is global hegemony in a world of utter chaos? If they thought there were supply chain problems during the pandemic, just wait until we start crossing the 1.5 and two-degree warming levels, then three and then four. James Hansen said recently in a study that two degrees of warming is already baked into the system. We are there now. We’re not at two degrees yet, but it’s already baked into the climate. The only way to stop going past two, maybe mitigate getting to two, is a radical rupture with the use of fossil fuel now, today, and a radical moving into sustainable energy today, now. That should be everyone’s priority, including Ukrainians. What good is a Ukraine that defeats the Russians, one, isn’t a wasteland of destruction? How many times have the Americans promised to come into Eastern Europe and rebuild and this and that, and they do very little? Maybe there’ll be a way to spend money there, but do you think the American people entering a recession are going to be, oh, let’s all go spend more money in Ukraine?
More importantly, what is there of Ukraine or Russia if we don’t face up to climate and if we keep risking a nuclear war? So the problem here is we got to step back from– while we need to denounce the Russian invasion without mitigation, we need to step back because the problem is the way monopoly capitalism has reached such a moment of utter irrationality that we’re on the precipice of destroying human civilization. So once you put it into that context, how on Earth can the Ukrainians keep talking about liberating Crimea? How can there not be a quick resolution under the auspices of the UN? Yes, the U.S. is very much the culprit here. Yes, the Russians invaded. Yes, I’ve said it over and over again. I’m not mitigating that. But the Americans actually do have the ability to say to the Ukrainians, yeah, you have a right to fight as long as you want to fight, including liberating Crimea. If that’s what Ukrainians want to do, okay. But we don’t have an obligation to keep arming you if it’s threatening the world. And that’s what they should say.
Talia BaroncelliNot just threatening the world but also threatening the integrity of their own country. Some would argue, even certain liberal historians, I think I’ve mentioned this before, Stephen Kotkin, he’s been a diehard supporter of arming Ukraine, but he’s been saying that what good is the outcome if Ukraine can’t join the EU in the end and there’s not much left of their country. It’s going to require a huge effort to rebuild the country. We already know that. Something much greater than the Marshall Plan. What good will it be if they regain Crimea? There are no collective security agreements in place. There is no redistribution of wealth in place. There’s no solution for climate change in that region. Even if they have Crimea back, that’s not really a great final outcome, at least in his view. So it would make sense to focus on what is really realistic.
Certain other experts like Trita Parsi have been saying that you can still have diplomacy and not actually have a ceasefire. The two aren’t the same thing. So many Western countries have been shying away from investing in diplomatic negotiations as if a ceasefire would be around the corner, and they don’t want to downplay their support for Ukraine. It’s ridiculous because you can still have open lines of communication and work toward diplomacy, and that won’t necessarily automatically lead to a ceasefire. So they should be talking a lot more.
Paul JaySorry, go ahead.
Talia BaroncelliWe also don’t really know what’s going on. I mean, I think, again, this recent Pentagon leak just shows how U.S. intelligence is so much better at gauging what the Russians are doing than what the Ukrainian war plans are. Maybe there are some rogue elements in the Ukrainian government. So I feel like countries are just shooting from the hip, and they don’t have a real strategy in place, or else some strategies are just hidden from the West. Whether that serves a purpose, I don’t really know. But yeah, it’s really hard to say.
Why don’t we talk about China’s role in mediating these conflicts? [Emmanuel] Macron was recently in China to speak to Xi Jinping, to try and put pressure on China to condemn Russia’s involvement in the war in Ukraine and to potentially discourage him from sending weapons to Ukraine. I don’t know if China is actually– sorry, sending weapons to Russia. I don’t know if China has actually sent any, but that prospect is obviously really disconcerting for people in the West if they think that this is going to become some new form of Cold War competition between the U.S. and China in the end.
Paul JayYeah, well, it already is. It goes back to this striving for monopoly. The U.S. does not want to give up its predominant position, and it has already, to a large extent, lost it. I think China is now the major trading partner for almost everywhere, and they don’t have any foreign military bases. So they’ve accomplished this just through finance, loaning money, the aid of some kind, because of the size of their market and so on. In Latin America, almost, if not every major country in Latin America, their major trading partner now is China or it’s U.S. but China is right there next to it.
In terms of Ukraine, China is the place that, in theory, should have said no to this. If they want to call themselves socialists, then one of the fundamental principles of socialism is international solidarity with workers everywhere. A fundamental principle of that is you don’t support wars where workers slaughter each other for oligarchs. That’s it. You don’t. China’s position should have been from the very beginning, trying to use the leverage they had to get a negotiated settlement. I don’t see how the Russian economy would have survived without China buying its oil and gas from Russia. Apparently, they’re getting a cut-rate deal on it, but that is not the way a socialist country operates– for the sake of better prices on fossil fuel and for the sake of weakening our geopolitical ally, the United States, I’m sorry, not ally, adversary, they like to call themselves. They like, I guess, it’s in China’s narrow interest to see the Americans tied down in Ukraine, spending tons of money there. Maybe they see it mitigates the provocations the United States creates over Taiwan. But that isn’t how a socialist country operates.
They could have and should have used and still should not be so fuzzy on what they actually think about the U.S. invasion. If you read something called Global Times, which is a website that more or less speaks for the Chinese Communist Party, there have been several paragraphs in there in some of their articles where they actually do come pretty close to saying this is an unjustified invasion. They don’t quite say it all the way, but they come pretty close. But they make a point, and in some ways, it’s somewhat similar to Ellsberg’s point, which is you can’t humiliate Putin and his government, and you can’t try to bring them down without horrible consequences. You can’t hope for the disintegration of the Russian Federation, which some of the American neocons and even people in the Biden administration, many of them are essentially neocons, hope for. They’re actually seeing this as a strategic opportunity to fundamentally weaken the Russian Federation, maybe even lead to its breakup in some ways, and in that way, weaken China. They don’t like China having this massive resource of fossil fuel.
Russia is not– people have called Russia just a gas station. Well, it’s pretty clear that it is not. They have a big agricultural sector. They make fertilizer. Their arms manufacturing industry is top-notch. Even if the army isn’t doing very well, apparently, their sophisticated weapons are at world-class levels. So that’s not an insignificant ally for China. For the U.S., weakening, breaking up– so China’s issued some warnings in between the lines, saying, you better be careful what you wish for here, America. A strategic defeat for Putin, the oligarchy, and the Russian armed forces can get extremely dangerous for the world. But I would just say back to the Chinese, well, the same thing for you. If you don’t really try to get this war over with and use your leverage for a UN broker deal, and I should mention, by the way, all these arguments about how Dombas was about to be attacked. Well, even if it was, which again, I don’t see it, but let’s say they were, well, then Russia goes to the UN Security Council and gets a resolution condemning Ukraine for its threat to Donbas, to the autonomous areas, and try to get a resolution, even a resolution supporting an intervention to defend Donbas. They didn’t do that. And that’s what China should have been saying. If you really think this is such a threat, then use the UN Charter, use the UN mechanism, because China is supposed to be a supporter of that. But you can’t make speeches about defending sovereignty and integrity and then be quiet about Russia’s invasion, which is what China is doing.
So there’s this mix going on here of people. They want to call it socialism with Chinese characteristics. Well, fine. Without getting too deeply into it, at this time, although I’m happy to do it some other time, is this actually socialism or not? Well, maybe it is sort of but not the kind, certainly, that Marx and Engels imagined in the sense that where’s the democracy for the workers? But okay, let’s set aside that right now. If you say you’re a socialist, then you need to abide by the principles. In fact, the Soviet Union was very involved in some of the international laws that were written that condemned wars without an imminent threat, condemning them as wars of aggression. China has supported all that, has supported that concept.
Yeah, I get the problem here and what I said earlier. The biggest criminal and the biggest purveyor of wars of aggression since World War II is the United States. Of course, the biggest criminal prior to World War II was the British Empire. Anglo-American imperialism has more blood on its hands, even than Hitler. The British actually killed more people over the 300 years of the British Empire. Anyway, you don’t need to compare who’s the worst criminal. I get why peoples of the South see the United States as the greater danger. I get why in much of the world, people see the U.S. as the greater danger. In an overall way, I guess it is because it is the power of the United States, the power of American finance, the corporate power; they are the primary obstacles, even on the climate front, in spite of all their rhetoric, pretending they care about climate. But these are not dogmatic, easy, simple rules that the Americans are to blame for everything.
If you were in Pakistan and India attacked, or vice versa, or the fight over Kashmir erupted again, it wouldn’t be clear where the U.S. was where Russia and China were. Maybe China is a little more towards Pakistan. The U.S. certainly backs [Narendra] Modi, but India is keeping up its relations with Russia. It’s a complicated jigsaw puzzle there. That being said, if you’re in Pakistan, you’re worried about the Indians. If you’re in India, you’re worried about the Pakistanis. Then the world better worry about a nuclear war between India and Pakistan because that’s enough to create a nuclear winter that could kill a billion people. This is the thing; it doesn’t matter which conflict you look at. The big picture comes back to the issue of climate and the risk of nuclear war. So the fundamental thing we need to be saying to all these powers, including the Chinese, and you want to call yourself socialism with Chinese characteristics, fine. Although I’ve never heard of socialism that didn’t have some national characteristics. I mean, Cubans had Cuban characteristics and so on, so whatever. The fundamental principle of a socialist country is international solidarity amongst working people. So you do what you can to end this war. There’s probably no force in the world right now that has more possibilities for ending this Ukrainian-Russian war than China. There’s still not doing it.
Talia BaroncelliHaving said that, though, I think there is an argument to be made for the fact that the U.S. is the greatest obstacle to this so-called rules-based international order, with quotation marks. I mean, they use this, at least in my view, they use this as a discursive tool to pursue their own interests. So they keep saying that, we need to condemn the war in Ukraine, we need to condemn Russia because we need to safeguard this rules-based international order. But the problem is that if they actually cared about these customary norms and these international standards, then they would be the first to prosecute Bush and Cheney and to hold their own war crimes to account. But they’ve insulated themselves and ensured that the ICC would never have any jurisdiction over them or issue an arrest warrant for any American officials. I’m sure that’s why the majority of the world is just looking at the West and saying, all your talk of democracy, Trump’s autocracy is BS because you don’t hold yourself to those same standards. But I would ask you, does that then mean because they’re so hypocritical that they shouldn’t hold potential Russian war criminals to the same standards? How should we go about ensuring that there’s some form of international justice? Maybe there would be Ukrainian war criminals as well that would need to be prosecuted. I don’t know. There have been UN reports, or I think, an Amnesty report maybe, that showed that there were war crimes on both sides, but the reports show that there were probably more systematic war crimes perpetrated by Russian troops than Ukrainian.
Paul JayThere is such hypocrisy in the American position and the Western position. I include China there, too. I mean, did the Chinese demand accountability for Bush-Cheney after the Iraq War? I don’t remember. Wherever I’ve looked, I can’t see anything. I don’t remember the Chinese coming to the United Nations and asking for war crime trials for Bush-Cheney. They’re far more interested in developing U.S.-China trade. Of course, that’s what should have happened. I mean, it’s a joke. The hypocrisy is so terrible that even prosecuting Trump looks hypocritical because such bigger crimes were committed by former U.S. presidents, including Obama.
I’m not even talking about the drone program here, but if I understand it correctly, under international law, President Obama had an obligation to prosecute Bush-Cheney for war crimes. By not doing that, he becomes a collaborator. At the time when Obama was President, and this was a much hotter issue, I interviewed several experts on international law. It wasn’t just the need to prosecute Bush-Cheney; it’s that Obama himself could be prosecuted. But given that the only people that seem to ever get prosecuted are from small countries, it’s not like I shed a tear that these guys get prosecuted, but when the big war criminals don’t, and especially when the American war criminals don’t, then let’s get real about how do we get to a peace and how do we get to dealing with climate and the risk of nuclear war and any attempt to prosecute Putin or other Russians for war crimes. And yeah, they’re never going to go after Ukrainians anyway. And, of course, if you’re going to do it, you might as well go after all war crimes. But it’s a pointless exercise. All it’s going to do is make it impossible to come to an agreement. And if Putin thinks his life is on the line, and not just him, the people around him, they’re going to fight to the death here. So let’s get real about what should be done. Yeah, if you want to prosecute Putin, great. Let’s start with Bush-Cheney and all the other kinds of people. In fact, Larry Wilkerson, who we interview all the time, he said if there is a prosecution of Bush Cheney, he should be on the dock, too. And in fact, Ellsberg has said, and it’s going to be in the film. There’s a clip where Ellsberg says because of his role as a nuclear war planner and in Vietnam if he was charged with war crimes, he wouldn’t plead not guilty.
But this idea that the Russian war criminals, sure they are, should be held accountable by Western war criminals makes no point. The fundamental problem here is we need to stop the killing of ordinary people. The slaughter of ordinary people has to stop. This accountability of the Russians, it’s a propaganda game because the truth is, I would doubt the Americans even really want Putin held accountable because that sets a precedent. If you have a war of aggression and you’re going to do now what was done to the Nazis in the Nuremberg trials, well, maybe yeah. Maybe there should be some Americans in Nuremberg-style trials. Of course, there should be. Anyway, it’s a distraction at this point.
Talia BaroncelliWell, I have one final question, and that would be, how do you see things playing out in Russia? How do you think the Russian people are going to react if there are several years of war? It’s obviously hard to see into the future, but the current sanction regimes have not had a really horrible, deleterious, short-term effect on the Russian economy because Russia and the central bank they’ve learned how to isolate themselves from the effect of these sanctions, and they have China as a huge trading partner. So I think the short-term effect hasn’t been that measurable. But what do you think will happen long term if they don’t repeal sanctions and if this war continues? Do you think we’ll see hunger strikes or any antiwar movement?
Paul JayI don’t know the answer. I know there are two possibilities, maybe more, but there’s one that the Chinese describe in, like I said, in the Global Times articles I’ve seen, and that is, if it looks like the Putin government is going to be humiliated, if it looks like they may really fall, if it looks like the Russian Federation starts to even come apart, then this becomes a much bigger deal than it already is. Meaning that the Russian people, now I’m quoting the Chinese article, start to see this not as a “special military operation” that doesn’t touch most of their lives that much. They start seeing it as a great patriotic war. Amongst much of the Russian population, certainly not all, but much, as it is in the United States, there is a toxic mix of religion and nationalism that forms much of people’s identity. If people feel that identity so threatened, their whole existence– in the United States, we’re number one, we’re number one. Democracy, democracy. How many working people go off to die in Iraq, Afghanistan, or other wars and really truly believe they are fighting to defend the identity of their people, the freedom of their people? Well, the same thing’s going on in Russia.
Many people truly believe in God, the Russian God– it’s like back in the viking days. The vikings had their gods. The British had their gods. They go to war to see which gods are going to win. Well, much of the Russian people’s identity is based on this. As we saw with the German people in the lead up to World War II, this being humiliated, as the Germans felt after the Versailles Treaty and the deliberate humiliation of Germany after the end of World War I, and they probably would have done the same thing after World War II if it hadn’t been for the Soviet Union. The Marshall Plan and wanting to help Germany get back on its capitalist feet certainly had economic considerations to promoting American capital in Europe. But if there hadn’t been the Soviet Union, they would have stuck it to the Germans a lot worse than they did after World War II.
Anyway, so one scenario is that the Americans keep the pressure on, keep trying to actually bring down Putin, and keep hoping for the worst for Russia and by implication China. Or one, yes, an antiwar movement develops in Russia.
Boris Kagarlitsky thinks, and I’ve interviewed him a few times. He thinks the Russian military is against what’s going on, or much of the leadership is. He thinks maybe they’ll intervene at some point. I don’t know whether he’s right or wrong. Or maybe the American oligarchy and American capitalists, they get this is getting to the point of risking their own assets. I’ve been saying my joke about my film on nuclear weapons is Wall Street has said they have a responsibility to defend the assets of their investors. Well, don’t you have the responsibility to defend the asses of your investors? Maybe they get that this ain’t the best thing for money making. Maybe the Russian oligarchs get this isn’t the best way for us to be rich. Maybe. World War I and World War II, they did eventually end, but there was a craziness on the German side, a metaphysical ideology that went with German nationalism. One hopes in Russia, maybe they can be more pragmatic about it. But the Americans have to create an opening for that to happen, and maybe the Chinese can facilitate it. Otherwise, we’re into shit. Let’s be straight about it. I don’t know how long the war goes on. As long as the war goes on, I don’t expect, unless there’s a great reverse change in policy, I don’t think the Russian state as such is going to be threatened by the way it is now if it just keeps going. So I don’t think Putin is deliberately going to use a tactical nuclear weapon unless he’s really on the edge of a humiliating defeat in Ukraine. And that’s not out of the question.
So is the U.S. going to push it to that point? Then the second problem is the longer this goes on, the more opportunities there are for miscalculation. So that missile that landed in Poland, at least the Americans quickly said it was not Russian. It turned out it wasn’t Russian. So the Americans aren’t looking for an excuse for a nuclear war here because they could have quickly blamed the Russians for that missile. But what happens if a Ukrainian missile of some kind, or more than one, some shit hits the fan and it’s heading towards Moscow, and they don’t actually know what it is? This is the problem. It’s one of the main points of the film.
With our intercontinental ballistic missiles, there’s very little time to decide what is on your radar screen. We’ve had miscalculation after miscalculation where we’ve come very close to nuclear war. So the tenser this gets, the longer it goes, and the more chance for miscalculation there is. So maybe some rationality, at least on the nuclear issue, enters some of these ruling classes’ heads. I mean, the Chinese are concerned about this. You can see it, like I say, in Global Times. Even if the Chinese have nothing to do with it, if some nuclear weapons are used, it will lead to the end of the world. If it becomes a full-out nuclear war, there’s no China left after that. So they certainly do get the risk of all this. So one hopes that there’ll be some rationality. I’m not seeing that there’s a movement now or yet. The repression in Russia is very strong.
Talia BaroncelliYeah, you can be arrested for 15 years or something.
Paul JayIt’s kind of weird what I’m being told. Some people like Kagarlitsky speak out quite openly to the foreign press, not domestically, and they don’t do anything about it. Then other people are going to jail for five or 10 years for saying it’s a war, not a special military operation. But the repression is there, no doubt. Even if antiwar sentiment is rising, it’s not breaking out in a way that’s going to change things.
The other problem is if the world really goes into a deep recession, who knows whether that’s happening or not? Anyway, we’re on a knife’s edge, and the solution is simple. The Americans have to bloody well stop provoking and pushing this. Of course, the Russians need to negotiate and stop making completely unreasonable demands. The same thing goes for the Ukrainians. One hopes the Chinese, whatever you want to call them, they find it in their interest to really try to facilitate this thing to end.
Talia BaroncelliWell, Paul, it was really great getting your insights on these really tricky issues. We haven’t seen you in a while, so it’s great to hear what you had to say about all of these things and about the war. So thank you.
Paul JayThank you.
Talia BaroncelliThank you for watching theAnalysis.news. Please do go to our website, theAnalysis.news and hit the donate button at the top right corner of the screen. Please do get onto our mailing list as well, so you’ll be notified every time a new episode comes out. Also, go to our YouTube channel, theAnalysis-news, hit the subscribe button, and hit the bell. That way, you’re always informed once a new episode drops. Thank you.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)User my donation to help support the upcoming documentary "How to stop a nuclear war" (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter
Email(Required)Name(Required) First Last Δ
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
Linda Campbell, Director of the Detroit People’s Platform, has worked as a community organizer in Detroit for decades. She speaks about local initiatives which advocate for investment in affordable housing and oppose the public financing of big real estate projects which have historically contributed to community land dispossession. She also applauds the Michigan Democrats’ recent repeal of right-to-work legislation and calls upon the political leadership to fight for higher wages, particularly for non-union workers not covered by prevailing wage protections.
Detroiters Fight to Reclaim Their City From Real Estate Vultures – Linda CampbellThe Fed Attacks the Working Class – Robert PollinCapitalism’s Structural Crisis and the Global RevoltOrganizing in West Virginia Get Organized to Win! – Jane McAlevey pt 1/825,000 Gather for Moral March on WashingtonThe Power of the Strike – Jane McAlevey pt 8/8Power Analysis and Whole-Worker Charting – Jane McAlevey pt 7/8To Win We Need Strong Militant Unions – Jane McAlevey pt 6/8Mobilizing is Not Organizing – Jane McAlevey pt 5/8theAnalysis.news in 2022 – Paul JayIs the U$A a Democracy? with Tom FergusonHard Bargaining in Las Vegas Hospitals – Jane McAlevey pt 4/8Organizing for Power – Jane McAlevey pt 3/8Respecting the Genius of Ordinary People – Jane McAlevey pt 2/8Get Organized to Win! – Jane McAlevey pt 1/8Workers and Communities vs AmazonWill Unions Respond to the Pandemic Moment? Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Guest * Music*
Talia BaroncelliHi, I’m Talia Baroncelli, and you’re watching theAnalysis.news. I’ll shortly be joined by community organizer Linda Campbell to speak about housing issues in Detroit, as well as the recent appeal of right-to-work legislation in the state of Michigan. If you enjoy this content, please do go to our website, theAnalysis.news, and hit the donate button at the top right corner of the screen. You can get onto our mailing list. Most importantly, please go to our YouTube channel, theAnalysis-news, and hit the bell. The bell ensures that you’re informed every time a new episode drops so that you don’t miss future content. Thanks, and see you in a bit.
Joining me now is Linda Campbell. She is the Director of the Detroit People’s Platform and has been involved in community organizing in Detroit for many years. She’s also the Editor of a People’s Atlas of Detroit, which is a collection of stories, essays, poems, and photographs which showcase the everyday struggles of Detroiters for economic and racial justice. Thank you so much for being here, Linda.
Linda CampbellYes, thanks for having me.
Talia BaroncelliI’d like to start off with some of the work you’ve been doing at the Building Movement Project in Detroit, as well as the Detroit People’s Platform. So maybe you can explain some of the community organizing you’ve been doing.
Linda CampbellSure. First, let me clarify the connection with the Building Movement Project, the connection that exists between the Building Movement Project and Detroit People’s Platform. The Building Movement Project is a national organization based in New York. They do a lot of research and technical assistance with a variety of groups across the country, basically with the mission to provide nonprofit organizations with the tools and the capacity to do effective movement-building work.
The DPP, Detroit People’s Platform, connection with the Building Movement Project grows out of my relationship. I am one of the founders of the Building Movement Project. In 1999, a group of us came together from across the country from various disciplines. Some of us were social service providers, as was I. Some were organizers. Some were academics. Some were grassroots social change fundraisers. It was an interesting compilation of folk. The one thing we all had in common was our growing frustration with the nonprofit sector here in the United States. Many of us felt that the nonprofit sector was not living into a progressive vision of work on the ground, particularly in communities that were struggling around basic rights, access to services, and equity. We came together with the mission to really start to organize and agitate the sector to become much more progressive in its work.
At the time, I relocated to Detroit. I had been living in New York when the Building Movement Project, the early iteration of that project– I relocated to Detroit, Michigan, and became involved in trying to implement some of the strategies of the Building Movement Project here. I went to work connecting with social service organizations here in Detroit that were seeing thousands of people who, for a variety of reasons, mostly the divestment in neighborhoods– a huge one was the divestment in manufacturing and labor not only in Michigan but across the country, which had resulted in massive layoffs and loss of benefits. Loss of benefits for workers who at one time enjoyed some of the highest standards of living in the world, along with world-class health, medical, and other kinds of benefits. Having been laid off and lost their jobs, many of them, families and individuals were turning to local social service agencies to meet basic needs like food, assistance with shelter, and other emergency needs.
I started meeting with some of those groups, the social service groups, of course, supporting and understanding the need for the basic services, but also understanding that the conditions were being caused by some really profound systemic and structural changes that were happening in the community and wanted to work with both the leaders of those social service agencies and their service constituents to begin to reshape the way they thought about the conditions they were experiencing, but more importantly, how to address those conditions. That meant looking more at organizing and building power to challenge the system, to be more equitable, to agitate for better resources in the community, and to challenge those with power who were making decisions that we felt more aligned with the business interest of the community as opposed to basic and human rights of the community.
In that connection with the National Building Movement Project, I continued to meet and receive support from them. We created a model of what we call social service and social change. I was part of the national team that went around the country, started meeting and promoting this way of thinking that you could be a social service provider and still help your constituents to build power and fight for change, taking on the status quo and the powers that be.
Detroit People’s Platform evolved out of that work in Detroit back in 2013 when we found ourselves facing the threat of emergency management, which essentially was the state takeover of the nation’s largest majority-black city. State takeover by a pretty conservative majority-white Republican legislature. So a group of activists came together from across the city, and we vowed that we would continue to organize and fight for basic services that Detroiters needed to have a quality of life. The People’s Platform grew out of that in 2013. It was our work through the Building Movement Project, the social service, and social change work, where I had been out in neighborhoods and communities working with many different kinds of agencies, whether social service groups or youth-serving groups, faith-based groups, just promoting this. We need to really look at conditions and power structures that we have already built a network of folk. Out of that network, people came together, and we formed Detroit People’s Platform. That was a decade ago.
Talia BaroncelliThat’s great. Now there have been for many decades, but it seems like now you’ve really been consolidating a lot of that community organizing. I was wondering if a lot of the nonprofit work in Detroit has played into the negative portrayals of Detroit, which focuses on the urban decay and treats Detroit as this blank slate, similar to a lot of the colonial portrayals of Africa as if there is nothing there, as if people haven’t been there organizing, and ignores a lot of the work that’s already been done by everyday Detroiters. So I wonder if you see this portrayal coming from some of the nonprofits you’ve worked with.
Linda CampbellI don’t know that that was the reality when I think about what was happening here internally in the city, but yes, you’re right. That was certainly the external image that was being forced on Detroit. That was all part of the narrative that cemented support for the speculative land grabs that went on here in the city, the emergency management, the grabbing of power and democracy from a majority-black city being the model of redevelopment, which really concentrates wealth and benefit in the hands of mostly white billionaires through our tax abatements. They come into the community and develop projects that are not suited or aligned with the needs of Detroiters because they feel they know best– what economic model makes sense for Detroit. Then there were just folks who were looking for a place to land, experimenting around the changes that were happening in urban America, and the majority of Black Detroit seemed a place to do that. So we did attract an unusual number of folks who bought into that model of Detroit abandonment blank slate, and we’re here to solve that.
In all honesty, I would say a lot of that was an external perception, not so much by the internal nonprofits. The internal nonprofits that I’ve worked with, some of them are more aligned with the status quo than others, but I would not accuse them of that. No, that was an external, deliberate narrative that was more about taking power and land grabs from a majority-black city.
Talia BaroncelliWell, you mentioned how some of the projects have maybe not been best suited to the community. I’m thinking about building this very expensive hockey stadium, the Little Caesars hockey stadium. I’m a hockey fan, but I think that if you’re building a stadium at the expense of students in the neighboring schools who maybe don’t even have access to clean drinking water, then your priorities are wrong. What has been the extent of that, just building these very expensive real estate projects at the expense of social services or water even?
Linda CampbellWhat happens when you embrace that model of development, and it’s not just Detroit; it’s all over the country, particularly in urban communities– that movement back to the urban core. For years, cities were not thought to be decent places to live. Everybody was trying to get to the suburbs. Something shifted. All of a sudden, cities became cool places to be. It was the vibrancy of the city. It was wanting to live, work, and play in cities. The move back to the city triggered a lot of this real estate speculation and real estate development. Of course, the idea is that they use tax incentives to pay for it. Detroit became an easy target in that regard.
We have our fair share of homegrown millionaires and now billionaires who were able to convince local officials that investment in that development breeds success and attracts a different demographic, a demographic that brings increased income, higher incomes, and therefore more tax revenue for the city. Stadiums are easy enough to finance because they have a following of folk. You float the bonds, and there it is. The idea of investing precious tax resources in those development models is, of course, absurd because they’re short-lived, and 10-15 years from now, they’ll be looking for another handout to build another stadium.
As opposed to investing in the urban infrastructure, particularly in light of some of the issues we’ve had with climate change. Detroit is a very old city. We’re more than 300 years old, and a lot of our infrastructure is aging and needs to be replaced. We’re vulnerable to disruptions in our water system, not only because of the inhumane shutoffs but because of runoff. That’s because our whole infrastructure is not up to par. The water shutoffs were a different strategy. The water shutoffs, in many ways, were about displacement. Water shutoffs are a way to move a certain demographic of people out of the city and to dispossess them of their property. That was part of the takeover emergency management strategy to impose a rate structure that was not sustainable by most Detroiters, given the median income in the city. The cost of water became very much a burden for Detroiters. But to also take possession of one of the, I think, if not the highest revenue-producing asset we have as a city.
Detroit had, at one time, the largest municipal water system in the world. We provide fresh water, and I think, fresh water and sewage to about 150 communities outside of the city of Detroit. It was a huge money-maker for this city. It carried with it a lot of obligations for sure, but a lot of what triggered the takeover of the water system, the imposition of higher rates and water shutoffs, was all a part of the displacement and force out of people from the city. What was once the Detroit water system managed by Detroiters is now a regional system. So you see where you divest power from people in the urban core, and you make it a regional asset.
Talia BaroncelliSo it sounds like that was a neoliberal policy on the part of the state, the state of Michigan, which was imposed on the city of Detroit as a way to combat the bankruptcy of the city. So it was like that was something that was imposed on.
Linda CampbellYeah, and people use a variety of tools. There were so many tools that were used as a part of the bankruptcy and emergency management i.e. the opening and cancellation of union contracts. I think they start repaying worker pensions, city worker pensions next year. I don’t hardly use the terms like neoliberalism, but I would say that strategy is very much in play in Detroit right now. The development model is a neoliberal model because it’s rooted in real estate speculation; land is a commodity. Land is a commodity. Everything is a commodity.
Talia BaroncelliRight. I would assume that is still an issue in Detroit. You still have a lot of housing speculation, foreclosers, and evictions. Would you say that the problem has gotten worse since the 2013 bankruptcy, or has the city been investing in affordable housing or doing anything to try and reduce speculation in the housing market?
Linda CampbellWell, we still have an unfair housing burden in Detroit, some of it as a result of over-assessment and over-taxation, which has resulted in unwarranted foreclosures. Therefore, you still have the landscape for speculation. The speculation isn’t as aggressive as it was ten years ago, but it still occurs. A lot of the land has actually been bought up. A lot of the land has been transferred into the hands of corporate entities, whether that’s the homegrown millionaires who own large acres of land here in the city, you’re out-of-town investors, or folks from across the world. So there’s still that much going on in Detroit, but there’s been a significant displacement of Detroiters out of what had been, I would say, some of the most reasonably priced housing in the nation. As housing increasingly becomes a scarcity in this country, you get that speculation, which results in a mismatch between what I can afford for housing and what I’m being charged for housing. There’s a significant amount of displacement that continues to happen, but it’s happening through evictions in addition to foreclosures here in the city.
Talia BaroncelliAnd have Democratic lawmakers at the state level been speaking about this issue of affordable housing?
Linda CampbellWell, up until very recently, as you know, we’ve lived under a Republican control legislature for what, 30-40 years. We’ve always had a core group of Democrats from the city who have been sympathetic to issues around affordability and issues that impact the majority of Detroit. The region of Detroit is the biggest city in the state but has had little opportunity to use its power because it was a Republican-controlled legislature.
Since the governor– let me see, the governor was elected in– was she elected in 2018? I think that is when we brought in a Democratic governor. She has moved to address the issue of affordability because, as I mentioned, affordability is a problem nationwide. It’s particularly acute here in Detroit just because of all the speculation and land grabbing that’s been going on and the high level of rent burden because of our income situation here. But it’s a problem across the state of Michigan. It became apparent that it is a problem across the state of Michigan, meaning that even in some of the wealthier communities, they’re struggling to provide housing for their workers. Workforce housing is a huge concern. And so you get folks who maybe would not have been as quick to rally around affordability if they thought it was just a Detroit problem; it is a statewide problem now. The governor produced a blueprint, a plan for affordable housing, a statewide blueprint for affordable housing. She has recently moved to invest money in affordable housing. They have, I think, just a couple of weeks ago, expanded resources, including the way that tax abatements can be applied to affordable housing development. So there is movement there.
Now, affordability is relative. For us in Detroit, affordability is about people who– it’s housing for people who make less than $35,000 a year, people who have households with children; that’s our primary concern. When you start talking about workforce housing and affordability, you move the income up higher. So we have to pay, as housing justice activists, we have to pay real close attention and deconstruct the notion of affordability. When you talk about affordability, are you talking about affordable housing that meets the needs of households with children when you’re talking about the primary breadwinner, maybe making $30,000 to $35,000 a year or so? There still remains a lot of work to be done in terms of advocacy and public policy to make sure that those resources are tailored for our community.
Talia BaroncelliBut there have been some developments and positive developments in the state. I’m thinking of recent developments where the state of Michigan repealed the anti-union right-to-work legislation and also reinstated the prevailing wage, which would, in effect, mean that it would take the weight that people are earning right now because of the work that unions have been doing. So it could be much higher than the minimum wage by reinstating the prevailing wage. What else do you think the Democrats can do in the state to help working people?
Linda CampbellWell, I know I would love to see the Democrats get– well, I think it’s in the court now. I don’t know that they can do much about it, but we still have a minimum wage increase that has not been acted upon. It’s in court right now, an increase in the state minimum wage and earned paid sick time. Now that reaches employees and workers on the lower end of the pay scale. They’re not union jobs with higher wages. So I would like to see some equity in that way, making sure that our non-union workers are covered by, at minimum, a decent minimum wage and have the ability to have earned paid sick time on whatever job they’re working on here in the state of Michigan. For those two issues, we fought hard to collect signatures. We were on our way to putting them on the ballot. It was passed by the state legislature, and then they came back– this was under Republican control– they came back and struck it down. We’ve been in the court battle for the last three or four years trying to win that. Even in labor issues in the state, there’s always this dichotomy. How do these policies impact the folks who are most vulnerable? Are the policies equitable? Is there a racial equity analysis to these policies? And again, that’s the work that we have to do in our campaigns.
Talia BaroncelliRight. And you pointed out that not everyone works a union job, so the prevailing wage was only for people working public jobs where they’re covered under the bill. So, of course, that wage increase doesn’t apply to people who don’t have a union job.
Linda Campbell Yeah, a very elite group of folks.
Talia BaroncelliAnd what are you working on right now with the city council? You said that you were working on a campaign.
Linda CampbellYeah, we have one of these big developments. The same guy, the same company that built the arena that you referenced, which I assume it’s Little Caesar’s arena, hockey arena. They’re back to and asking for $800 and some million in tax abatements to build out the neighborhoods around the arena with luxury housing, luxury apartments, and office buildings. So we’re fighting the abatement issue, which they carry a lot of power and a lot of influence. But we have managed to create an opposition that we think we can win some concessions as part of a community benefits agreement, which we did not have the community benefits agreement piece in place when Little Caesar’s arena, LCA, was developed back in 2013, 2014.
Talia BaroncelliDo you have a lot of the support of the more artistic and cultural community in the city? Because a lot of people who live in Detroit, they’re artists and musicians. Detroit is famous for Motown, Techno, for a lot of different styles of music. It’s a safe haven for a lot of artists who want to tap into the creativity of the city. So do you see support coming from those circles for some of the community organizing you’ve been doing?
Linda CampbellYeah. I mean, we’ve had some really good collaborative partnerships and organizing relationships with artists. When we organized to win the community benefits agreement ordinance, we had a whole group of artists who brought their skills and talent to the coalition and provided that cultural spin on the organizing, which was much appreciated. Some of them have continued to work with us over the past decade since that campaign. There’s a lot of organizing that goes on in cultural spaces here in Detroit. I’m not in those spaces because they happen to be younger spaces, and I’m a boomer. I feel like there are some differences in the way we think about and express our movement work, and that’s okay. It’s generational. But yeah, I would say that a lot of that still goes on in the city. Black and Brown young people, yeah, there’s a lot of that.
Talia BaroncelliWell, Linda Campbell, thank you so much for making time. It was great to speak to you about community organizing and the different problems that the city of Detroit is facing, but also the resilience of the people there.
Linda CampbellYeah, I appreciate so much for that reference.
Talia BaroncelliThank you for watching theAnalysis.news. Please don’t hesitate to donate to the show by going to theAnalysis.news and hitting the donate button at the top right corner of the screen. You can also go to our YouTube channel, theAnalysis-news and hit the bell. It’s important that you hit the bell. That way, you’ll be notified every time a new episode drops. Thanks.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)User my donation to help support the upcoming documentary "How to stop a nuclear war" (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter
Email(Required)Name(Required) First Last Δ
Linda Campbell is the Director of the Detroit People’s Platform and has been involved in community organizing in Detroit for many years. She’s also the Editor of a People’s Atlas of Detroit, which is a collection of stories, essays, poems, and photographs which showcase the everyday struggles of Detroiters for economic and racial justice.
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
Col. Larry Wilkerson speaks about how the media’s portrayal of the U.S. invasion of Iraq barely encapsulates the damage wrought by the U.S.-led “coalition of the willing.” He also addresses recent developments in the Middle East, including Israel’s increasingly belligerent policy on Iran, how the Saudi-Iran deal might end the Saudi blockade of Yemen, and the military significance of Israel being moved from U.S. European Command to U.S. Central Command.
U.S. Interference in the Middle East – 20 Years Since the U.S. Invasion of Iraq – Col. Larry WilkersonCensorship in Germany, Israeli Hacking & Saudi-Iran Peace Deal – Dr. Shir HeverSignificance of China-Brokered Iran-Saudi Agreement – Trita ParsiSaudis Hedge Bets, Iran Risks Increasing Isolation – Trita ParsiThe Iranian Revolution: The Fall of the Shah and the Rise of KhomeiniIranian Women-Led Resistance Independent of Western ImperialismWhy the Media is Now Supporting Julian Assange? – Paul Jay pt 2/2Retired US Army Colonel on Ukraine, Iran & the State of the US EmpireAnti-Regime Protests and the Devastating Effects of US Sanctions in IranPaul Jay on 9/11Biden Bows to the Saudis – Trita Parsi & Annelle ShelinePt 2/2 – Paul Jay & Abby Martin on Afghanistan, 9/11 & Climate ChangePt 1/2 – Paul Jay & Abby Martin on Afghanistan and 9/11Why David Clennon Refused Audition for Hit & Run, a Netflix Israeli Co-proAfter Forty Years of U.S. Destruction of Afghanistan, it’s Time for ReparationsIs BDS Effective Strategy? – Shir Hever Pt 3/3U.S. Sanctions Strengthen Iranian Theocracy – Hamid DabashiFighting for Peace and Equality in Israel – Rula Daood and Alon-Lee GreenWho Rules Israel – Shir Hever pt2Why Did 72% of Israelis Want Attack on Gaza to Continue?Is Israel a Strategic Asset or Liability? – WilkersonAbby Martin’s “Gaza Fights for Freedom”Israel’s War on Palestine – Ali AbunimahDoes the U.S. Owe Reparations to Afghanistan, Should U.S. Troops Leave? – Bennis & WilkersonBiden’s Syria Deception: The Norwegian ConnectionUS Bombing in Syria Illegal; Biden Should Rejoin Iran Agreement Now – Bennis/WilkersonIs Protecting the Murderous Crown Prince in the National Interest? – Phyllis Bennis and Larry WilkersonBiden’s Doublespeak About Ending Yemen War -Abby MartinThe Oil Interests Behind the War in YemenThe Disintegration of Israeli PoliticsEnding the War on Yemen?Biden’s Scary Foreign Policy Picks: A Blast From War Crimes Past – Abby MartinEmpire Update: Did Trump Order Iran Assassination? – Abby MartinEmpire Update: Afghanistan/Somalia Withdrawal Scam; Trump Weighs WWIII – Abby MartinElliot Abrams Tries to Tie Biden’s Hands on Iran – Trita ParsiTrump & Neocons Want to Destroy Iranian Society – Trita ParsiIsrael Wants U.S. to Weaken and Isolate Iran – RAI with Trita Parsi Pt 3/3U.S. Attempts to Destabilize Iran Have Failed – RAI with Trita Parsi Pt 2/3U.S. Refuses to Accept Iran as a Regional Power – RAI with Trita Parsi Pt 1/3Does Israel Have the Right to Exist as a Jewish State? – Ali Abunimah on Reality Asserts Itself (3/5)Gaza Under Siege – Eva Bartlett on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 2/2Gaza Under Siege – Eva Bartlett on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 1/2Class Struggle in Palestine – Ali Abunimah on Reality Asserts Itself (4/5)Palestinians can Learn From the African America Struggle – Ali Abunimah on Reality Asserts Itself (2/5)Awakened by the Palestinian Intifada – Ali Abunimah on Reality Asserts Itself (1/5)Justice Requires an End to Israeli Jewish Supremacy Over Palestinians – Ali Abunimah on Reality Asserts Itself (5/5)From a Zionist Youth to Outspoken Critic of a Jewish State – Michael Ratner on RAI Pt 2/7Are the Saudis Fueling a Sunni-Shia War? – Toby Jones on Reality Asserts Itself (2/2)Al Qaeda and the Saudi Agenda – Toby Jones on Reality Asserts Itself (1/2)One State or Two, Solution Must be Based on Palestinian Rights Phyllis Bennis on RAI Pt 4/4Fmr. Israeli Intel. Chief Says Palestinian Israeli Conflict Greater Risk than Nuclear Iran Pt 2/4Vietnam War Created Middle East Activist – Phyllis Bennis on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 1/4Syria’s Six Wars and Humanitarian Catastrophe – Phyllis Bennis on Reality Asserts Itself Pt 3/4Did Bush Cheney Create a Culture of Not Wanting to Know – Sen. Bob Graham on RAI Pt 7/7Revealing 9/11 Conspiracy Would Undo U.S. Saudi Alliance – Sen. Bob Graham on RAI Pt 5/7Saudi Government’s 9/11 Connection and the Path to Disillusionment – Sen. Bob Graham on RAI Pt 4/7 Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Guest * Music*
Talia BaroncelliHi, I’m Talia Barronceli, and you’re watching theAnalysis.news. I’ll shortly be joined by Col. Larry Wilkerson to speak about 20 years since the United States’ invasion of Iraq, as well as relations between Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel. If you enjoy this content, please don’t hesitate to go to our website, theAnalysis.news, and hit the donate button at the top right corner of the screen. You can also get onto our mailing list and go to our YouTube channel, theAnalysis-news. Please hit the subscribe button there and hit the bell. The bell ensures that you’ll be notified every time a new episode drops; that way, you won’t miss any future episodes due to the algorithm. See you in a bit with Larry.
Joining me now is Larry Wilkerson. He’s a retired Colonel who worked in the U.S. military for 31 years. He also served as Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell between 2002 and 2005 and worked for Powell when Powell was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the First Gulf War. So I’m really happy to have you back on the show, Larry.
Col. Lawrence WilkersonGood to be with you, Talia.
Talia BaroncelliMarch 20th has marked 20 years since the United States invaded Iraq. I’d like to ask you what your thoughts are on this tragedy.
Col. Lawrence WilkersonI said on Alhurra, the U.S. Department of States broadcast into the Arab world the other night to the interviewer who was asking me questions in Arabic, and it was translated in my ear. He asked me a question he’d asked a lot of other people who’d come up there, and they had given him a song and dance about how Iraq is great, it’s improving, and Saddam Hussein is gone. I said, “I’ll give you one more answer. It’s a disaster. It’s a disaster.” Then I described to him why I thought it was a disaster. Millions displaced, external refugees, internally displaced people, an economy that still hasn’t recovered, massive corruption in the government, Iranians in all the militia groups that really count, and on and on and on. The oil ministries are corrupt as heck. They haven’t even gotten to the place where they should be in terms of oil production.
At the end of the interview, which went on for about 20 minutes, he actually got out of his seat and came up to me and said, “I want to thank you.” In English, he said, “I want to thank you.” I said, “Why?” He said, “Because you’re the first person that’s come on here and told the truth.”
I later said to the [inaudible 00:02:31] and Middle East broadcast network state’s replacement for Voice of America that goes into the Arab world, the reason Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera, and BBC are beating you in audience share and you only have 2% of the audience share is those people know you’re lying to them. They know you’re not telling them the truth. If you told them the truth, at least you would get a sizable piece of the audience, maybe 15-16% of the audience, and maybe grow it because they wouldn’t be hearing total propaganda. It is a disaster.
In the Levant, in large measure, is a disaster from Beirut to the other end of the Red Sea in Yemen because largely of what we did in 2003. It started in 1990-91 but finished up in 2003 in the most miserable way. I don’t see it recovering for some time now.
Let me add many of the neoconservatives who forced that war on an inexperienced president in many respects are joyful about it. They’re joyful about it because as long as it’s in turmoil, Israel is safe. They would look at you, and they would say, “Okay, Syria was a big threat. Iraq was a big threat. Iraq, possibly the biggest threat on the ground with armoured forces. Egypt had signed a peace treaty, so we got rid of the others. And Iran, well, we’re going to take care of them, too.” Maybe we’ll get to that in the other part of the interview, but that’s the way they feel. And they feel the Abraham Accords, and the recent mini-rapprochement between Tehran and Riyadh are indicative of the fact that Israel doesn’t have any enemies left. Au contraire, Israel has many enemies left and is making more. Every day, [Benjamin] Netanyahu is making more enemies, including his own people. So the region is in turmoil, and we are largely responsible for it.
Talia BaroncelliBut no one has been held accountable for it. What do you think has to be done there?
Col. Lawrence WilkersonNo. The other day someone asked me the question, what I thought about Putin going before the ICC [International Criminal Court] were he to be captured and put there? I said, “Oh, he’s got to stand in line because George Bush and Dick Cheney ought to be in front of him.” If it takes my going along with them, if I’m the person who has to go along with them in order to get the American people to say, “Put them there,” I’ll go. I’ll go in a heartbeat. They need to be there, too. We’re the biggest hypocrites on Earth.
Talia BaroncelliWell, that’s very honorable of you, but I don’t think the ICC will ever release any of those arrest warrants for Bush, for Cheney, for anyone.
Col. Lawrence WilkersonWhat I found out about the ICC really, really was discouraging. In Paris with the Germans, we had gone ostensibly to talk to the two French members of the Guantánamo crowd who had finally been repatriated, guilty of nothing, and sent back to France because we were working on the torture issue. Well, guess who shows up on the second day of our conference? The young female prosecutor who was running the case in Afghanistan. In the first part of her investigatory process, which is very free of prosecutorial restrictions, they can do almost anything. They can talk to anyone and so forth. They’re not bound by what they in the second phase will be bound by, which are really strict limitations on what you can ask, do, and so forth. So she told us the full story. The thing she told us about; the crimes committed by the United States, by the Afghan government, and by ISAF, the International Group in Afghanistan, which were under investigation because they were horrendous. They were absolutely horrendous. She showed us some of the evidence. She said, “Now, when I get to the second stage where I have to follow all the rules and everything and make it like a grand jury investigation, I’m going to run into problems, but I think I’ve got enough here to work it out.” Next thing I hear, about eight months later, she’s been, ‘boom’.
I heard this in 2002 from John Bolton and others in the State Department. “We own the ICC. That’s why we don’t want to appear to be an associate of it because we own it. We will prosecute Blacks in Africa. They will prosecute Blacks in Africa on our behalf. When we ever find anybody that isn’t Black, they’ll prosecute them, too.” And lo and behold, what did we come to? [Slobodan] Milošević, [Radovan] Karadžić, and all the war criminals amongst the Serbs. So I think there’s some truth to that. We do, to an extent, the ICC does do what we tell them to do, and that’s the latest example. You’re not going to bring a case against the empire.
Talia BaroncelliWell, some of the first cases that were launched by the ICC or in the first arrest warrants they released were against Africans, right? So it wasn’t really a good look.
Col. Lawrence WilkersonOf course, you can do that. That’s fine. Go over there and do that. Do you know what we did in 2002? We sent John Bolton around the world. John Bolton is the Under Secretary of State for International Security Affairs and negotiated what we call; I think the term was Article 92. I think that was it; that’s unimportant– agreements with each nation he went to. Those agreements said, “In treaty force between the United States and the capital of that country, we will not prosecute your troops if they ever should be on our soil.” So we got a get-out-of-jail-free card with half the countries of the world. Of course, we bent some arms and paid some money to get those agreements.
Talia BaroncelliWell, speaking of John Bolton, I recently saw an interview with him on Al Jazeera, where he was basically defending the U.S.’s position before the war in Iraq and saying after the first Gulf War, there was no evidence that Saddam had actually gotten rid of all the weapons they had. So that would be some reason to justify an invasion because there was no proof that those weapons had been destroyed. Obviously, what the UN inspector said in 2003 was quite different, wasn’t it?
Col. Lawrence WilkersonWell, I’ll tell you, Hans Blix [Former Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden] was not convinced that there were no weapons. In his conversations with Powell, he said, “Put me there, and I will tell you there are no weapons with 95% certitude. And if there are weapons, I’ll give you that.” John Bolton is forgetting the fact that Bill Clinton bombed Iraq with not iron bombs, as we did mostly in the first Gulf War, with PGMs [Precision-guided munition] for four days and nights. That did more damage to Iraq than all of the first Gulf War. Remember, the first Gulf War was mostly fought on the Kuwaiti border and the Iraqi border. It wasn’t fought– the highway of death was turned off really quickly. So we didn’t drop a whole lot on Baghdad or Iraq proper. But what Bill Clinton dropped for four days and nights in his operation virtually destroyed Iraq’s infrastructure. Anybody who probably thought there were weapons of mass destruction of consequence had to think that they were hidden and were well away. And that’s, of course, what the CIA told us. That was the story they gave us.
The real destruction of what was, before 1990, the most successful country outside Israel in the Levant, Iraq– people forget that. Women had rights. Women could go to university. It was really a modernizing country. It had Saddam Hussein, which was a shortfall, no doubt, but it still was a modernizing country. It had a great economy for the Middle East. We set that back. It hasn’t recovered since, and it probably won’t for another two decades.
Talia BaroncelliIt just reminds me of a New York Times article recently. I think the headline was something like, Iraq is Freer Now Compared to Before the Invasion, but of course, the tragedy is horrible. That seems to be another justification for the war. I mean, what is freedom? It’s all relative, right?
Col. Lawrence WilkersonExactly.
Talia BaroncelliThe destruction that was brought on the Iraqi people during the invasion is definitely not something that can be justifiable.
Col. Lawrence WilkersonWas that the article by Duncan?
Talia BaroncelliI can’t remember. I think it was probably published on March 21st, so a day after.
Col. Lawrence WilkersonYeah, New York Times.
Talia BaroncelliYeah.
Col. Lawrence WilkersonWhat a preposterous article. Absolutely. I got a request from Ralph Nader [American Activist] to write a letter to the editor of the New York Times. I haven’t gotten back to Ralph yet, but I’m going to tell him I don’t talk to the New York Times anymore. They’re heathens.
Talia BaroncelliWhat do you think of the media’s portrayal of the U.S. invasion? Because you do see a lot of images of death and destruction. You do see how terrible the invasion was, but does that really portray the extent of it?
Col. Lawrence WilkersonNot really. You have to look at the ravage that happened afterwards. That was brief, episodic, and violent, but over in a very short period of time. The statute came down, and then the looting started, and we had a three-star General stand there and said, “Well, it’s not my job to stop the looting.” Are you kidding me, General? You just brought this state to its knees, and you’re not prepared to do anything post hostilities? And then it started. Secretary of Defense, [Donald H.] Rumsfeld, would not admit that there was an insurgency going on. Well, it was a hell of an insurgency because we had sent almost all the Republican Guard out into the hinterland with their weapons and angry as hell. They formed the ranks they did, and they began an insurgency. Al-Qaeda joined them, of course, under Ayman Mohammed Rabie al-Zawahiri in the beginning. It became a really deadly place to be, not just for Americans, but for Iraqis too, and for Brits and others in the coalition of the willing, as Rumsfeld called it.
Talia BaroncelliWhat would you say about the so-called efforts, probably during the war and after the war, to account for the public spending that went either to profits for different military companies that were there or defense contractors? I think Paul Bremer [Former Executive Secretary to the Department of State of the United States] was involved in some of that, right?
Col. Lawrence WilkersonYes, very much so. Paul Bremer was a pro-consul who didn’t know what the hell he was doing. Just the fact that we put someone there as inexperienced as he was in that activity and didn’t speak Arabic. One of his first acts was to push the most accomplished diplomat in the world, who had come there of his own volition, UN-sponsored Sérgio Vieira de Mello, who had been in all the world’s dangerous spots and had been fearless and courageous in all of them and accomplished miracles, Bremer pushes him off into a hotel and won’t even talk to him hardly. Al-Qaeda attacks it—another shortfall of our military effort. We provided no quick reaction force for such things as if al-Qaeda wouldn’t do something like that. He dies in the rubble of that hotel on his cell phone, and his last words are asking if everyone’s gotten out. He’s thinking about the people that were working for him in the hotel, and he’s killed. We lost a true patriot there, a world patriot, a global patriot, a Brazilian citizen, but a brilliant man. We lost him there, and we gained Paul Bremer, an idiot.
Talia BaroncelliWell, let’s stay in the Middle East but move to Saudi Arabia and Iran. They recently signed a deal to reestablish diplomatic ties, and that was, of course, assisted or negotiated by China. How do you think this new deal will affect politics in the region?
Col. Lawrence WilkersonFirst of all, it’s my good information, and it comes not only from U.S. sources but from Omani sources. Let me just highlight that because Oman has the best set of good offices in the world, certainly in the Levant, but I think in the world. They are constantly working for peace in very divisive issues all across the region. I must say, too, sometimes globally. So they had a hand in this. They had a hand in the JCPOA, the nuclear agreement with Iran. They helped expedite that. Bill Burns had a hand in it. Bill Burns [Director of the Central Intelligence Agency] had been working with the Iranians and the Saudis for some time. So Wang Yi [Former Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China] comes along and gets the credit. I’m not trying to shorten or trying to discredit Wang Yi; he’s a superb diplomat. He came along and took an opportunity that was created by pre-work by the Omanis, by Burns, and also by the women in Iran who made the Iranian government really scared and doubt its own legitimacy. And well, it should have because those women, the men who joined them, the clerics who joined them, and all manner of Iranians who joined them discredited that government. That government is true in terms of legitimacy with its own people. Eighty-eight million people disavowed that government. It’s just a matter of time till something happens that will probably be the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] establishing a military dictatorship, I’m sad to say. But that made the Iranian government much more willing to talk and to seal the deal, if you will, because they were seeking someone, anyone who would legitimize them. They lost legitimacy with their own people. So now they’re seeking outside legitimacy.
Let me hasten to add that the agreement is nothing more than both sides agreeing to recognize UN principles and protocols with regard to respect for other countries. That’s all they did. So there’s nothing there, really, of substance yet. So anyone who thinks that that is a reconciliation between Riyadh and Tehran better look again. It could blow up at any moment. In fact, the Saudis under MBS [Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud] could put a Shia, put him on the gallows and hang him as they did a few years ago, and the Iranians would be right back to shooting missiles at them. MBS would do that in a heartbeat; that’s the kind of ruler he is.
I’m a little bit more optimistic about it because they did do that, though. The Abraham Accords are there. I think all of this, though, is machinations by the Arabs, and I don’t blame them for it. I’m just trying to describe it. To put themselves in a position to do major maximum damage to Israel when the time is ripe. I put Egypt in that camp, too, even though they’ve signed a peace treaty. The United States is getting a little tired of bribing Egypt every year with three to four billion dollars to keep the peace treaty. There’s got to be some distrust there, and there’s got to be some planning on the side for contingencies. So I don’t ever discount the situation of animosity between the Arabs and Israel over the Palestinians at a minimum, but over other things, too, like Israel getting all this discounted oil constantly. It started with Marc Rich. Marc Rich, the man Bill Clinton in the last hour of his presidency in an ignominious, cowardly move, pardoned. I mean, Marc Rich was running the busting of Iraqi sanctions to ship oil to Israel. He was going to Haifa at discounted prices. Marc Rich is as much responsible for the Israeli economic success in the last 20 years as Netanyahu or anyone else. Marc Rich went to jail, and then Clinton pardoned him.
Guess who earned $4 million as a lawyer working for Mark Rich? Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff. Man, this is a convoluted story. These people are all in it together. Everywhere you look is Israel. In the middle of it all is Israel. If you’re looking at the Levant, you have to look at Israel because they’re behind a lot of Lebanon’s problems and a lot of Syria’s problems.
Speaking of Syria, look at what we just did. In a country to which we were not invited, in a country which has a recognized legitimate leader, Bashar al-Assad, however we may think of him, in a country we are illegally occupying a portion of, in a country where our troops are around oil that’s pumping to Israel, in a country we have no business being in. It’s an international crime to be there. We flew jets and shot at people. This is crazy.
Talia BaroncelliTo give some context to people who don’t know what’s going on, I believe that– well, the Pentagon has said that Iranian-backed groups or affiliates have launched drone attacks in Northeast Syria and Biden, in retaliation, launched another precision attack on these groups in Syria. Of course, the–
Col. Lawrence WilkersonThe question is, would they have done that if we weren’t there? No.
Talia BaroncelliExactly. That begs the question, why are these troops there in the first place on the sovereign territory of Syria?
Col. Lawrence WilkersonExactly. The most important reason they’re there is to protect the flow of oil to Israel. I’ll bet you my last penny that Bashar al-Assad did not know that oil was going to Israel and would like it to stop.
Talia BaroncelliWell, I have a lot to ask you because we’ve covered a lot of different things now. If we can go back to the Saud-Iran deal, what was Iraq’s role? Because I think some of those discussions did take place in Baghdad. I just wonder, Iraq neighboring Iran, what was their role in any of those talks?
Col. Lawrence WilkersonI think Iraq wants two things out of Iran. It doesn’t want it to leave because it’s very important for its economy. There are things, especially around the region that Basra is the center of, there are things the Iranians do that constitute a major portion of Iraq’s economy to a certain extent, and vice versa. So they need that—any country, you want to trade with your neighbors, if possible. I mean, look where most of our trade is, Mexico and Canada. Most Americans don’t even know that, but that’s the truth.
Iraq wants good relations, economic and financial relations, but they don’t want relations with 100,000 members of militias inside their own borders that are influenced by Iran and some of them in a very deleterious way. They’re injurious to Iraq. They want those gone. So they want a deal. They want to talk.
Why was [Qasem] Soleimani killed in Iraq? Well, one of the reasons he was there was to honcho some talks between these people. It wasn’t just all bloodthirsty stuff. He was there to try and work out some deals where the motives of India would be a little bit better. Not to say that there wasn’t some ulterior motive there, too, that was more military, but that’s what Iraq wants. That’s what the government now wants. The government now is a little bit better. It’s not [inaudible 00:21:47] killing and hanging Sunnis. It really is interested in the reconciliation of the different groups in Iraq. It’s interested in getting the Iranian militias out, and it’s interested in limiting some of the corruption. They’ll never wipe it all out. It’s endemic to that society. But they want to get it in hand so that they can deliver to their people so they’ll get reelected; that’s the way it’s supposed to work.
There’s a little bit more optimism now about Iraq’s future than there was, say, a year or two ago when they were having so many political problems. But that said, Iran has got to become a better, more responsible partner if that’s to happen and quit coveting Iraq.
Talia BaroncelliWould that mean that they would need to stop sending weapons to some of the groups that are in Iraq?
Col. Lawrence WilkersonYeah. Every time I say that, I go hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite, because who’s the biggest arms merchant in the world? The United States of America. Who’s the biggest arms merchant single in the world? Lockheed Martin.
Talia BaroncelliWell, Saudi Arabia also is still involved in a war in Yemen. I wonder how this deal with Iran might impact the war in Yemen. I mean, you’ve said that you’re not very optimistic that this deal with Saudi Arabia and Iran is much more than some declaration that it might not lead to anything.
Col. Lawrence WilkersonMight be one place that you just mentioned, Yemen, where it is very positive and quicker rather than later because Oman was very much interested in that. I’m sure the Sultan and his boys made that a major issue because they want to see that brutal war stopped, and they want the Saudis to get out of it and quit killing people and quit making it so difficult for Yemenis to even exist, let alone prosper. So I could see that as being the number one reason they offered their good offices and therefore being a possible accomplishment. The Saudis are trying to get out, but they want to maintain some sort of– oh, man. Remember, he was a Defense Minister when he did this. This is all MBS. This is his whole ball game. So he’s got to save face, which means that the Houthis have to give a little as he gives, hopefully. I hope the food is restored. I hope the ports are restored. It looks like they’re going to be. So this could be a really positive and rather swift development of this rapprochement if you will, that we get the war in Yemen ended.
The Congress is getting ready again to try the War Powers Resolution and cut Saudi Arabia off from U.S. help altogether. So that’s putting a little pressure on MBS, too. I hope that’s enough to get this war stopped.
Talia BaroncelliWhat does MBS actually gain from this blockade of Yemen, though? Just from a sheer geopolitical perspective in terms of Saudi Arabia’s interests.
Col. Lawrence WilkersonIt’s become a stature thing for him, and that’s the worst thing you can do to a war is make it stature and prestige for the leader of the main effort in that war because then you can never get them to stop. But originally, I think it had to do with a number of things, one of which was the Saudi Arabian desire to build a pipeline across that portion of Yemen to the Red Sea and therefore negate, to an extent, the strategic importance of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. But they couldn’t do it because they wouldn’t let them. So there are all kinds of geostrategic reasons that Saudi Arabia wanted to do what it did, and it ran into a bust when it did it. People generally don’t, no matter how weak they are, they generally don’t like you crossing their border and killing them to make your point.
Talia BaroncelliWell, you pointed out recently that there’s a national security document which was also approved by President Joe Biden, which essentially moves Israel from U.S. European Command to U.S. Central Command in the Middle East. What does that mean for military operations in the Middle East? What are the implications there?
Col. Lawrence WilkersonIt means that we’ve changed 50 years of U.S. policy, which was rather adamant. Never put Israel in Central Command’s area of responsibility because it would be all Arabs with Israel. Now, you could say, well, this was made possible by the Abraham Accords. Okay, everybody’s becoming friendly with Israel now, so we can put Israel in that command. Well, what would you put them in there for? Who are you going to attack? Who are you going to fight? What’s the war going to be? It’s going to be Israel and the Arabs versus Iran. That’s another motivator for Iran to do what it did because Iran is not stupid. It can see that happening. It knows we changed the UCP.
More dire than that, though, is when I saw that change, a change Colin Powell had fought against, a change George Marshall had started to fight against in 1947 and ’48. When I saw that change, I said, okay, three possibilities here. Israel is going to attack Iran, and we’re going to follow. We’re going to attack Iran, and Israel is going to follow, or we’re going to attack Iran together. That’s why we’ve consolidated and put Israel in the command that’s going to be in charge of the war. That’s the most dire interpretation of it. I’m really worried that that might be the accurate interpretation of it. I think Netanyahu has thrown a monkey wrench in that recently, though, because he no longer seems in control of Israel. He’s certainly not in control of those 100,000 or so people who come out in the streets almost daily. I’m not even sure he’s in control of his own government. So that may put a little fly in the ointment there in terms of those plans.
Talia BaroncelliWell, it does seem like the U.S. has been supporting Bibi Netanyahu’s very aggressive policy toward Iran. I mean, Tom Nides, the Ambassador, was making some comments saying that Israel can basically do whatever they want to defend themselves when it comes to Iran. But I think recently, an Israeli ambassador was recalled to New York, I think it was, to speak about some of the activity in the occupied territories dealing with illegal settlements. I do wonder what’s going on right now between the U.S. and Israel and how tricky things are, or if that’s just something that’s a media portrayal and everything is actually okay under the surface.
Col. Lawrence WilkersonWell, when Sheldon Adelson’s wife, Miriam, came out and criticized Netanyahu, that was a barn burner for me to see her come out. She was, I’m told, I don’t know her personally, but I’m told she was even more hardass than Sheldon himself with regard to Israel, right or wrong, Israel. For her to come out and criticize Netanyahu says something, I think. There is a real falling away right now of Jewish Americans of note with wealth from Netanyahu. Whether that translates into falling away from Israel proper is another matter. I think it depends on how long he stays there and if he’s successful in dismantling the Israeli legal system, which is what he’s trying to do.
Why is he trying to do it? They all know why he’s doing it. He’s doing it to keep himself out of jail, and his wife, too, out of jail. That’s why he’s doing it. It has nothing to do with Israel’s security and everything to do with Bibi’s security. So this is really causing some rancor amongst American Jews who are otherwise supporters of Israel. If that keeps up, Biden is not going to be able to ignore it.
Talia BaroncelliWhat do you think Biden is thinking right now? Does he feel uncomfortable, given the situation in Israel? I mean, people have been protesting on the streets. Lloyd Austin, when he went to visit Netanyahu, I think he had to have a discussion with him in the airport because there were so many people protesting that they blocked the roads to the airport. Obviously, the Israeli Knesset just– well, maybe Netanyahu has made it possible for the Israeli Knesset to overturn Supreme Court rulings if they have a 61-seat majority. So he’s basically undermining Israeli democracy. How long do you think he’s going to last doing this?
Col. Lawrence WilkersonAnd what you just said, he’s doing with a paper-thin majority, a paper-thin one. So it’s not the bulk of the Israeli people who are behind these efforts. In fact, I think we’re seeing that the bulk of the Israeli people is against these efforts. If he succeeds, if he proceeds, if he goes ahead, if he does it, we’re in trouble because all Biden can do is either hold his nose, close his eyes, put his fingers in his ears and say, Israel, right or wrong, and go right into Armageddon, or take some action. I don’t see Biden being smart enough or brave enough to take action, primarily because he’s afraid of the 2024 elections and what it might do to him.
My students used to look at all these case studies since World War II, which we would use as examples of the empire in the world, all the way from Korea to the present day. They would ask me questions like this, “Are we the only country in the world that makes national security decisions based on democratic and republican political considerations?” I would say, “What do you think?” I think we are because we do, from time to time, make decisions that are based almost expressly on security and foreign policy decisions and our political situation in this country. Then the critic of that would say, “Well, that’s what democracies do.” And then you say, “That’s what democracies do who want to commit suicide.”
Talia BaroncelliWell, speaking about nuclear winter and committing suicide, I do wonder if the Israelis really believe that Iran poses a threat to them or if it’s all just a discursive tool that they can use to pursue certain policies. When I say that, I mean, with regards to the fact that they have nuclear weapons, but they’re constantly going on about Iranians, the enrichment of uranium, how it’s reached 84% or something in the [inaudible 00:32:33] facility, I believe it was called. If Israel has nuclear weapons capabilities, why would they be worried about Iran? Because just according to that logic, which is, I guess you could criticize mutual deterrence theory, but according to mutual deterrence theory, if Iran were to launch an attack against Israel, then they’d be wiped out by Israel by virtue of Israel launching an attack right back at them. So do you think they’re really worried about Iran?
Col. Lawrence WilkersonYou’re right. In a purely rational sense, you are right that Tehran would disappear. It’d be no more capital of Iran and lots of other places, too, from [inaudible 00:33:11] to Bandar Abbas. They have somewhere between 200 and 300 weapons. There’s no doubt in my mind that they would use them, particularly if Iran used one on them first or if they even thought one was coming in on them. We’d have our first example of launch on warning, and it would come from Jerusalem. But it’s not about that. It’s not about logic. It’s not about rationality. It’s about Netanyahu’s political needs. He has to have a bugbear. He has to have a threat, much the same way we have to have China as a threat now, and Russia thrown in for good luck, well, for bad luck. You’ve got to have an enemy. You’ve got to have an enemy to bait, an enemy to justify your defence budget, and an enemy to justify your hegemony. You have to have one. And so he’s got one now, and he’s not going to turn loose of it, regardless of the irrationality of that enemy.
The second point is, and this is a bigger geopolitical point, you either come down on the side of the proliferation of nuclear weapons or on the side of non-proliferation. So let’s just take an example with North Korea. South Korea is now talking; its new president is now talking about having his own nuclear weapons capability. I don’t think he’s serious because you ask him two really important questions. Where are you going to put your waste, and where are you going to test? There is no Korean province that is going to give him the right to do that, I guarantee you. And so maybe he’s just doing this for political pressure on Washington to make us put more nuclear weapons or put our nuclear weapons back on the Peninsula.
But still, if he were to develop one, if I’m wrong and he were to develop one, Japan would go nuclear right away, immediately. Japan’s plutonium is weapons-grade now. Korea would have to establish a reprocessing capability. Japan has the best plutonium in the world. Everyone wants to buy Japan’s P-plutonium. France buys it for its reactors. Japan would be full-up nuclear overnight. Then you have two more nuclear powers in Northeast Asia. China would then build out completely. They’d go to 6,000-7,000 warheads. So that’s proliferation.
Now, let’s go back to the Levant. Iran gets a nuclear weapon. The Pakistanis have already, I guarantee you, in the A.Q. Khan network that we sort of broke up back in the early 2000s– father of the Pakistani nuclear weapon, A.Q. Khan. In that network, the North Koreans and the Iranians colluded. We know that for a fact. They colluded over missile warheads, nose cones, missile throw weights, and underground operations. Now, the Iranians already have sufficient and enriched uranium to make a bomb. I found that out yesterday. I did not know that until I talked to the nuclear physicist I most trust. It would be a dirty one. It wouldn’t be as efficient as it should be if you really wanted maximum efficiency. But they could take the 66% to 70% uranium enrichment they have right now, and they could make a bomb.
Do they want to go further? Probably. But if they did and the Israelis announced it and weren’t able to stop it, let’s say the Iranians even went ahead as the North Koreans did. They’ve been taught. They’ve got the mountains in the Zagros Mountains. They can go deep underground just like the North Koreans did. When the North Koreans exploded their first nuclear device, we didn’t know for sure if it was a nuclear device. Our sniffers in the air could detect no radiation. The seismic people, I think they’re in Geneva, that monitored the Earth for earthquakes and so forth, said, “Yeah, something happened there, but it could have been a small earthquake. It might not have been a small nuclear weapon.” So for the first test, we didn’t know. We really did not know whether they tested or not. The second one, we got a little sniff, and we knew that they had tested a nuclear weapon. It was a little bit of a bigger yield. The Iranians would do the same thing. They’d go underground.
My point is, when they did do something that was announceable and the media would pick up on it and run it all over the place, then Saudi Arabia would say to Pakistan, “our contract for 30 weapons, execute it.” Saudi Arabia would have nuclear weapons overnight. I guarantee you they would have nuclear weapons overnight. Anyone with that much money, they’d drop it on an [inaudible 00:37:59], and they’d buy the nuclear weapons. So then you got two new nuclear powers in the Gulf, plus Israel. Guess what would happen with other countries like Syria, maybe, that would say, “Well, I need a nuclear capability, too, and I just don’t want to start that race.”
Talia BaroncelliSo you think that a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is alive and well?
Col. Lawrence WilkersonIt could be, especially if the IRGC, which I’m told is the authority now, not the [inaudible 00:38:30], the IRGC, if they decide that they’re going to make a run for a bomb, we’re going to have a nuclear weapon in Iran, I should say.
Talia BaroncelliWell, given the breakdown and talks between the U.S., Europe, and Iran on the Iran nuclear deal, the JCPOA, do you think there’s any chance that the U.S. will rejoin the deal and that the Iranians will agree to certain conditions? I mean, the Iranians have been upholding most of their part of the deal, except for the fact that they’ve continued to enrich. But it wasn’t the Iranians who pulled out of the deal. It was actually the Americans under Trump.
Col. Lawrence WilkersonWe abrogated it. We violated international law. We’re the empire. We can do that. We’re also the biggest hypocrite on the face of the Earth. Trump violated international law when he violated that agreement. I don’t care whether the Senate approved it or not as a formal treaty. He violated it. Those agreements have international force. So he did that.
I’m told right now, very disappointingly, very sadly, about 48 hours ago, that the President of the United States is in a position where he feels politically it will hurt him if he were to try to close a deal. Not that he could, but let’s just say he could, possibly, that he doesn’t want to now. I can understand that from a political point of view. These women have just done what they’ve done. Many of them have been killed, injured, or jailed. Children have been killed, injured, or jailed. What would he look like to the American people, who are dumber than shit anyway, pardon my French? What would he look like if he’s running for president and he’s the guy that went ahead after all these women did, all they did and didn’t succeed, and made an agreement with their government against which they were protesting? That the political environment, in other words, is militating against Biden even wanting a deal now. I was very, very saddened to hear that, but I heard it from a fairly reliable source.
Talia BaroncelliDo you think he still had intentions to assist the signing or the rejoining of the U.S. into the deal before the protests started in Iran? Because it seemed like he wasn’t really interested compared to the campaign promises that he had made before.
Col. Lawrence WilkersonI agree. It didn’t seem like either side was really interested in it. Us because we were insisting on including things that we knew the Iranians wouldn’t include. Them because they insisted on relieving the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist group because I knew we weren’t going to back off on that. Maybe we could sign a deal that would say we’d back off of it in six months or a year if they were complying with the deal. But I don’t think we could sign one that said, “Okay, we give you a concession. We’ll take them off the terrorist list and now sign the agreement.” So those kinds of things were holding it up. It didn’t seem to me, the reports I was getting, it didn’t seem to me like either side was really seriously interested in resuming it. Both sides seem to have reservations. I don’t blame the Iranians. After all, [Ron] DeSantis could come in, they could sign up, start again. DeSantis could come in two years and negate it again. I wouldn’t sign a deal with the United States if I were any country in the world.
Talia BaroncelliRight. And in my view, at least, it’s because the U.S. backed out of the deal when [Ebrahim] Raisi came to power. I don’t think Raisi would have come to power in Iran if the U.S. had actually upheld their part of the agreement because a lot of people, especially the hardliners in Iran, were saying, “Well, look, why should we trust the Americans anyway?”
Col. Lawrence WilkersonExactly. I think lots of other governments around the world are saying that thing, too. Why would I ever want to sign an agreement with Washington? Look at what they did.
Talia BaroncelliThe hypocrisy, especially in light of the 20-year mark of the invasion of Iraq, is just unbelievable. To bring it full circle and go back to Iraq and the U.S.’s invasion, what lessons do you think still need to be learned by the U.S.?
Col. Lawrence WilkersonI really try to shy away from the term lessons learned because, as a military officer, I always taught my war gamers and simulators you gain insights. You don’t learn lessons because lessons learned are I know two plus two equals four, and in the future, it will always equal four. That’s a lesson learned. There are no things like that in geopolitics. You get insights. Mostly you get insights into people, the way people interact, and the way countries perform through those people. I think the insights we’ve gotten is, one, we’re incompetent. We are utterly incompetent, militarily and security-wise in general. So why embark on programs, actions, and policies that display that incompetence and weaken us even further?
What do I mean by that? Well, take Afghanistan, for example. Had we gone into Afghanistan, spent six months bashing the Taliban about the ears, getting as much of al-Qaeda as we could, and then come to Kabul and said, “It’s all yours now, we’re leaving. If you let them back, we’ll come back and bash you again.” Not try to do nation-building, democracy spreading. The Afghans don’t want what we were offering them, and neither do the Iraqis. They’ve got their own version of what they’re going to create in Iraq. I listened to it the other day, and I thought it was pretty reasonable. So that’s the first thing.
The second thing is, the second insight gained is we treat our allies like dog shit. Pardon my French again, but we do. We treat our allies– this command down in Tampa called U.S. Central Command. Do you know what they are calling themselves? They’re calling themselves a coalition because they have 32 nations down there from Albania to Japan to Italy, and they’re all staff members down there. Well, let me tell you what I heard the last time I went to Tampa from one of those members whose name and country I won’t mention. We’re never told anything. We’re kept in the corner and fed dirt because that’s the way the United States operates. We’re just down there for a patina of internationalism, a patina of cooperation. Central Command does what Central Command wants to do, and so does Special Operations Command, which is right there in Tampa, too.
This is a facade of international cooperation. But at the same time, it’s an indicator of how we operate now. We need to really use friends and allies, not abuse them, use them, not in a pejorative way, but in a way that emphasizes their strengths because some of them have some real talent, whereas we don’t. The Norwegians come to mind immediately. What did we do with the Norwegians in Libya? We let them lead the airstrikes. Are you kidding me? We’re trying to corrupt Norway. We let their young pilots because they were so eager to get out there and be top guns; we let them lead the airstrikes in Libya, a war crime. We let them do that and corrupted Norway in that sense, in my view. A lot of Norwegians feel that way too. Not their government right now, but a lot of Norwegians feel that way. Use your allies well. Use them for their competencies. If you’re going to have them, use them. Don’t abuse them.
Then the third insight, I would say, is don’t deal with countries in a significant way about which you are totally and utterly ignorant. Don’t, for example, try to make Thomas Jefferson Democrats of them. They probably have their own way of doing things, and inevitably, they will do whatever they need to do better than you. I think the women of Iran just proved that. The most effective force in Iran right now. They will eventually get their way if a bunch of men corrupt as hell don’t stop them.
Talia BaroncelliWell, Larry Wilkerson, it was great to have you on the show again. Thank you very much for making time.
Col. Lawrence WilkersonThanks for having me.
Talia BaroncelliThank you for watching theAnalysis.news. Please go to our YouTube channel, theAnalysis-news and subscribe to the channel. Hit the like button on all the videos you’d like to watch and hit the bell; that way, you’ll be informed of future content. If you don’t hit the bell, you might be missing some of the episodes once they drop, so please do that. If you’re so inclined, also go to our website, theAnalysis.news, and hit the donate button; that way, you can support the work we’re doing. Thank you very much.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)User my donation to help support the upcoming documentary "How to stop a nuclear war" (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter
Email(Required)Name(Required) First Last Δ
“Lawrence B. Wilkerson is a retired United States Army Colonel and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell.”
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
The NSW Government has made a tourism ad ahead of the coming election, and it’s surprisingly honest and informative. This video was originally published by The Juice Media on March 16, 2023.
Honest Government Ad | Visit New South Wales!Honest Government Ad | the Safeguard MechanismHonest Government Ad | AUKUSHonest Government Ad | Julian AssangeHonest Government Ad | Visit Western AustraliaJuice Media Satire: Australian “Values”News Corp Bargaining Code – Biting Satire From Juice MediaJuice Media Nails Australien Government Climate “Policy”Juice Media Take Down of QAnon – we wish it was just satire Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Music*
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)User my donation to help support the upcoming documentary "How to stop a nuclear war" (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter
Email(Required)Name(Required) First Last Δ
Noam Chomsky und Daniel Ellsberg diskutieren über die Absichten der USA im Ukraine-Krieg und die Vorbereitungen für einen Krieg mit China.
Robert Pollin says PERI research findings published in Fossil Fuel Industry Phase-Out and Just Transition demonstrate Just Transition policies are easily affordable in all high-income countries & imperative for any serious prospect of success in climate stabilization plans. Lynn Fries interviews Pollin on GPEnewsdocs.
Fossil Fuel Industry Phase-Out: Three Critical Worker Guarantees for a Just TransitionNet Zero Commitments Dangerously Misleading – Peter CarterThe False Promise of Carbon Capture and StorageExposing Apocalyptic Economics with Steve KeenNavy Puts Climate Change at Top of Threat List – Larry WilkersonState of Big Tech 2022: Dismantling National & Global Digital EnclosuresReal Climate Solutions are No Mystery – PollinHow to Fight Inflation Without Attacking Workers – PollinDebunking Net Zero, Carbon Offsets, Nature-Based Solutions, Climate Smart Agriculture, Bioeconomy…A Warning From Chomsky and EllsbergBiden’s Bill has Significant Funding for Climate but 10% of What’s Needed – Bob PollinProgressive Running Against a Corp Dem in Boeing CountryThe Capitalist Solution to ‘Save’ the Planet: Make it an Asset Class & Sell itDaniel Ellsberg on Nuclear War and UkraineA Dire Warning About the End of Human CivilizationNationalize Fossil Fuel to Fight Climate Change and Inflation – Bob PollinFossil Fuel and Private Equity Love Trump – Thomas Ferguson Pt 3/4Carl Sagan testifying before Congress in 1985 on climate changeHumanity will not be saved by promisesCOP 26: End the Cynicism and Denial – pt 2/2COP 26: End the Cynicism and Denial – pt 1/2House Committee Chairwoman Maloney Nails Oil ExecutivesStop Subsidizing Wall St., Start Subsidizing Workers for High Energy Costs – Bob PollinBiden Heads to COP 26 Throttled by Manchin and Trumpists – with Bob PollinA Conversation With Paul Jay – Pt 4Current Climate Extremes Double at 2 Degrees Warming and Quadruple at 3 – Lead IPCC AuthorA Just Transition Now or Climate Disaster is InevitableNot Much Climate Plan in Biden Jobs Plan – Robert Pollin Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Guest * Music*
LYNN FRIES: Hello and welcome. I’m Lynn Fries producer of Global Political Economy or GPEnewsdocs. Today I am joined by PERI’s Robert Pollin.
As part of PERI’s global project to fight climate change, Pollin will be talking about just transition policies. PERI has long researched how robust Just Transition policies are imperative to advance a comprehensive global climate stabilization program that offers any serious prospect of success.
Today we will look into evidence that these just transition policies should also be understood as an entirely realistic prospect for all high-income countries. This based on new PERI research findings released this February in the paper titled Fossil Fuel Industry Phase-Out and Just Transition. This is a preliminary working paper that extends PERI’s published studies on Just Transition programs in the U.S. into other major high income economies notably Germany, the UK, the European Union and more briefly Japan and Canada.
Joining us from Massachusetts, Robert Pollin is Distinguished University Professor of Economics and Co-Director of PERI, the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.
Welcome, Bob.
ROBERT POLLIN: Thank you for having me Lynn. Happy to be on.
FRIES: Bob we will be talking about PERI research findings on what is needed for fossil fuel industry dependent workers and communities to make a just transition from one kind of an economy to another. Let’s start on why this is imperative for a successful climate stabilization plan.
POLLIN: Yeah. So, we face this situation where and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/IPCC, just put out another study Monday which has summarized what they’ve been saying at least since 2018. That we have to basically be at zero fossil fuel emissions by 2050. We have to be at a 50% reduction relative to 2005 by 2030 which is only six and a half years from now. Now that means we have to dramatically consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas to produce energy and by 2050 phase it out basically entirely.
So that is an imperative with respect to the climate crisis. Now, it obviously impacts a lot of different entities, organizations, governments, people, communities. So one of the big factors here is that there are people, not just rich shareholders of the fossil fuel companies or oil sheiks, there are ordinary people whose lives and communities are currently dependent on the fossil fuel industry.
And so what do we do about that? What do we say about?
Well, as a basic, simple matter of ethics, we have to be able to offer something like a fair transition, a just transition for all the workers and communities. That’s an ethical imperative. But even if you have no ethics, even if you don’t care at all about the people that are currently dependent on the fossil fuel industry and the communities, there’s no way politically we can advance a robust and adequate fossil fuel phase out, in other words, a adequate climate stabilization program, unless we do something to address the needs of this community and these people, because justifiably, they’re going put up political resistance.
Now we’ve seen in the United States just how far that resistance can go. Because I mean, there are several factors that are behind the Trump phenomenon. But a big one was him saying: you know, the environmentalists don’t care about you workers in West Virginia, in Pennsylvania. They want to destroy your communities. And whether that’s true or not, it had a lot of resonance.
And so it is absolutely as just a mere political reality. We have to show that if we’re going to phase out fossil fuels to save the planet, which we have to, we also have to mount a vigorous, robust just transition for the workers and communities whose jobs are going to get phased out.
FRIES: So in discussing what is needed for as just transition, you say in the paper that the first questions we need to ask are what should be the overall goal of just transition policies. And then the next questions should be what specific measures need to be implemented to accomplish that. Briefly comment on that.
POLLIN: So just transition policies have been around in various forms for a long time. This particular paper focuses on high income countries. I’ve done work in developing countries as well. But this one is focused on high income countries.
So we have had phase out programs, maybe the, the most advanced have been in Germany for decades because of the phase out of the coal industry in Germany. The United Kingdom has phased out its coal industry without doing a whole lot for the workers. In the United States we’ve had just transition or transition, let’s say, policies around the workers who are impacted by changes in trade policy opening of free trade.
And for the most part, those policies have been minimal. They have not provided any significant support. In fact, in the US what are called transition policies officially, unofficially by union members are called burial insurance. In other words here, go off and die. Here’s a few thousand dollars. And that is generally what has been provided to date including in Germany, though somewhat better.
So those policies have really focused on providing retraining for other jobs. They’ve provided some minimal level of job placement support to find a new job; some modest level of relocation support if people have to move to get another job. And that’s basically it.
Even the European Union with their Green Deal has at least in rhetoric made very strong statements as to the significance, the centrality of just transition policies. Uh, Franz Timmermans, the Vice Chair of the European Commission, he himself says, you know: just transitions are central. We need everybody’s support for this movement out of fossil fuels.
Yet the policies that they are implementing to date are, they are better than others, but they’re basically focused only on job search, retraining, and relocation. What I’ve been advocating now as you mentioned, thank you, for several years, is the development of just transition policies that are much more robust. It includes simple things, not just job retraining but a job guarantee. Not just any old job, but the jobs that will pay at least for a few years the difference between any salary loss that a worker will have faced. And then finally, critically, is guarantees for worker’s pensions.
Because if we’re phasing out this industry, obviously, these companies are facing financial challenges. And we cannot assume that the first thing that they’re going to do is guarantee their workers’ pensions. And so the policy has to guarantee the pensions.
I should just say as a personal anecdote, I’ve had several interesting stories are around this issue, but the most interesting, the most valuable…I had done a study in 2014, a big study on Green Transition for the United States. And in doing that study we were looking for endorsements from respective people. And one of them was somebody named Bill Spriggs, who’s the chief economist of the AFL CIO. He was at the time, and he still is. And he’s also a friend mine.
We asked many people for endorsements. They all wrote nice things except for Bill Spriggs. And he said: I can’t endorse this because your transition policy is just fluff. It’s just like nice words, platitudes and it doesn’t address the real needs of workers. And he was right. He was right. And at that time, I said: okay, you’re right, Bill. And from now on I’m going take this issue much more seriously. So that’s really how I got into the issue. Recognizing that the kinds of things that I was saying, the kinds of things that were out there in the policy world are not serious.
FRIES: We’re talking about fossil fuel industry phase out and just transition in high income economies. The working paper released this February covers PERI’s study of Germany, the UK, the European Union, Japan, and Canada. It also connects the dots between all the above high income economies and that of the US. Talk more about read-throughs in your findings across all high income countries.
POLLIN: Yeah, so basically in the US as well, I mean, the just transition policies that are in place right now are slim to nothing. In the case of Canada, they had a big commission, study. They interviewed workers; they interviewed people in the community. It was an official government commission.
And again, they say nice things but there is no commitment of anything to date. At least as far as I know and I was looking at it pretty carefully. That’s also true in Japan. Nice phrases not much. UK, Germany, better. Germany as I said has had some significant commitment for a long time with respect to the phase out of the coal industry in the Ruhr Valley. It’s often held up as a really valuable example and it is relative to the alternatives. But even there in Germany, the level of financial commitment and the types of commitments: there is no job guarantee; there is no pension guarantee; there’s no wage guarantee. And those are the three critical things I think that are central.
So the work that I’ve been doing on this question subsequent to my friend Bill Spriggs fairly criticizing me, fairly criticizing me, was to figure out, well, what actually would constitute robust just transition policy that you could present to workers in their communities and keep a straight face in saying that this actually is a just transition.
So, we’ve done it for several states. West Virginia is one of them. And so for the case of West Virginia, we go through this exercise. How many workers in the state are currently dependent on the fossil fuel industry? And the number in West Virginia is about 40,000. And not just coal miners but people in the coal industry; everyone in the fossil fuel, in the oil and gas industry; plus everyone in ancillary sectors anything to do that are feeding into coal and oil and gas production.
So that’s 40,000 people. So then we say, well, okay, 40,000 people. Then what does a realistic phase out look like for those 40,000 people if we assume by 2050 all their jobs are going to be gone? But it’s critical that not all of their jobs are going be gone tomorrow. They’re going to be gone over a generation basically by 2050.
So, when we calculate the rate of annual job loss and incorporate the demographics of the age levels of the workers so we are able to take account of voluntary retirements. What we’re really looking at is about 1400 workers per year who are going to lose their jobs and want another. So the focus of the study then is okay, we’re going to give these people: guarantee them a new job; guarantee them a wage equivalent to what they’re making now; and guarantee their pensions in addition to the other things. I’m not against helping people with job search retraining or relocation. It’s just those should be seen as supplemental to: Yes, you will have a job; yes, you will not face a significant income loss; and yes, you will not lose your pension. That’s the critical thing.
So, we do all that and we take account of these workers and how much they’re making now. We also do this as part of a green transition in West Virginia. And we say, well yes West Virginia is going to be getting investments to build a clean energy economy that’s going to create jobs. And we estimate that that will create 25,000 jobs in the state. Meanwhile, we’re losing about 1400 jobs in the state.
So one simple way to think about a transition is, well, as many as possible, move people from the fossil industry into the emerging nascent green energy industry.
And so then we did all that and we said, okay, you know what? It’s going to cost about $40,000 per year per worker to do everything. And that ends up being when we added up for the 1400 workers per year, it ends up being equal to about 0.2% of the GDP of West Virginia. And this is the most fossil fuel dependent region in the country. So it’s 0.2%. When I’ve done the same exercise for the whole United States, the cost as a share of the overall economy as a share of GDP is one 10th that of West Virginia, 0.002%; yeah, two 100ths of 1%.
So this is eminently affordable even in West Virginia. West Virginia is the test case because the costs proportionally will be higher. Anyway, so those are the main results. And so the point that we conclude with is this a robust just transition is viable and it is the ethical right thing to do.
FRIES: I should note for viewers that the US findings you refer to are based on studies of Just Transition programs PERI has published for the US states of California, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maine, Colorado, Washington State and New York State. So the West Virginia study is one of a series that PERI has published on eight states and the US economy overall. In the paper released this February, the West Virginia just transition program features prominently as a case study drawn from Peril’s research findings. Why so much focus on West Virginia?
POLLIN:It’s like if you can tell a story that’s reasonable for West Virginia, you can tell a story basically for any place.As I said thinking about say Trump. Trump got 70% of the votes in West Virginia in 2016 and again in 2020, 67%. And a lot of his appeal is, you know, he’s against all these environmentalists that want to take away our jobs. So how can we tell a story that is convincing, that is really credible for the workers and the communities in West Virginia?
That really was our aim. And I think, who knows in the end, but we did have success in the sense that we did present this in accordance with the the mine workers Union. And the overall leadership of the union movement, AFL CIO, in the state.
We were commissioned by a wonderful organization called Reimagine Appalachia. So it is really trying to think about not just West Virginia, but the four states Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia all transitioning out of their dependence on fossil fuels and into a new clean energy economy. They certainly can do it. And if we can do it there, again, we can do it anywhere.
FRIES: Bob as we sum up, round off on some key implications and conclusions of your findings on Just Transition programs in high income economies.
POLLIN: So again West Virginia has a very high concentration of fossil fuel workers. Ten times the level relative to the overall country, the US economy. And so again, the implication is actually analytically financially it is easy to do a robust, fair transition that is not, quote, burial insurance. That it is treating people with respect, understanding that their livelihoods are dependent.
This is not the same as if you are a shareholder of a fossil fuel company. If you’re a shareholder of a fossil fuel company and you know the company is going to be phased out, well sell your shares, and buy something else. The fossil fuel companies last year made $200 billion, the six biggest. So it’s a fine time to sell and recognize that this is going to be a phase out. And it’s not going to affect your home. It is not going affect your pension. It’s not going to affect anything about your life if you’re a shareholder of one of these companies.
On the other hand, if you are a worker and this is your full-time job or you’re a member of the community, let’s say you’re a school teacher in a community whose tax revenue is dependent on fossil fuels, you know, this is massive. Your livelihood, your community is facing a threatening of ending all the things that you’re used to. And that this has to be seen as a front and center critical feature of any overall climate program.
Yes, we obviously have to think about how we get off of fossil fuels. We have to think about how we stop destroying the Amazon Rain Forest. Those are good starters but an equally important starter is to think about the workers and communities who are going to face major negative impacts unless there is a just transition program.
FRIES: This then brings us back to the point at the open of our conversation on why just transition programs are so imperative not only on ethical grounds but for achieving the level of political support needed to move onto a viable global climate stabilization path. In other words, for achieving the political support to phase out the burning of fossil fuels to produce energy and to replace the global fossil fuel energy infrastructure with a zero emission, renewables dominant infrastructure.
POLLIN: It is a major, major challenge. I mean, we’ve seen what happened even with the Biden administration, which overall in my opinion, has been better on these issues than I would’ve thought they were going to be. But they did a major backsliding just this past week or last week when
They agreed to allow the development of oil exploration in Alaska on public land. Which they, you know, Biden had said: no way I’m never going to do this. Well, somehow now he’s doing it.
So, obviously he was intensively lobbied. We have to be able to fight back. And one of the tools for fighting back is to say to the workers and their communities this is a program, a just transition program for you. And that you do not face this loss of income, employment, pensions that would be devastating for people’s livelihoods.
FRIES: Among other corporate tactics to block the phasing out of the fossil fuel industry, we see the financing card get played. The argument being in the case of a just transition that: oh we can’t afford it. So for high income countries, this study tables evidence that effectively shows that argument does not hold water. Is that a key takeaway?
POLLIN: That is the key takeaway. I mean, again, I think a lot of people say: yes definitely just transition we’re all for it. As I said Frans Timmermans made that quite explicit in the documents of the European Green Deal. It’s all in there now. That is a new development but it’s in there.
But the point is what does it really mean? And if we’re really going do it in a way that protects people’s livelihoods and communities is the cost just outrageous, unaffordable? And the answer is clearly no.
Again, if you can do it in West Virginia, you can do it in Canada, you can do it in the UK. And if we’re talking about in the US overall, two 100ths of 1% of GDP, you don’t even notice it. In West Virginia it’s 10 times more as a share of GDP. That means it’s two tenths of 1%. These are funds that are available. I mean, just in the last year the subsidies for fossil fuel companies when the price of oil went up due to the COVID shortages and the war in Ukraine fossil fuel subsidies doubled from about $500 billion to $1 trillion. So $500 billion for subsidizing fossil fuel companies when we’re supposed to be phasing them out. That was found immediately. There was no question.
FRIES: You’ve been informing policy makers at the state level, at the federal level and holding town hall meetings across the United States. Do you find you are getting much traction?
POLLIN: Well, actually, I’ve been in discussions even with people in the White House. So yeah, I think so. Yeah it’s not easy because obviously this isn’t simply a matter of: oh, that sounds good. That’s logical. There are huge interests involved. And I’m sure the fossil fuel industry itself recognizes that if there is a robust set of just transition policies, well then that undermines their own lobbying in behalf of themselves. Because they’re saying: Hey, we’re the ones that are keeping this economy alive.
You know, there was a piece in the Financial Times a couple weeks ago with respect to this doubling the 200 billion in profits and the CEO of Chevron, whose name I can’t remember now, he just says: fossil fuels run the world and we’re going to keep running the world. We’re running the world now. We’re going to run the world in 10 years. We’re going to run the world in 20 years. He just out and out says it. And if he’s right, then you know what, then we’re facing a climate disaster. There’s no question about it.
FRIES: And at the town hall level do you see resistance building?
POLLIN: One of the tests is I’ve, you know, I’ve presented this to working people, union meetings and so forth. And there has been serious criticism and I understand it. The most honest telling criticism I’ve gotten is: gee, professor, these are great numbers, look really good, and you’re going to keep writing your papers and you’ve got a job and you’ve got a pension and you’ve written these numbers and that’s fine. But, you know, nobody’s going to pay attention and we’re not going to get this policy and we’re going to lose our jobs. And what am I supposed to say to that? The best thing we can say is, you know, people are fighting on your side, including you on this show by having me on, thank you.
What we have seen, let’s say the most dramatic, I would say, traction has been in California where our study, our equivalent study was commissioned by the union movement in California, by the actual union movement. And about 20 unions explicitly endorsed the program that we had laid out. Including the oil refinery workers, the oil refinery workers union endorsed our study.
And the leader wrote a brilliant article in the Los Angeles Times saying: we know just transition policies are usually a bunch of just rhetoric that mean nothing and people forget. We know that. But if we’re going to be serious, this program laid out by the PER researchers is real and we endorse it. And if this is the kind of thing that our policy makers are willing to put in place, then we’re for a just transition. And we know we have to get our fossil fuels.
FRIES: This California study and of course all PERI’s studies on Just Transition programs are available online at peri.umass.edu including the new paper on high income economies featured in today’s conversation. For now, we are going to have to leave it there. Robert Pollin, thank you.
And thank you for joining us in this segment on Fossil Fuel Phase Out and Just Transition with Robert Pollin.
Robert Pollin is Distinguished University Professor of Economics and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He is also the founder and President of PEAR (Pollin Energy and Retrofits), an Amherst, MA-based green energy company operating throughout the United States.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)User my donation to help support the upcoming documentary "How to stop a nuclear war" (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter
Email(Required)Name(Required) First Last Δ
“Robert Pollin is an American economist and self-described socialist. He is a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and founding co-director of its Political Economy Research Institute. He has been described as a leftist economist and is a supporter of egalitarianism.”
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
In this episode of The Source, Zain Raza speaks with independent journalist, author, and economist Dr. Shir Hever about how and why his lecture on child labor in Palestine was abruptly censored by the GEW (Education and Science Workers' Union) in Germany. They also talk about a recent Forbidden Stories article detailing how Israeli companies played a key role in the Cambridge Analytica scandal and continue to provide hacking services that influence countries' elections. They examine the China-brokered peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran and the international significance it has for Israel. To conclude the interview, they take a look at recent developments between Israel and Palestine, focusing on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's judicial reform in Israel.
The legendary regulator and white-collar criminologist William K. Black explains why, contrary to corporate media coverage, the bank failures set off by the Silicon Valley Bank crash were absolutely not sudden, unexpected, or unforeseeable, and why none of the regulations Democrats or Republicans are talking about would have stopped them.
Bill Black on SVB: A Bipartisan Clown Car CrashNo Evidence to Support FED 2% Inflation Target – Robert Pollin 50 Years After Allende at the UN: A Corporate Triumph Named MultistakeholderismTime Bomb in Global Finance – Rob JohnsonMonopoly Power vs Democracy – Matt Stoller Capitalism’s Structural Crisis and the Global RevoltThe Story Behind “The Con”Why the Media Doesn’t Understand Control FraudMichael Hudson: Biden Between BlackRock and a Hard PlaceBill Black pt 9/9 — The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own OneBill Black pt 8/9 — The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own OneBill Black pt 7/9 -The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own OneBill Black pt 6/9 – The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own OneBill Black pt 5/9 – The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own OneBill Black pt 4/9 – The Best Way to Rob a Bank is To Own OneBill Black pt 2/9 – Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own OneBill Black pt 1/9 – The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own OneCan You Destroy $20 Billion in Wealth Without Committing a Crime? – Bill BlackPolarization, Then a Crash: Michael Hudson on the Rentier EconomyPeoples’ Lives vs. Profits of Pharmaceutical Monopolies – GPE NewsdocsFED’s $10 Trillion Defends Assets of the Rich – Michael Hudson Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Music*
Colin Bruce AnthesWelcome to the Analysis. I’m Colin Bruce Anthes. In a minute, I’ll be speaking with Dr. Bill Black on bank failures and what is to be done. Please remember to like, subscribe, ring the bell, and consider hitting the donate button to support our work. Stay tuned.
Only 15 years after the last global financial crisis, three American banks failed in one week, and now Credit Suisse, after 166 years of independence, has been purchased by a rival bank with state intervention from the Swiss National Government due to a crisis in confidence. To discuss how and why this has taken place and what should be done next, we’re privileged to be joined by one of the major voices on the subject, Dr. William K. Black. He is a lawyer, an academic, and an expert in white-collar crime. He has personally served as one of the major bank regulators in the United States. He helped develop the concept of control fraud. He testified to Congress after the 2008 financial crisis, during which time he accused Timothy Geithner of engaging in a massive cover-up of fraud. He’s the author of the seminal book, The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One. Bill Black, welcome back to the Analysis.
Bill BlackThank you. It’s great to be back.
Colin Bruce AnthesBefore we jump into all of the things that are going wrong in corporate finance right now, I wanted to ask you a big systemic question that I don’t see being asked very often, which is about why corporate finance has the scale over our lives that it does. There are other ways of doing banking and finance. I live in Canada, where the province of Alberta– it’s a very large-scale public bank that’s in one of our most conservative provinces. I’ve done a lot of my banking at a credit union, which is a cooperative financial institution. I get democratic voting rights on the Board of Directors. I ask this not in a let’s burn all the banks down sense, but genuinely, if everything was regulated perfectly, if everything was running tickety-boo, what benefits should I, as a working-class person, expect to be able to get from these corporate banks under those ideal circumstances that I could not get at a public institution or a cooperative institution?
Bill BlackWell, if I put on my toque and lean back in my chesterfield while paying my hydro bill and channel my semi-Canadian from growing up in Detroit, Michigan, there are basically three big things as to why finance is so critically important. First, finance blows up the world, and that’s really important. Second, finance affects everything. Do you want to know why there’s not enough spending on the environment? Well, that’s largely thanks to finance on how it allocates. Third, particularly in the U.S. context, there’s enormous predation, typically on the basis of race and ethnicity, sometimes on the basis of age, and sometimes the basis of gender, and sometimes, of course, those things interact and such. So the combination of those three things means that lots of people lose money or are in crushing levels of debt, particularly, again, in a place like the United States, from their university debt and from payday lending. People are often caught in debt traps that crush their life choices. Those are the big three reasons why finance is such a big deal.
Oh, by the way, I’m sorry, the fourth one is supposed to be that it’s supposed to be the motor that drives innovation and growth. Not so much, but that’s the theory.
Colin Bruce AnthesWhen we look at this, let’s go specifically into Silicon Valley Bank, which is the spark that has ignited a pretty big fire now. It was really a run that happened in the span of one day. This is a bank that was highly engaged in tech startups. The Silicon Valley Bank failure was immediately portrayed as something that came out of the blue that happened very suddenly. Since then, we have had the Democratic Party accuse the Republicans of having caused it through the rollbacks of some regulations that happened under the Trump administration, which did happen. From your perspective, part (A) of this question is from your perspective as someone who has been a bank regulator, was this out of the blue? Was this sudden?
Bill BlackIt wasn’t remotely out of the blue. The fact that it’s being treated as if it were out of the blue is an enormous tell in the poker sense of that word as to the utter collapse of regulation, not, of course, just under the Trump administration, but under the last five administrations.
Colin Bruce AnthesSo that takes us back to, would you say, when Glass-Steagall was repealed?
Bill BlackYes. So Glass-Steagall’s removal was incredibly stupid. It was one of those things where there’s a conservative maxim that makes a lot of sense, and it’s called if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If things are working, and Glass-Steagall worked brilliantly. The only thing that it wasn’t working for was bankers. It was working great for all those other things that I talked about that finance is supposed to do, and in preventing those nasty things that finance actually does. So they had to get rid of it, and both the Republicans and Democrats worked together like chums to achieve that. It was done in a particularly cynical fashion where they did a deliberately unlawful merger. But under Glass-Steagall, you would have had a year to unwind it, but it would have meant unwinding what was at that time the biggest financial merger, not just in the United States but in the world’s history. So, of course, the bankers knew that would never happen. They held the government hostage, and the government let itself be held hostage. So that actually occurred during the Clinton administration, but that wasn’t done over their opposition. They were all for it.
Repealing Glass-Steagall was terrible. It played a role, all completely negative, in the Great Financial Crisis. It’s got a peripheral role in the current crisis. It would have been bigger in Switzerland, except, of course, Switzerland never had a Glass-Steagall, which is one of the reasons its banking has been so corrupt, not for 10 years, but for over a century.
Let me go to the stuff about the Trump legislation. Was the Trump legislation terrible? Yes. Was it sold on the basis of lies? Yes. Were Democrats heavily involved in making that happen? Yes. Not all Democrats, but a significant portion. The lie was we were doing this for community banks. This is the little bank in the rural village that doesn’t much exist anymore in the United States. It is true that government regulation tends to be more costly per unit in those smaller banks. You got to admire the chutzpah.
They solve this as we need to therefore remove restrictions on banks up to $250 billion in assets. Now, a $250 billion bank is ballpark one of the 10 biggest banks in the United States and one of the 20 biggest banks in the world. It is not only not small, but it is also in that proverbial category of being systemically dangerous, that when it fails, it can bring down others. Of course, Silicon Valley Bank was a leadership that was specifically lobbying for this insane loophole to apply to it, even though it was ballparked $200 billion in assets and, of course, had no problems complying with the law.
Now, the Democrats have their own falsehood about this, and that is, oh, if Dodd-Frank had not been amended, this wouldn’t have happened at Silicon Valley Bank. We know that that’s 100% wrong. We know that’s 100% wrong because the same problems happened at places where it wasn’t rolled back. They just haven’t come home to roost at this point because they dare not act on banks that side.
Colin Bruce AnthesCan you go into that for me?
Bill BlackThe fundamental thing that the amendment did under the Trump administration that the Democrats are focused on is it got rid of the mandatory stress test. But it is critical to know why that’s nonsensical as a cause of this crisis. The answer is stress tests are useless. They’re designed to be useless. They do not stress the institution. They’re an oxymoron created by regular morons. What they don’t do specifically is look at runs. If you remove runs, then banks seem a whole lot safer, and they die in years, not in hours, which was your point about Silicon Valley Bank, which is why they don’t put that into the stress test because then you would say hundreds of banks are insolvent and are at enormous risk. If there’s a run, they will fail, and a run is in some sense rational in that they’re insolvent on a market value basis, which Silicon Valley Bank was into that category.
So even if the Trump amendment had never occurred and they had done the stress test, the stress test would have said, no problem here. We know that because this is what the following list of institutions have in common. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Fannie [Mae], Freddie [Mac], the big three Icelandic banks, all of them passed stress tests with flying colors, sometimes days before they failed because stress tests don’t actually look at the things that kill you. As a metaphor, liquidity, which is what a run is, is a bit like pneumonia. So you’re put into the hospital by some chronic disease that is actually going to kill you eventually, but pneumonia is an opportunistic infection, right? It’s often fairly common in hospitals, unfortunately. It puts enormous stress on your breathing, which puts enormous stress on your cardio system, and it tends to be the thing that kills people the quickest. So runs on the bank, kill you quick. But what was the underlying problem? Why did they have a run on the bank? And the answer is mostly it appears at this point in the U.S. context, interest rate risk. In the Swiss context, interest rate risk plus probably some more exotic derivatives, but Switzerland is super opaque, even more opaque than the U.S., well, much more opaque than the United States. So it may be months or years before we get the details on the derivatives. All we’re being told is that their financial derivative positions were a significant part of the problem and caused very large losses.
Colin Bruce AnthesI want to just hammer home this point that it’s highly likely what we’re going to see next are the Democrats start talking about putting some things back in place that looked like they were before the Trump administration. From your point of view, that would be a cosmetic solution. It would not actually prevent these kinds of things from happening further down the road.
Bill BlackCorrect. They’ve got to– the response to the Great Financial Crisis in the United States, which became the Dodd-Frank Bill, has many good ideas but no coherence. So it’s here’s an idea, here’s an idea, here’s an idea, here’s an idea, and they all threw them into the bill. So it’s an utter monstrosity of a bill. Then the secret I can tell you as a regulator, regulators don’t like enormously detailed regulation. It’s a pain in the ass from our perspective. You have to learn, and it’s incredibly boring to read it. It’s incredibly boring to draft it, and it’s easy to get it wrong, and you’re getting all kinds of abuse left, right, and center. Why do we have these super detailed regulations? Well, partly because this bill was a monster with literally hundreds of ideas thrown into it, but mostly because of big banks. Because the big banks always come in and say, oh, in our precise circumstance, this possible thing could happen, and if it did, it would be unfair. So this is the– ignoring the adage, of course– never let the search for the perfect become the enemy of the good, and that’s what exactly happens in these circumstances.
So at the staff level, I led the re-regulation of the savings and loan industry. That was desperately needed. I think it saved hundreds of billions of dollars, actually probably trillions. But I got rid of more regulations than I created. Of course, there are stupid regulations. The other secret thing I’ll tell you about competent regulators is we hate bureaucracy. You have to deal with bureaucracy once every three weeks, typically as a regular Canadian or American. We have to deal with it every day. There are bureaucrats, and they’re anal, and it just makes your life miserable. So when you see competent regulators, we are completely non-bureaucratic in our approach.
So what do we need for this particular crisis? Remembering crises change. Generals that only get ready to fight the last war are disasters. This one, we can put a really fine point on it because one of the disastrous things– disastrous may be too strong– one of the things that showed that they hadn’t learned the fundamentals is in doing Dodd-Frank. They overwhelmingly created the supposed answer to future problems in economists, conventional economists. Now, conventional economists create problems; they don’t solve the problems in finance. So this is significantly insane. Let me give a specific example that ties in so well with the Silicon Valley Bank. I may call it SVB collapse. As far as we know now, interest rate risk leads to liquidity risk, a run, and the place fails essentially within a day. But it’s been, because of interest rate risk, insolvent for the better part of the year. Finally, people go, oh, it’s insolvent.
Colin Bruce AnthesIt was a sitting duck.
Bill BlackAnd my deposits are way, way in excess of the insurance limit because that’s what was special at Silicon Valley Bank. Now it’s that old joke about the bear, which Canadians and Americans both tell. The bear appears, and there are two hikers. One of them starts getting out of his hiking boots and putting on his running shoes. The other one turns to him and says, “what the hell are you doing? You can’t outrun a bear.” Of course, the answer is I only have to outrun you. That’s basically it. If you were less bad than the other folks, you might survive even though you’ve been an idiot, gone into bear country, and done everything wrong. You’ve got honey smeared all over your arms and such.
Everybody knows– when I teach public finance, the first risk I start with is interest rate risk. It’s in some ways the most basic and the one that comes from economics the most clearly. Everybody that does this is an economist. So this should be their wheelhouse. They should be great at this stuff. FSOC, the Financial Stability Oversight Committee, which is this creation and is almost exclusively economists, did a report, circa 2015, on interest rate risk. Great. And you know what it says? This is almost a direct quotation. The banks should continue to address interest rate risk.
Colin Bruce AnthesWell, that’s informative.
Bill BlackAnd the regulators should continue to address interest rate risk. You’re going, you got a Ph.D. in economics to do this crap? I mean, this is utterly useless, but it gets better. They put together this presentation. It ain’t all that long, but it has 75 PowerPoint slides with the guts of the number because they’re economists, chart after chart after chart. It doesn’t have the two charts you would absolutely want on interest rate risk. The two charts would be how big is the unrecognized, for accounting purposes, loss in market value due to interest rate changes? Two, if interest rates continue to rise by, say, 200-400,000 basis points– 100 basis points makes 1% of interest– how big will that loss grow to? Those are the two charts you’d want. Those two charts ain’t in it, and there’s nothing like it. There’s nothing from which you could infer, even if you had a Ph.D., what the numbers were. Have you seen either of those two charts?
Colin Bruce AnthesNo.
Bill BlackIn the news coverage? No.
Colin Bruce AnthesNo. How is that possible?
Bill BlackOkay, so again, if you take interest rate risk seriously, then you know it can spark a run. You know if it sparks a run, your stress tests are useless. You base everything on your stress test. Tim Geithner, who ballyhoo stress test, even made his book, Stress Test. So this was largely created as a propaganda exercise to make people feel, oh, it’s not business as usual. The regulators turned over a new leaf, they got tough, and they put them through rigorous. Fannie and Freddie, since they were very good at publicity, they called their stress test nuclear winter scenarios. It was the equivalent of the Holocaust of all Holocausts on multi-dimensions, continuing for 20 years, and they’d just be fine. Whereas in the real world, they were dead, and they were dead at the time they were saying this nonsense. The regulators wanted, after the Great Financial Crisis, to say, “oh, we’ve looked, and it’s actually not a big problem. Look, virtually all of them passed their stress test, and it was typically maybe two that didn’t, and by the next iteration, they all did, or they did with an asterisk type of thing. It worked. Go back and look at the press coverage of the stress test. It got enormous play. All was well and such.” Okay, but it isn’t. So they don’t take interest rate risk seriously. Any time in the press coverage, you see these things. You know that either they don’t know what they’re talking about, or they’re lying deliberately. It’s only a paper loss, is one phrase, or, oh, and this is the Democrats doing this one, oh, these are good assets.
Colin Bruce AnthesI know that what drives you crazy–
Bill BlackThey’re good assets. You just have to hold them to maturity. And you’re going, yes, they are assets that are not going to default because of credit risk. But if I got a bond that’s only earning, which these bonds are earning roughly, according to the press reports, 1.8%, and inflation and market interest rates are more like 5%, then if your bond only makes less than half of market value return, your bond isn’t worth $10,000. Your bond might be worth anywhere between three and six. Remember, the asymmetry of this; they’re betting on the bank’s survival. If they win, they get 1.8%. But if they lose, they lose catastrophically, except that now we have to interrogate the pronouns.
Colin Bruce AnthesRight so it goes back to–
Bill Black[crosstalk 00:24:32] that loses is the bank, not the bankers. And it’s us that ends up bailing them out. Then we have a number of the Democrats saying this isn’t a bailout. Of course, it’s a bailout.
Colin Bruce AnthesThat was the next question I was going to ask you because everybody is bending over backward to say that none of this activity is a bailout.
Bill BlackThe Swiss just said that it wasn’t a bailout because the Swiss passed a law after the Great Financial Crisis that said Switzerland renounces and will never again do a bailout unless, of course, we actually have a large institution fail, at which point we will rush on a Sunday night to execute a bailout. So yes, of course, it’s a bailout.
This next one is a particularly pernicious lie. Oh, no taxpayer dollars. Well, the FDIC fund. No, when you use FDIC fund dollars, that’s a bailout in these circumstances. So I don’t understand it. You could make a perfect criticism of the banks. You could say clearly regulation is a catastrophe. Financial regulation is clearly a catastrophe in the United States. Because, again, some things in finance are really complex. This aspect that we’ve been going through is an absolute no-brainer. It is super, super simple. Undergraduates in my class understand this just fine type of thing when they’ve never taken much of any economics class in their entire experience. Again, because of the asymmetry, there’s no advantage to the federal government in allowing this interest rate gamble. So why are they doing it? I haven’t seen a reporter ask that question. And they’re not just doing it at SVB. The things in the press suggest that the unrealized losses, remember that chart that should exist and should be famously there at the top of every news report, is in the 400 to 600 billion dollar range. So we’re talking about very, very large numbers.
Also, the Fed is the Fed. Do you know tautology? The Fed is a regulator, and the Fed is the one that boosts interest rates and knows that it’s going to boost interest rates. So the Fed, when it’s regulating, the Fed knows with certainty that we’re going to pound– because they act like there’s only one tool to deal with inflation, and that’s causing a recession. If that 60-pound maul doesn’t work, then they get a 120-pound maul and swing it.
So the Fed has examiners too. It’s a regulator of two different types of banks, bank holding companies and state-chartered nonmember banks these are called. So those people know with absolute certainty what’s going to happen, but incidentally, they don’t know exactly, but they don’t need to. They know interest rates are going to go like this, up, and they know that the value of fixed rate bonds and mortgage-backed securities is going to go like this when that happens [Black directs his hand in a downward direction]. So nobody at the Fed can claim to be surprised.
So again, not only have we not seen the two charts, right? One, how big is the hole? Two, how big will it become if interest rates continue to increase? Then there would be a third chart for bonus points, and that is the following. Here’s the scam that goes on. Generally accepted accounting principles don’t require you to recognize; currently, that means put on your actual books the loss from interest rate changes.
Colin Bruce AnthesSo they don’t even tell you the true story.
Bill BlackUnless you are holding the assets for sale, in the older days, which is to say last year, they were holding hundreds of billions for sale. If they continued in that categorization, they’d have to recognize hundreds of billions of losses. So they recharacterized them. Oh, no, no, no. We’re not holding these for sale. We’re holding them for investment. So that should be the third thing. Who’s deliberately hiding their losses through this process? That should be the third level of the chart. How big, in total, is that mischaracterization of the accounting? And which institutions are the big players in that? All of that should be publicly available.
But again, in addition to this FSOC report, remember, this is the economist. The economist specifically to look for the forthcoming risk to make sure we’re not fighting the last war, look ahead, economists, and say an interest rate risk, but then not actually saying anything about what our exposure was, and with this unbelievable, you should continue to monitor interest rate risk. Yes, you should continue playing the piano in the whorehouse. What? No, you should shut it down. There’s no upside to allowing banks to deliberately take substantial interest rate risk. None. There’s a massive downside to them doing it, which is we get stuck with those huge losses.
So the next test of regulation, right? Have you seen the head of the Office of the Comptroller of the currency, the head of the FDIC, and the head of the Federal Reserve issuing guidance saying, stop, don’t do this? I haven’t. Oh, and that’s the next part. I use the word guidance. They used a similar word at FSOC. It’s an advisory. That means it’s deliberately unenforceable. I was an enforcement head, among other things, as a regulator. I can’t enforce it if you’ve chosen to just make it an advisory. An advisory is telling your 16-year-old daughter that dress seems a little provocative. You can say it. It is utterly useless. Every parent knows it’s utterly useless. Every regulator knows the guidance. So if this is absolutely useless, it’s designed to cover your ass. Have you heard of any proposed rules?
Colin Bruce AnthesNo. The fact that this– it sounds very obvious when you say it, but the fact that there’s so much that’s missed. There’s this huge gap that’s missing here in the accountability of the institutions that control our economic life. We saw Barney Frank, who was one of the people at the heart of Dodd-Frank, then became a lobbyist for deregulation afterward.
Bill BlackNot just deregulation, for crypto.
Colin Bruce AnthesFor crypto.
Bill BlackAnd then he claimed that his bank was closed, not because it was a crappy bank, which it was. I mean, SVB was a clown car. It’s not even close. If you can’t get SVB right as a regulator, you really need to leave the job to somebody who can actually do things. But we do not pick regulatory leaders, and we have not picked regulatory leaders for decades. On the basis of they’re going to fix problems and prevent problems because if you do, you piss off the bankers.
Bill Clinton gave an address to banking regulators, and this is how he started it out. I never heard as many complaints as I did about you when I was on the campaign trail. He didn’t then say thank you. That’s exactly what we need. For him, it was self-evident that you had to get out. I got out when, and I witnessed this personally when they came, and they trained us on the new reinventing government of the Clinton-Gore administration. Their big dictate was you must treat the banks and the bankers as your client. Your customer, in fact, was the exact word. And in my own quiet way, I got up and said, surely you meant the people of the United States of America. And they said, no, we thought about that but rejected it.
Well, if you wanted to give an instruction that over the process of the next 30 years would destroy regulation, that would be exactly the mindset that would destroy effective regulation. We are not there. They are not our customers. We are not there to make bankers happy. Now, we do make good bankers happy when we get rid of crappy competitors who are going to blow up the system. But have you heard the bankers putting out a list of the worst institutions or saying interest rate risk is a disaster and it is critical for the banking regulatory agencies to adopt regulation? No, what they’re doing is the opposite. We have columnists and not industry columnists, regular columnists for Reuters who have their beat, finance is part of their beat saying, oh, the problem is we have deposit insurance. And you go, wait a minute, we had the run because they weren’t insured.
Colin Bruce AnthesHow much of it–
Bill BlackFrannie and Freddie were not insured. Bear Stearns was not insured. Lehman Brothers were not insured. The money market mutual funds with a $400 billion run were not insured.
Colin Bruce AnthesIt’s junk.
Bill BlackWe get nonsense, utter nonsense, in the alleged specialty press for finance. Reuters thinks of itself as being particularly skilled in finance. The guy writing it, he has an undergraduate degree in English, which is a perfectly great degree. But it means that it didn’t come from him. Somebody in the industry told him this thing, and it sounded cool. His title is something like: Deposit Insurance is Not the Cure, It’s the problem; or something along those lines. It is exactly the opposite of what we’ve observed in life.
What did we have to do to stop the largest run in world history? How many people know what the largest run was in world history? It was $400 billion on the money market mutual funds, which were not insured after Lehman Brothers failed. The only way to break that run is that we temporarily extended, for over a year, federal deposit insurance to break that run.
Colin Bruce AnthesAnd yet these are the lines that are getting released through the media at this time. So it’s just bogus going around.
Bill BlackRight. And as I said, neither party has it right. And these are people that ordinarily, I mean, ex-profs that are very good but are saying things that are nonsensical because they don’t understand finance.
Colin Bruce AnthesWell, how much of this is caused by incompetence, and how much of it is incompetence that gets promoted through the revolving door?
Bill BlackThey don’t need the revolving door anymore. For now, over a full generation, they don’t appoint people to run regulatory agencies if they believe in regulating. Tom Frank, I don’t know if that’s a familiar person– What’s the Matter with Kansas?– asked me early after the Great Financial Crisis because I had appeared in this Obama campaign thing about the savings and loan debacle because John McCain was one of the Keating Five. I met with him, and he tried to intervene on behalf of Keating and such. Tom Frank asked me early after the Great Financial Crisis, when are you going to get a senior position? About five minutes later, after I could stop laughing, I had to explain that at that time, about 350 million Americans would have to die before they would ever– I would be the literal last person they would ever allow to have authority again because we didn’t just put them in receivership properly, we put them in prison. They’re not about to recreate that danger. You saw both Republican and Democratic administrations; now they don’t.
Credit Suisse, in the Great Financial Crisis, we did a Justice Department deal with them, a sweetheart deal with them, in which one of the findings of the Justice Department was that Credit Suisse had been defrauding the United States of America with the same basic fraud scheme for over a century. I didn’t say a decade; I said a century. So you’re talking about tens of millions of frauds, and they gave them a sweetheart deal. Then they did four more scams since the Great Financial Crisis and then blew up the second-biggest bank in Switzerland. So now the largest is going to acquire it. So now we’re going to have the too big to fail problem, absolutely controlling. That bank, UBS, is going to have more assets than the GDP of Switzerland.
Colin Bruce AnthesUBS, their statement actually said that they did not want to make this deal. Do you want to speak to that?
Bill BlackYeah, part of that’s true. Now, obviously, they love being a monopolist, and they love being too big to fail. Especially, as I said, because Switzerland, after the Great Financial Crisis, put in statute, we cannot, we hereby promise and remove any ability to bail out. So they’re saying there’s no bailout. There’s no bailout. There’s no bailout. There’s a $160 billion bailout through various credit lines and other such things. But on top of that, so little in the weeds, bankruptcy priority. You pay off secured creditors first and unsecured creditors. Then there’s this category that’s actually what junk bonds are, which are called subordinated debt because you subordinate your priority in bankruptcy to regular creditors. Then below that, the last folks are the shareholders. Each group has to be paid in full for the group below it to get anything; each higher group has priority. Except that subordinated debt has a higher priority than equity, and they directed that the equity would receive three billion and the subordinated debt would receive zero.
Colin Bruce AnthesI saw just before I logged on to this interview that there was an expected lawsuit coming from those people.
Bill BlackOh, yeah, I bet you. But beyond that, conservative economists love subordinated debt. To them, the FDIC is the great Satan. Federal deposit insurance is the great Satan, and subordinated debt is the most wonderful thing. These people will be the ideal folks to exert private market discipline, which is to stage a run, except you can’t run unsubordinated debt. So it’s a really odd thing to deliberately screw the sub-debt holders when they should be paid in full, and they’re not only not going to be paid in full, they’ll get zero cents on the dollar. So again, as soon as governments get into a too big to fail institution, failing, all the rules depart. The bank holds hostage the entire national economy and sometimes the global economy. To which my point is, then why do we allow them to be that big?
Colin Bruce AnthesYeah. So that’s the next question I have. If they’re already this big, what steps would need to be taken to get us into something that is sustainable? And is there anybody out there who is talking about taking those kinds of steps?
Bill BlackNo, other than fringey progressive types, as to the second question. As to the first, the way you would do it is say, we’re not going to tell you what to sell, but you have five years, roughly, to get down below a level of systemically dangerous. In the modern era, at the time of 2008, that was probably around 50 billion in assets. These days, maybe it’s 70 billion. But we have three trillion-dollar institutions. As your point is, we’re going in the wrong direction. Concentration is increasing. Back to your very first question, if you don’t ask about finance, but if you ask about the 20 largest banks in the world, they do ballpark 99% of all financial derivatives. So in many areas, it’s hyper-concentrated beyond the concentration numbers. And as big as finance is, financial derivatives– now there’s some technical stuff about how you number it, but they are much bigger than what they call the real economy. So this is completely out of control. There is no democratic control. There is no meaningful democratic process when it comes to finance. So if you want to take back– this could be you would think transcend right, left lines. If you want to take back democratic control, you would be really well advised to start with finance because (A) finance blows up the world periodically. (B) when it’s not blowing it up, it is systematically misallocating assets. It’s creating hyperinflated bubbles that are absolutely nonsensical. It’s creating palaces. It’s doing things the opposite of economic theory. The economic theory is providing finance is what drives economic growth. But since we’ve made finance all powerful, roughly 35 years ago, growth sucks. The places where they really made finance, absolutely in control, Japan, well, it ain’t a single lost decade at this point, folks. It’s really three lost decades in terms of Japan. So we’re not getting what the conservative economist promised us, which was things were going to be super great.
What are we getting? What do we really observe when we see the really big financial institutions– not financial institutions, really big commercial institutions, but where the whipped hand is held by finance? We see stock buybacks, and not little stock buybacks, stock buybacks that are staggering in their amount. All of that says we have no productive use for our capital to invest and make good products, hire workers, and things like that. We’re out of ideas, useful ideas. So we’re just going to– of course, what’s really going on is stock buybacks, raise stock prices, and make the CEO’s bonus.
Colin Bruce AnthesThat gets back to the other thing.
Bill BlackSo that’s why it’s going on. The bank, SVB, Silicon Valley Bank, did not gain by buying a ton of 1.8% yield treasuries and mortgage-backed securities. That was something that doomed the bank. Again, the asymmetry of risk and return, (A) they did this gamble knowing that the Fed was going to massively raise interest rates and that they would lose. But that comes back to pronouns again. Who’s the they? The bankers were going to win. The bankers had paper, I don’t know, but maybe eight-tenths of 1% because rates were so incredibly low. Now they do 1.8%. Oh, well, then my nominal income, not my real income, but my stated income goes up, and it was all due to my brilliance in investment. So I get bigger bonuses, and the stock appreciates. The stock capitalization of SVB shortly before the disaster was $15 billion. Again, markets are not efficient. The markets that are most likely to be efficient, according to economist, are financial markets. They ain’t. They’re not a little bit off. In Yiddish, they’re farblunget [farblondjet]. This is literally lost, but farblunget is I’m trying to drive from Detroit to Toronto, and 18 hours later, I noticed that the signs, the highway signs, are all in Spanish, not Quebecois. I didn’t just take a little bit wrong turn and end up in Montreal instead of Toronto. I ended up in Mexico. That’s farblunget.
So that’s how crazy– again, it’s so obviously crazy. It has failed so spectacularly that neither party has actually seriously sought to fix it. I think the Democrats thought they did, and I’m sure some of them did, but it was absolutely incoherent. They didn’t actually ask people who had succeeded what works. That was the last thing in the world. So if they can’t fix the– and indeed now, they don’t even try to fix it. Now it’s just a you did it type of thing. The explanations are nuts. Wokeness or, oh, my God, if we’d only had stress tests, all would have been well.
Colin Bruce AnthesSo the bipartisan ignorance is not something that you’re seeing dissipate in the slightest way after this crash, after this crisis has taken place?
Bill BlackYeah, it’s worse than just ignorance. It’s just not serious.
Colin Bruce AnthesIt’s an unwillingness.
Bill BlackAgain, lots of folks are contributing to this. I know everybody picks on mainstream media, but it’s true in this case. You just don’t see serious analytics. You get descriptions but not serious analytics.
Colin Bruce AnthesI wondered, as we get towards the end of this interview, if you could speak to something that the economist Michael Hudson, who cites your book all the time, recently said, which is that, in some ways, he sees this crisis as worse than what he saw in 2008 because 2008 was really a scam. Whereas in this case, what we’re seeing are some practices that have been standard among many banks for a long time being exposed by rising interest rates. So this is more of a problem at the heart of the practices that have been building in recent years across the financial sector. What do you make of that?
Bill BlackI won’t get into the definitional stuff about how you rate what’s actually worse, but I agree with this fundamental point on the difference. Again, this is what I’ve been trying to express. Fraud people are unwilling to admit, right? You can’t simply look at reports that the institutions provide and have a particularly good understanding of the fraud. That’s not true with interest rate risk. You just have to look at the numbers. Again, the point is, it’s just so easy. It was so easy for the bankers to avoid it. It was so easy for the regulators to avoid it. Not only did they not avoid it, but even now, where they see all these terrible things happening– this is the second and third largest bank failures in U.S. history, and it was easy to prevent.
Again, in the last one, there was all this hoopla around, we’re helping, in particular, poor minorities by lending to them. That was the whole shtick in the defense in the run-up to the Great Financial Crisis. There’s no such thing. This isn’t lending at all. This is what I do and how I invest my funds as a bank. It is a completely different function. As I said, undergraduates can figure this out. Again, just to ask you, have you even heard anybody else go, what reports would I want?
Colin Bruce AnthesWell I guess the–
Bill BlackWhen I say that the reports that we wanted, and again, the reports were, how big are the unrecognized losses due to interest rate changes? And how much bigger will they get if interest rates continue to increase? Those are not hypothetical things. Those are charts that I and my counterparts used to look at in 1984. We didn’t invent them. So probably they were there before in 1984. I joined the federal agency in 1984. That is quickly approaching 40 years ago. I have a feeling technology has gotten better in the last 39 years, not worse. We never claimed to be geniuses. We could get it right, and now they have the benefit of our experience because remember, the first act of the savings and loan debacle was interest rate risk.
Colin Bruce AnthesRight. I want to close with a two-part question. If you were speaking to a member of Congress right now about one thing that they should stand up and champion right off the bat, get up and make a speech about, and if you were speaking to someone in a major media outlet about the first way they should start reporting this, what would your advice to both of those figures be?
Bill BlackI would say I want those two charts.
Colin Bruce AnthesTwo charts.
Bill BlackAnd I want every regulator to provide them. Then my second thing would be, here’s the asymmetry between Democrats and Republicans. The following Democrats, as president, have reappointed Republican appointees as chairman of the Fed. That would be the last three Democratic presidents. All of them reappointed Republican appointees as chairman of the Fed, even though they knew they were hard-right, and we’re talking about Alan Greenspan of Ayn Rand.
Colin Bruce AnthesA literal disciple of Ayn Rand.
Bill BlackA literal disciple of Ayn Rand type of thing, and Democrats reappointed him. Do you know the last time a Republican reappointed a Democratic nominee?
Colin Bruce AnthesHas it happened?
Bill BlackI am not personally aware of it ever happening. It certainly never happened when I was an adult. So it has not happened in the last 50 years, roughly. Again, Democrats play slow-pitch softball and not the industrial league thing where you arc it 30 feet in the air. No, the kind when you want your kid to hit it. And Republicans play hardball. It doesn’t work well for the nation. I don’t care whether it works for the Democrats. It doesn’t work well for the nation.
Colin Bruce AnthesWell said. I want to thank you so much for providing some much-needed clarity at a time when there isn’t much clarity going on. I hope some people out there are listening to the things that you’ve been saying because there’s clearly a lot of room for improvement from what we’re doing right now. So, Bill Black, thank you so much for taking the time and for providing some invaluable insight at this crucial juncture.
Bill BlackThank you. Thank you for the channel’s efforts.
Colin Bruce AnthesWe’ll continue to do our best to cover these events as they unfold with figures like Bill Black. Please remember to like, subscribe, and ring that bell for notifications. If you’re able to hit that donate button, we would certainly appreciate your support. Thank you so much for tuning in.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)User my donation to help support the upcoming documentary "How to stop a nuclear war" (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter
Email(Required)Name(Required) First Last Δ
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
Over a year has passed since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24th, 2022, with both sides suffering enormous casualties. Talia Baroncelli speaks to retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson about the credibility of various reports on the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage, noticeable tensions between Wagner Group’s Yevgeny Prigozhin and Russian President Vladimir Putin, as well as possible steps towards achieving a negotiated settlement.
Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg continue their discussion about how to avoid nuclear war.
Saudi Arabia and Iran have agreed to re-establish diplomatic ties, with China showing itself to be a neutral and effective negotiator in the region. Talia Baroncelli speaks to Trita Parsi, the Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, on how this shift in Saudi-Iran relations affects Israel's posture toward achieving normalization with Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, the United States' recent departure from its usual condemnation of Israeli drone strikes on Iran and its open support for Israeli belligerence signals a new dangerous policy that increases the likelihood of war with Iran.
Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg discuss American objectives in the Ukraine war and the preparations for war with China.
Why net zero commitments are empty and dangerously misleading if we continue to burn fossil fuels. Talia Baroncelli speaks to retired physician and IPCC climate expert Peter Carter about how ongoing wars, illegal mineral wealth extraction in active conflict zones, and the plunder of resources by transnational corporations are literally killing the planet.
In part 2 of "North of 48," Paul is asked about working with Daniel Ellsberg on his film "How to Stop a Nuclear War."
War crimes, coercion, and illegal surveillance: Stefania Maurizi's book "Secret Power: Wikileaks and its Enemies" chronicles Wikileaks' publication of secret documents and the ongoing dehumanizing treatment of its founder, Julian Assange. Talia Baroncelli speaks to investigative journalist Stefania Maurizi.
The Australien Government has made an ad about the Safeguard Mechanism - Labor's key climate policy to reach its 2030 emissions target - and it's surprisingly honest and informative. This video was originally published by The Juice Media on February 15, 2023.
Boris Kagarlitsky talks about the mood of the Russian people and the possibility that the Russian military leadership might insist on ending the war.
Paul Jay is a guest on North of 48, where he discusses the Ukraine war in the context of the risk of nuclear war and climate catastrophe.
Breaking up mafia networks requires a strategy that is not just crime-focused but addresses socio-economic inequalities to prevent the mafia from preying on society's most vulnerable. It must upend the reliance of politicians and international finance on dirty money. Talia Baroncelli speaks to Sergio Nazzaro, an investigative journalist specializing in criminal networks.
Eddie Conway, a fearless fighter for working people everywhere, died on February 13th. Eddie was a Black Panther who was unjustly imprisoned for 44 years. In his honor we republish a series of biographical interviews hosted by Paul Jay, first released in 2015.
Economists Gerald Epstein and Aaron Medlin's data shows the paradox of ignoring employment and choosing to throw workers out of work has persisted over time at the Federal Reserve.
The Australien Government has made an ad for its new AUKUS military alliance, and it’s surprisingly honest and informative. This video was originally published by The Juice Media on October 2, 2021.
Why net zero emissions by 2050 cannot be attained if carbon capture and storage is used to pump more oil and gas out of the ground. Talia Baroncelli speaks to Bruce Robertson, energy analyst at IEEFA.
The False Promise of Carbon Capture and StorageExposing Apocalyptic Economics with Steve KeenNavy Puts Climate Change at Top of Threat List – Larry WilkersonState of Big Tech 2022: Dismantling National & Global Digital EnclosuresReal Climate Solutions are No Mystery – PollinHow to Fight Inflation Without Attacking Workers – PollinDebunking Net Zero, Carbon Offsets, Nature-Based Solutions, Climate Smart Agriculture, Bioeconomy…A Warning From Chomsky and EllsbergBiden’s Bill has Significant Funding for Climate but 10% of What’s Needed – Bob PollinProgressive Running Against a Corp Dem in Boeing CountryThe Capitalist Solution to ‘Save’ the Planet: Make it an Asset Class & Sell itDaniel Ellsberg on Nuclear War and UkraineA Dire Warning About the End of Human CivilizationNationalize Fossil Fuel to Fight Climate Change and Inflation – Bob PollinFossil Fuel and Private Equity Love Trump – Thomas Ferguson Pt 3/4Carl Sagan testifying before Congress in 1985 on climate changeHumanity will not be saved by promisesCOP 26: End the Cynicism and Denial – pt 2/2COP 26: End the Cynicism and Denial – pt 1/2House Committee Chairwoman Maloney Nails Oil ExecutivesStop Subsidizing Wall St., Start Subsidizing Workers for High Energy Costs – Bob PollinBiden Heads to COP 26 Throttled by Manchin and Trumpists – with Bob PollinA Conversation With Paul Jay – Pt 4Current Climate Extremes Double at 2 Degrees Warming and Quadruple at 3 – Lead IPCC AuthorA Just Transition Now or Climate Disaster is InevitableNot Much Climate Plan in Biden Jobs Plan – Robert Pollin Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Guest * Music*
Talia BaroncelliHi, I’m Talia Baroncelli, and you’re watching theAnalysis.news. I’ll shortly be joined by Bruce Robertson to speak about carbon capture. But first, if you enjoy this content, please go to our website, theAnalysis.news, and hit the donate button as well as the subscribe button. I’ll be back in a bit.
Joining me now is Bruce Robertson. He is an energy analyst at the IEEFA [Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis] and is joining me now today to speak about carbon capture. Thanks so much for joining me, Bruce.
Bruce RobertsonThank you very much, Talia.
Talia BaroncelliWhy don’t we start talking about the history of carbon capture technology and how it first developed?
Bruce RobertsonWell, the fascinating thing about carbon capture and storage is it originally started in the 1970s. Back in the 1970s, climate change really wasn’t much of an issue apart from with some scientists. As far as the social issue goes, it really wasn’t until the 2000s that we saw climate change become a major issue. It started originally as a production technique for getting more oil out of depleted oil and gas wells. In other words, oil and gas wells that had reached the end of their life, what they did was they pumped carbon dioxide underground, and they forced more oil and gas out of the other end, and it was collected by a well. So it was a method called enhanced oil recovery in those days. Then in a neat trick of rebranding, the oil and gas industry named it the more climate-friendly sort of moniker, carbon capture and storage. So originally, it was just an oil and gas production technique.
Talia BaroncelliOkay, so speaking about how they were rebranding it, could we potentially say that it’s become a form of greenwashing? Specifically referring to one of the reports you co-authored recently in September called The Carbon Capture Crux, where you speak about how approximately 73% of carbon capture storage capacity actually goes towards enhanced oil recovery.
Bruce RobertsonYeah, it is still mainly a method of producing more emissions. I think that’s really the key point. I mean, if you use it to produce more oil and gas, that oil and gas end up getting burnt and producing more emissions. The primary use of carbon capture and storage as it stands today is an emissions production technique effectively. But if we look at where the industry is going, it is actually looking more at pure carbon capture and storage where it doesn’t use it for enhanced oil recovery. It is looking to try and decarbonize what they term the difficult-to-decarbonize industries, such as steel and cement.
Steel probably is less of a difficult industry to decarbonize now because the Swedes are being pretty successful with their hydrogen-based steel-making technique called the HYBRIT technique. Cement still is a difficult industry to decarbonize, and obviously, it’s a very large global industry.
Talia BaroncelliHow expensive is it to actually do this carbon capture, storage, and sequestration? I guess that would depend on the different techniques that are used and what exactly is being processed and stored.
Bruce RobertsonYeah, look in gas– if we have a look at the different types of carbon capture and storage, it really is not just one industry. Unfortunately, it’s not quite that simple. If we have a look at the different types, the most common types that are used today are on gas plants, gas processing plants. When gas is produced, you can’t have too much carbon dioxide in the methane stream. Methane is what you actually burn in your gas cooker or whatever. It’s actually methane, what they term gas.
They need to get the carbon dioxide out of that because if there’s too much carbon dioxide in with the methane, it doesn’t burn very easily, and that creates problems for users of the product. So they remove the carbon dioxide. That form of removal is very common. It’s been around a long time because they have to do it to make the product and sell gas.
If we look at removing carbon dioxide from power plants, which is what a lot of people assume carbon capture and storage is all about, that’s far more difficult. It’s far more difficult because the stream of carbon dioxide is more diluted, so it’s more expensive. What it does is it makes the power that’s produced at the back end of the plant very, very expensive. Apart from that, it really hasn’t been very successful at actually doing what it’s meant to do.
We studied 13 flagship projects in this area, across the board, across all these industries, the gas industry, the power production industry, and others, and we found that only three have performed roughly how they’re meant to. Three had totally failed, pretty much, and seven had underperformed. When they had underperformed, they hadn’t underperformed by typically 10% or 20%; they had underperformed by typically 40% to 50%. They really did not do what they were meant to do– most of the majority of these projects that have been done in the past, and there are lots of examples of that.
Talia BaroncelliWell, why were they underperforming? Is it because the technology still needs to be developed more? Or is it an issue of scale? Like, did they just need to be scaled up in order to be more effective?
Bruce RobertsonWell, no, unfortunately, the answer is no to both of those because the industry is old. It’s an over 50-year-old industry now. It’s not a new technology, and that’s at scale. It’s actually been done at scale since the 1970s. This is the key point. It’s not like we’ve just started doing carbon capture storage. It’s been going for half a century and at scale for half a century.
If we look at some of the big projects, for example, the reasons are always different why these projects don’t succeed. That’s another complicating factor with this technology is that it’s not a technology that can be successful in one field, and you take it up and put it in another and expect it to be successful. It doesn’t work that way. Each time you build one of these plants, it’s a unique engineering feat. That’s one of the key reasons why it’s been unsuccessful is that it’s not something you can just replicate easily.
The best example of this is the largest pure storage, carbon capture and storage project. In other words, they don’t use carbon dioxide to produce oil, and that’s actually at an LNG [Liquefied natural gas] plant in Northwest Western Australia called the Gorgon plant. Now, this plant is owned by Chevron, and the major partners in it are Exxon and Shell. So arguably, you’ve got access to some of the best petroleum engineers on the planet. There are three major oil companies, and it started about five or six years ago. Look, it’s just never been able to do what it said it could do. It’s still having problems today. The reason for that is where they’re putting it into is different from other places. They’ve had trouble with the sand clogging sensors, they’ve had trouble with corrosion pipes, and they’ve had all these different problems that are unique to that particular site. It means that it’s not been a successful project, despite over $3 billion USD being spent on it. We’re not talking about a cheap plant here. It’s a lot of money, a lot of engineering expertise, and it’s failed. This is not uncommon in carbon capture and storage.
Talia BaroncelliWell, it sounds like it really is a deep carbonization pipe dream if it’s not as effective as a lot of industry actors and people investing in it would hope it to be. I think the International Energy Agency, a report that you mentioned in your report, stated that we would need something like 1.6 billion tons of carbon capture storage by 2030 in order to reach net zero emissions by 2050. I mean, what does that even mean? How big are those numbers, and how far away are we from reaching that?
Bruce RobertsonWell, we’re a very, very long way away from reaching it. Look, I don’t want to sit here and pretend to you that the decarbonization and the climate challenge are easy. It’s not an easy challenge. The IEA is looking at this and saying– and other governments, such as the U.S. government, in particular, with the Inflation Reduction Act, and the U.K. government and Europe– they’re all looking towards carbon capture and storage as the solution for a large part of the emissions reductions that they’re looking at. At the moment, that looks to be a very problematic solution, in our opinion.
We entered this study with a reasonably open mind as to what was going to come out of the back end of it. All we were doing is we were actually looking at these projects, and we weren’t actually saying that they should capture so much carbon dioxide. We were looking at what the proponents, the actual proponents of the project, were saying that they were going to do at the beginning of the project. If they said, “we’re only going to capture 50% of the fluid gas coming up,” we used that. We didn’t say, “oh, we want them to capture 90%, 100%, or whatever.” We just used what the proponents said their plant was going to do at the beginning of the process and said, “alright, how did they perform against that, against their actual metrics?” I think that’s really a key point in the way we went about this study. It is actually using the proponent’s framework, and they fell very far short of what would be reasonable. I think that that’s the key point here is that we’re not putting our framework on it. It’s what these companies thought they could do. That is why we think it’s such a problematic technology.
Talia BaroncelliYou mentioned the Inflation Reduction Act. I think we all remember the crazy roller coaster ride Joe Manchin took us on leading up to the passing of the Inflation Reduction Act. I mean, it was a mess, but it was passed. There are a lot of climate provisions in it. It puts a huge emphasis on carbon capture storage. Given the doubts that you’ve expressed with regards to this technology, why do you think the IRA, not the Irish IRA, Inflation Reduction Act places such a huge emphasis on this technology?
Bruce RobertsonIt is the most curiously named act, isn’t it? The IRA Act.
Talia BaroncelliI know.
Bruce RobertsonWe have this terrorist organization [crosstalk 00:13:21].
Talia BaroncelliIs it possibly off carbon bonds? I don’t know.
Bruce RobertsonThe whole inflation reduction thing, I don’t really understand why it’s even called that. We won’t go into the finer things of the naming of that act. If we look at why they turn to it, essentially, it’s the same reason that governments all around the world are looking at this. There are two things. One, they’re struggling to work out how to get to net zero without it. That’s the first point. The second point is we should never forget the lobbying power of the oil and gas industry globally and their power globally to try and entrench themselves in the energy system for longer. They used to eat carbon capture and storage as a method of doing this, of entrenching their products, which are oil and gas, in the energy system for longer. Because every time they build one of these, they say, this is the solution, and this is the way forward. But we’ve had that. We’ve gone through that phase. We’ve seen what’s happened with Gorgon’s plant in Western Australia. We’ve seen what’s happened with Shute Creek in the USA, in Wyoming since the 1980s, and its performance, or lack thereof, in terms of a climate solution.
Now, Shute Creek has been a successful project from the point of view of the company because it’s made money and it has used carbon dioxide byproducts successfully to produce more oil and gas. But as a climate solution, it simply fails. I think that this is the key differential. What are you aiming to do with carbon capture and storage? Are you actually aiming to solve the climate problem, or are you aiming to keep oil and gas in the energy system for longer? Really, when you look at it, it’s pretty much the industry trying to keep oil and gas in the system for longer.
There are some exceptions to this, and the exceptions to this are industries like cement, where so far, we haven’t really got a solution for dealing with the emissions from the cement industry. Cement is something that is very widely used, as everyone knows, all around the world in concrete, building, highways, and all sorts of other infrastructure. At the moment, decarbonizing cement is immensely difficult, and that’s why some people are turning to carbon capture and storage for these types of industrial emissions, hoping that they can get these projects to work. That’s a pretty big leap of faith at the moment, given the history and history of failure in the industry.
Talia BaroncelliDo you think climate disclosure would be another way to tackle some of these issues? I don’t know if you’ve been following the U.S. SEC, the Security Exchange Commission’s proposal on climate disclosure. Basically, the proposal was to make companies disclose their greenhouse gas emissions. It was met with a lot of consternation from big companies such as BlackRock, one of the leading asset management firms in the world. They were obviously not very happy with this proposal because then they would have to disclose the financial risk and scope three emissions, which are basically downstream emissions. How important is this type of disclosure?
Bruce RobertsonIt’s incredibly important, especially the scope three. Just to sort of go through a very quick basic explainer about what scope one, two, and three are. Look, if you look at oil and gas, for example, scope one and two emissions are when you produce the oil and gas, and scope three is when you burn the oil and gas.
Now, the big problem we have at the moment is greenwashing of gas and LNG. There are terms used like carbon-neutral LNG, and it’s companies trying to basically take only the production emissions, the scope one and two emissions, and say, “well, we’re offsetting all those emissions either by buying carbon credits on the international carbon credit market or maybe electrifying part of their process instead of burning gas.” Now, the problem with that is approximately, and it depends on the product, approximately 85% of the emissions occur when you actually burn the product. So there are scope three emissions. So these guys are saying, “we’re producing carbon-neutral LNG,” but that’s only for the 15%. Even if that claim is correct, and there’s a lot of controversy over carbon credit units, as I’m sure you’re aware, but that’s a whole other podcast topic. It’s not really for today, but the efficacy of those units has been called into question.
Even if they were good and were genuine offsets, and even if the companies did electrify processes and managed to produce in that production stage, LNG that wasn’t carbon neutral, the big problem is when you actually burn the product. That’s when most of the emissions occur. The burning of the product can’t occur without the production of the product. This is the whole disconnect in carbon accounting.
Global warming is a global problem, and often people that don’t like the idea of reducing emissions use that phrase, but it’s very true. If you produce a product, you’ve got to know that at the end of the process, it’s going to get burnt and create emissions because, let’s face it, we’re never going to capture the carbon that comes off the back of your car for example, or your gas stove in your house. We have to take what’s called product stewardship, and that’s what the SEC was actually looking at. It was saying, “well, what are your scope, one, two, and three emissions? What are the emissions of when they burn your product?”
Much like the tobacco industry, for example, could claim that no harm was made in the production of their cigarettes. Well, it’s quite frankly a bit irrelevant because the damage occurs when you smoke the cigarette. This really is the problem with carbon accounting at the moment, is it’s all done on national view and on national carbon accounts.
For example, where I come from, which is probably one of the worst offenders of this, so I’m allowed to talk about it; we don’t take the scope three emissions of all the LNG that we produce into account. So we produce this and go, “well, we’ve got a net zero target for 2050, and we’re still opening up new oil and gas fields all over the shop and new coal mines and everything else and claiming that we’re going to meet net zero by 2050.” Well, it’s quite frankly dishonest because we know that if we open up the oil and gas fields, we can’t reach net zero by 2050. It’s a really basic thing. We just can’t reach net zero by 2050 if we open up new oil and gas fields. It’s all to do with this carbon accounting. Carbon accounting is, quite frankly, quite misleading.
Talia BaroncelliYeah, well, let’s pivot to where you’re from, to your corner of the world, Australia, and speak about some of the really exorbitant gas prices there, because Australia is one of the largest LNG exporters, and the industry is highly subsidized. Why are gas prices so damn high in Australia?
Bruce RobertsonWell, the funny thing is they are, and they aren’t, Talia. This is the amazing thing because the country is actually divided in two. We have a state-based system, much like the U.S. In Western Australia, prices are very cheap, and there’s no problem in the energy system at all in terms of electricity or gas prices. In Eastern Australia, it’s totally the reverse. We have very high gas prices. At times, since 2014, gas prices have been above international prices. This came about prior to 2014. The East Coast really didn’t produce that much gas; it only supplied the domestic market. Then, in 2014, we discovered large coal seam gas fields, which is getting gas out of coal seams using fracking. In Queensland– and they built three big export terminals. Now the East Coast market is over 70% exports, and only a small amount of gas is used domestically.
What happened was that the three consortiums that built those plants took over a lot of smaller companies. They signed all these contracts with the smaller companies that had exclusivity provisions in them that they could only supply the export plants. Effectively, now these three consortiums control 90% of all the known reserves on the east coast of Australia. What they do is they manipulate the price. They formed a cartel, a gas cartel, and they manipulate the price and keep it extraordinarily high.
There’s a lesson here, actually, in going so heavily into exports for the U.S., and this is what’s really interesting because the model to make gas prices high is Australia for the oil and gas industry, and the U.S. is actually following that model.
Talia BaroncelliIs that because the U.S. presumably also has a very low tax burden on the industry, as well as a monopoly or oligopoly?
Bruce RobertsonNo, in the U.S., it’s slightly different because you do actually have a market for gas. We don’t have a market for gas in Australia because you just got these three people controlling the price. In the U.S., you do have a market for gas, but how the U.S. is following what Australia did is it is overbuilding LNG plants and what that will cause. Look, if there was a small, medium-sized LNG industry in the U.S., it wouldn’t be a problem, but they are continuing to build a lot of plants. And what that’s going to do over time is force up gas prices in the U.S. more to international levels, more to the levels of gas prices you see in Europe and Asia, which are exorbitantly high. I think that that’s the key point. The key point is that you have this ability to reprice your domestic gas to the international market, and that’s the big prize for the U.S. oil and gas companies. It is not the expensive export market, but it’s making those expensive prices go into the domestic market.
Talia BaroncelliOne thing I’ve always wondered– why is gas labeled a transition form of energy? I mean, that word is somewhat confusing to me because it’s still emitting tons of greenhouse gas emissions, and yet it’s considered to be a kind of clean form of energy.
Bruce RobertsonWell, put simply, gas is just another fossil fuel. When we look at global emissions, 25% of all emissions are methane, which is natural gas. So 25% of all emissions are methane, greenhouse gas emissions. Methane emissions are growing so fast. In the COVID recession-affected year of 2020, they grew at the fastest rate in history. In 2021, after COVID ended, they grew faster. So in 2022, they grew faster again. So we’ve got this accelerating trend in methane emissions, and that’s because, basically, the expansion of the oil and gas industry, particularly the gas industry in the U.S., in Qatar, Australia, in all these nations, and we are still seeing very large expansion projects get put in.
As I said before, we all know that if any new oil and gas fields open up, we can’t meet our net zero commitments. We all know that gas fields around the globe are being opened up at a very rapid rate. That’s why you’re seeing the continued rise in greenhouse gases. It’s driven by the gas industry. It’s driven by the gas industry. There’s been this pivot from the oil and gas industry and the fossil fuel industry, basically from oil and coal into gas, and that’s driving climate change at the moment.
Talia BaroncelliWell, I wanted to speak about Europe very briefly. I mean, even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there were really high energy prices in Europe. Recently, a lot of European politicians have been saying that they’ve managed to avert an energy crisis and that, I guess, they were expecting prices to be even higher this winter, but because temperatures haven’t been all that cold, they maybe were able to avert this crisis. So what does that mean? Have they been able to diversify or just find other countries to give them more gas, or what’s going on?
Bruce RobertsonLook, Europe’s essentially, well, Russia has essentially precipitated a global gas crisis. What happened was that Putin turned off the taps, literally. Big pipelines that went to Europe and supplied them with their winter fuel were basically turned off. Obviously, this was a disaster for Europe because they relied on Russian gas for a large part of their energy system. The crisis has been averted for now in Europe, principally because of the weather. Very warm winter for no other reason. If you had a very cold winter, we wouldn’t be saying this. I’m sure it would be a lot more marginal. Europe did build a lot of gas storages. It imported as much LNG as it could get its hands on. But most LNG is sold on long-term contracts. So there isn’t a lot of spare LNG out there in the globe. So when this happened in Europe, they soaked up all the spare, the short-term cargoes of LNG they possibly could, and all the LNG plants all around the globe ran as fast as they possibly could because there was this massive profit-making opportunity for them. You saw the combination of those two things occur.
What did that actually do to gas? It made it prohibitively expensive in other countries. Countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India, they simply couldn’t afford the fuel. They had relied on the short-term market because, historically, the short-term market was cheaper than long-term contracts. They had relied on that for their power systems. What it meant was that it became so expensive they couldn’t afford to buy it because they knew if they sent out the electricity bills that would run off that high-cost gas and high-cost LNG, people wouldn’t pay them. So literally, you had rolling blackouts in countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh caused by the LNG crisis that was precipitated by Russia turning off the taps to gas to Europe. So that had this amazing effect on these countries. So what higher LNG prices have done is they’ve actually lowered demand in what were expected to be growing markets for the LNG industry. In the medium to longer term, they’ve killed those markets with high prices.
Talia BaroncelliBut has that affected their margins and their profits because if they’ve essentially lowered demand, people aren’t consuming as much of that gas? Will that inevitably mean that these companies will then lower their prices over the long term, or you don’t see it working out that way?
Bruce RobertsonIn the short term, Europe is soaking up all the gas it possibly can because the amount of gas it was buying out of Russia was very large. So in the short term, LNG prices are still strong. They’re coming off a bit now because the gas storages in Europe are still quite full and because it’s a warm winter. But it’s only a seasonal thing. It’s only a short-term seasonal thing. In the medium term, what you’re seeing in Europe is the rapid electrification of a lot of houses that previously relied on gas. They’re turning to heat pumps, and they’re manufacturing a lot of heat pumps right now and installing an awful lot of heat pumps. So they’re electrifying their systems, which means long-term demand destruction for gas. Once you put an electric boiler in your house to heat your home, you don’t buy gas again. It’s a long-term demand destruction. The high gas prices are causing demand destruction globally. In Europe, high gas prices and mainly the fear of lack of availability rather than the actual lack of availability have meant that there’s been long-term demand destruction by people turning to electrify their homes.
In Asia, in developing Asia, it’s just too expensive, so they’re turning to alternative forms of fuel, whatever they can, just not gas. Coal is very expensive as well on the globally traded market. So that’s also facing similar issues to gas long term. You are seeing a burn in renewables globally on the back of this. So it’s kind of perverse how such a great event for the LNG industry is turning into one that, long term, will lower their demand.
Talia BaroncelliSo how important is it that big industrial powers like the U.S. or supernational entities like the E.U. work with China to meet these climate goals, despite some of the differences that they have geopolitically?
Bruce RobertsonGlobal warming is a global problem, as I always say, and we have to work together. Now, the classic example is the treatment of China. A lot of people see China as a global pariah in the climate thing for whatever reason. But we have to look at why emissions in China have risen. They’ve risen because the Western world, Europe, the U.S., Australia, we’ve all basically deindustrialized a lot of our economies and sent that manufacturing to China. We’ve exported our emissions essentially to China. So we can’t complain about Chinese emissions rising when phones, computers, and many products are now made in China that weren’t before. So we have to work together to solve this emissions problem. We did it before with CFCs. We worked globally, and there were big issues between Russia and the U.S. at the time, but we managed to do that and solve that problem. Working globally has been done before to solve global environmental issues that are threatening us. We can do it again. We must do it again. We must realize, as a starting point, that the Western world has exported a lot of its emissions to China and to developing Asia.
Talia BaroncelliWell, thank you, Bruce, for joining us for this really enlightening discussion on decarbonization.
Bruce RobertsonThank you very much, Talia.
Talia BaroncelliThank you for watching theAnalysis.news. If you’re in a position to donate, please do go to our website, theAnalysis.news. Hit the donate button at the top right corner of the screen and subscribe to our newsletter. Thank you.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter Email(Required)Name(Required) First Last Δ
“Bruce Robertson has been an investment analyst, fund manager, and professional investor for over 36 years. He has worked with Perpetual Trustees, UBS, Nippon Life Insurance, and BT. He has appeared as an expert witness before a number of government inquiries into energy issues.”
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
Steve Keen has been exposing the ways mainstream neoclassical economists—including winners of the so-called Nobel Prize in Economics— have been arriving at their absurdly optimistic numbers regarding climate change, and they’re terrifying. In this interview with Colin Bruce Anthes, Keen goes through prevalent examples in detail and argues that these numbers and the methods behind them must simply be thrown in the garbage.
The False Promise of Carbon Capture and StorageExposing Apocalyptic Economics with Steve KeenNavy Puts Climate Change at Top of Threat List – Larry WilkersonState of Big Tech 2022: Dismantling National & Global Digital EnclosuresReal Climate Solutions are No Mystery – PollinHow to Fight Inflation Without Attacking Workers – PollinDebunking Net Zero, Carbon Offsets, Nature-Based Solutions, Climate Smart Agriculture, Bioeconomy…A Warning From Chomsky and EllsbergBiden’s Bill has Significant Funding for Climate but 10% of What’s Needed – Bob PollinProgressive Running Against a Corp Dem in Boeing CountryThe Capitalist Solution to ‘Save’ the Planet: Make it an Asset Class & Sell itDaniel Ellsberg on Nuclear War and UkraineA Dire Warning About the End of Human CivilizationNationalize Fossil Fuel to Fight Climate Change and Inflation – Bob PollinFossil Fuel and Private Equity Love Trump – Thomas Ferguson Pt 3/4Carl Sagan testifying before Congress in 1985 on climate changeHumanity will not be saved by promisesCOP 26: End the Cynicism and Denial – pt 2/2COP 26: End the Cynicism and Denial – pt 1/2House Committee Chairwoman Maloney Nails Oil ExecutivesStop Subsidizing Wall St., Start Subsidizing Workers for High Energy Costs – Bob PollinBiden Heads to COP 26 Throttled by Manchin and Trumpists – with Bob PollinA Conversation With Paul Jay – Pt 4Current Climate Extremes Double at 2 Degrees Warming and Quadruple at 3 – Lead IPCC AuthorA Just Transition Now or Climate Disaster is InevitableNot Much Climate Plan in Biden Jobs Plan – Robert Pollin Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Guest * Music*
Colin Bruce AnthesWelcome to theAnalysis.news. I’m Colin Bruce Anthes.
You may have noticed that while natural scientists are focused on the ecological costs of climate change, social scientists and politicians seem much less concerned with the economic costs. According to renowned Australian economist Steve Keen, the reason is terrifying.
Dr. Keen has been going through the works of the most mainstream neoclassical economists on whom our politicians base their projections and looking at how they’re arriving at their numbers regarding climate change. He has found that they repeatedly confuse climate, the foundation of our energy and food, with the weather, with some of the biggest names even stating that 87% of the economy won’t really be affected by climate change because the jobs are primarily indoors. This is such a fundamental and apocalyptic mistake that it leaves little room for reform. Dr. Keen argues that we must simply abandon these economists and their framework, saying it’s us or them.
Steve Keen has a history of calling out junk economics. He correctly and famously predicted the 2008 recession and spent the years leading up to the subprime mortgage crisis berating mainstream economists for failing to account for the role of private debt and credit. If he says we need to sound the alarm, we should probably pay attention. Steve Keen, welcome to theAnalysis.
Steve KeenThank you. That was a very good introduction, very thorough.
Colin Bruce AnthesI want to make sure that I’m framing your position correctly because I’m familiar with the pernicious influence of big money on politics and economics. But you’re saying the problem runs much deeper than just corruption, and that’s why we can’t swap out the good neoclassical economists for the bad ones.
Steve KeenIt is simply what they believe. People who are critical of economics from outside of the profession often think that economists are shrills for the capitalist, that sort of thing. I’ve seen that quite regularly on Twitter, of course, and that’s getting the horse before the cart. Because, in fact, training in neoclassical economics, if you accept it, if you believe it, ends up making you effectively a zealot for your vision of what capitalism is. You really have a belief in capitalism as the ideal social system. Therefore, if you see anything which challenges the sustainability of capitalism, it’s an automatic tendency to reject it. Of course, that can benefit the capitalist class, but it’s not why they do it.
This is what happened in this particular case. No one paid William Nordhaus to assume that 87% of the economy would be unaffected by climate change because it happens in carefully controlled environments. That’s his own attitude to capitalism. Given their model of how capitalism functions, it’s an infinitely flexible system, therefore, it can cope with anything, therefore, climate change can’t be a problem. And that mindset is what has determined the predictions they have made, which are so badly based that they should simply be thrown in the garbage bin. That’s, of course, what I’m trying to explain to policymakers, media, and so on.
Colin Bruce AnthesLet’s take a look at what they mean by climate within these models and what, say, a natural scientist would call climate. Let’s make sure we’re not making the same mistake that they’re making.
Steve KeenTo some extent, I think we can blame how climate is defined in conventional organizations, like, for example, NOAA, the National Office of Oceanic [Atmospheric] Administration– I think it stands for. A wonderful acronym. I may have got the actual title there wrong. They say that weather is what you experience on a day-by-day basis. Climate is the average of weather over a long period of time. And that really makes it seem that climate and weather are statistically different distributions but the same basic data sets. Weather is particularly the day, and climate is over a range of days. That’s fundamentally misleading when it comes down to what climate change actually means.
To me, I think about climate as the actual structure of the fluid flows in the oceans and the atmosphere of planet Earth. And to me, climate change, for example, would mean going from the three circulation cells that currently set the weather patterns in each of the two hemispheres of the planet, the North and South Hemispheres. So you have a cell where there’s rising air at zero degrees and falling at 30; that’s the Hadley cell. Then you have what’s called the Ferrel cell, which has falling and rising at 30 and 60, and then the polar is 60 to 90. That’s why you have such substantial temperature differences between the tropics, the temperate zone, and the polar zone. It’s relatively consistent temperatures inside each of those zones.
Now, if that flips over, and it has flipped over frequently in the Earth’s past due to natural factors, of course, if that flips over to a single cell, then what you’ll have is rising air at the poles, at the equator, and falling air at the poles. In the middle, effectively, generally speaking, a drought, a desert. Now, that’s climate change. So that is a structural change to the patterns of fluid flows in both the oceans and the air that generate the weather we feel on a daily basis. There’s no way that there is– it is not average anymore. It’s a complete change of the system that generates the weather. That’s what climate change is.
Colin Bruce AnthesCan you go through the disparity between the kind of description you’ve just given, the kind of description we might expect from a natural scientist, and the projections that these neoclassical economists are making?
Steve KeenWell, the description that science is giving is existential. If we exceed, and they’re giving vague numbers because, of course, this has never been done before, not only in the history of humanity but also in the history of the planet, we’ve never had as rapid a change in the carbon dioxide levels as we’re forcing on the planet right now. Of course, there are various structures that have evolved over time in our current climate, the Holocene climate, such as the Arctic having summer sea ice. So the Arctic reflects 90% of the energy that falls on it during summer. Greenland, a similar reflector of energy, and the Antarctic are the same in the Southern Hemisphere. The circulation patterns of the integrated ocean thermohaline circulation, which is an oceanic river, hundreds of times the volume of all the rivers, the continental rivers on the planet. So all those huge structural elements, that’s the defining nature of the climate.
What they’re saying, what scientists are saying, is that if we increase the temperature by as little as one degree, we could trigger a breakdown in many of those characteristics of the current climate, and that would then cause a cascade. Scientists have been saying numbers like don’t let it increase more than two or three degrees.
The most recent paper by Kemp and Co, I think in 2021 or 2022, came out saying three degrees is their limit for an absolutely unsustainable temperature increase. You’ll see figures as low as 1%; we’ve already exceeded 1%. So the scientists are speculating, but all of the speculations say anything above that level you’re talking about, such a change in the climate that we could no longer sustain the sedentary human civilization we’ve had for the last 12,000 years. Our agricultural system could be destroyed, and therefore the carrying populist, the carrying capacity of the planet could fall from the area of 8 billion, as we currently have, down to 1 billion if we’re lucky. You know, that means 7 billion people die.
Colin Bruce AnthesWow.
Steve KeenSo that’s the scale the scientists are talking about. Economists, on the other hand, are saying, and this is quoting Nordhaus, “a six-degree increase in temperature will cause an 8.9% fall in GDP compared to what it would be in the complete absence of climate change.” If you look at the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report, Working Group Two, Chapter 16, as the economics chapter inside there, that chapter said that “a four-degree increase in temperature by 2100 four degrees Celsius could cause between a 10-23% fall in GDP compared to what it would be in the absence of climate change.” Therefore, they’re assuming growth for the next 80 years, which would increase per capita incomes by a factor of five. They’re saying rather than being five times as large, they’ll be four times as large, which is trivial.
Colin Bruce AnthesWow.
Steve KeenSo that’s the difference. One is that they’re saying a minor decline in overall productive capacity while it still grows over time, whereas the other side is saying we won’t have a civilization past, certainly past four degrees; most of us don’t even suggest four degrees level of warming. They’re saying forget it. Human civilization is over at that level.
Colin Bruce AnthesWow. Yeah, that’s a disparity, alright.
Steve KeenHuge.
Colin Bruce AnthesIt’s enormous. I think for those who do not know who Nordhaus is and who some of these figures are, this is not a case of, say, big tobacco finding some fringe person somewhere who will accept a bribe to say something crazy. These are the most mainstream figures.
Steve KeenNordhaus, first of all, has taken over the mantle of publishing one of the dominant textbooks, the Paul Samuelson textbook. He is now the continuing editor of the Samuelson textbook on economics. He was elected president of the Economic Association sometime in the last few years– I forgot when he actually was– and he got the Nobel Prize, the so-called Nobel Prize for Economics, in 2018. So he’s high status in the profession. He and a group of economists– it’s only a very small band of economists, by the way. This is one thing I try to emphasize to the profession. I say, for God’s sake, ditch Nordhaus because if you don’t ditch Nordhaus, you will be responsible for– when the shit hits the fan and the shit is coming, you will be, economics, in general, will be responsible for letting this garbage and, frankly, that’s the only way I can describe it, this garbage get published. If you had decent refereeing of papers on the basis of the science of climate change being applied to these economic papers, none of them would have been published.
Colin Bruce AnthesI want to delve a little further into some of the examples that you talk about as you go through the papers that these people have published and the statements that they made. The 87% number that’s given, one of them is about the Gulf Stream, which is absolutely terrifying. Can you go through some of the extreme falsities that are being published on a very wide scale right now?
Steve KeenThey have about four methods they’ve used to make up, and I emphasize make-up numbers, not generate data, but make-up numbers that then they say are related to climate change. So the very first is what they call the enumerative method. The enumerative method, the way they describe it, is that they take data from science papers and add up the damages that science papers say, and then you are adding up from the bottom up. So that’s what they call the enumerative method.
Now, when you take a look at Nordhaus, 1991, To Slow or Not to Slow: The Economics of Climate Change, published in the Economic Journal, which is published by Oxford University, and certainly one of the top three or top five journals in economics in 1991. Here he said that “there are some activities, such as microprocessor fabrication or open heart surgery, which occur in carefully controlled environments,” that’s literally a quote, “which will not be particularly subject to climate change. On the other hand, there are other activities which are exposed to the weather and therefore exposed to climate change.” He said, “our estimate,” meaning his estimate, “our estimate is that 87% of the American economy will be negligibly affected by climate change because it takes place in carefully controlled environments.”
Now, when you look at the table here, which is table 15 in that particular paper, I think it was all of manufacturing, all of wholesale and retail services, all of the finance sector, most of real estate, except for a small amount of coastal real estate, and he even included mining, apparently not being aware that a lot of mining is open cut and therefore exposed to the weather. So that is the scale of it. You would hope that it would just be an aberration that got through, but later papers fixed it up. Instead, that was being maintained all the way through. They don’t use that method anymore, but they haven’t rejected the numbers they got out of that.
Now, when Nordhaus did his calculations, he had 3% of the economy being seriously exposed, which was largely agriculture and forestry, and 10% marginally exposed. When he added up his numbers, he got a total of 0.26% change in the reduction in GDP for a three-degree increase in temperature.
Colin Bruce AnthesWow.
Steve KeenNow, the reason he got that [inaudible 00:13:06] when it came to the section he said would be exposed, which is agriculture and forestry, he said he had taken into account the fertilizer effect of carbon dioxide. He had somewhere between a plus 9.7 and -10.5 and, therefore, the average of the two was what he put in as the major source of damages; that’s where the 0.26% of GDP fall came from. Then he said, “there may be other factors that aren’t included here. I might bump it up to 1%. But my hunch,” and literally the word hunch in a so-called scientific paper, “my hunch is that the damages will be and no more than 2% of GDP from three degrees of warming.”
Colin Bruce AnthesWow.
Steve KeenA lot of those enumerative method ones come out with damages between, positive, actually, some of them think fertilizer effects are really good, with positive effects of up to 1% — Richard Toll published one of those papers– down to about 2 or 3% fall in GDP; that’s the range that they get.
Colin Bruce AnthesWow.
Steve KeenThe second method they call the statistical method. This is the very first paper that I actually saw, and I realized just how diluted they were on climate change. This is by Richard Toll in 2009 called The Economics of Climate Change. In that paper, he described what he called the statistical approach, which is used by [Robert O.] Mendelsohn, who’s one of the research colleagues of Nordhaus, who said, “Mendelsohn assumes that the variation of GDP with climate over space will hold over time.”
Now, what that means is Nordhaus– Mendelsohn, in this particular case, said it first and initially just with America; they then generalized a global distribution of income. But looking at, say, gross state products and average state temperature, you can then get this, and I’ve done this myself; it’s just a simple exercise to show how stupid this is. If you take a look at the average temperature for every state in mainland America, continental America, and the gross state product per capita, which is the state version of GDP, then you get a scatter plot. If you then graph the temperature on the horizontal and the income on the vertical, you get a scatter plot, which is a huge, wide scatter plot. But if you do a quadratic regression on that, and they almost always use quadratics, what they call their damage functions, that quadratic will tell you that each degree increase in temperature reduces your GDP by about 0.3% times the temperature change squared. Now, that therefore means that a ten-degree increase in temperature will cause about a 15% fall in GDP. Ironically, that’s a bigger number than Nordhaus himself uses.
So his damage function is that the damage to GDP from temperature increase will be zero 0.227% X the temperature change. And that’s where you get this six-degree increase in temperature, about an 8% fall in GDP. But it’s literally using the geographic nature of climate. So obviously, the climate of Florida is different to the climate of North Dakota, but that’s sitting inside exactly the same temperature distribution of global temperature. There’s no change in global temperature between Dakota and Florida because they’re on the same globe. They simply assume that very light variation, relatively trivial role of temperature in determining GDP will be what climate change does over time.
The craziness of this is that if you– and I’ve made this case for a research project I’m working on right now– the reason that you can have a successful economy in Florida and have a successful one in Dakota is they trade with each other. There is stuff that North Dakota can’t produce that Florida can, and there is stuff that Florida can’t produce that North Dakota can. Part of the income is because North Dakota is selling products to Florida. Now, you can’t sell through time, okay. You can’t sell wheat produced in 2020 to people in 2100. So the whole idea that you can use what happens over space as an anagram of what happens over time is just nonsense. Again, it’s showing they simply don’t understand what climate change actually means.
The third method that has come along after that, and that is that acknowledging that mistake, some economists have said, “well, we need to have data where there’s a change in temperature, change in global average temperature, and we then compare that to the GDP or change in GDP. That’s been done by a number of people.
There’s a paper by [Matthew E.] Kahn, [Kamiar] Mohaddes, and a few others coming out of the International Monetary Fund, and they have said, “well, there’s a nonlinear relationship at the geographic level between temperature and GDP.” So they’ve worked out what that nonlinear relationship is for change in temperature over the period 1960 to 2014. I think that’s the dataset they used. They then extrapolated that forward 80 years. Now that only works if there’s no structural change to the climate over the next 80 years, which is nonsense because they’re talking about– they said that there is a 0.125 degrees Celsius change in temperature per year, which mounts up to 3.2 degrees over the next 80 years, will cause about, as I think, a 0.05 decline in GDP for each year. Therefore they’re saying that there will be a seven– and I love the false precision they give. This is supposed to be statisticians. This sort of false precision says you’re a child. You don’t know really what you’re doing. They’ve said that there will be a 7.22% fall in GDP by 2100 from a 3.2-degree increase in Celsius and temperature. Now they can’t even get today’s GDP accurate to one-tenth of 1%. Here they’re trying to predict GDP in 8 years’ time to two decimal places of accuracy. It’s just nonsense. So that’s the sort of thing there.
There are basically three methods. What they’re doing is really saying you can find the footprint for global warming in current data, and that’s just nonsense because it’s a cascading effect, and it’s the runaway process that we are now very, very close to triggering. That is the really scary thing. The complete structural breakdown of our climate will occur over the next 80 years, and all these predictions are just nonsense.
Colin Bruce AnthesI’m not a particularly religious person myself, but there’s a church in my community, and it’s a good actor. For several years I volunteered on its committee as a community partner, and they were getting hit with thousands of dollars of new insurance costs because of the increased risk of the world.
Steve KeenAbsolutely. The climate instability we’re seeing right now, the crazy cold temperatures in America, crazy hot temperatures in Europe, drought in California, now it’s flooding in California; that volatility is being generated by the extra energy that we’ve trapped in the atmosphere courtesy of carbon dioxide. So we’re already seeing that real-world couldn’t give a damn about what economists think. The real world will do what the real world climate does under the energy pressure that we’re putting on the biosphere, and that is going to make a laughing stock of the predictions of the economists probably in this decade. At some point, it’ll be bleedingly obvious that their damage estimates have got absolutely nothing to do with what’s actually going on, and the damages are far, far higher. In that situation, anybody who’s trusted economists either directly or indirectly by accepting their damage assessments and then putting that through insurance contracts and so on, they’re going to be forced to pay out an absolute fortune, and they’ll be bankrupted by the cost of climate change damages.
Colin Bruce AnthesIf we want to be able to think about this critically and productively and not make the same mistake as them, what is a good starting point for us to think about? What is the role of climate in the economy?
Steve KeenFirst of all, just get a handle on what sort of changes are being spoken about. What is feasible to happen if the temperature rises any further? I’ll give one of my favorite examples because it’s terrifying, and the person who’s making it has impeccable credentials. The professor of Chemistry at Harvard University, James G. Anderson, was the person who discovered the hole in the ozone layer in the last century and led the campaign to close the hole. So his argument in a paper published in 2017 is that with the decline in the Arctic summer sea ice, that will trigger a breakdown of those three circulation cells. That means that storms that currently develop over the plains of America, central plains of America, which are enormous storms, will penetrate the stratosphere. So at the moment, those storms are restricted to the troposphere, which is below 20 km where we live and work. If it gets into the stratosphere, it will take moisture into the stratosphere. The current of the stratosphere has very, very low levels of H2O, so it’s a very dry stratosphere. When that water passes in, it will also carry in chlorine and bromide, partially from our own industrial processes but also even from volcanoes. That chlorine and bromide will increase, according to Anderson’s paper, increase the rate of destruction of ozone by a factor of 100. What that would mean is it’s no longer safe to go outdoors for humans, in particular. Other animals with fur have slightly better chances than us. Plants apparently have got a fair bit of protection against high levels of UV. But we won’t be able to go outdoors. I’m sorry, that’s the end of human civilization. If we can’t go outdoors during daylight hours, then what happens to our civilization? It breaks down. Of course, people will die of skin cancer. So it’s an appalling potential.
Now, in that situation, if that’s happening, you haven’t got an economy. And so that the existential stuff that I want people to realize is what we’re playing with here. So that’s the real danger. It’s not a case of a bit of damage here, a few more percent insurance claims, and stuff like that. It’s you can no longer manage a human civilization, and you couldn’t even manage hunting and gathering in that situation because you couldn’t afford to hunt during the day. It’s existential. That’s what I prefer people to look at rather than we’re working in terms of percentages of GDP and damages and so on. That’s the game the economists have played, and also, it’s a game of correlation, not causation. They have no theory as to how temperature causes GDP. They simply say, here’s this correlation we’re found in current data, and that’s what we’re going to use to predict the damages of climate change. It’s completely irrelevant to what climate change will actually do to human civilization.
Colin Bruce AnthesI’m going to ask you a tough question. Maybe it’s too much for this interview, but my generation has never experienced a real recovery from 2008. COVID has caused more economic distress. Major companies like Goldman Sachs are already laying people off in anticipation of another downturn. We’re having a conversation about how economists have wildly overestimated how good things are going to be. So do we throw out these neoclassical economists who are making these terrible projections? If we put them aside and start to put a different theory in place, is there some feasible glimmer of sunlight that we can put in front of people to rally behind?
Steve KeenWell, the main thing is we have to drastically reduce the load we put on the planet in terms of the biosphere. So carbon dioxide is the most obvious damage we’re doing, but everything else we do as well. We’re dumping plastics which are damaging food chains throughout the world. We’re intruding on what used to be virgin territory. We’re hitting up against– that’s where the pandemic came from. The fact that we’re intruding into areas which used to be off-limits for humans. Now we’re the best possible host for any pandemic. Why attack any other animal when humans are so prolific and distribute the diseases so well? So we’re making ourselves a target for all these hostile elements of the environment in which we live.
So the only glimmer would be to say, and I don’t think it’s going to happen. I think we’re going to have to go into a catastrophe before we reverse direction. But what we have to say is we have to drastically reduce our load on the planet now, and that means a drastic fall in the consumption levels of the rich that can be both global rich but also rich within each nation-state. So it’s not the poor who have to consume less because even in the case of America, something like about 30% of people are living on the breadline. So you can’t force them to consume less, but you have to make the rich consume less, and you have to radically and rapidly decarbonize the economy. Then you’ve also got to reduce our load on the planet so that we reserve at least half the planet for nonhuman life. At the moment, we’re using 97% of the planet. The only parts we’re not using are the ones that are simply impossible to use, such as Greenland, Antarctica, and the Tundra regions. Everything else we’re exploiting to the hills, and we have to say that no longer can be allowed.
Now I simply don’t believe we’re going to do it in time. Even if people in policy listen to me, which they won’t do, they know how hard it would be to sell the sort of message I’ve got to the public. If they try to sell that message before it becomes obvious and necessary, they’ll lose their positions. So we won’t do anything until we get absolutely obvious catastrophes that have to be blamed on climate change, and nothing else can be considered.
For example, something like the breakdown of the ozone layer of the Northern Hemisphere, that could be a wake-up call. Now, in that situation, if you don’t have any chance of maintaining human civilization through this process, you have to have measures in place that give you a chance to react to whatever catastrophe will come along. So if the catastrophe happens to be a collapse in wheat production, and that’s quite a feasible one from climate change, then you have to have reserves of grain already stored in case there’s a collapse in the crops, and you have to have a rationing system. So if everybody gets the same ration, you don’t have people starving to death because they can’t afford to buy the grain. You’ve got to go from a monetary capitalist economy to a ration-based, war-based economy effectively. But all these things are so gigantic that you have to be prepared to throw a level of our energy, our activity at the planet that will draw from what we did during World War II. These are going to happen. The question is, are they going to be enforced upon us, or are we going to try to manage it?
Colin Bruce AnthesThat’s not an optimistic note to end on, but perhaps it’s the kind of bluntness that we need to deal with a real world with a real climate and not the imagined world of these neoclassical economists. Steve Keen, this has been a very insightful interview. Thank you so much for being here.
Steve KeenThank you, Colin.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter Email(Required)Name(Required) First Last Δ
“Steve Keen is an Australian economist and author. He considers himself a post-Keynesian, criticizing neoclassical economics as inconsistent, unscientific, and empirically unsupported.”
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
Why the United States should reduce its unconditional support for Saudi Arabia and the bleak outlook for Iran Nuclear Deal talks. Talia Baroncelli speaks to Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a transpartisan think tank.
Saudis Hedge Bets, Iran Risks Increasing Isolation – Trita ParsiThe Iranian Revolution: The Fall of the Shah and the Rise of KhomeiniIranian Women-Led Resistance Independent of Western ImperialismWhy the Media is Now Supporting Julian Assange? – Paul Jay pt 2/2Retired US Army Colonel on Ukraine, Iran & the State of the US EmpireAnti-Regime Protests and the Devastating Effects of US Sanctions in IranU.S. Sanctions Strengthen Iranian Theocracy – Hamid DabashiEmpire Update: Did Trump Order Iran Assassination? – Abby MartinElliot Abrams Tries to Tie Biden’s Hands on Iran – Trita ParsiIsrael Wants U.S. to Weaken and Isolate Iran – RAI with Trita Parsi Pt 3/3U.S. Attempts to Destabilize Iran Have Failed – RAI with Trita Parsi Pt 2/3U.S. Refuses to Accept Iran as a Regional Power – RAI with Trita Parsi Pt 1/3 Transcript * Spanish Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Guest * Music*
Talia BaroncelliHi, I’m Talia Baroncelli, and you’re watching theAnalysis.news. I’ll shortly be joined by Trita Parsi to speak about U.S. foreign policy in Saudi Arabia as well as the protests in Iran. If you enjoy this content, please go to our website, theAnalysis.news, and hit the donate button, that way, we can continue to make this sort of content. You can also subscribe to our newsletter as well as our YouTube channel. Back in a bit.
Joining me now is Trita Parsi, the executive vice president at the Quincy Institute. Thank you so much for joining me, Trita.
Trita ParsiThank you so much for having me.
Talia BaroncelliSo you’ve written a lot on Saudi Arabia and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. I was wondering if we’ve missed an opportunity for the Biden administration to cut ties and cut its support for Saudi Arabia, given what’s been going on with oil production and skyrocketing costs of oil in October.
Trita ParsiYes, although I wouldn’t necessarily advocate for there to be a cut. I think there definitely needs to be a rebalancing of this relationship because the Saudis have been able to get away with a tremendous amount of mischief. The war in Yemen is just the beginning or the end of it. The Biden administration came in blazing, promising to turn Saudi Arabia into the pariah that they are, and promised to end the war in Yemen.
Instead, two years into it, we have now seen that even after Biden said that the Saudis are going to pay the price for what they did to the Biden administration on the oil side, we have seen absolutely no consequences for the Saudis. The administration, in fact, is further trying to move closer to Saudi Arabia. I think this is extremely unfortunate because I think we’re seeing a bad relationship getting worse, an imbalanced, unhealthy relationship getting worse, which will come back and bite the United States and the region in the behind, just as much as it did when the United States, unfortunately, expressed its opinion and gave its green light to the war in Yemen.
It’s been a complete disaster. I know many of the U.S. officials who were involved in it regret that decision. I think what has happened in the last two years is also something that the U.S. is going to regret because, as you pointed out, it is a missed opportunity.
Talia BaroncelliRight. There are some who say that if the U.S. were to sever ties, or at least reduce its support for Saudi Arabia, that would push the Saudis closer to China and to Russia. Is there any validity to that argument?
Trita ParsiWell, I think there is a likelihood that the Saudis would gravitate more toward Russia and to China under that circumstance. At the same time, the Saudis are doing that right now. They have significantly moved closer to the Chinese and the Russians. They are now saying openly that they’re going to be doing trade in oil but not use the [U.S.] dollar. So they’re part of the de-dollarization. We’ve seen their position on Russia.
The idea that if the United States actually were to play hardball with the Saudis, they would actually worsen the situation, I’m not convinced by. I think, on the contrary, the lack of a response from the Biden administration, the last of the cost of the Saudis after they have engaged in many, many problematic policies and decisions, is frankly motivating the Saudis that they can get away with it and they can do more of it.
Now, there’s a part of this that I also think that we should take into account, which is from a Saudi perspective, they are, like many countries in the world, moving. They’re adjusting their policies and acting as if the world is already multipolar. In my view, it is. So this is not a uniquely Saudi thing. They’re hedging their bets, and the idea that the United States would cause them not to hedge their bets by being extra kind to them and turn an extra blind eye to their negative policies, I find completely unconvincing. There’s a likelihood that the Saudis are going to do this anyway. The question is, what are we going to do on the American side in order to make sure that the policies that Saudi Arabia pursues are not problematic and not directly undermining stability in the region and the United States itself?
Talia BaroncelliWell, one of the most problematic policies that are pursued in the region is actual Saudi-led intervention and the war in Yemen. How far are we right now with the War Powers Act that Bernie Sanders decided to actually pull in December, saying that he wanted to renegotiate some of the terms with the Democrats? Is there any development there right now?
Trita ParsiSo we’re waiting to see what the outcome will be and whether Bernie will follow up on what he promised, which is that he will put this back on the floor unless there is a satisfactory compromise between him and the Biden administration. It was yet another example in which we saw that the Biden administration could have actually welcomed this. Instead, they came in tooth and nail and fought against it.
We also saw another thing, which is that Democrats in the Senate were quite content with voting in favor of this as long as Trump was the President. Once Biden was the President, they shifted their position. I think that was deeply disappointing to Bernie himself, who thought that he had the votes. Of course, now the Biden administration came in very hard and tried to do everything they could to take votes away from that issue. But I think this is going to have to be settled because if Bernie doesn’t put it forward, I’m sure there’s going to be a lot of pressure on him from his own base, upon his grassroots that strongly feel that this is a necessity, not just because of what the Saudis are doing in Yemen, but also because of reinstating the value of Congress playing the role that the American Constitution set up for it, which is that it is the body that decides whether the United States is engaged in war, not the executive branch.
Talia BaroncelliIs there any real substantive difference in policy between Trump’s policy toward Saudi Arabia and Biden’s policy toward Saudi Arabia? I mean, Biden calls MBS, or Saudi Arabia, a pariah and that the world should see the pariah that it is. Aside from that, once he backtracked a lot of those harsh words in the rhetoric, there doesn’t seem to be much of a policy difference.
Trita ParsiI think on the broader scheme, there is, unfortunately, a much larger degree of continuity than there is of change. I think there are some changes, but when it comes to the broader issue, such as have we ended the war in Yemen? Such as what is going to be the relationship of the United States and Saudi Arabia when the Saudis are actively engaging in policies that undermine the United States? Those things we have not seen are the changes that we could and should have seen. I think, again, as you pointed out, it will be seen as a missed opportunity for the Biden administration having failed to act. I think it also tells us something that there is a bit of a gravitational force that, once in office, many candidates turn to offer policies that are far less breaking with the past than they promised that they would do.
In this specific case, I find the reasoning and the motivation behind the Biden administration’s decision to be highly problematic, and that is that the Biden administration essentially believes that it is going to end up in some form of a broader strategic competition with the Chinese. We’re already there [inaudible 00:08:10]. In that context, one of the strongest parts that the United States has is its alliance system. It believes that the competition with China will not take place just in the South China Sea, but it will take place in Africa, Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East.
So, as a result, two things come out of this. One, earlier plans that the administration had to actually withdraw military forces from the Middle East– I think there are about 19 bases there– have essentially been shelled, and the U.S. military presence in the region is pretty much the same as it was before. Secondly, if the American alliance system is such a significant part of this competition, then the United States needs to do all it can to keep its allies at its side and not let them gravitate towards China. The outcome of that, then, is exactly what we talked about earlier on. The belief is that in order to prevent Saudi Arabia to move towards China, the United States, under Biden in many areas, is actually becoming more dismissive or more pliant in its relationship with Saudi Arabia, turning more of a blind eye to what the Saudis are doing than the United States even was before.
Again, going back to what we talked about earlier on, I don’t believe that calculation is correct. I find the basis of it to be highly problematic. The outcome so far is pretty clear. The Saudis are not adjusting their policy in the direction that the Biden administration wants. The Biden administration is showering them with concessions and really getting nothing for it.
Talia BaroncelliWell, if the Biden administration decided to take the gloves off and get tough with Saudi Arabia tomorrow, what would that require from other players in the region, for example, the Emiratis? Would that at all impact the Abraham Accords with Israel? Normalization with Israel?
Trita ParsiWell, I think you put your finger on something very important, which is that there is also a very, very strong commitment in the Biden administration to build on and expand on the Abraham Accords. I find that also highly problematic because the Abraham Accords are just the latest variation of the very same idea that has guided American foreign policy in the Middle East for the last 20-30 years, which is to try to organize the region against Iran. The organizing principle of American foreign policy in the Middle East is to build as big of a coalition as possible to counter Iran. It has failed. It has destabilized the region. It has not brought about the type of benefits that was foreseen. It has turned the Iranian policy more aggressive because they’re doing everything they can to undermine the American project. This is just the latest iteration of the same idea as before. This is the same thing that’s motivated much of the Oslo Peace Accords, and we’ve seen where that has led.
Now the idea is that, well, if the Emiratis and the Saudis are willing to throw the Palestinians under the bus, and pretend as if everything is fine, then there can be an alliance between the Saudis and the Emiratis and the Israelis against Iran.
Now, what is fascinating about this is that early on, when the Trump administration was doing this, they were using terms such as Arab-NATO. Officials from the Biden administration, of course, were not in office back then but were advisers to Biden, came out swinging against it. Tony Blinken, for instance, had an op-ed in 2017 saying that an anti-Iran coalition masquerading as some sort of a peace agreement is only going to further destabilize the region and deepen Shia/Sunni rifts in the region, which is not to the benefit of the region or to the United States. Yet under the rubric of the Abraham Accords, we are essentially pursuing the same policy but now with a tremendous amount of praise and gusto, thinking that it will bring about a different result than it has in the past.
This is yet another very important factor as to why the Biden administration has not taken the gloves off, have accepted all kinds of negative policies from the Saudis without any repercussions because of the fear that if they get tough with the Saudis, they will not be able to secure what is considered to be the prize within the Abraham Accords, which is to get the Saudis to join that accord as well.
Talia BaroncelliRight. Why don’t we talk about Israel because the new Israeli government, [Benjamin] Netanyahu’s ultra-conservative government, clearly has it out for Iran, and I would imagine that they’d like to strengthen normalization and their relationship with other regional actors. So I wonder, how much do you think this new Israeli government will impact U.S. foreign policy, especially when it comes to the U.S. potentially going back into the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action]?
Trita ParsiObviously, the JCPOA is right now in a state of a coma. It’s not clear as to whether any return is possible in the first place. But even in the coma state, there is neither a deal nor a collapse of the deal. That status, which is the status that I think the Biden administration would like to retain as long as possible because, essentially, it means they’re not paying the political cost of going back into the deal. Particularly now in this new context with the protest and the repression taking place in Iran, as well as Iran’s support for Russia in the war in Ukraine. On the other hand, they’re not dealing with the cost of the deal collapsing because the minute they say that the deal is absolutely dead, then they’re going to have a crisis on their hands. But that state of no deal, no collapse, essentially, is only going to last as long as the Israelis are not putting massive pressure on the United States to make a decision. And for quite some time, Israel has not been in a clear or strong position to exert that pressure because of their own domestic turmoil.
Now you have a new government, and Netanyahu is back. There are a few things that he loves to do more than to talk about Iran and to pressure the United States on that issue. And he’s also coming into a new context in which things are going to be much, much easier for him than were before because, of course, the repression in Iran, support for Russia, etc., have made many, many doors open to ideas that he in the past could not stop. But I think there may also be a likelihood that Netanyahu may have learned his lesson from 2014 and 2015. He came out swinging against the JCPOA. He was the main reason as to why the situation had escalated to the point in which there was either a question of whether there would be war or a nuclear Iran. What he miscalculated with that is that the more he made war likely, the more he motivated the Obama administration to try to avoid war by pursuing a diplomatic solution which was the worst outcome for Netanyahu.
So the question is, this time around, is he going to be pushing for war? Is he going to be pushing for very, very aggressive measures, knowing very well that it may actually lead to a scenario in which suddenly the Biden administration’s calculation may end up being that a deal is better for them than the outcomes that Netanyahu is pushing for? Or will he actually take a softer approach in which he will try to take advantage of Iran’s weakened position to really lock in massive isolation measures against Iran, not just from the United States, but also from Europe and potentially from Global South countries, and then see that as the victory, which ultimately is that Iran will be turned into some sort of a North Korea. Even if Iran were to escalate its nuclear program, that would be okay because Iran would be completely isolated.
The bottom line is we don’t know exactly what he will do. He will do something. He will exert pressure on the United States on this issue, but it may end up looking somewhat different from what it did in 2014 and 2015.
Talia BaroncelliWell, you said multiple times that Joe Biden, the President, should have just signed an executive order from the get-go to get the U.S. to rejoin the JCPOA. Given the current protests in Iran, wouldn’t that be the ultimate sign of support for the Iranian people to actually sign the deal, to make it easier for them to potentially rise up against their own government?
Trita ParsiI think, first of all, if Biden had signed on through an executive order and joined the JCPOA back in January 2021, we would see a very different situation in Iran right now. With the economic situation becoming better, I think there’s a high likelihood that [Ebrahim] Raisi would not have become President because the reformists and the centrist would have been able to show that they did deliver, which they could not, since not only did Trump exit the deal, but Biden did not rejoin. So it was deeply embarrassing for the reformists, and those who had argued strongly that some form of accommodation with the United States would be to the benefit of Iran, the Iranian people, and also the Iranian will.
I think at this point politically, it’s going to be very difficult, obviously because of the protest. But also, I think it’s important to recognize there seems to be a divergence between what people that are protesting in Iran are saying and what the protest outside of Iran by elements of the diaspora. In Iran, I did not see any protests saying anything about the JCPOA. They were not arguing against the JCPOA or for it. It simply was not a factor in their considerations or what they thought was worth mentioning in their slogans and in their protests.
On the outside, from a very early stage, positions that long had been held by the Israeli government, by the Iranian Mujahideen, were the ones that increasingly became adopted. No negotiations, no JCPOA, close the embassies, kick Iran out of the World Cup, things of that nature, which again seemed to be quite different from what was being heard from inside the country. Another thing I think is quite clear right now is you’re hearing a lot of voices on Twitter, at least, they may not be the same decibel outside of social media, are arguing for lining up behind the former crowned prince of Iran. Whereas the slogans in Iran during the protests were neither a Supreme Leader nor a Shah. So I think we’re clearly seeing a divergence between what is taking place inside the country, what they’re speaking, what they’re pushing for, and what’s coming from the outside.
I’ve not seen evidence in the sense that this is a widely held position by protesters that the JCPOA would be bad for them, on the contrary. But I do think, however, that there is a deep degree of skepticism against the JCPOA, which has caused many people to think that, well, why should there be a JCPOA? It doesn’t benefit the people anyways because economic benefits don’t come. And this is a function of how, unfortunately, the United States pulled out of the agreement. Europeans did not do anything to really, in a substantive way, make up for those economic losses. So there’s a skepticism against the JCPOA in Iran that I think is coloring all of this. But I’ve not seen evidence that very high on the agenda of the protesters inside the country is the idea that there shouldn’t be any negotiations or that there shouldn’t be any agreement there. It may be that they’re indifferent to it, but that’s different from saying that they’re against it.
Talia BaroncelliOne very quick question before you have to leave. What sort of signal is Iran trying to send to the international community by executing this British-Iranian dual citizen, Alireza Akbari, who had really nothing to do with the protests whatsoever?
Trita ParsiNo, he certainly had nothing to do with the protest. He’s been in jail since 2019. The Iranians accuse him of spying. Obviously, there’s no evidence that has been put forward to be able to enable independent sources to assess that accusation and the evidence for it, if evidence exists. But I think what we’re seeing with that is that there’s an escalation taking place between Europe and Iran already. There’s going to be a response from the British side, and it’s probably going to lead to even further measures by the Iranian side. This is very easily going to become an escalatory cycle, and ultimately we’ve not seen anything particularly good come out of those things. And I also do believe that if this escalates into a full-blown crisis and potential confrontation between the West and Iran, that is actually a huge detriment to the pro-democracy protest inside of the country. There’s a sentiment and a belief in some quarters in the diaspora that these are the type of things that will bring down the regime. Experiences in just recent memory show us, from Iraq and Afghanistan to Syria and Libya, that the main elements that benefit from a militarization of conflict and the use of the military are actually the least democratic, the most repressive elements inside of society. So I have very little confidence that anything good will come out of that. And I’m quite worried that if that is the direction we go, that it will be a major, major blow to the protest movement inside of the country.
Talia BaroncelliTrita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, thank you so much for joining us.
Trita ParsiThank you so much for having me.
Talia BaroncelliAnd thank you for watching theAnalysis.news. If you’re in a position to donate, please go to our website, theAnalysis.news. Hit the donate button at the top right corner of the screen. Subscribe to our newsletter as well as to our YouTube channel; that way, you won’t miss any future episodes. Thank you.
Talia Baroncelli
Hola, soy Talia Baroncelli y está viendo theAnalysis.news.
En breve me acompañará Trita Parsi para hablar sobre la política exterior de EE. UU. en Arabia Saudí, así como las protestas en Irán.
Si le gusta este contenido, vaya a nuestro sitio web, theAnalysis.news, y pulse el botón de donar. De esa manera podremos seguir haciendo este tipo de contenido. También puede suscribirse a nuestro boletín de noticias, así como a nuestro canal de YouTube.
Vuelvo en un momento.
Me acompaña ahora Trita Parsi, vicepresidente ejecutivo del Quincy Institute. Muchas gracias por acompañarme, Trita.
Trita Parsi
Muchas gracias por recibirme.
Talia Baroncelli
Has escrito mucho sobre Arabia Saudí y la política exterior de Estados Unidos en Oriente Próximo. Me preguntaba si hemos perdido una oportunidad para que la administración Biden corte su relación y su apoyo a Arabia Saudí, teniendo en cuenta todo lo que ha pasado con la producción de petróleo y el aumento vertiginoso del precio del crudo en octubre.
Trita Parsi
Sí, aunque no necesariamente abogaría por cortar la relación. Creo que definitivamente debe haber un reequilibrio de esta relación, porque los saudíes han cometido muchas transgresiones sin ninguna consecuencia. La guerra en Yemen es solo el principio, o el final, de esto.
La administración Biden empezó muy fuerte, prometiendo tratar a Arabia Saudí como la nación paria que es, y prometió poner fin a la guerra en Yemen. En cambio, dos años después, vemos que incluso después de que Biden dijera que los saudíes van a pagar un precio por lo que le hicieron a la administración Biden con respecto al petróleo, no hemos visto absolutamente ninguna consecuencia para los saudíes. La administración, de hecho, está tratando de acercarse más a Arabia Saudí.
Creo que esto es extremadamente desafortunado porque creo que estamos ante una mala relación que está empeorando, una relación desequilibrada y enfermiza que empeora, que redundará negativamente en Estados Unidos y la región, al igual que cuando Estados Unidos, lamentablemente, expresó su opinión y dio luz verde a la guerra en Yemen. Ha sido un completo desastre. Sé que muchos de los funcionarios estadounidenses que estuvieron involucrados lamentan esa decisión. Creo que lo que ha pasado en los últimos dos años también es algo de lo que Estados Unidos se va a arrepentir porque, como has señalado, es una oportunidad perdida.
Talia Baroncelli
Bien. Hay quienes dicen que si EE. UU. rompiera los lazos, o al menos redujera su apoyo a Arabia Saudí, eso empujaría a los saudíes hacia China y Rusia. ¿Tiene algún tipo de validez ese argumento?
Trita Parsi
Bueno, creo que existe la posibilidad de que los saudíes se acerquen más a Rusia y China si eso sucediera. Pero al mismo tiempo, los saudíes ya lo están haciendo. Se han acercado significativamente a los chinos y los rusos. Ahora están diciendo abiertamente que van a comerciar con petróleo pero no usarán el dólar. Entonces, están participando en la desdolarización. Hemos visto su posición sobre Rusia.
La idea de que si Estados Unidos realmente fuera a usar mano dura con los saudíes en realidad empeoraría la situación no me convence. Creo, por el contrario, que la falta de una respuesta de la administración Biden, lo último del precio para los saudíes después de llevar a cabo muchas políticas y decisiones problemáticas, francamente lleva a pensar a los saudíes que pueden salirse con la suya y pueden hacer más.
Ahora bien, hay un aspecto de esto que también creo que debemos tener en cuenta, que es que, desde la perspectiva saudí, están, como muchos países en el mundo, moviéndose… Están ajustando sus políticas y actuando como si el mundo ya fuera más multipolar. En mi opinión, lo es.
Así que esto no es algo exclusivamente Saudí. Están limitando riesgos, y la idea de que Estados Unidos puede impedir que limiten sus riesgos siendo más blandos con ellos y haciendo la vista gorda a sus políticas negativas me parece muy poco convincente. Es probable que los saudíes hagan esto de todos modos. La pregunta es: qué vamos a hacer del lado estadounidense para asegurarnos de que las políticas que implementa Arabia Saudí no sean problemáticas y no socaven directamente la estabilidad de la región y los propios Estados Unidos.
Talia Baroncelli
Bueno, una de las políticas más problemáticas implementadas en la región es la intervención y la guerra real dirigida por Arabia Saudí en Yemen. ¿Dónde nos encontramos ahora con la Ley de Poderes de Guerra que Bernie Sanders decidió retirar en diciembre alegando que quería renegociar algunos de los términos con los demócratas? ¿Hay alguna noticia sobre esto en este momento?
Trita Parsi
Estamos esperando a ver cuál será el resultado y si Bernie cumplirá lo que prometió, que es que va a someter esto de nuevo a votación a menos que haya un acuerdo satisfactorio entre él y la administración Biden. Fue otro ejemplo más en el que vimos que la administración Biden podría haberlo aceptado y, en cambio, vinieron con uñas y dientes y se opusieron. También vimos otra cosa, y es que los demócratas en el Senado estaban bastante contentos con votar a favor mientras Trump era el presidente. Una vez que Biden subió al cargo, cambiaron su posición. Creo que fue profundamente decepcionante para el propio Bernie, que pensaba que tenía los votos.
Por supuesto, ahora la administración Biden entró muy duro y trataron de hacer todo lo posible para quitarle votos a ese tema. Pero creo que esto se va a tener que arreglar porque si Bernie no lo saca adelante, estoy seguro de que va a haber mucha presión sobre él desde su propia base, para quienes esto es un tema urgente, no solo por lo que los saudíes están haciendo en Yemen, sino también para devolver al Congreso el papel que le asignó la Constitución estadounidense, como el organismo que decide si Estados Unidos está en guerra, no el poder ejecutivo.
Talia Baroncelli
¿Hay alguna diferencia sustantiva real políticamente entre la política de Trump hacia Arabia Saudí y la política de Biden hacia Arabia Saudí? Quiero decir, Biden llama a MBS… o a Arabia Saudí un paria y que el mundo debería ver que es un paria. Pero, aparte de la retórica inicial, dio marcha atrás después de pronunciar estas duras palabras y no parece haber mucha diferencia de política.
Trita Parsi
Creo que en el esquema más amplio hay, por desgracia, un grado mucho mayor de continuidad que de cambio. Creo que hay algunos cambios, pero cuando se trata de un tema más amplio, como la manera de terminar la guerra en Yemen, como cuál va a ser la relación entre Estados Unidos y Arabia Saudí cuando los saudíes participan activamente en políticas que socavan a Estados Unidos, en esas cosas no hemos visto los cambios que pudimos y debimos haber visto. Creo que, nuevamente, como has señalado, se verá como una oportunidad perdida para la administración Biden, al no haber actuado.
Creo que también nos dice algo de que hay como una fuerza gravitatoria que hace que, una vez en el cargo, muchos candidatos recurran a ofrecer políticas que son una continuación del pasado en lugar de cumplir con lo que prometieron. En este caso concreto, encuentro el razonamiento y la motivación detrás de la decisión de la administración Biden altamente problemáticos, y es que la administración Biden esencialmente cree que va a terminar en alguna forma de competencia estratégica más amplia con los chinos. Ya estamos ahí [inaudible 00:08:10]. En ese contexto, una de las bazas más fuertes que tiene Estados Unidos es su sistema de alianzas. Creen que la competencia con China no tendrá lugar solo en el Mar de China Meridional, sino que tendrá lugar en África, América Latina, Europa y Oriente Próximo.
Entonces, como resultado, se producen dos cosas. Primero, los planes anteriores de la administración de retirar las fuerzas militares de Oriente Próximo, creo que hay alrededor de 19 bases allí, esencialmente han sido abandonados, y la presencia militar estadounidense en la región es prácticamente la misma que antes. En segundo lugar, si el sistema de alianzas estadounidense es una parte tan significativa de esta competencia, Estados Unidos debe hacer todo lo posible para mantener a sus aliados de su lado y no dejar que se alíen con China. El resultado de eso, entonces, es exactamente lo que decíamos antes. La creencia es que para evitar que Arabia Saudí se acerque a China, Estados Unidos, bajo Biden, en muchas áreas, en realidad se está volviendo más indulgente en su relación con Arabia Saudí, haciendo más la vista gorda a lo que los saudíes están haciendo que antes.
Nuevamente, volviendo a lo que hablamos antes, no creo que el cálculo sea correcto. Creo que la base de esto es muy problemática. El resultado hasta ahora es bastante claro. Los saudíes no están ajustando su política en la dirección que quiere la administración Biden. La administración Biden los está colmando de concesiones y realmente no obtiene nada a cambio.
Talia Baroncelli
Bueno, si Biden decidiera quitarse los guantes y ponerse duro con Arabia Saudí mañana, ¿qué requeriría eso de otros jugadores en la región, por ejemplo, los emiratíes? ¿Impactaría eso en los Acuerdos de Abraham con Israel, en la normalización con Israel?
Trita Parsi
Bueno, creo que has puesto el dedo en algo muy importante, que es que también hay un compromiso muy muy fuerte en la administración Biden para construir y expandir los Acuerdos de Abraham.
En mi opinión eso también es muy problemático porque los Acuerdos de Abraham son solo la última variación de la misma idea que ha guiado la política exterior estadounidense en Oriente Próximo durante los últimos 20-30 años, que es tratar de organizar la región contra Irán. El principio organizador de la política exterior estadounidense en Oriente Próximo es construir una coalición tan grande como sea posible para contrarrestar a Irán. Ha fallado. Ha desestabilizado la región. No ha traído el tipo de beneficios que estaban previstos. Ha vuelto la política iraní más agresiva porque están haciendo todo lo posible para socavar el proyecto estadounidense. Esta es solo la última versión de la misma idea que antes. Esto es lo mismo que motivó gran parte de los Acuerdos de Paz de Oslo, y hemos visto adónde ha llevado eso. Ahora la idea es que, bueno, si los emiratíes y los saudíes están dispuestos a tirar a los palestinos a los leones y hacer como que todo está bien, puede haber una alianza entre los saudíes y los emiratíes y los israelíes contra Irán. Ahora, lo fascinante de esto es que desde el principio, cuando la administración Trump estaba haciendo esto, estaban usando términos como Arabia-OTAN. Los funcionarios de la administración Biden, por supuesto, no estaban en el cargo en ese momento, eran asesores de Biden, y se mostraron en contra. Tony Blinken, por ejemplo, publicó un artículo de opinión en 2017 en el que decía que una coalición contra Irán, disfrazada de algún tipo de acuerdo de paz, solo iba a desestabilizar aún más la región y agravar las divisiones entre chiitas y sunitas en la región, lo cual no beneficia a la región ni a los Estados Unidos. Sin embargo, bajo la rúbrica de los Acuerdos de Abraham, esencialmente seguimos la misma política, pero ahora con una gran cantidad de elogios y entusiasmo, pensando que traerá un resultado diferente al que tuvo en el pasado.
Este es otro factor muy importante en cuanto a por qué la administración Biden no se ha quitado los guantes, han aceptado todo tipo de políticas negativas de los saudíes sin ninguna repercusión, por temor a que si se ponen duros con los saudíes, no podrán asegurarse lo que se considera el premio dentro de los Acuerdos de Abraham, que es conseguir que los saudíes también se unan a ese acuerdo.
Talia Baroncelli
Sí. Me gustaría que habláramos de Israel, porque el nuevo Gobierno israelí, el Gobierno ultraconservador de [Benjamin] Netanyahu, claramente le tiene ojeriza a Irán, y me imagino que les gustaría fortalecer la normalización y su relación con otros actores regionales. Así que me pregunto, ¿cuánto crees que este nuevo Gobierno israelí afectará la política exterior de EE. UU., especialmente que EE. UU. vuelva potencialmente al PAIC [Plan de Acción Integral Conjunto]?
Trita Parsi
Sí. Obviamente, el PAIC está ahora mismo en estado de coma. No está ni siquiera claro si es posible revivirlo. Pero incluso en estado de coma, no hay un acuerdo ni un colapso del acuerdo. Creo que a la administración Biden le gustaría mantener esta situación el mayor tiempo posible, porque, esencialmente, significa que no están pagando el costo político de volver al acuerdo, particularmente ahora en este nuevo contexto con las protestas y la represión en Irán, así como el apoyo de Irán a Rusia en la guerra en Ucrania. Por otro lado, no tienen que lidiar con el costo del colapso del acuerdo, porque, en el momento en que digan que el acuerdo está totalmente muerto, van a tener una crisis en las manos.
Pero ese estado sin acuerdo-sin colapso esencialmente solo va a durar mientras los israelíes no presionen fuertemente a Estados Unidos para que tome una decisión. Y durante bastante tiempo, Israel no ha estado en una posición clara o fuerte para ejercer esa presión debido a la agitación dentro de sus fronteras. Ahora hay un nuevo Gobierno, Netanyahu ha vuelto. Una de las cosas que le encanta hacer es hablar sobre Irán y presionar a Estados Unidos sobre ese tema. Y también está entrando en un nuevo contexto en el que las cosas van a ser mucho más fáciles para él de lo que eran antes porque, claro, la represión en Irán, el apoyo a Rusia, etc., han facilitado la entrada a ideas que en el pasado no tenían lugar.
Pero creo que también es posible que Netanyahu quizá aprendió la lección de 2014 y 2015. Fue con todo contra el PAIC. Él fue la razón principal por la que la situación se había intensificado hasta el punto de que la cuestión era si habría guerra o un Irán nuclear. Lo que calculó mal con eso es que la creciente probabilidad de una guerra motivó más a la administración Obama para tratar de evitar la guerra buscando una solución diplomática, que era el peor resultado para Netanyahu. Entonces, la pregunta es, esta vez, ¿buscará la guerra? ¿Pedirá medidas muy agresivas sabiendo muy bien que en realidad pueden conducir a un escenario en el que de repente el cálculo de la administración Biden puede terminar siendo que el PAIC es mejor para ellos que los resultados que busca Netanyahu? ¿O realmente adoptará un enfoque más suave en el que intentará aprovechar la posición debilitada de Irán para asegurar realmente medidas a gran escala de aislamiento contra Irán, no solo de los Estados Unidos, sino también de Europa y potencialmente de los países del sur global, y ver eso como una victoria, con lo que en última instancia Irán se convertirá en una especie de Corea del Norte? Incluso si Irán intensificara su programa nuclear, no importaría porque Irán estará completamente aislado.
La conclusión es que no sabemos exactamente lo que hará. Hará algo, sin duda. Ejercerá presión sobre los Estados Unidos en este tema, pero quizá veamos algo diferente que en 2014 y 2015.
Talia Baroncelli
Bueno, has dicho varias veces que Joe Biden, el presidente, debería haber firmado una orden ejecutiva desde el principio para lograr que EE. UU. vuelva al PAIC. Dadas las protestas actuales en Irán, ¿no sería esa la mejor señal de apoyo para el pueblo iraní, firmar el acuerdo, facilitarles la posibilidad de rebelarse contra su propio Gobierno?
Trita Parsi
Creo que, en primer lugar, si Biden hubiera firmado mediante una orden ejecutiva y se hubiera unido al PAIC en enero de 2021, veríamos una situación muy diferente en Irán en este momento. Con la mejora de la situación económica, creo que es muy probable que [Ebrahim] Raisi no se hubiera convertido en presidente, porque los reformistas y los centristas habrían podido demostrar que cumplieron, lo cual no ha pasado, ya que no solo Trump abandonó acuerdo, sino que Biden no se reincorporó. Así que fue profundamente vergonzoso para los reformistas y aquellos que habían insistido en que algún tipo de arreglo con los Estados Unidos beneficiaría a Irán, al pueblo iraní y también a la voluntad iraní.
Creo que en este punto, políticamente, va a ser muy difícil, obviamente por las protestas, pero también creo que es importante reconocer que parece haber una divergencia entre lo que dice la gente que protesta en Irán y la protesta fuera de Irán por parte de elementos de la diáspora. En Irán, no vi ninguna protesta que mencionara el PAIC. No estaban argumentando contra el PAIC o a favor de él. Simplemente no era un factor en sus consideraciones o que pensaban que valía la pena mencionar en sus consignas y en sus protestas.
En el exterior, desde muy temprano, se adoptaron cada vez más ampliamente posiciones que habían sido sostenidas durante mucho tiempo por el Gobierno israelí, por los muyahidines iraníes. No a las negociaciones, no al PAIC, cerrar las embajadas, sacar a Irán de la Copa del Mundo, cosas de ese tipo, que de nuevo parecían ser bastante diferentes a lo que se escuchaba en el interior del país.
Otra cosa que creo que está bastante clara en este momento, al menos por las numerosas voces en Twitter, quizá no tenga tanta fuerza fuera de las redes sociales, es una llamada a alinearse detrás del ex príncipe heredero de Irán. Por el contrario, los lemas en Irán durante las protestas fueron: “Ni un líder supremo ni un sah”. Así que creo que estamos viendo claramente una divergencia entre lo que está pasando dentro del país, lo que están hablando, lo que están pidiendo, y lo que viene del exterior.
No he visto pruebas de que esta sea una posición ampliamente sostenida entre los manifestantes, de que el PAIC sería malo para ellos, al contrario. Creo que existe un profundo grado de escepticismo con respecto al PAIC, lo que ha provocado que muchas personas piensen que, bueno, ¿por qué debería haber un PAIC? No beneficia a la gente de todos modos porque los beneficios económicos no se materializan. Y esto es una función de que, lamentablemente, Estados Unidos se retiró del acuerdo, Los europeos no hicieron nada para compensar realmente, de manera sustantiva, esas pérdidas económicas. Entonces, hay un escepticismo acerca del PAIC en Irán que creo que está presente en todo esto. Pero no he visto pruebas de que esta idea de que no debe haber ninguna negociación sea importante para los manifestantes dentro del país, o que no debe haber ningún acuerdo. Puede ser que les sea indiferente, pero eso es diferente a decir que están en contra.
Talia Baroncelli
Una pregunta muy rápida porque tienes que irte. ¿Qué tipo de señal está tratando de enviar Irán a la comunidad internacional al ejecutar a este ciudadano británico-iraní, Alireza Akbari, que no tenía realmente nada que ver con las protestas?
Trita Parsi
No, ciertamente no tenía nada que ver con la protesta. Ha estado en la cárcel desde 2019. Los iraníes lo acusan de espionaje. Obviamente, no se ha presentado ninguna prueba ni se ha permitido que fuentes independientes evalúen esa acusación y la evidencia de ello, si existe evidencia. Pero creo que lo que estamos viendo con eso es que ya se está produciendo una escalada entre Europa e Irán, y va a haber una respuesta del lado británico, y probablemente conducirá a más medidas por parte de Irán. Es muy fácil que esto se convierta en un ciclo ascendente, y estas cosas no suelen tener resultados positivos.
También creo que si esto llega a una crisis total y a la confrontación potencial entre Occidente e Irán, tendrá repercusiones negativas para la protesta a favor de la democracia en el interior del país. Hay una corriente de opinión y una creencia en algunos sectores de la diáspora de que este es el tipo de cosas que derribarán al régimen. Las experiencias en la memoria reciente, desde Irak y Afganistán hasta Siria y Libia, nos muestran que los principales elementos que se benefician de una militarización del conflicto y el uso de las fuerzas armadas son en realidad los elementos menos democráticos, los más represivos dentro de la sociedad. Así que tengo muy poca confianza en que algo bueno saldrá de eso. Y estoy bastante preocupado porque si esa es la dirección en la que vamos, será un golpe duro para el movimiento de protesta dentro del país.
Talia Baroncelli
Trita Parsi, vicepresidente ejecutivo del Quincy Institute, muchas gracias por acompañarnos.
Trita Parsi
Muchas gracias por recibirme.
Talia Baroncelli
Y gracias por ver theAnalysis.news. Si está en condiciones de donar, visite nuestro sitio web, theAnalysis.news. Pulse el botón de donar en la esquina superior derecha de la pantalla. Suscríbase a nuestro boletín y a nuestro canal de YouTube, de esa manera no se perderá ningún episodio futuro. Gracias.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter Email(Required)Name(Required) First Last Δ
“Trita Parsi is the co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, as well as the founder and former president of the National Iranian American Council.”
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
Larry Wilkerson reports on a webinar where the U.S. Navy described climate change as an existential risk. Will the civilian leadership finally take urgent action?
The False Promise of Carbon Capture and StorageExposing Apocalyptic Economics with Steve KeenNavy Puts Climate Change at Top of Threat List – Larry WilkersonState of Big Tech 2022: Dismantling National & Global Digital EnclosuresReal Climate Solutions are No Mystery – PollinHow to Fight Inflation Without Attacking Workers – PollinDebunking Net Zero, Carbon Offsets, Nature-Based Solutions, Climate Smart Agriculture, Bioeconomy…A Warning From Chomsky and EllsbergBiden’s Bill has Significant Funding for Climate but 10% of What’s Needed – Bob PollinProgressive Running Against a Corp Dem in Boeing CountryThe Capitalist Solution to ‘Save’ the Planet: Make it an Asset Class & Sell itDaniel Ellsberg on Nuclear War and UkraineA Dire Warning About the End of Human CivilizationNationalize Fossil Fuel to Fight Climate Change and Inflation – Bob PollinFossil Fuel and Private Equity Love Trump – Thomas Ferguson Pt 3/4Carl Sagan testifying before Congress in 1985 on climate changeHumanity will not be saved by promisesCOP 26: End the Cynicism and Denial – pt 2/2COP 26: End the Cynicism and Denial – pt 1/2House Committee Chairwoman Maloney Nails Oil ExecutivesStop Subsidizing Wall St., Start Subsidizing Workers for High Energy Costs – Bob PollinBiden Heads to COP 26 Throttled by Manchin and Trumpists – with Bob PollinA Conversation With Paul Jay – Pt 4Current Climate Extremes Double at 2 Degrees Warming and Quadruple at 3 – Lead IPCC AuthorA Just Transition Now or Climate Disaster is InevitableNot Much Climate Plan in Biden Jobs Plan – Robert Pollin Transcript * Spanish Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Guest * Music*
Paul JayHi. Welcome to theAnalysis.news. I’m Paul Jay. I will be back in just a few seconds with Larry Wilkerson, who just recently attended a conference on the climate crisis and how it might affect the U.S. Navy. This was a webinar held by the Navy and the War College. Larry will tell us more about it in just a few seconds.
Anyone that’s watched my interviews with Larry Wilkerson, who is the former chief of staff for Colin Powell at the State Department. He worked with Powell at the Joint Chiefs. He has been in the military for decades. Anyone that’s watched my interviews with Larry will know that he and I are no fans of U.S. foreign policy and no fans of the U.S. military-industrial complex. I would say Larry is one of the most important and outstanding critics of all of that. But all that said, one needs to acknowledge that to a large extent, the U.S. military, and maybe particularly the Navy because they would be the most urgently affected, have been fairly realistic about the threat of the climate crisis. They are not climate science deniers by any means. In terms of the U.S. government apparatus, maybe they’re the most open publicly, outside of some of the straightforward environmental agencies, about the danger of the climate crisis. They do it from the point of view of how to strengthen and maintain the power of the U.S. Navy, but still, they don’t really mince words about how dangerous this situation is.
Now, let’s remember, the Republican Party and much of the Democratic Party that claims to be so pro-military has no climate policy that reflects the urgency of the situation, even as it’s explained to them and publicly by the Navy. Let’s not forget, 75 million people in the last election voted for a climate science denier. The media pays very little attention to the climate crisis unless there’s a fire. Even when there are fires in California and droughts in the Midwest, sometimes they don’t even mention the words climate change.
Larry Wilkerson went to a conference this morning, as we speak, with the Navy sounding the alarm, and he’s going to tell us about it. So, Larry, thanks very much for joining us again.
Lawrence WilkersonSurely.
Paul JaySo what did you hear?
Lawrence WilkersonI heard that what Michael Klare wrote in his book, All Hell Breaking Loose, is readily acknowledged by all the services, but particularly the Navy, for some of the reasons you just reiterated. The Navy is, after all, on the ocean. The Navy is, after all, almost entirely coastal installations that are subject to sea rise. As I found out this morning, as with the Army, drought is as big a threat to them as sea rise. The Army has even prioritized drought at the top of its threats from climate change, and that’s because the surrounding communities in the southwest of the United States, in particular, are suffering so badly and probably will continue to suffer. The installations located there are going to suffer too. So drought is very high on the Army’s priority, and it’s high on the Navy’s, too, because a lot of the drought is impacting places like San Diego, for example, which are Navy bastions.
Paul JayNow this morning, after the webinar, you told me you thought it was so good you felt like cheering. So elaborate. What are some of the specifics of what you heard?
Lawrence WilkersonWell, it’s so disgusting that the government is doing nothing. The federal government outside the DOD [the United States Department of Defense] is– I shouldn’t say nothing. They’re doing a lot more than they were five years ago when I first started speaking out on this matter, but they’re not doing nearly enough. Biden issued the Executive Order, for example, that started the Climate Change Corps, which I’m all for. I think, finally, at the end of the day, we’re going to have to have a draft for that, and we’re probably going to have to put 10-11, maybe even 12-13 million people into it, young people into it. Right now, the Executive Order only calls for volunteers. Well, we know what volunteers do. Look at the all-volunteer force. There’s not a volunteer in it. It’s all money, bribes, and so forth. But even with that being done by the Biden administration, I’ve been appalled at the lack of action on the part of the civilian bureaucracy, the civilian leadership.
This morning, I knew the military services were leading. I knew they had long ago put climate change at the top of their threat list. I knew that they viewed it as an existential threat. I knew that they viewed it as an incredible drain on their budgets in the future, primarily because of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief going up by a factor of ten times. But I didn’t know that they were so methodical about their approach to it. Maybe I should have. My time on the Climate Security Working Group would indicate that they were developing that kind of methodology. Still, it surprised me this morning how forward-leaning, how much in front of the foxhole the U.S. Navy is.
We were briefed by the Vice Admiral who heads– he’s actually the CNO, the Chief of Naval Operations, logistics expert. They are framed for climate change. It represents everything from what is called drop-in fuel, for example. They want to be able to take fuel off a barge, for example. The barge would create the hydrogen or create the alternative fuel, and there would be no requirement for that fuel and the apparatus to generate it to be on the warship, to be on the platform that actually fights for the Navy. It would be on a barge somewhere, and they would pull up to that barge, and the hydrogen, or whatever it turns out to be, would be offloaded into the mechanism of the ship that uses that fuel. All kinds of innovation and working with universities.
I was somewhat taken aback when I heard him talk about UVA, the University of Virginia, and Virginia Tech working with Yorktown, which I used to drive by almost every time I used the old highway when I was teaching at William and Mary. No mention of William and Mary. So I fired off an email immediately to the Virginia Institute of Maritime Studies and to the New Institute for Integrated Conservation at William and Mary. Why aren’t you being talked about by Admiral [Ricky Lee] Williamson? This is crazy. UVA is in on it. Virginia Tech’s in on it. They’re helping. This is the way it should be. You’re not doing anything, apparently, because you weren’t even mentioned.
Then we moved over to the doctor, Dr. Mark Spector, from the Office of Naval Research, ONR, probably one of the best research entities in the United States of America. He’s talking about, “I need academic help. I need help. Come to our website and look at all the projects we’re working on. Everything from batteries to alternative fuels, to you name it. I need your help. Come on, register with us, and help us out.” This is what should be happening.
Paul JayWell, the military certainly knows how to acquire research and pay for research, and the military, including the Navy, although maybe I don’t know if they’re the worst, but as a whole, the U.S. military is one of the worst carbon emitters on the planet.
Lawrence WilkersonAbsolutely and readily admitted to it.
Paul JaySo what are they going to do about that? They don’t need Congress. I guess they need funding, but they’re getting tons of funding. Are they going to use that money to actually transition to sustainable?
Lawrence WilkersonAlready are. Every initiative that Admiral Williamson and others, Deborah Loomis, for example, who is the Secretary of the Navy’s Special Assistant for Climate Change. Just imagine some senator having a Special Assistant for Climate Change. They all talked about how this is at the root of making the Navy a better Navy than any other Navy in the world because we are charged with protecting the seas, protecting the country’s commerce, and so forth. So we have got to have a Navy that can operate in this rapidly changing climate situation. So that’s their number one alternative or number one objective. I have no objection to that. That’s their business. But at the same time, they realize they’re contributing.
So every initiative they’re working on is also double-hatted, if you will. It’s to make the operational capacity better, and it’s also to reduce their contributions to the problems that the operational capacity has to confront, and that is climate change. So they’re trying to bring down their signature. They’re trying to bring down their carbon emissions. Every initiative has that attached to it– to add to the amelioration aspect of what they say is the two-pronged way to go after climate change. Adaptation, because we’re so late, we’re going to have to adapt to things like sea rise in Norfolk. We can’t stop it, not stop it completely, so we got to adapt.
Two, and this five years ago, I wouldn’t hear anybody talk about it because they were afraid to talk about it. Congress would reprimand them and maybe even threaten their budget if they talked about it– amelioration. When you talk about amelioration, you have to talk about the human contribution to climate change, of which the Navy and the other services are a great component. The DOD is [inaudible 00:09:57] list of nations would be 55th right beside Portugal or something like that. It gives off a lot of emissions, so they are double-pronged. They’re going after the operational capacity, which is essential for the services, and at the same time, they’re going after that portion, which is large, and they realize the problem that they’re creating.
Paul JayWell, part of what they’re creating is based on this policy, which is certainly pushed by the Pentagon of needing this enormous global military footprint to maintain U.S. global hegemony, which to a large extent, I think is kind of ridiculous because when’s the last time they won a major war? And what the hell do all these bases do anyway? One of the fastest ways for the military not to be such a carbon emitter is not to be so damn big.
Lawrence WilkersonYou make a good point, but you make it for those elements of the military that I would probably agree with your point on. I’m a big fan of the Navy. I went to the Naval War College. I’m steeped in the Navy, if you will. The history of the United States is the history of the United States Navy in many respects, all the way from John Paul Jones forward. The Navy is an arm of the armed forces which is designed to protect international commerce. It doesn’t confine its protection of international commerce to U.S. commerce. It guarantees freedom of the seas and operational capability on those seas, even to our enemy’s militaries, but certainly to our friends, our enemies, and our neutrals’ commerce. That’s the essence of the Navy. If I had to do away with the United States military, the last aspect of it I’d do away with is the Navy for that very reason.
It’s been argued that the most important clause in our constitution is not the things we usually cite; it’s the commerce clause because that’s essentially what we are as a nation of commerce. I wish we were more so even than we are today because we’ve become a nation of banking and finance more than commerce. That’s what we’re supposed to be. That’s what we were built to be. That’s what [George] Washington, [Thomas] Jefferson, [Alexander] Hamilton, and all the founding fathers thought would be the power of this country was commerce. The Navy was built, and the Navy was put to sea to protect that commerce. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a benign task until it turns hot. When you encounter someone who wants to interrupt that commerce, as we did off the coast of Somalia with terrorists who wanted to interdict the commerce through the Red Sea, now far more important than the Persian Gulf– 60% of the world’s commerce goes through the Red Sea, through the Bab-el-Mandeb, and into the Red Sea. The protection of that is the United States Navy. Let me hasten to add the Chinese Navy, the Italian Navy, soon to be the Turkish Navy probably, the Japanese Navy, the combined task force that dealt with those Somali pirates that were interdicting commerce was joint. It was 7-8 different nations, and now most of those nations are in Djibouti because of that.
Paul JayBut if the mission was defending commerce, you probably could get rid of about 75% of it. I mean, how much of it is about posturing around Taiwan?
Lawrence WilkersonWell, you got a point there. You could do something that I think is absolutely essential. We’re going to talk about this in April at the Pritzker Military Institute and Military Museum in Chicago. It’s a very prestigious place where we’re going to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the all-volunteer force. But the panel I’m going to be on is going to talk about technological change and how that could be used to reshape the U.S. military.
Paul JayI was about to say I’ve heard even neocons say aircraft carriers are simply floating targets that could be taken out at any time. They’re boondoggles.
Lawrence WilkersonTheir offensive purpose is to attack other countries. That’s really what their offensive purpose is. Now, you can say, “oh, no, they protect the other surface ships that protect commerce at sea and so forth.” I would say quickly, “submarines can do that. Submarines can do that all day long, and they don’t present, other than their ballistic missiles, that threat to onshore countries and people.” So if you wanted to redesign the U.S. military to be more in concert with what we purport our missions in the world, you would certainly keep the Navy. You might think about the other services and consider the past. What did we do? We had fairly powerful big navies, and we had very, very small armies, and we didn’t even have an airforce.
Paul JayGoing back to the conference– of the various speakers, what were their views of when this is all coming down? You told me earlier it was pretty scary, some of what you heard. So what are they predicting and when?
Lawrence WilkersonIt’s here, and they know it. Admiral Williamson talked, for example, about the nation’s only naval-aviator training space, Pensacola, and having to rebuild it completely now, post-hurricane. It was really badly damaged, just as was the base in northern Florida that Congress wouldn’t let the Navy move or wouldn’t let the Air Force move. It’s really an Air Force base. They wouldn’t let him move it, and I think it was $4 billion worth of damage that the hurricane did. Of course, the Air Force wanted to move it. They didn’t want to stay there because what’s going to happen? It’s going to get hit again. But now Congress, because of political constituency in Florida, has said, “no, you will rebuild it to the tune of $4-5 billion.” That’s crazy. That’s insane. They wanted to do something smart. They wanted to move it inland. They wanted to get away from that kind of possibility, but no, they’re not going to be able to. But they will rebuild it with ten times more resilience than it had before in terms of the buildings, in terms of how they lay things out, in terms of how, for example, Guam is laid out.
Now, if you’ve ever been to Guam lately, you know that Guam is an aesthetic nightmare. I mean, that’s the way I would describe it. It’s been built to withstand 200-knot winds from typhoons, so everything is built low, lean, and austere. It just looks horrible from an aesthetic point of view.
Paul JayDid they paint a picture of what the next 10, 20, or 30 years look like?
Lawrence WilkersonIn a sense, yeah, because they were talking about how conflict is going to– you’re going to have conflict all over the world. You’re going to have conflict that is induced partially, initially, as it is now today in the Global South, by climate change. But then you’re going to have conflict that is primarily induced by climate change. That is to say, it’s going to become so bad that people are going to have to migrate. We’re talking about everything from 120 to 130 degrees F, day after day after day after day. Parched land because of that. No water because of that. No crops because of that, and people moving because of that.
Paul JayYeah, I mean, hundreds of millions of people from the South having to move North. What is that? What does that mean?
Lawrence WilkersonIt’s already happening. The New York Times sits around and writes about this, and the Guardian even writes about this, and no one says, as you mentioned in your lead-in, no one says, “oh, maybe these people are moving partly at least now because of climate change.” You’d think so. Yes, of course, they are. If they’re coming out of Nicaragua, Honduras, or Guatemala, they’ve had massive hurricane damage down there. They’ve had drought down there. They’ve had floods down there. That’s why some of these people are leaving because it’s awfully difficult to live, let alone work and make a living.
Look at Cuba. Cuba had more problems with this last hurricane than it’s had with any other hurricane in its past, and Cuba has loads of experience with hurricanes. When I was down there in 2009 and 2010, I got briefings on how they did things, and I wanted to transfer that to Florida and to Texas. My problem was Cuba can say, “get out of your house,” and people leave. In Florida, you say, “get out of your house,” and half the people stay, and then you have to go rescue them and risk people’s lives doing it. Well, that’s our democracy; that’s our freedom. But Cuba has a much better way of handling hurricanes, serious hurricanes, than probably anybody else in the Caribbean and certainly better than us. But they didn’t handle this one very well, and they didn’t because it was so massive, and they’ve had a lot of problems with recovering from that. Not just the usual problems they’re having with their energy grid and so forth, but all kinds of problems that occurred because of the latest hurricane. So that’s a problem.
Now, have you seen the stats on how many Cubans are leaving Cuba? It’s incredible. It’s worse than any boat lift we’ve ever had. It’s worse than all the past immigration. We’ve changed Jesse Helms and Richard Burton’s laws. You can’t just put your foot on U.S. territory and become a U.S. citizen now. Because hundreds of thousands of people have left, you actually have to go through some sort of process. Now they’ve modified and expedited the process, but you still have to go through the process.
Paul JayBut do you think this increased migration is also connected to the climate issue, to the hurricane?
Lawrence WilkersonYes, it is partially. It’s also part of the blockade we have on Cuba because there are no economic prospects. You notice that President Biden has just started re-implementing some of President Obama’s policies. For example, we just began to approve Western Union– you can send remittances down to Cuba now if you’re a Cuban American living in Florida.
Paul JayChomsky and a lot of other climate scientists I’ve interviewed, people that are authors of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports, they’re predicting essentially, and within 30, 40 years, 50 years max, and maybe sooner– these timelines are very unpredictable. There are various tipping points in the climate structure where this whole thing could be happening much faster. In fact, it always is happening faster than the IPCC reports. As soon as a report comes out, it’s outdated within a very short time. The predictions are essentially the end of organized human society. People are using language like that. Does the military get that the threat is at that level? Do they talk like that? And do they tell their supposed political masters that this is the threat?
Lawrence WilkersonWell, I don’t know what they say in the councils of government. I suspect they’re somewhat limited in the rhetoric they use with President Biden and others like him, Tony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, and so forth. But I don’t think people like General [Mark] Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, holds anything back. I think the fact that they have put climate change as the number one future threat to the armed forces of the United States ought to make every single doubting American stand up and take notice. Even Marjorie Taylor Greene, asshole that she is.
Paul JaySo why aren’t they?
Lawrence WilkersonYou can’t be sending a trillion freaking dollars to an instrument that you praise day in and day out, that you have special sessions of Congress to thank. You can’t be doing that. And then when they turn around and tell you the number one threat to your existence, lady, is climate change, and continue unless you’re warped, and Marjorie Taylor Greene is warped.
Paul JayWell, the Republican Party, as you and I have discussed, has essentially become like a criminal family of various forms. Climate science denial just feeds their base, and they don’t seem to give a damn about the consequences. The Democratic Party leadership, not certainly the whole party, but the leadership, while in rhetoric, they seem to get it. Even this last big bill, this supposed anti thing called– I can’t remember what’s it called– the anti-inflation bill that didn’t have anything to do with inflation. It did more than previous bills. But they’re not out there pounding this message you heard from the Navy about how this is the number one threat. I mean, China supposedly is the number one threat. Russia is the number one threat. You don’t hear that climate is the number one threat from any of the political circles.
Lawrence WilkersonHere’s a little insight into that with regard to the military. Even though the admiral, the assistant to the Secretary of the Navy, and others, kept making the point about how operational advantage was gained from being ahead of the power curve, especially the really vicious part of the power curve, like, for example, sea rise, they kept saying things like, we’re cooperating with Vietnam. We’re cooperating with China. We’re cooperating with Russia.
There was one really poignant story that one of the lower-ranking people told. They had just been– no, it wasn’t a lower rank. It was a lower-ranking person telling the story, but it was the Secretary of the Navy who went to Fiji over the objections of the White House and the DOD and gave a speech on climate change. They said he should give a speech on how China’s a threat and all this. He went to Fiji, and he gave this speech. When he finished the speech, one of the members of the Fijian audience came up to him and said, “thank you very much for doing that. You finally recognize the fact that we’re getting screwed out here, and we are your allies.” And that’s it.
They went to the Mekong Delta in Vietnam, and this is the Navy now, and they’re dealing with the problems that Vietnam is going to confront with the Mekong. All of a sudden, one of the Vietnamese from the government– this is a communist government, Paul– and he said, “we’ve got a lot of students getting their doctorates, and they are coming up with some good ideas.” Fast forward. The Navy sat in on the doctoral briefings of those students from Vietnamese universities, with the faculty grading the students on the quality of their dissertations in order to see if they could gain more ideas about how to deal with climate change. This is what should be happening all over the world. This is going to kill us all. We need to be cooperating. We need to be collaborating. This is what is happening in these esoteric military channels because the military understands, at root, this is something everybody has to contribute to. Enemy. Friend. Mutual Ally.
Paul JayWas there any whisper of the necessity of some kind of negotiated settlement to this war in Ukraine for this reason to get this conversation moved over to climate?
Lawrence WilkersonI think they stayed away from that in this particular webinar because it would have been distracting in terms of the main message they wanted to send. But if you got Admiral Williamson, or we also had the Royal Navy there in terms of Admiral Paul Beattie, the U.K., if you got them aside, you probably would get them to say, “this is the dumbest thing on the face of the Earth.” Now, they couldn’t say that for political reasons, but this war is crazy. It’s crazy.
Yesterday, I was also in a Quincy Institute program. It was Chatham House rules, so I won’t name anybody or anything, but basically, the experts that we brought in to brief us on the Ukraine situation essentially said, “we’re probably looking at two to three years…” think about that for a minute. “Two to three years more of war, and then both sides will tire if we can control escalation during those two or three years– and that is a real big question– both sides will look at each other and say, this is really bad stuff. Let’s have a negotiated ceasefire, and then we’ll have a DMZ [Demilitarized Zone], U.N. peacekeepers in 75 years, like in Cyprus, like in Pakistan, like on the Indian Chinese border, like in Korea. We’ll have 75 years of a demilitarized zone and a negotiated ceasefire, and that’s the best we can do.” If that’s the best we can do, we are certainly hurting in Washington, Moscow, and everywhere.
Paul JayAnd the way U.S. policy is now is to keep arms at a level that the Ukrainians can’t lose. Don’t give arms at a level that would actually threaten the Russians getting completely nuts. So this goes on and on and on.
Lawrence WilkersonThe talk now with this main battle tank business and this pressure on Germany to give Leopards to them, on the U.K. to give Centurions to them, and on us to give Abrams to them, which is pressure from the military-industrial complex, I guarantee you, is indicative of how it could escalate anywhere in that two or three years before we get to a stalemated ceasefire. It’s a cash cow. I mean, that’s Lockheed Martin’s dream to have this go on and on and on. Look, they’re making money off the munitions going to Ukraine and then making a double hit off the munitions going back into the U.S. and our allies’ stockpiles that got depleted because of the munitions going to Ukraine. I mean, this is nirvana for them.
Paul JayOn Putin’s side, he’d rather this go on forever in order to avoid the humiliation of a deal that ends up back on February 23 because then what did the tens of thousands of Russian soldiers die for? So it’s insanity on all sides.
Lawrence WilkersonIt is. This whole situation is insane. It’s utterly insane. But it’s very profitable. Very profitable. It’s profitable for Putin, too. If you look at how sanctions have forced other countries to line up with Russia with regard, particularly to petroleum, but other things, too, it’s profitable for them also, unlike what we say, because we like to think our sanctions are working, they aren’t.
Paul JaySo, just before we conclude the interview, Larry, is there anything else that came up at that Navy Climate webinar that we should hear?
Lawrence WilkersonWell, there’s one powerful message coming forward from the individual in charge of the Navy, and I got the impression a wider writ within DOD, what’s called Vector Control or Vector Analysis– disease is what it’s about. It’s pandemics. It’s things like ebola in Zaire. It’s really dangerous operation within the global climate with regard to disease and the passing of disease from population to population. It was somewhat frightening, the charts he put up, and he talked about how this is what we’re doing in the so-called Global South. We’re using these pesticides. This is what we’re doing with these pesticides, and this is how what we’re doing with these pesticides is adding to the drama and the depth and profundity of climate change and, at the same time, to the ultimate problem they’re going to have, raising any kind of edible food. Don’t just mention drought, but all this other stuff, too. And then talk about the vectors coming out of this.
Vector control in the army was essentially controlling rats because they spread disease, as you well know– the bubonic plague and things like that. Well, vector control now is not just rats. It’s all these things coming out of places that wouldn’t have come out of there had the heat not gotten to the level it’s gotten to, had the rapacious, predatory capitalism not ripped apart the terrain the way it has. And had we not had some of these policies and practices in place that are there because we’ve robbed them of the capacity to have higher tech solutions to their problems, and so they’re going back to really bad pesticides and things like that to take care of their problems.
All of this is a part of the way– in Fiji, it was said to the SECNAV, as it was reported on this webinar, “most of this is your fault.” Bingo! Bingo! It’s not the Pacific Islander’s fault. It’s not Palau’s fault. It’s not Micronesia’s fault. It’s not Kiribati’s fault. It’s our fault. “Hey, we’re your allies. What are you doing?” The [crosstalk 00:31:45] is your fault.
Paul JayDoes the Navy say this stuff to congressional committees? I mean, do they talk?
Lawrence WilkersonThat’s a good question. I don’t know. I don’t know. It’s a good question. It’s a good question. Are they as candid with their congressional oversight as they were with us on this webinar? I don’t know. I hope they are.
Paul JayMaybe you can find out and we can talk about it.
Lawrence WilkersonI can tell you I’ve been that candid with members of Congress, and some react and some don’t, the majority being in the latter category.
Paul JayWell, it’d be interesting to find out because, you know, in theory, they should have public hearings, and the various committees in the House and the Senate that oversee the military should hear this stuff. If they have, I guess it’s understandable why they ignore it because all they care about is their funders who don’t seem to care about this.
Lawrence WilkersonOn Monday, I’m going over to the Hill with Major General Laich. to talk with several members about some of these issues, including the all-volunteer force. I’ll make that a point.
Paul JayAlright, thanks very much, Larry. Thank you all for joining us on theAnalysis.news. Please don’t forget there’s a donate button at the top of the web page. There is a subscribe to the email list on our web page. On YouTube, you can subscribe, and you’ll supposedly get notices. I think a lot of people say they subscribe on YouTube, and YouTube doesn’t send them notices. Our audience on all the various podcast platforms is probably even significantly bigger than our YouTube audience. So if you’re listening on the podcast platform, come on over to the website and get on the email list. Thanks for joining us.
Paul Jay
Hola. Bienvenido a theAnalysis.news. Soy Paul Jay.
Volveré en unos segundos con Larry Wilkerson, quien recientemente asistió a una conferencia sobre la crisis climática y cómo podría esta afectar a la Marina de los EE. UU. Este fue un seminario web organizado por la Marina y la Escuela Superior de Guerra. Larry nos contará más al respecto dentro de unos segundos.
Como sabrán si han visto mis entrevistas con Larry Wilkerson, es el ex jefe de personal de Colin Powell en el Departamento de Estado. Trabajó con Powell en el Estado Mayor Conjunto. Había estado en el Ejército durante décadas. Cualquiera que haya visto mis entrevistas con Larry sabrá que él y yo no somos fanáticos de la política exterior de los Estados Unidos ni del complejo militar-industrial de EE. UU., y diría que Larry es uno de los críticos más importantes y destacados de todo eso.
Pero, habiendo dicho eso, hay que reconocer que, en gran medida, el Ejército estadounidense, y quizá particularmente la Marina, porque quizá serían los más afectados, han sido bastante realistas sobre la amenaza de la crisis climática. No son negadores de la ciencia del clima ni mucho menos. Dentro del aparato del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos, quizá son los que hablan más abiertamente, aparte de algunas de las agencias ambientales directas, sobre el peligro de la crisis climática. Lo hacen desde el punto de vista de cómo fortalecer y mantener el poder de la Marina de EE. UU. Pero aun así, hablan muy claramente sobre lo peligrosa que es esta situación.
Recordemos que el Partido Republicano, que dice ser tan promilitar, y gran parte del Partido Demócrata, no tiene una política climática que refleje la urgencia de la situación, incluso después de que la Marina se lo explicase públicamente. No olvidemos que 75 millones de personas en las últimas elecciones votaron por un negacionista de la ciencia climática.
Los medios de comunicación prestan muy poca atención a la crisis climática a no ser que haya un incendio. Incluso cuando hay incendios en California y sequías en el Medio Oeste, a veces ni siquiera mencionan las palabras cambio climático.
Larry Wilkerson fue a una conferencia esta mañana en la que la Marina hizo sonar la alarma, y nos lo va a contar. Bien, Larry, muchas gracias por acompañarnos nuevamente.
Larry Wilkerson
Con gusto.
Paul Jay
Entonces, ¿de qué se habló?
Lawrence Wilkerson
Se habló que lo que Michael Klare escribió en su libro All Hell Breaking Loose, y lo que reconocen todos los servicios de defensa, pero particularmente la Marina, por algunas de las razones que acabas de reiterar. Por supuesto, la Marina está en el océano. La Marina se compone, después de todo, casi en su totalidad de instalaciones costeras, que están sujetas a la subida del nivel del mar.
Esta mañana me enteré de que, al igual que con el Ejército, la sequía es una amenaza tan grande para ellos como la subida del nivel del mar. El Ejército incluso ha priorizado la sequía en la lista de las amenazas del cambio climático para ellos, y eso se debe a que las comunidades aledañas en el suroeste de los Estados Unidos, en particular, están sufriendo tanto, y probablemente seguirán sufriendo, que las instalaciones allí ubicadas también se van a ver afectadas. Entonces, la sequía es una prioridad muy alta para el Ejército y también es importante para la Marina, porque gran parte de la sequía está afectando a lugares, como San Diego, por ejemplo, que son bastiones de la Marina.
Paul Jay
Esta mañana, después del webinar, me dijiste que pensabas que era tan bueno que tenías ganas de aplaudir. Explícanos más. ¿Cuáles son algunos de los detalles de lo que escuchaste?
Lawrence Wilkerson
Bueno, es repugnante que el Gobierno no esté haciendo nada. El Gobierno federal, aparte del DOD [el Departamento de Defensa de los Estados Unidos] es… No debería decir nada. Están haciendo mucho más de lo que hacían hace cinco años cuando comencé a hablar sobre este asunto, pero no están haciendo lo suficiente. Biden emitió la Orden Ejecutiva, por ejemplo, que inició el Cuerpo de Cambio Climático, del cual estoy totalmente a favor. Creo que, a final de cuentas, deberemos tener un borrador para eso, y probablemente vamos a tener que poner 10-11, quizá incluso 12-13 millones de jóvenes en esto. En este momento, la Orden Ejecutiva solo admite voluntarios. Bueno, sabemos lo que hacen los voluntarios. Mira las fuerzas de voluntarios. No hay ni un solo voluntario. Es todo dinero y sobornos y todo eso.
Pero incluso con lo que ha hecho la administración de Biden, me choca la falta de acción por parte de la burocracia civil, el liderazgo civil. Sabía que los servicios militares fueron los primeros. Sabía que hacía mucho tiempo que consideraban el cambio climático como una de las más graves amenazas. Sabía que lo veían como una amenaza existencial. Sabía que lo veían como una sangría increíble para sus presupuestos en el futuro, principalmente debido a que la asistencia humanitaria y el socorro en casos de desastre se multiplicarían por diez. Pero no sabía que eran tan metódicos en su enfoque. Quizá debería haberlo sabido. Estuve en el Grupo de Trabajo de Seguridad Climática y estaban desarrollando ese tipo de metodología, pero realmente me sorprendió esta mañana hasta qué punto la Marina de los EE. UU. está avanzada en este asunto. Nos informó el vicealmirante que encabeza… En realidad es el JON, el jefe de Operaciones Navales, experto en logística. Están enfocados en el cambio climático. Representa todo, desde lo que se llama combustible directo, por ejemplo. Quieren poder sacar combustible de una barcaza, por ejemplo, la barcaza crearía el hidrógeno o el combustible alternativo, y no sería necesario que ese combustible y el aparato para generarlo estuvieran en el buque de guerra, en la plataforma que realmente lucha por la Marina. Estaría en una barcaza en algún lugar, y atracarían junto a esa barcaza y el hidrógeno, o lo que resulte ser, se descargaría en el mecanismo de la nave que utiliza ese combustible.
Todo tipo de innovación y trabajo con universidades. Me sorprendió un poco cuando dijo que UVA, la Universidad de Virginia, y Virginia Tech están trabajando con Yorktown, por donde solía pasar casi todas las veces que usé la carretera vieja cuando enseñaba en William and Mary. Ninguna mención de William and Mary. Así que envié un correo electrónico de inmediato al Instituto de Estudios Marítimos de Virginia y al Nuevo Instituto para la Conservación Integrada en William and Mary. ¿Por qué el almirante [Ricky Lee] Williamson no habla de esto? Es una locura. La UVA lo está haciendo. Virginia Tech lo está haciendo. Están ayudando. Así es como debe ser.
No están haciendo nada, aparentemente, porque ni siquiera los mencionaron. Luego pasamos al doctor Mark Spector, de la Oficina de Investigaciones Navales, OIN, probablemente una de las mejores entidades de investigación en los Estados Unidos de América. Y él decía: “Necesito ayuda académica. Necesito ayuda. Entren en nuestra web y vean todos los proyectos en los que estamos trabajando. Todo, desde baterías hasta combustibles alternativos, lo que sea. Necesito su ayuda. Regístrense con nosotros y ayúdennos”. Esto es lo que debería estar sucediendo.
Paul Jay
Bueno, los militares ciertamente saben cómo adquirir investigación y pagar la investigación, y los militares, incluida la Marina, aunque no sé si son los peores, pero en su conjunto, el Ejército estadounidense es uno de los peores emisores de carbono del planeta.
Lawrence Wilkerson
Absolutamente, y lo admiten abiertamente.
Paul Jay
Entonces, ¿qué van a hacer al respecto? No necesitan al Congreso. Supongo que necesitan financiación, pero están recibiendo montones de dinero. ¿Van a utilizar ese dinero para hacer una transición real a la sostenibilidad?
Lawrence Wilkerson
Ya lo hacen. Cada iniciativa que el almirante Williamson y otros… Deborah Loomis, por ejemplo, asistente especial para el Cambio Climático de la Secretaría de Marina. Imagínate a un senador que tiene un asistente especial para el Cambio Climático. Todos hablaron de que esto es fundamental para hacer que la Marina sea la mejor del mundo, porque somos responsables de proteger los mares y proteger el comercio del país, etc. Por lo tanto, debemos tener una Marina que pueda operar en esta situación climática que cambia rápidamente.
Así que ese es su objetivo número uno. No tengo ninguna objeción a eso. Para eso están. Pero al mismo tiempo, se dan cuenta de que están contribuyendo. Entonces, cada iniciativa en la que están trabajando también tiene un doble objetivo. Es mejorar la capacidad operativa, y también es reducir su parte en los problemas que tiene que enfrentar la capacidad operativa, que es el cambio climático. Así que están tratando de reducir su huella. Están tratando de reducir sus emisiones de carbono. Cada iniciativa tiene esa condición, agregar al aspecto de paliación de lo que dicen es el método dual de combatir el cambio climático. Adaptación, porque es tan tarde que vamos a tener que adaptarnos a cosas como el aumento del nivel del mar en Norfolk. No podemos detenerlo, no por completo, así que tenemos que adaptarnos. Y dos, hace cinco años no oía a nadie hablar de eso porque tenían miedo de hablar de eso. El Congreso los reprendería y quizá incluso amenazaría su presupuesto si hablaban de ello: la mitigación. Cuando hablas de mitigación, hay que hablar de la contribución humana al cambio climático, del cual la Marina y los demás servicios son un gran componente. El DOD es [inaudible 00:09:57] en la lista de naciones sería la 55, junto con Portugal o algo así. Produce muchas emisiones. Por lo tanto, tienen dos aspectos. Van tras la capacidad operativa, que es fundamental para los servicios, y al mismo tiempo, van tras esa porción, que es grande, y se dan cuenta, del problema que están creando.
Paul Jay
Bueno, parte de lo que están creando se basa en esta política, que ciertamente es impulsada por el Pentágono, de necesitar esta enorme huella militar global para mantener la hegemonía global de Estados Unidos, que en gran medida, creo que es un poco ridículo porque ¿cuándo fue la última vez que ganaron una guerra importante y, de todos modos, qué diablos hacen todas estas bases? Una de las formas más rápidas de reducir las emisiones del Ejército es reducir su tamaño.
Lawrence Wilkerson
Es un argumento válido, pero es para aquellos elementos de las fuerzas armadas con los que probablemente estaría de acuerdo en esto. Soy un gran admirador de la Marina. Fui a la Escuela de Guerra Naval. Estoy, por así decirlo, inmerso en la Marina. La historia de los Estados Unidos es la historia de la Marina de los Estados Unidos en muchos aspectos, desde John Paul Jones hacia adelante. La Marina es un brazo de las fuerzas armadas que está diseñada para proteger el comercio internacional. No limita su protección del comercio internacional al comercio estadounidense. Garantiza la libertad en los mares y la capacidad operativa en esos mares, incluso para las fuerzas armadas de nuestros enemigos, pero ciertamente el comercio de nuestros amigos y neutrales.
Esa es la esencia de la Marina. Si tuviera que eliminar el Ejército de los Estados Unidos, el último aspecto que eliminaría es la Marina por esa misma razón. Se ha argumentado que la cláusula más importante de nuestra Constitución no es lo que solemos citar, es la cláusula de comercio, porque eso es esencialmente lo que somos, una nación de comercio. Ojalá fuéramos más aún de lo que somos hoy porque nos hemos convertido en una nación de banca y finanzas más que de comercio. Eso es lo que se supone que debemos ser. Es para eso que fuimos creados. Eso es lo que [George] Washington, [Thomas] Jefferson, [Alexander] Hamilton y todos los padres fundadores pensaron que sería el poder de este país, el comercio. Se creó la Marina, y la Marina fue allende los mares para proteger ese comercio.
En lo que a mí respecta, esa es una tarea benigna hasta que se calienta. Cuando te encuentras con alguien que quiere interrumpir ese comercio, como frente a la costa de Somalia con terroristas que querían interceptar el comercio a través del Mar Rojo, ahora mucho más importante que el Golfo Pérsico, el 60 % del comercio mundial pasa por el Mar Rojo, a través de Bab el-Mandeb y hacia el Mar Rojo, lo que protege eso es la Marina de los Estados Unidos. Me apresuro a añadir: la Marina china, la Marina italiana, pronto la Marina turca probablemente, la Marina japonesa. El grupo multinacional que se ocupó de los piratas somalíes que interceptaban el comercio era conjunto, eran siete u ocho naciones, y ahora la mayoría de esas naciones están en Djibouti por eso.
Paul Jay
Pero si la misión era defender el comercio, probablemente podrías deshacerte de alrededor del 75 % de ella. Quiero decir, ¿cuánto de ello es postureo en torno a Taiwán?
Lawrence Wilkerson
Bueno, tienes razón en eso. Podrías hacer algo que creo que es absolutamente esencial. Vamos a hablar de esto en abril en el Instituto Militar Pritzker y el Museo Militar de Chicago. Es un lugar muy prestigioso donde vamos a celebrar el 50 aniversario de la fuerza de voluntarios. Pero el panel en el que voy a estar va a hablar sobre el cambio tecnológico y cómo eso podría usarse para remodelar el Ejército de los EE. UU.
Paul Jay
Estaba a punto de decir que he oído incluso a los neoconservadores decir que los portaaviones son simplemente objetivos flotantes que podrían eliminarse en cualquier momento. Son un despilfarro.
Lawrence Wilkerson
Su propósito ofensivo es atacar a otros países. Ese es realmente su propósito ofensivo. Ahora, puedes decir: “Oh, no, protegen a los otros barcos de superficie que protegen el comercio en el mar y todo eso”. Diría, rápidamente: “Los submarinos pueden hacer eso”. Los submarinos pueden hacer eso fácilmente y no presentan, aparte de sus misiles balísticos, esa amenaza para los países y las personas en tierra.
Entonces, si quisieras rediseñar el Ejército de EE. UU. para que sea más acorde con lo que pretendemos es nuestra misión en el mundo, sin duda mantendrías la Marina. Puedes pensar en los otros servicios y considerar el pasado. ¿Qué hicimos? Nuestra Marina era muy poderosa y nuestro ejército era muy muy pequeño, y ni siquiera teníamos una fuerza aérea.
Paul Jay
Volviendo a la conferencia, de los diversos oradores, ¿cuáles fueron sus puntos de vista sobre cuándo va a pasar todo esto? Me dijiste antes que era bastante aterrador, algunas cosas que escuchaste. Entonces, ¿qué están prediciendo y cuándo?
Lawrence Wilkerson
Está aquí y ellos lo saben. El almirante Williamson habló, por ejemplo, sobre el único espacio de entrenamiento de aviadores navales del país, Pensacola, y que tuvieron que reconstruirlo completamente después del huracán. Estaba muy dañado, al igual que la base en el norte de Florida que el Congreso no permitió que la Marina trasladara… o que la Fuerza Aérea la trasladara. Es realmente una base de la Fuerza Aérea. No dejaron que la trasladaran, y creo que el huracán causó daños por un valor de cuatro mil millones de dólares. Por supuesto, la Fuerza Aérea quería trasladarla. No querían quedarse ahí porque ¿qué va a pasar? Habrá otro huracán. Pero ahora el Congreso, debido a su electorado en Florida, ha dicho: “No, lo reconstruirán por una suma de cuatro o cinco mil millones de dólares”.
Eso es una locura. Eso es una locura. Querían hacer algo inteligente. Querían trasladarlo tierra adentro. Querían evitar ese riesgo, pero no, no van a poder. Lo reconstruirán con diez veces más resiliencia de la que tenía antes en cuanto a los edificios, en cuanto a cómo será la distribución, como, por ejemplo, la distribución de Guam. Ahora, si has estado en Guam últimamente, sabrás que Guam es una pesadilla estética. Esa es la forma en que lo describiría. Ha sido construido para soportar vientos de 200 nudos, por lo que todo se construye bajo, aerodinámico y austero. Es horrible desde un punto de vista estético.
Paul Jay
¿Explicaron cómo serán los próximos 10, 20 o 30 años?
Lawrence Wilkerson
En cierto sentido, sí, porque estaban hablando de que los conflictos… Vamos a ver conflictos en todo el mundo. Veremos conflictos cuya causa en parte, inicialmente, como ocurre ahora en el Sur Global, es el cambio climático. Pero entonces vas a tener un conflicto que es inducido principalmente por el cambio climático. Es decir, será tan grave que la gente va a tener que migrar. Estamos hablando de temperaturas de 45 a 55 grados Celsius, día tras día. Causará aridez de la tierra, escasez de agua, morirán cultivos, y la gente emigrará.
Paul Jay
Sí, cientos de millones de personas del sur que tendrán que irse al norte. ¿Qué significa eso?
Lawrence Wilkerson
Ya está sucediendo. El New York Times solamente escribe sobre esto, e incluso The Guardian escribe sobre esto, y nadie dice, como has mencionado en tu introducción, nadie dice: “Oh, quizá estas personas se están mudando, al menos en parte, debido al cambio climático”. ¿Tú crees? Sí, por supuesto. Están abandonando Nicaragua. Honduras y Guatemala han sufrido daños enormes por huracanes. Han tenido sequía allí. Han tenido inundaciones. Es por eso que algunas de estas personas están emigrando, porque es terriblemente difícil vivir, y mucho menos trabajar y ganarse la vida. Mira Cuba. Cuba tuvo más problemas con este último huracán que con cualquier otro huracán en el pasado, y Cuba tiene mucha experiencia con los huracanes. Cuando estuve allí en 2009 y 2010, recibí informes sobre cómo hacían las cosas, y yo quería trasladar eso a Florida y a Texas. Mi problema era que Cuba puede decir: “Váyanse de su casa”, y la gente se va. En Florida, dices “Váyanse de su casa” y la mitad de la gente se queda, y luego tienes que ir a rescatarlos y arriesgar la vida de personas. Bueno, esa es nuestra democracia; esa es nuestra libertad. Pero Cuba tiene una manera mucho mejor de manejar huracanes, huracanes serios, que probablemente cualquier país del Caribe, y ciertamente mejor que nosotros. Pero no manejaron este muy bien, y no lo hicieron porque fue enorme, y han tenido muchos problemas para recuperarse. No solo los problemas habituales como los que tienen con su red eléctrica y demás, sino todo tipo de problemas que ocurrieron a causa del último huracán.
Así que eso es un problema. Ahora, ¿has visto las estadísticas de cuántos cubanos se están yendo de Cuba? Es increíble. Es peor que el éxodo del Mariel. Es peor que toda la inmigración pasada. Hemos cambiado las leyes de Jesse Helms y Richard Burton. No puedes simplemente poner el pie en territorio estadounidense y convertirte en ciudadano estadounidense ahora. Porque hay cientos de miles de emigrantes, tienes que pasar por algún tipo de proceso. Ahora han modificado y acelerado el proceso, pero todavía tienes que pasar por el proceso.
Paul Jay
Pero tú crees que este aumento de la migración también está conectado con el tema del clima, con el huracán.
Lawrence Wilkerson
Sí, lo está, parcialmente. También es parte del bloqueo a Cuba porque no hay perspectivas económicas. Te das cuenta de que el presidente Biden está volviendo a implementar algunas de las políticas del presidente Obama. Por ejemplo, acabamos de empezar a aprobar que Western Union… Puedes enviar remesas a Cuba ahora si eres un cubanoamericano que vive en Florida.
Paul Jay
Chomsky y muchos científicos del clima que he entrevistado, personas que son autores de los informes del PICC [Panel Intergubernamental sobre el Cambio Climático], están prediciendo esencialmente que dentro de 30, 40 años, 50 años como máximo, y quizá antes, estas líneas de tiempo son realmente impredecibles… Hay varios puntos de inflexión en la estructura climática donde todo esto podría suceder mucho más rápido. De hecho, siempre sucede más rápido que los informes del PICC. Tan pronto como sale un informe, queda obsoleto en muy poco tiempo.
Las predicciones son esencialmente el fin de la sociedad humana organizada. La gente está usando ese tipo de lenguaje. ¿Entienden los militares que la amenaza está en ese nivel? ¿Hablan en estos términos? ¿Y les dicen a sus supuestos amos políticos que esa es la amenaza?
Lawrence Wilkerson
Pues no sé lo que dicen en los consejos de Gobierno. Sospecho que su retórica es más bien limitada con el presidente Biden y otros como él, Tony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, etc. Pero no creo que gente como el general [Mark] Milley, el presidente del Estado Mayor Conjunto, se calle nada. Creo que el hecho de que hayan puesto el cambio climático como la amenaza futura número uno para las fuerzas armadas de los Estados Unidos debería hacer que todos los estadounidenses que dudan escuchen y tomen nota. Incluso Marjorie Taylor Greene, por muy idiota que sea.
Paul Jay
Entonces, ¿por qué no lo hacen?
Lawrence Wilkerson
No puedes enviar un billón dólares a un instrumento que alabas día tras día, que tienes sesiones especiales del Congreso para agradecer, no puedes estar haciendo eso y, luego, cuando se dan la vuelta y te dicen que la amenaza número uno para su existencia, señora, es el cambio climático, y continúas, a menos que estés mal de la cabeza como Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Paul Jay
Bueno, el Partido Republicano, como tú y yo hemos comentado, se ha vuelto esencialmente como una familia criminal de varias formas. La negación de la ciencia climática solo alimenta su base, y parece que les importan un bledo las consecuencias. El liderazgo del partido Demócrata, no todo el partido, desde luego, pero sí el liderazgo, por su retórica, parece que lo entienden… Incluso este último gran proyecto de ley, esta supuesta anti como se llame, no recuerdo cómo se llama, el proyecto de ley antiinflacionario, que no tenía nada que ver con la inflación, hizo más que los proyectos de ley anteriores. Pero no están machacando este mensaje que escuchaste de la Marina de que esta es la amenaza número uno. Quiero decir, China supuestamente es la amenaza número uno. Rusia es la amenaza número uno. No escuchas que el clima es la amenaza número uno en ninguno de los círculos políticos.
Lawrence Wilkerson
Te aclararé algo referente a las fuerzas armadas. Aunque el almirante, el ayudante del secretario de la Marina y otros reiteraron que se ganó ventaja operativa por ir por delante de la curva de poder, especialmente la parte realmente nociva de la curva de poder, como, por ejemplo, la subida del nivel del mar, seguían diciendo otras cosas como: “Estamos cooperando con Vietnam. Estamos cooperando con China. Estamos cooperando con Rusia”. Hubo una historia realmente conmovedora que contó una persona de menor rango. Acababan de ser… No, no era de menor rango. Era una persona de menor rango quien contó la historia, pero fue el secretario de la Marina quien fue a Fiji a pesar de las objeciones de la Casa Blanca y el DOD y pronunció un discurso sobre el cambio climático. Dijeron que debía dar un discurso sobre la amenaza de China y todo eso. Fue a Fiji y pronunció este discurso. Cuando terminó el discurso, uno de los miembros de la audiencia de Fiji se acercó a él y le dijo: “Muchas gracias por hacer esto. Finalmente reconocen el hecho de que nos están perjudicando, y somos sus aliados”.
Y eso es todo. Fueron al delta del Mekong en Vietnam, esto es la Marina, y están lidiando con los problemas a los que se enfrentará Vietnam con el Mekong. De repente, uno de los vietnamitas del Gobierno… Este es un Gobierno comunista, Paul, y dijo: “Tenemos muchos estudiantes que obtienen sus doctorados, y se les están ocurriendo algunas buenas ideas”. Un tiempo después, la Marina participó en las sesiones informativas de doctorado de los estudiantes de las universidades vietnamitas, y los profesores calificaban la calidad de las disertaciones de los estudiantes para ver si podían obtener más ideas sobre cómo paliar el cambio climático.
Esto es lo que debería estar sucediendo en todo el mundo. Esto nos va a matar a todos. Chino, estadounidense, no importa. Deberíamos estar cooperando. Deberíamos estar colaborando. Esto es lo que está pasando en estos canales militares esotéricos, porque los militares entienden, en el fondo, que esto es algo a lo que todos deben contribuir. Enemigo. Amigo. Aliado mutuo.
Paul Jay
¿Se dijo algo de la necesidad de algún tipo de solución negociada a esta guerra en Ucrania por este motivo, para que esta conversación se trasladara al clima?
Lawrence Wilkerson
Creo que se mantuvieron alejados de eso en este seminario web en particular porque hubiera sido una distracción del mensaje principal que querían enviar. Pero estaba el almirante Williamson, o también estaba el almirante Paul Beattie de la Marina Real del Reino Unido, y si les hablaras en privado, probablemente dirían: “Esta es la cosa más tonta sobre la faz de la tierra”. No podrían decir eso por razones políticas, pero esta guerra es una locura. Es una locura.
Ayer también estuve en un programa del Quincy Institute, y eran las reglas de Chatham House, así que… no voy a nombrar a nadie ni nada, pero los expertos que trajimos para que nos informaran sobre la situación de Ucrania esencialmente dijeron: “Probablemente estamos hablando de dos o tres años…”. Piensa en eso un minuto. “Dos o tres años más de guerra, y luego, ambos bandos se cansarán”. Si es que podemos controlar la escalada durante esos dos o tres años, y esa es una gran pregunta. Ambas partes se mirarán y dirán: “Esto es realmente malo. Tengamos un alto el fuego negociado, y luego tendremos una zona desmilitarizada, fuerzas de paz de la ONU durante 75 años, como en Chipre, como en Pakistán, como en la frontera entre India y China, como en Corea. Tendremos 75 años de zona de distensión y un alto el fuego negociado, y eso es lo mejor que podemos hacer”. Si eso es lo mejor que podemos hacer, ciertamente estamos sufriendo en Washington, Moscú y en todas partes.
Paul Jay
Y ahora la política de EE. UU. es mantener un cierto nivel de armas para que los ucranianos no puedan perder. No entregar armas a un nivel que realmente amenazaría… que los rusos se vuelvan completamente locos. Así que esto sigue y sigue y sigue.
Lawrence Wilkerson
Ahora se habla de los tanques de batalla y la presión para que Alemania les dé Leopards y que el Reino Unido les envíe Centurions y que nosotros les enviemos Abrams, lo cual es presión del complejo militar-industrial, te lo garantizo, es indicativo de cómo podría escalar en cualquier lugar en esos dos o tres años antes de que lleguemos a un alto el fuego por estancamiento. Es una mina de oro. Es el sueño de Lockheed Martin, que esto siga y siga y siga. Están ganando dinero con las municiones que van a Ucrania, y por partida doble con las municiones que regresan a los EE. UU. y las reservas de nuestros aliados que se agotaron porque mandaron municiones a Ucrania. Esto es el nirvana para ellos.
Paul Jay
En lo que respecta a Putin, preferiría que esto siguiera para siempre para evitar la humillación de un trato que los deje como en el 23 de febrero, porque entonces, ¿para qué murieron decenas de miles de soldados rusos? Así que es una locura por todos lados.
Lawrence Wilkerson
Lo es. Toda esta situación es una locura. Es de locos. Pero es muy rentable. Muy rentable. También es rentable para Putin. Fíjate que las sanciones han obligado a otros países a alinearse con Rusia con respecto, particularmente, al petróleo, pero también a otras cosas. Es rentable para ellos también, a pesar de lo que decimos, porque nos gusta pensar que nuestras sanciones están funcionando, y no es así.
Paul Jay
Entonces, casi para concluir la entrevista, Larry, ¿hay algo más que surgió en ese seminario web del Clima de la Marina que deberíamos saber?
Lawrence Wilkerson
Bueno, hay un poderoso mensaje que viene del individuo a cargo de la Marina, y tuve la impresión de que es a mayor escala en todo el Departamento de Defensa, lo que se llama Control de Vectores o Análisis de Vectores, las enfermedades, de eso se trata. Son las pandemias. Son cosas como el ébola en Zaire. Son operaciones realmente peligrosas dentro del clima global con respecto a las enfermedades y la transmisión de enfermedades de una población a otra. Fue algo aterrador, los gráficos que puso, y dijo que esto es lo que estamos haciendo en el llamado Sur Global. Estamos usando estos pesticidas. Esto es lo que estamos haciendo con estos pesticidas, y lo que estamos haciendo con estos pesticidas está agravando el drama y la incidencia y profundidad del cambio climático y, al mismo tiempo, el problema más importante, la imposibilidad de cultivar cualquier tipo de alimento. No solo la sequía, sino todas estas otras cosas también.
Y luego habla de los vectores que salen de esto. El control de vectores en el Ejército consistía esencialmente en controlar ratas, porque propagan enfermedades, como bien sabes… la peste bubónica y cosas así. Bueno, el control de vectores ahora no es solo ratas. Son todas estas cosas que vienen de estos lugares y que no habrían salido de allí si el calor no hubiera llegado al nivel que ha llegado, si el capitalismo rapaz y depredador no hubiera destrozado el terreno como lo ha hecho, y si no hubiéramos tenido algunas de estas políticas y prácticas en vigor que están ahí porque les hemos robado la capacidad de tener soluciones de alta tecnología para sus problemas y están volviendo a los pesticidas realmente nocivos y cosas así para solucionar sus problemas.
Todo esto es parte de la solución… En Fiji, se le dijo al SECNAV, como se informó en este seminario web: “La mayor parte de esto es culpa suya”. ¡Bingo! ¡Bingo! No es culpa de los isleños del Pacífico. No es culpa de Palau. No es culpa de Micronesia. No es culpa de Kiribati. Es culpa nuestra. “Somos sus aliados. ¿Qué están haciendo?”. La [diafonía 00:31:45] es culpa suya.
Paul Jay
¿La Marina dice estas cosas a las comisiones del Congreso? Quiero decir, ¿hablan de…?
Lawrence Wilkerson
Esa es una buena pregunta. No sé. No sé. Es una buena pregunta. Es una buena pregunta. ¿Son tan sinceros con su supervisión del Congreso como lo fueron con nosotros en este seminario web? No sé. Espero que lo sean.
Paul Jay
Quizá puedas averiguarlo y hablamos de ello.
Lawrence Wilkerson
Yo he sido así de sincero con los miembros del Congreso, y algunos reaccionan y otros no, la mayoría están en la última categoría.
Paul Jay
Bueno, sería interesante averiguarlo porque, ya sabes, en teoría, deberían tener audiencias públicas, y los diversos comités de la Cámara y el Senado que supervisan a las fuerzas armadas deberían escuchar estas cosas. Si lo han hecho, supongo que es comprensible por qué lo ignoran. Porque todo lo que les importa son sus patrocinadores, a quienes no parece importarles esto.
Lawrence Wilkerson
El lunes iré al Capitolio con el mayor general Laich para hablar con varios miembros sobre algunos de estos temas, incluida la fuerza de voluntarios. Me aseguraré de hablarlo.
Paul Jay
Muy bien, muchas gracias, Larry.
Gracias a todos por acompañarnos en theAnalysis.news.
No olvide que hay un botón de donación en la parte superior de la página web. Puede registrar su correo electrónico en nuestra página web. En YouTube, puede suscribirse y supuestamente recibirá notificaciones. Creo que mucha gente dice que se suscribe en YouTube y YouTube no les envía notificaciones. Nuestra audiencia en todas las diversas plataformas de pódcasts es probablemente significativamente más grande, en realidad, que nuestra audiencia de YouTube. Entonces, si está escuchando en la plataforma de pódcasts, vaya al sitio web y registre su correo electrónico.
Gracias por acompañarnos.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter Email(Required)Name(Required) First Last Δ
“Lawrence B. Wilkerson is a retired United States Army Colonel and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell.”
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
The British, Australian, Ecuadorian, and US Governments have made an ad about Julian Assange’s arrest, and it’s surprisingly honest and informative! This video was originally published by The Juice Media in 2019.
This video was made by The Juice Media and is republished with permission. You can find their work here: https://www.youtube.com/thejuicemedia, and you can support them on Patreon here: https://www.patreon.com/TheJuiceMedia
Honest Government Ad | Julian AssangeHonest Government Ad | Visit Western AustraliaJuice Media Satire: Australian “Values”News Corp Bargaining Code – Biting Satire From Juice MediaJuice Media Nails Australien Government Climate “Policy”Juice Media Take Down of QAnon – we wish it was just satire Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Music*
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter Email(Required)Name(Required) First Last Δ
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
The inflation conference at Political Economy Research Institute at UMass Amherst (PERI) presented mounting evidence that raising the rate of interest will only raise unemployment and weaken the bargaining power of low-wage workers and the poor that are already hit hard by the pandemic across the world. Robert Pollin joins Sharmini Peries on theAnalysis.news.
No Evidence to Support FED 2% Inflation Target – Robert Pollin Real Climate Solutions are No Mystery – PollinHow to Fight Inflation Without Attacking Workers – PollinThe Fed Attacks the Working Class – Robert PollinBiden’s Bill has Significant Funding for Climate but 10% of What’s Needed – Bob PollinRising Interest Rates Intended to Create Unemployment – Bob PollinNationalize Fossil Fuel to Fight Climate Change and Inflation – Bob PollinStop Subsidizing Wall St., Start Subsidizing Workers for High Energy Costs – Bob PollinBiden Heads to COP 26 Throttled by Manchin and Trumpists – with Bob PollinA Just Transition Now or Climate Disaster is InevitableModest Inflation is Good for Workers – Bob PollinNot Much Climate Plan in Biden Jobs Plan – Robert PollinThe Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal – Bob PollinIs the Biden Plan Big Enough? Why is Wall St. OK with a Higher Deficit? – Bob PollinWhat is to be Done to Save the Planet – Robert PollinClimate Crisis Deciding Factor in Election – Robert PollinBiden Not Phasing Out Fossil Fuel, Relies on Carbon Capture – Robert PollinFull Employment Will Overcome Neoliberalism & the COVID-19 Jobs CrisisPollin: Nationalize Fossil Fuels and Create Public BanksTowards a Green Economy: Private or Public? – Robert Pollin on RAI (8/8)Towards a Green Economy: Tax, Trade, Cap, Deny? – Robert Pollin on RAI (7/8)Towards a Green Economy: Fighting at the Local Level – Robert Pollin on RAI (6/8)Towards a Green Economy: Green Growth or no Growth? – Robert Pollin on RAI (5/8)Towards a Green Economy: Is Clean Coal and Carbon Capture an Option? – Robert Pollin on RAI (4/8)Towards a Green Economy: Models That are Working – Robert Pollin on RAI (3/8)Towards a Green Economy: Proposal for a Sustainable Plan – Robert Pollin on RAI (2/8)Towards a Green Economy: How Urgent is It? – Robert Pollin on Reality Asserts Itself (1/8) Transcript * Spanish Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Guest * Music*
Sharmini Peries
Welcome to theAnalysis. I’m Sharmini Peries, and I will be back with Professor Bob Polin in just a few seconds.
The central bank of various developed countries, such as the G7 countries and the U.S. Federal Reserve, have responded to the rising inflation by raising interest rates. To curb it, they are using a micro-economic policy referred to as the inflation targeting, which is a policy where they try to target inflation at 2% to achieve price stability. Here is the chair of the Federal Reserve on December 16, 2022.
Jerome Powell
Before I go into the details of today’s meeting, I’d like to underscore for the American people that we understand the hardship that high inflation is causing and that we are strongly committed to bringing inflation back down to our 2% goal. Without price stability, the economy doesn’t work for anyone. In particular, without price stability, we will not achieve a sustained period of strong labor market conditions that benefit all.
Today, the FOMC [Federal Open Market Committee] raised our policy interest rate by a half percentage point. We continue to anticipate that ongoing increases will be appropriate in order to attain a stance of monetary policy that is sufficiently restrictive to return inflation to 2% over time.
Sharmini Peries
But is this really a rational economic approach to providing relief for the many who are suffering from rising prices and inflation? What can be done to curb it and achieve economic stability at the same time? What is driving inflation? Is it government spending, higher wages, the pandemic, pandemic-related supply chain issues, the war in Ukraine, or all of the above? What do effective alternative solutions look like? For whom is raising the interest rates a rational approach, or who does it benefit? Those are some of the questions raised at a very timely conference held in December of 2022 by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Today I’m joined by one of the conveners of the conference, Professor Robert Pollin, who is a distinguished university professor of economics and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute, PERI, at UMass, Amherst. Bob, thank you so much for joining me today.
Robert Pollin
Great to be on with you, Sharmini. Thank you.
Sharmini Peries
Bob, you have convened a conference with some very esteemed economists. It is safe to assume you are hoping to influence the economic policymakers at a critical juncture in this inflation bout. Why are you trying to intervene, and who are you trying to influence?
Robert Pollin
We organized the conference, myself and co-director of PERI, Gerald Epstein, in order to really focus on what really are the causes of the global inflation phenomenon and ways to tame inflation without attacking the well-being and living standards of working people and poor people. So that’s basically the whole thrust of the project.
I think it’s fair to say that we learned a lot. I think what we found at the conference was very different than what is guiding economic policy now. In a nutshell, economic policy is governed by the idea, as you said at the beginning, to get inflation down to a 2% target rate. The main way to get there is to raise interest rates that will slow the economy and raise unemployment, meaning hurt the working class and weaken their bargaining power. The idea behind weakening the bargaining power of workers is that workers are bargaining up their wages. They have too much power to bargain up wages, and therefore we have to attack worker bargaining power to bring them under the heel again.
Sharmini Peries
Bob, the paper you presented is titled Considerations on Inflation, Economic Growth and the 2 Percent Inflation Target, a paper you co-authored with Hanae Bouazza in which you declare that a policy framework known as inflation targeting has been in place by most high-income economies, such as the G7 countries since the 1990s. Now, they have set an inflation target of 2%, but you say there is no serious body of research that supports their operating assumption. Explain this for us.
Robert Pollin
Yeah, so as you said, in the 1990s, this idea that governments should organize economic policy around this idea of maintaining inflation at no more than 2%. The premise there is, well, if we do that, then everything else will take care of itself. Economies will grow better, and employment opportunities will expand. The main thing that we need to do is institute price stability as defined by a very low single-digit inflation rate of 2%.
Now, my paper with Hanae Bouazza is very modest in the sense it just tries to look at one little small point. The point is, do we actually observe that economies grow faster when they’re at low inflation, at the 2% inflation, at the target rate? And the answer is no. The answer is there was never any evidence. In fact, our paper is really an extension of work done in the 1990s by someone named Michael Bruno, who was at the time the chief economist at the World Bank. Bruno himself demonstrated in the 1990s that there was no relationship that economies actually grow faster at somewhat higher inflation rates. We basically extended Bruno’s results into the present and for the entire global economy. We focus on high-income countries and then even more on the United States per se.
We’re not saying we’re for hyperinflation. We’re not saying inflation is fine, and we don’t have to worry about it at 40%, 50%, or whatever. We are finding that rather than a 2% inflation target, economies perform better when inflation is somewhere at maybe 4% or 5%, maybe even 6-7% under some circumstances. Those percentage points actually make a huge difference. What we’re seeing now is this attack in order to get the inflation down to 2%, when what happened with this current bout of high inflation was that we had these supply shocks coming out of the COVID pandemic. In other words, there were shortages of food, shortages of oil, shortages of computer chips, and then the economies had to catch up as they came out of the COVID lockdown. On top of that, you had the war in Ukraine, which led to more food and energy shortages. So that’s the cause. So why don’t we address the issue of supply shocks? And then, on top of that, the big corporations took advantage of these supply shortages and jacked up their prices, so profits rose much faster than wages.
So that’s why you had, for example, it was just reported last week that the oil companies, two biggest U.S. oil companies, Exxon and Chevron, got $100 billion in profits last year, $100 billion in profits. Why aren’t they being called to account in terms of their price markups as opposed to attacking workers as the cause of inflation?
Sharmini Peries
Bob, one of the objectives of the lower inflation target of 2% is price stability, which is not so bad in itself, which sounds reasonable. Does it actually do that?
Robert Pollin
Well, I mean, if you want to get to a 2% inflation rate and stay there, you can, but you have to have the economy contract. You have to slow down activity. You have to see the unemployment rate go up. You can have deflation. The only issue is you also have a depression. You’ll have mass unemployment. We would love to have a world in which everybody is doing well, and there’s zero inflation, but that’s not how the world really works. So there are trade-offs. We have to understand, okay, if we want to get to 2% inflation, are we willing to sacrifice jobs and incomes? If we can have higher incomes and better job opportunities at, say, 4% inflation, maybe that should be our target as opposed to 2% inflation. Why make the entire global working class suffer and carry the burden in order to get to this 2% inflation target?
Sharmini Peries
Given the soaring cost of everything from grain to gasoline, can you explain why this operating assumption is weak and faulty?
Robert Pollin
So the idea is that whenever you have inflation, accelerating high inflation, it’s due to workers having too much bargaining power, bargaining up their wages. As I said, in fact, what caused the big inflation bout, the first one in 40 years, was what happened coming out of COVID. We reopened the economy and reopened the economy after there were all these supply breakdowns. There was a lockdown for what, a year and a half, two years? On top of that, then we had the war. So the real thing that should be done is to address those supply problems. We have supply shortages with computer chips, oil, food, and all of those things. And yes, we also had a supply shortage of workers because people died during COVID. People weren’t able to come back to work– the ones that were still alive. We lost in the U.S. about three and a half million people in the labor force. So that did create some labor shortages. The real solution there is to raise wages and encourage people to come back to work and make the conditions better.
Now, the fact is that the supply shortages are already getting restored. The supply chains are strengthening. For the last five months in the United States, inflation is already down to 2.4%. For the whole year, inflation is 7%. But for the last five months in the U.S., it’s 2.4%. Same pattern in Europe. In Spain, for example, inflation has been coming down for the last six months. So the supply issues are resolving themselves. Again, why would you want to attack workers and prevent them from getting some income gains as we come out of the COVID lockdown?
Sharmini Peries
Bob, your paper points to other economic options available to policymakers to stabilize and grow the economy without targeting unemployment to reduce inflation. Discuss some of these options that are available.
Robert Pollin
So they’re not exactly ultra out there because a lot of them have been proposed by the Biden administration. One of them is a windfall profit tax on– so, as I said, the oil companies made $100 billion in profits, record profits last year, all because they could mark up their prices because of the shortages; they took advantage of that. Why should they be benefiting as a result of the COVID lockdown? I’ve also written stuff about nationalizing the oil industry, and I’d love to talk about it, but let’s say we’re not going to do that right now. At the very least, their profit margins should be restrained because they aren’t doing anything new. They’re just benefiting from the supply shortages that came out of the COVID lockdown. So that would be one.
Similarly, the investments in building up green energy mean that we increase the alternative supplies relative to depending on oil and other fossil fuels. Now, those things work, but fair enough, they probably are not as forceful as creating mass unemployment in terms of reducing price pressure. So the point is, do we really need to push prices all the way down to the 2% target? And if we don’t have to be that aggressive in terms of reducing prices, then we can use these other policies to control inflation.
Here’s another example. One of the things that pushed up prices of food and oil is speculation on the futures market. So why not control speculation on the futures market? If you combine these alternatives, you will have a set of policies that are able to restrain inflation without attacking the well-being of working people.
Sharmini Peries
Bob, in your paper, you demonstrate that green growth policies identified by the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act passed last year are a viable option to reduce inflation. Explain how we can deal with the environmental crisis and inflation at the same time.
Robert Pollin
Well, yes, it’s not going to control inflation in the next two months. It is actually called the Inflation Reduction Act. I mean, really, it’s more about investing in building a green economy. Overall it was a good measure. It could be much, much, much better. We’ve talked about this before, but given what it is, nevertheless, the faster we transition to green energy, obviously, it addresses climate change by reducing CO2. Also, renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuel energy; it’s half the price in terms of generating electricity. Solar and wind are half the price per kilowatt hour without any subsidies; it’s half the price of coal. That’s where we are right now. In addition, when I say a green transition, we also talk about raising energy efficiency standards, so you don’t need as much energy to keep your house warm, to turn on the lights, or to drive from point A to point B. So that also lowers all of those things meaning that we are reducing the demand for fossil fuels, and that will help reduce inflation over time.
Sharmini Peries
So how much of the inflation we are experiencing is COVID related? And how much of this inflation is due to the war in Ukraine, supply chain issues, or the stimulus packages?
Robert Pollin
Well, I think, first of all, inflation is real, so we do have to control it. And people like the progressive people, we do have to be concerned about inflation. There’s no question about it. It’s just how you do it. And then, in terms of solutions, number one, I think we need to be very clear that inflation is already coming down. It was these massive supply problems coming out of COVID and the war that really pushed up inflation. So, therefore, let’s let those things work themselves out, and then let’s stay focused on– I mean, unemployment could be lower, but it’s as low as it’s been in generations. To be at less than 4% unemployment and to push it down even lower, that’s an incredibly important goal.
Among other things, it does give workers more bargaining power. Workers should have more bargaining power. The average worker in the United States hasn’t seen a raise in 50 years in real dollars, whereas the average CEO has seen their real income increase tenfold. So that’s what we’ve had under neoliberalism. And the idea that workers shouldn’t be able to get any kind of raise is basically saying we’re going to keep running neoliberalism indefinitely. The policies of the central bank, the Fed, and similar policies in other countries are effectively saying we’re not going to run capitalism by letting workers get any benefits or any raises.
Sharmini Peries
Bob, one of the things we have to keep in mind is that in the United States, we are dealing with an election cycle every two years. Policies are often geared to pleasing those who contribute substantially to the election process. Now, give us a sense of the current policies and how it may be benefiting those that are major contributors to the election cycle. Of course, the decision-making process is geared towards them and not the ordinary person on the street.
Robert Pollin
The story coming into the next election cycle should be that, yes, we had these huge stimulus policies during COVID and that prevented a Great Depression because, between March 2020 and April 2020, unemployment went up from about 3.5% to 14% due to the COVID lockdown. It would have stayed there. We would be in a Great Depression right now had we not had the stimulus policies. The stimulus policies did contribute to putting a floor on the economy and therefore did contribute in its own way to inflation. Inflation at 3-4% is better than deflation; it is better than a depression. So I think that story needs to be told moving into the next election cycle.
Now that said, you do have this view on Wall Street that the first and foremost thing that we want is we don’t want workers to get more bargaining power. We want to keep jacking up profits unconstrained, as the oil companies have just done. The oil companies and other big corporations are certainly going to be financing politicians that are going to want to keep workers’ demands at bay.
Sharmini Peries
Thank you, Bob.
Robert Pollin
Thank you very much.
Sharmini Peries
Let me remind everyone that Bobs and other conference papers are available for your perusal at the Political Economy Research Institute at UMass Amherst.
Robert Pollin
We have a shorter one that’s in the American Prospect, a summary that’s also available. You can find it on our website site, too.
Sharmini Peries
We will be unpacking all of them by interviewing the leading authors. So please join us for this series, and thank you for joining us here on theAnalysis.
Sharmini Peries
Bienvenido a The Analysis. Soy Sharmini Peries y volveré con el profesor Bob Pollin en unos segundos.
El banco central de varios países desarrollados, como los países del G-7, y la Reserva Federal de EE. UU. han respondido a la creciente inflación mediante el aumento de las tasas de interés. Para frenarla, están utilizando una política microeconómica conocida como metas de inflación, que es una política en la que intentan llegar a una inflación del 2 % para lograr la estabilidad de precios.
Este es el presidente de la Reserva Federal el 16 de diciembre de 2022.
Jerome Powell
Antes de entrar en los detalles de la reunión de hoy, me gustaría subrayar para el pueblo estadounidense que entendemos las dificultades que está causando la alta inflación y que estamos firmemente decididos a reducir la inflación a nuestra meta del 2 %. Sin estabilidad de precios, la economía no funciona para nadie. En particular, sin estabilidad de precios, no lograremos mantener un mercado laboral fuerte que beneficie a todos.
Hoy en el FOMC [Comité Federal de Mercado Abierto], hemos subido nuestra tasa de interés clave medio punto porcentual. Continuamos anticipando que los aumentos futuros serán apropiados para lograr una postura de política monetaria que sea lo suficientemente restrictiva como para devolver la inflación al 2 % después de un tiempo.
Sharmini Peries
Pero ¿es este realmente un enfoque económico racional para proporcionar alivio a los muchos que están sufriendo a causa del aumento de los precios y la inflación? ¿Qué se puede hacer para frenarla y lograr la estabilidad económica al mismo tiempo? ¿Qué está impulsando la inflación? ¿Es el gasto público, los salarios más altos, la pandemia, los problemas de la cadena de suministro relacionados con la pandemia, la guerra en Ucrania o todo lo anterior? ¿Cuáles podrían ser soluciones alternativas efectivas? ¿Para quién es racional subir las tasas de interés o a quién beneficia?
Esas son algunas de las preguntas planteadas en una muy oportuna conferencia celebrada en diciembre de 2022 por el Instituto de Investigaciones de Economía Política en la Universidad de Massachusetts, Amherst. Hoy me acompaña uno de los organizadores de la conferencia, el profesor Robert Pollin, que es un distinguido profesor universitario de Economía y codirector del Instituto de Investigación de Economía Política, PERI, en UMass, Amherst. Bob, muchas gracias por acompañarme hoy.
Robert Pollin
Es genial estar contigo, Sharmini. Gracias.
Sharmini Peries
Bob, has organizado una conferencia con algunos economistas muy estimados. Podemos suponer que esperas influir en los responsables de la política económica en un momento crítico en este periodo inflacionario. ¿Por qué estás tratando de intervenir y a quién estás tratando de influir?
Robert Pollin
Organizamos la conferencia, el codirector de PERI, Jerry Epstein, y yo, para enfocarnos en cuáles son realmente las causas del fenómeno de la inflación global y las formas de controlar la inflación. Controlar la inflación sin atacar el bienestar y el nivel de vida de los trabajadores, las clases pobres.
Así que eso es básicamente la base del proyecto. Y creo que es justo decir que aprendimos mucho. Creo que lo que hallamos en la conferencia fue muy diferente de lo que está guiando la política económica ahora. En pocas palabras, la política económica se rige por la idea, como has dicho al principio, de reducir la inflación a una tasa del 2 %. Y la principal forma de lograrlo es subir las tasas de interés. Eso ralentizará la economía, aumentará el desempleo, y como consecuencia dañará a la clase trabajadora y debilitará su poder de negociación. Y la idea detrás de debilitar el poder de negociación de los trabajadores es porque los trabajadores están negociando para subir sus salarios, tienen demasiado poder para negociar salarios y, por lo tanto, tenemos que atacar el poder de negociación de los trabajadores para volver a tenerlos bajo su bota.
Sharmini Peries
Bob, el artículo que presentaste se titula Considerations on Inflation, Economic Growth and 2% Inflation Target. Es un artículo que escribiste conjuntamente con Hanae Bouazza y en el que declaras que la mayoría de las economías de ingresos altos han establecido un marco de política conocido como metas de inflación, como los países del G-7, desde la década de 1990. Han fijado una meta de inflación del 2 %. Pero dices que no hay un corpus de investigación serio que respalde su suposición operativa. Explícanos esto.
Robert Pollin
Sí, como has dicho, en la década de 1990, existía esta idea de que los Gobiernos deben organizar la política económica en torno a esta premisa de mantener la inflación por debajo del 2 %, y la premisa es, bueno, si hacemos eso, todo lo demás se arreglará solo, las economías crecerán mejor, las oportunidades de empleo se ampliarán. Y lo principal que tenemos que hacer es establecer la estabilidad de precios, definida por una tasa de inflación muy baja de un solo dígito del 2 %.
Ahora, mi estudio con Hanae Bouazza es muy limitado en cierto sentido. Solo trata de analizar un pequeño punto. Y el punto es: ¿realmente observamos que las economías crecen más rápido en un contexto de baja inflación, con una inflación del 2 % como objetivo? Y la respuesta es no. La respuesta es que nunca hubo pruebas. De hecho, nuestro documento es realmente una especie de extensión del trabajo realizado en la década de 1990 por alguien llamado Michael Bruno, que era en ese momento el economista jefe del Banco Mundial. Y el propio Bruno demostró en los 90 que no había relación, que las economías en realidad crecen más rápido a tasas de inflación algo más altas.
Básicamente ampliamos los resultados de Bruno en el presente y para toda la economía global. Luego, nos enfocamos en los países de altos ingresos y luego aún más en los Estados Unidos concretamente. No decimos que estamos a favor de la hiperinflación.
No decimos que está bien que haya inflación, que no tenemos que preocuparnos si está al 40 %, 50 %, lo que sea. Pero hemos hallado que, en lugar de una meta de inflación del 2 %, las economías funcionan mejor cuando la inflación está en alrededor del 4-5 %, quizá incluso 6-7 % en algunas circunstancias, y que esos puntos porcentuales realmente suponen una gran diferencia. Porque lo que estamos viendo ahora es este ataque para bajar la inflación al 2 %, cuando lo que sucedió con este periodo actual de alta inflación fue que tuvimos estas reducciones de la oferta derivadas de la pandemia. En otras palabras, había escasez de alimentos, escasez de petróleo, escasez de chips de ordenador, y las economías tuvieron que recuperar lo perdido cuando salieron del confinamiento. Además de eso, estaba la guerra en Ucrania, que condujo a más escasez de alimentos y energía.
Entonces, esa es la causa. ¿Por qué no abordamos el tema de las reducciones de la oferta? Y luego, encima de eso, las grandes corporaciones se aprovecharon de esta escasez de suministro y subieron sus precios, y como consecuencia las ganancias aumentaron mucho más rápido que los salarios. Así que por eso vimos… Por ejemplo, se informó la semana pasada de que las dos mayores petroleras estadounidenses, Exxon y Chevron, obtuvieron 100 mil millones de dólares en ganancias el año pasado, 100 mil millones en ganancias. ¿Por qué no se les pide responsabilidad con respecto a sus márgenes de precios en lugar de atacar a los trabajadores como la causa de la inflación?
Sharmini Peries
Bob, uno de los objetivos de una meta de inflación del 2 % es la estabilidad de precios, lo cual no es tan malo en sí mismo, parece razonable. ¿Realmente hace eso?
Robert Pollin
Bueno, quiero decir, si quieres llegar a una tasa de inflación del 2 % y permanecer allí, puedes hacerlo. Pero la economía se va a contraer, se ralentizará la actividad económica, subirá la tasa de desempleo. Puede resultar en deflación. El único problema es que también tienes una depresión. Tendrás desempleo generalizado. Nos encantaría tener un mundo en el que a todos les va bien y no hay inflación. Pero así no es como funciona realmente el mundo. Hay un coste.
Entonces, tenemos que entender: está bien, si queremos llegar al 2 % de inflación, ¿estamos dispuestos a sacrificar empleos e ingresos? Si podemos tener mayores ingresos y más y mejores oportunidades de trabajo con, digamos, una inflación del 4 %, quizá ese debería ser nuestro objetivo en lugar de una inflación del 2 %. ¿Por qué hacer sufrir a toda la clase obrera mundial, que lleven la carga, con el fin de llegar a este objetivo de inflación del 2 %?
Sharmini Peries
Dado el alto coste de todo, desde los cereales hasta la gasolina, ¿puedes explicar por qué esta suposición operativa es débil y fallida?
Robert Pollin
Bien, la idea es que siempre que hay inflación, creciente alta inflación, se debe a que los trabajadores tienen demasiado poder de negociación, negociando sus salarios. Como he dicho, de hecho, lo que causó la gran inflación, la primera en 40 años, fue lo que pasó saliendo del COVID: reabrimos la economía, y reabrimos la economía después de que hubo todas estas alteraciones de suministro, hubo un confinamiento… ¿por cuánto, un año y medio, dos años? Y encima de eso, luego tuvimos la guerra.
Entonces, lo que se debe hacer es abordar esos problemas de suministro, el hecho de que tenemos escasez de suministros con chips de ordenador y petróleo y alimentos, todas esas cosas. Y sí, también tuvimos escasez de oferta de trabajadores por las muertes causadas por el COVID y la gente que no pudo volver a trabajar. Los que todavía estaban vivos. El mercado laboral en los EE. UU. perdió alrededor de tres millones y medio de personas. Así que eso creó cierta escasez de mano de obra. La verdadera solución es subir los salarios y alentar a las personas a volver al trabajo y mejorar las condiciones.
Ahora bien, el hecho es que la escasez de suministro ya se está restableciendo. Las cadenas de suministro se están fortaleciendo. Durante los últimos cinco meses en los Estados Unidos, la inflación ya ha bajado al 2,4 %. Para todo el año, la inflación es del 7 %, pero durante los últimos cinco meses en los EE. UU., es del 2,4 %. La misma tendencia en Europa. En España, por ejemplo, la inflación ha estado bajando durante los últimos seis meses. Así que los problemas de suministro se están resolviendo solos. Y de nuevo, ¿por qué querrías atacar a los trabajadores e impedir que obtengan algún aumento de ingresos cuando estamos saliendo del confinamiento?
Sharmini Peries
Bob, tu documento señala otras opciones económicas disponibles para los responsables políticos para estabilizar y hacer crecer la economía sin dañar el empleo, para reducir la inflación. Háblanos de algunas de estas opciones que están disponibles.
Robert Pollin
No son exactamente ultrarradicales, porque muchas de ellas han sido propuestas por la administración Biden.
Una de ellas es un impuesto a las ganancias extraordinarias. Como he dicho, las compañías petroleras obtuvieron 100 mil millones de dólares en ganancias, ganancias récord el año pasado, y todo porque podían aumentar sus precios debido a la escasez. Se aprovecharon de eso. ¿Por qué deberían beneficiarse como resultado del confinamiento del COVID?
También he escrito sobre la nacionalización de la industria petrolera y me encantaría hablar de ello, pero digamos que no vamos a hacer eso ahora. Por lo menos, deberían restringirse sus márgenes de beneficio, porque no están haciendo nada nuevo, solo se están beneficiando de la escasez de suministros causada por el confinamiento. Así que ese sería uno.
Del mismo modo, las inversiones en la expansión de energías verdes significan que aumentamos la oferta de alternativas frente a la dependencia del petróleo y otros combustibles fósiles. Ahora, esas cosas funcionan, pero de acuerdo, probablemente no son tan efectivas como una alta tasa de desempleo para reducir la presión sobre los precios.
Entonces, lo que digo es: ¿realmente necesitamos bajar los precios hasta la meta del 2 %? Y si no tenemos que ser tan agresivos en términos de reducción de precios, quiere decir que podemos usar estas otras políticas para controlar la inflación.
Este es otro ejemplo. Una de las cosas que hizo subir los precios de los alimentos y el petróleo es la especulación en el mercado de futuros. Entonces, ¿por qué no controlar la especulación en el mercado de futuros?
Si usas una combinación de estas alternativas, tendrás un conjunto de políticas que son capaces de contener la inflación sin atentar contra el bienestar de los trabajadores.
Sharmini Peries
Bien, Bob, en tus artículos demuestras que las políticas de crecimiento verde identificadas en la Ley de Reducción de la Inflación de EE. UU. aprobada el año pasado son una opción viable para reducir la inflación. Explica cómo podemos paliar la crisis ambiental y la inflación al mismo tiempo.
Robert Pollin
Bueno, sí, no va a controlar la inflación en los próximos dos meses. Se llama Ley de Reducción de la Inflación. Quiero decir, realmente se trata más de invertir en construir una economía verde. En términos generales, fue una buena medida. Podría ser mucho mejor. Hemos hablado de esto antes.
Pero bueno, es lo que es, y cuanto más rápido hagamos la transición a la energía verde, obviamente palia el cambio climático al reducir el CO2, pero también la energía renovable es más barata que la energía de combustibles fósiles, la mitad del precio, para generar electricidad en este momento. La energía solar y eólica cuestan la mitad por kilovatio hora, sin subsidios, que el carbón. Ahí es donde estamos ahora.
Además, cuando digo “una transición verde”, también hablamos de mejorar los estándares de eficiencia energética. Así que no necesitarías tanta energía para mantener tu casa caliente o encender las luces o conducir del punto A al punto B. Entonces, eso también baja… Todas esas cosas significan que estamos reduciendo la demanda de combustibles fósiles y eso ayudará a reducir la inflación con el tiempo.
Sharmini Peries
Entonces, ¿qué porcentaje de la inflación que estamos experimentando está relacionada con COVID y cuánto se debe a la guerra en Ucrania o problemas de la cadena de suministro o los paquetes de estímulo?
Robert Pollin
Bueno, creo que en primer lugar, la inflación es real, así que tenemos que controlarla. Y a las personas progresistas debería preocuparnos la inflación. No hay duda al respecto. Así es como lo haces.
Y luego, en términos de soluciones, número uno, creo que debemos tener muy claro que la inflación ya está bajando. Fueron estos problemas generalizados de suministro después del COVID y la guerra lo que realmente hizo subir la inflación.
Por tanto, dejemos que esas cosas se resuelvan solas, y luego centrémonos en… Quiero decir, el desempleo podría ser más bajo, pero es el más bajo que hemos tenido desde hace generaciones. Así que tener un desempleo de menos del 4 % y reducirlo aún más es una meta increíblemente importante. Entre otras cosas, da a los trabajadores más poder de negociación. Los trabajadores deberían tener más poder de negociación. El trabajador promedio en los Estados Unidos no ha visto un aumento salarial en 50 años en dólares reales, mientras que el director promedio ha visto multiplicarse por diez sus ingresos reales. Eso es lo que nos ha dado el neoliberalismo. Y la idea de que los trabajadores no deberían poder recibir ningún tipo de aumento básicamente significa que vamos a seguir aplicando el neoliberalismo indefinidamente. Y las políticas del banco central, la Fed, y políticas similares en otros países están diciendo efectivamente: no queremos un tipo de capitalismo en el que los trabajadores obtengan cualquier beneficio, cualquier aumento.
Sharmini Peries
Bob, una de las cosas que debemos tener en cuenta es que en Estados Unidos tenemos un ciclo electoral cada dos años. Por lo tanto, las políticas a menudo están orientadas a complacer a quienes contribuyen sustancialmente al proceso electoral. Danos una idea de las políticas actuales y cómo pueden estar beneficiando a aquellos que son los principales contribuyentes al ciclo electoral. Y por supuesto, el proceso de toma de decisiones los favorece a ellos y no a la persona común en la calle.
Robert Pollin
La historia, entrando en el próximo ciclo electoral, debería ser que, sí, tuvimos estas enormes políticas de estímulo durante el COVID y eso evitó una gran depresión, porque entre marzo de 2020 y abril de 2020, el desempleo aumentó de alrededor del 3,6 % al 14 % debido al confinamiento. Se habría quedado allí, estaríamos en una gran depresión en este momento, si no hubiéramos tenido las políticas de estímulo. Y las políticas de estímulo sí contribuyeron a frenar la caída de la economía y contribuyeron a su manera a la inflación. Una inflación al 3-4 % es mejor que la deflación, es mejor que la depresión. Así que creo que es necesario contar esa historia de cara al próximo ciclo electoral.
Dicho esto, existe una opinión en Wall Street de que lo primero y más importante que debemos hacer es evitar que los trabajadores tengan más poder de negociación. Queremos seguir aumentando las ganancias sin restricciones, como acaban de hacer las petroleras. Las compañías petroleras y otras grandes corporaciones ciertamente van a financiar a los políticos para mantener a raya las demandas de los trabajadores.
Sharmini Peries
Gracias, Bob.
Robert Pollin
Muchas gracias.
Sharmini Peries
Permítanme recordarles a todos que los documentos de la conferencia de Bob y otros están disponibles para su lectura en el Instituto de Investigación de Economía Política en UMass Amherst.
Robert Pollin
Y tenemos uno más corto que está en el American Prospect, un resumen, que también está disponible. También pueden encontrarlo en nuestro sitio web.
Sharmini Peries
Los analizaremos entrevistando a los principales autores. Así que por favor únanse a nosotros para esta serie y gracias por acompañarnos aquí en The Analysis.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter Email(Required)Name(Required) First Last Δ
“Robert Pollin (born September 29, 1950) is anAmerican economist and self-described socialist. He is a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and founding co-director of its Political Economy Research Institute (PERI).”
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
Nearly 50 protesters have been killed by police in Peru following the removal from office of President Pedro Castillo six weeks ago. Peru analyst Francesca Emanuele says that the conflict is symptomatic of Peru’s systematic exclusion of the poor and indigenous population from its political system.
Apartheid Drives the Conflict in PeruPro-Bolsonaro Attacks Following Bannon’s Playbook?Brazil: Hope for the First Time in a Very Long TimePeru’s Systemic Political Crisis Deepens as President is ArrestedLula Wins in Brazil but “Will Have to Tread Very Carefully”After Bolsonaro’s Failures, Why was Brazil’s Election so Close?Chile’s Devastating VoteA Paradigm Shift for ColombiaReversal of Fortune for Colombia’s Left?Does Nicaragua Under President Ortega Deserve Progressives’ Support?Burying Neoliberalism in ChileHonduras: The End of the Nightmare?A Second Pink Tide in Latin America? – Pt 2/2Haiti, Aristide, and U.S.-Backed CoupsBiden Reneged on Cuban Campaign Promise – James EarlyHaitian Ruling Families Create and Kill MonstersUS Institutions Encourage Coup Impunity in BoliviaThe Left Wins Peru’s Presidential ElectionColombia Enters a New Phase of Popular MobilizationBiden Continues the US War on CubaPeru: Left vs. Far-Right – Dramatic Choice in Presidential ElectionEcuador’s Socialist Loses as Left SplitsLula Returns as Covid Runs Wild in BrazilBiden’s Venezuela Policy: Continuity with TrumpHaiti: Canada & U.S. Support Coups and DictatorsA New Beginning for BoliviaHaiti’s Century of US Coups, Invasions & Puppets – Abby MartinUS Media’s Sins of Omission in Ecuadorian Election CoverageThe Mixed Record of Mexico’s AMLO, Two Years InVenezuela’s Socialists Win Election Despite Declining SupportPeru: Mass Protests Against Hypercapitalist Narco-State Force Presidents’ ResignationsVenezuela’s Opposition Split Over Election BoycottBolivia: Barricades and Crisis in a Crisis Transcript * Spanish Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Guest * Music*
Greg Wilpert
Welcome to The World on Fire. I’m Greg Wilpert. Last Monday, January 9, Peruvian police shot and killed 17 protesters in the border town of Juliaca, near Bolivia. This brings the total number of civilians killed in Peru in almost daily protests over the past two months to 47 ever since Peru’s elected President, Pedro Castillo, was impeached last December 7.
Castillo had served a mere year and a half in office and endured three attempts to remove him. The last one was successful after Castillo tried to dissolve Congress, whereupon he lost the last remaining support he had in the legislature. His vice president, Dina Boluarte, became president, and protests against Castillo’s removal from office began almost immediately. Boluarte reacted by imposing a state of emergency that suspended constitutional rights, which further aggravated the situation.
Joining me now again to discuss these and related events in Peru is Francesca Emanuele. She is a Peruvian Ph.D. student in Anthropology at the American University. She is also a columnist for the Peruvian news outlet Wayka. Thanks for joining me again, Francesca.
Francesca Emanuele
Thank you so much for inviting me, Greg.
Greg Wilpert
Just give us a big brief rundown as to what has happened since Castillo’s impeachment. I gave some of the details, but if you could fill in some more of the gaps of what’s happened. Also, of course, I encourage people to check out our earlier interview that took place shortly after Castillo was removed last December.
Francesca Emanuele
Yeah, sure. So I can safely say that Peru is ruled by an authoritarian and repressive government led by Dina Boluarte. This administration is only governing with the Right, the extreme Right. In 40 days since taking power, it has killed almost half a hundred working-class, indigenous, and Campesino Peruvians. This government has been committing massacres against its own people. Let’s go one step at a time. In the first two days since Castillo was ousted, there were few protests. They spread out in the rural areas of the country as soon as it became clear that the new administration would govern only with the Right and with the extreme right wing within Congress.
In Peru, the current Congress as an institution is deeply unpopular, with an approval rating of 8%. Maybe now, even less. We Peruvians hate this institution because many parliamentarians tried to steal the elections from Castillo when he won in 2021 by claiming fraud with no evidence. We reject them, these parliamentarians, because, in general, most of them are corrupt, racist, and praise anti-working class policies.
Protesters were also enraged because Boluarte and the corrupt Congress wanted to stay in power until the end of the term in 2026. Since it became clear that the right wing within Congress had finally captured all branches of the state, including the executive, by getting rid of Castillo and had also managed to make President Boluarte their puppet, protests haven’t receded. Some analysts say that we are, meaning Peruvians, under congressional dictatorship. I agree.
The epicenter of the first protest and the first murders due to police repression took place in Apurímac, which is the homeland of President Dina Boluarte, located in the Andes of Peru. The death toll was six, and Boluarte responded by announcing that elections would move up to 2024. Protesters dismissed the announcement because they wanted elections now. So protests continued, and repression became even more brutal. A nationwide state of emergency, as you mentioned, was announced, and since then, we have had two more massacres. The one in Ayacucho, where the government deployed the military and murdered ten people. Some of those killings have been described as extrajudicial executions by human rights organizations. The latest massacre took place in the Puño region on January 9. Seventeen people were murdered, as you mentioned, and all with firearms, including a minor and a volunteer doctor who was helping the injured.
These are not random killings. The victims are located in the same regions of the country that voted for Pedro Castillo in the 2021 elections. The victims are Campesino people and indigenous people only, all rural residents. There are no victims in Lima, where the economic and political power of Peru is concentrated and where one-third of the population lives, despite the fact that Lima comprises 0.4% of the national territory. So from Lima, the rest of the citizenry is mostly seen as ignorant and lesser beings. This is partly the reason why this government is still standing.
In 2020, there were also protests. Two limeños, people from Lima, were killed by the police. The government, at that time, was forced to resign. But this is not the case today because the killings are located in rural areas, as I mentioned. So now there are about 100 roadblocks, and people from different regions are walking or traveling towards the capital for a big mobilization or for a big protest. Maybe then the government will listen.
Greg Wilpert
I want to get to the issue of racism in Peru in a moment, but you mentioned that most of the participants in the protests are indigenous and Campesinos. I’m wondering, are these all spontaneous protests, or are there organizations that are being organized by particular groups? How do you see the balance of that?
Francesca Emanuele
Yeah, most of these protests are spontaneous, despite the fact that there are organizations that are also joining the protest and are trying to articulate among them. The demands are still the same as a month ago; only some are now more important than others. The resignation of Dina Boluarte is a widespread demand. There is a call for an election now. People want elections now, not in 2024. People are also demanding the closure of Congress. The other demand is the release of Castillo from prison, which continues to be a demand, but has lost some strength in light of the massacres committed by this government.
Something that I want to clarify is that the reinstatement of Castillo is an almost nonexistent demand. Castillo was not a good president. He broke his promises. He articulated with the Right. Although the fact that he was ousted was the catalyst for the protests, Castillo has ceased to represent hopes for change. Protesters or demonstrators want him released from prison because he’s unjustly in prison and also because there is a strong identification with him for all the mistreatment and racism he has suffered from Congress, from the prosecutor’s office, from the media, and from the oligarchy.
For example, the charges for which he is now in pretrial detention are absurd. Congress has stripped Castillo of his immunity without due process. So the population recognizes all of this. But as I told you, Castillo betrayed his promises of change, and that is why hardly anyone in Peru is asking for his reinstatement as president.
Greg Wilpert
So one of the points that you made earlier was that there’d been a tremendous amount of racism and classism against a large segment of the population, obviously the Campesinos and the indigenous population and that this is fueling the protest. You also wrote an article, a very good article recently for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, that outlined some of this. Talk about in what sense Castillo’s overthrow and the subsequent protests expose the Peruvian elite’s racism and classism.
Francesca Emanuele
Yes, I already talked a little bit about this, as you mentioned. But, yes, I consider that one of the roots of this protest is the structural racism in Peru. It is brutal. We live in a de facto apartheid. In Lima, there’s a wall, an actual wall that divides wealthy neighborhoods from poor ones, and that tells you a lot.
I wrote the article you mentioned on how Castillo was subjected to various forms of racist stigma and how that unleashed a mirror effect among his sympathizers. He was called a donkey and a dumb Indian. He was called that by authorities, by the media, and nothing happened. Everything was okay. No one was punished. This racism is also related to how demonstrators are being described by authorities right now. The president, the ministers, and the media are saying that protesters are criminals or terrorists. They say this literally– criminalizing lawful assembly and discrediting reasonable demands. Meanwhile, they have presented no evidence in support of their allegations, and actually, they don’t have any.
Let me give you some context. In the ’80s and ’90s, Peru went through an internal armed conflict between Abimael [Guzmán] Maoist guerrilla group called Sendero Luminoso, or the Shining Path, and the government. During this period, the government imprisoned thousands of innocent indigenous and Campesino people, falsely accusing them of terrorism, and actually killed an estimated 30,000 people.
In the following decades leading up to today, the Left and the poor, fed up with the system, have been consistently discredited by linking it to the Shining Path, Sendero Luminoso. Every time someone wants to change the status quo, the ghost of the Shining Path is used by the establishment and the elites as we see it today. There is no connection, as I said, between the protests of today and the legacy of the Shining Path. The truth is that the people are fed up with the system and will continue protesting until they feel that there is a response channeled towards structural change, towards a Peru where they are considered full citizens with rights and protections for all, not just for those in Lima. As I told you, this is a long-standing fight.
Something that I want to add is how this government is criminalizing the Left and the protest. It is raiding the government premises of Left groups, headquarters of Left groups, arresting Campesino leaders, and trying to prosecute them as terrorists. Yesterday, in Ayacucho, in the Andes of Peru, it happened against seven Campesino leaders. Seven Campesino leaders were arrested. The other issue I want to say is that the police are using horrendous tactics to criminalize the protests. They are sending infiltrators to the protest and causing violent acts to justify their mass arrests and the killings.
Greg Wilpert
So one of the factors that you mentioned, of course, in addition, to what’s making the situation worse with regard to racism and classism in Peru, is, of course, the role of the media. You mentioned some aspects of that, but what role has the media really played in Castillo’s overthrow and also in the situation today?
Francesca Emanuele
Yeah, in Peru, we live in a media bubble, and this is related to the dysfunctionality of our democracy and the difficulty of achieving justice in the face of any abuse by the government and the authorities. One company in Peru owns more than 80% of the written press. For example, you go to a kiosk, you see many newspapers, and you think that they are different newspapers, but they are owned by the same company. Three companies own 84% of all the television, printed press, radio stations, and news websites. It is not random that many protests have taken place in front of the headquarters of TV stations, for example. The demonstrators know that the Peruvian media misinforms and is an actual ally of the repressive government and, of course, of the oligarchy.
The mainstream media is not covering the massacres. It is really terrible. Just to give you an example, a few weeks ago, Reuters published a video from a security camera that showed a man being shot from behind by a soldier while the man was kneeling to help an injured man. The Peruvian press did not even report it, despite the fact that it proves the violations of human rights by this government.
In addition, the mainstream media outlets are located mainly in Lima and are the only ones that receive public money through state advertising. So the small rural media outlets have almost no resources, and as a consequence, people have to rely on alternative media and social media. Peru needs a law to democratize the media so that the monopoly that exists in the media today ends, and we can only have a democracy if there is a diversity of media outlets and perspectives.
Greg Wilpert
Now, another issue, of course, is what is the role of the United States in all of this? The Biden administration, particularly, and also, of course, the Organization of American States, which normally would take some kind of responsibility or role in this kind of situation. Has either one of them, the Organization of American States, the OAS, or the Biden administration, done or said anything so far?
Francesca Emanuele
Yeah, that’s a great question. The United States has been supporting this government from the beginning. The Organization of American States hasn’t said anything about the human rights violations of this government and the massacres. The United States hasn’t said from the State Department anything against or calling to stop the human rights violations or the violence committed by the government against the protesters. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights traveled to Peru in December and supposedly was going to a issue report, but it didn’t. It went a few days ago, again, it was the second visit, the second delegation, and it gave a press conference where it pointed out how horrible the violation of human rights were. So if we think about the Inter-American system, yeah, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has denounced these massacres and the clear violation of human rights committed by this government and the criminalization of the protest. So far, as I said, the Organization of American States, which actually condemned the attacks, the fascist attacks in Brazil, didn’t condemn the behavior of this government in Peru. The Biden administration hasn’t done it either. It continues to support it.
Greg Wilpert
I understand that they even sent some money. Can you say something about that and what that money is for?
Francesca Emanuele
Yes, so the U.S. Ambassador to Peru announced that a new donation of $8 million had been given to Peru to combat narco-traffic. This was an announcement within this month since the government of Dina Boluarte took office. So it clearly shows the support of the United States to this government.
Greg Wilpert
That was just before the massacre happened in Puño. Now looking forward to the future, what do you think needs to happen for this crisis to be resolved? Are there political actors in Peru, at the moment, who are working towards a positive resolution, and what are their chances?
Francesca Emanuele
Yeah, to solve the crisis, we need a transformation of the state structures that reinforce racism and exclusion. A first step would be to open the democratic system so that those groups that are protesting and excluded from electoral participation can participate in the elections. The party system is practically impenetrable for social movements and for leftist groups without financial resources, which are pretty much all of them. Right now, we only have parties that are right-wing, and we only have parties that are owned by corrupt businessmen.
I don’t know if I talked about this the last time we spoke, but one of the left-wing leaders in Peru, Verónika Mendoza, received about 3 million votes in the presidential elections of 2016 and almost reached the second round. Until now, she hasn’t been able to register her party because of extremely difficult requirements to fulfill. So that gives you an example of how difficult or how impenetrable the party system is in Peru.
Thinking about a more powerful step towards resolving the crisis is to start a process for a new social pact leading to a new constitution. If you ask me right now how the change could begin to take place, I think it would be the immediate resignation of the President, Dina Boluarte, and moving up the elections to 2023, as people are demanding on the streets.
But, of course, if the conditions are not met for the participation in the next elections of the excluded sectors of Peru’s society, the ones that are protesting now, the power will be recaptured fully by the Right, the Right that is being rejected in the streets, and we will continue this long-standing political and social crisis.
Greg Wilpert
I didn’t realize that Verónika Mendoza’s party, I guess it’s called Nuevo Peru, New Peru, hasn’t been able to register. Would that mean that if there were congressional elections, she wouldn’t be able to have any representation in Congress?
Francesca Emanuele
Likely.
Greg Wilpert
Okay, well, we’ll definitely continue to keep an eye on the developments there, but we’ll leave it there for now. I was speaking to Francesca Emanuele, a Peruvian Ph.D. student in Anthropology at the American University. Thanks again, Francesca, for having joined me.
Francesca Emanuele
Thank you so much, Greg.
Greg Wilpert
Thank you, our audience, for joining The World on Fire. Until next time.
Greg Wilpert
Bienvenido a The World on Fire. Soy Greg Wilpert.
El pasado lunes 9 de enero policías peruanos mataron a tiros a 17 manifestantes en la ciudad fronteriza de Juliaca, cerca de Bolivia. Con esto se eleva el total de civiles asesinados en Perú en protestas casi diarias en los últimos dos meses a 47 desde que el presidente electo de Perú, Pedro Castillo, fuera destituido el pasado 7 de diciembre. Castillo había servido apenas un año y medio en el cargo, después de tres intentos para destituirlo. El último tuvo éxito después de que Castillo intentara disolver el Congreso, con lo cual perdió el último apoyo que le quedaba en la legislatura. Su vicepresidenta, Dina Boluarte, asumió la presidencia, y las protestas contra la destitución de Castillo comenzaron casi de inmediato. Boluarte reaccionó imponiendo un estado de excepción que suspendía los derechos constitucionales, lo que agravó aún más la situación.
Me acompaña nuevamente para hablar de estos y otros acontecimientos relacionados en Perú Francesca Emanuele. Ella es una estudiante peruana de doctorado en Antropología en la Universidad Americana. También es columnista del medio peruano Wayka.
Gracias por acompañarme nuevamente, Francesca.
Francesca Emanuele
Muchas gracias por invitarme, Greg.
Greg Wilpert
Danos un breve resumen de lo que ha sucedido desde la destitución de Castillo. He dado algunos de los detalles, pero quizá pudieras llenar algunos de los vacíos de lo que sucedió. Además, por supuesto, animo a la gente a ver nuestra entrevista anterior, que tuvo lugar poco después de la destitución de Castillo en diciembre.
Francesca Emanuele
Sí, por supuesto. Puedo decir con seguridad que Perú está gobernado por un Gobierno autoritario y represivo liderado por Dina Boluarte. Esta administración solo está gobernando con la derecha, la extrema derecha. En los 40 días desde que asumió el poder, ha matado a casi medio centenar de peruanos, obreros, indígenas y campesinos. Este Gobierno ha estado cometiendo masacres contra su propio pueblo.
Vayamos por pasos. En los primeros dos días después de la expulsión de Castillo, hubo pocas protestas. Se extendieron a las zonas rurales del país tan pronto como quedó claro que la nueva administración gobernaría solo con la derecha y con la extrema derecha dentro del Congreso. En Perú, el actual Congreso como institución es profundamente impopular, con un índice de aprobación del 8 %. Quizá ahora incluso menos. Los peruanos odiamos esta institución porque muchos parlamentarios intentaron robarle las elecciones a Castillo cuando ganó en 2021 alegando fraude sin ninguna prueba. Rechazamos a estos parlamentarios porque, en general, la mayoría de ellos son corruptos, racistas y defienden las políticas antiobreras.
Los manifestantes también se enfurecieron porque Boluarte y el Congreso corrupto quieren mantenerse en el poder hasta el final de la legislatura en 2026. Desde que quedó claro que la derecha dentro del Congreso finalmente había capturado todas las ramas del Estado, incluido el ejecutivo, al deshacerse de Castillo, y haber logrado también hacer de la presidenta Boluarte su títere, las protestas no han disminuido.
Algunos analistas dicen que los peruanos estamos bajo una dictadura del Congreso. Estoy de acuerdo. El epicentro de la primera protesta y los primeros asesinatos por represión policial se dieron en Apurímac, que es la región natal de la presidenta Dina Boluarte, situada en los Andes de Perú. Hubo seis muertos, y Boluarte respondió anunciando que las elecciones se adelantarían a 2024. Los manifestantes rechazaron este anuncio porque quieren elecciones ahora. Así que continuaron las protestas y la represión se hizo aún más brutal. Se anunció un estado de emergencia a nivel nacional, como has mencionado, y desde entonces hemos tenido dos masacres más. En la de Ayacucho, el Gobierno desplegó al ejército y asesinó a diez personas. Algunos de esos asesinatos han sido descritos por organizaciones de derechos humanos como ejecuciones extrajudiciales. La última masacre ocurrió en la región de Puño el 9 de enero. Diecisiete personas fueron asesinadas, como has dicho, y todas con armas de fuego, entre ellas un menor y un médico voluntario que ayudaba a los heridos.
Estos no son asesinatos aleatorios. Las víctimas vivían en las mismas regiones del país que votaron por Pedro Castillo en las elecciones de 2021. Las víctimas son únicamente campesinos e indígenas, todos de zonas rurales. No hay víctimas en Lima, donde se concentra el poder económico y político de Perú y donde vive un tercio de la población, a pesar de que Lima comprende el 0,4 % del territorio nacional. Entonces, desde Lima, el resto de la ciudadanía es considerada en su mayoría como seres ignorantes e inferiores. Esta es en parte la razón por la que este Gobierno sigue en pie.
En 2020, también hubo protestas. Dos limeños fueron asesinados por la policía. El Gobierno, en ese momento, se vio obligado a dimitir. Pero ese no es el caso hoy porque los asesinatos se dieron en las zonas rurales, como he dicho. Ahora hay alrededor de 100 controles de carretera, y personas de diferentes regiones caminan o viajan hacia la capital para una gran movilización, o para una gran protesta. Quizás entonces el Gobierno escuche.
Greg Wilpert
Quiero tocar el tema del racismo en Perú en un momento, pero has dicho que la mayoría de los participantes en las protestas son indígenas y campesinos. Me pregunto: ¿son todas estas protestas espontáneas, o hay organizaciones que están siendo dirigidas por grupos particulares? ¿Cómo ves el balance de eso?
Francesca Emanuele
Sí, la mayoría de estas protestas son espontáneas, a pesar de que hay organizaciones que también se están sumando a la protesta y están tratando de colaborar entre ellas. Las exigencias siguen siendo las mismas que hace un mes, solo que algunas son ahora más importantes que otras.
La dimisión de Dina Boluarte es una reivindicación generalizada. Ahora se ha pedido que se convoquen elecciones. La gente quiere elecciones ahora, no en 2024. La gente también está exigiendo el cierre del Congreso. La otra demanda es la excarcelación de Castillo, que sigue siendo una demanda pero ha perdido algo de fuerza ante las masacres cometidas por este Gobierno. Algo que quiero aclarar es que la reinstauración de Castillo es una demanda casi inexistente. Castillo no fue un buen presidente. Rompió sus promesas. Colaboró con la derecha. Aunque el hecho de que fuera expulsado fue el detonante de las protestas, Castillo ha dejado de representar esperanzas de cambio.
Los opositores o manifestantes quieren que salga de prisión porque está encarcelado injustamente y también porque hay una fuerte identificación con él por todo el maltrato y racismo que ha sufrido por parte del Congreso, de la fiscalía, de los medios de comunicación y de la oligarquía. Por ejemplo, los cargos por los que ahora está en prisión preventiva son absurdos. El Congreso ha despojado a Castillo de su inmunidad sin el debido proceso. Entonces, la población reconoce todo esto. Pero como he dicho, Castillo traicionó sus promesas de cambio, y por eso casi nadie en Perú pide su reinstauración como presidente.
Greg Wilpert
Uno de los puntos que has mencionado es que ha habido una tremenda cantidad de racismo y clasismo contra un amplio segmento de la población, obviamente los campesinos y la población indígena, y que esto está alimentando la protesta. También escribiste un artículo muy bueno recientemente para la Secretaría de Asuntos Hemisféricos en el que esbozabas algo de esto. Habla de en qué sentido la destitución de Castillo y las protestas posteriores exponen el racismo y el clasismo de la élite peruana.
Francesca Emanuele
Sí, ya hablé un poco sobre esto, como has mencionado. Pero sí, considero que una de las causas de esta protesta es el racismo estructural en Perú. Es brutal. Vivimos en un apartheid de hecho. En Lima hay un muro, un muro de verdad, que divide los barrios ricos de los pobres, y eso te dice mucho. Escribí el artículo que mencionaste sobre cómo Castillo sufrió varias formas de estigma racista y cómo eso creó un efecto espejo entre sus simpatizantes. Lo llamaron burro e indio estúpido. Lo llamaron así las autoridades, los medios, y no pasó nada. Todo estaba bien. Nadie fue castigado.
Este racismo también está relacionado con la forma en que las autoridades describen a los manifestantes en este momento. El presidente, los ministros y los medios dicen que los manifestantes son criminales o terroristas. Lo dicen literalmente, criminalizando el derecho a manifestarse y desacreditando demandas razonables. Mientras tanto, no han presentado ninguna prueba en apoyo de sus alegaciones y, en realidad, no tienen ninguna.
Te daré un poco de contexto. En los años 80 y 90, Perú atravesó un conflicto armado interno entre la guerrilla maoísta de Abimael [Guzmán], llamada Sendero Luminoso, y el Gobierno. Durante este periodo, el Gobierno encarceló a miles de indígenas y campesinos inocentes, acusándolos falsamente de terrorismo, y mató a unas 30 000 personas. En las siguientes décadas hasta hoy, la izquierda y las clases pobres, hartas del sistema, han sido constantemente desacreditadas vinculándolas a Sendero Luminoso. Cada vez que alguien quiere cambiar el status quo, el fantasma de Sendero Luminoso es utilizado por el establishment y las élites como lo estamos viendo hoy. No hay conexión, como he dicho, entre las protestas de hoy y el legado de Sendero Luminoso. La verdad es que la gente está harta del sistema y seguirán protestando hasta que sientan que hay una respuesta dirigida hacia el cambio estructural, hacia un Perú donde sean considerados ciudadanos plenos con derechos y protecciones para todos, no solo para los limeños. Como te he dicho, esta es una lucha de larga data.
Algo que quiero agregar es cómo este Gobierno está criminalizando a la izquierda y a la protesta. Está allanando locales gubernamentales de grupos de izquierda, sedes de grupos de izquierda, arresta a los líderes campesinos y trata de procesarlos como terroristas. Ayer, en Ayacucho, en los Andes de Perú, hicieron esto contra siete líderes campesinos. Siete líderes campesinos fueron arrestados.
El otro tema que quiero mencionar es que la policía está utilizando tácticas horribles para criminalizar las protestas. Están enviando infiltrados a la protesta y provocando actos violentos para justificar sus arrestos a gran escala y los asesinatos.
Greg Wilpert
Uno de los factores que has mencionado, por supuesto, además de que está empeorando la situación con respecto al racismo y el clasismo en Perú, es, por supuesto, el papel de los medios de comunicación.
Mencionaste algunos aspectos de esto, pero ¿qué papel ha desempeñado realmente la prensa en la destitución de Castillo y también en la situación actual?
Francesca Emanuele
Sí, en Perú vivimos en una burbuja mediática, y esto tiene que ver con la disfuncionalidad de nuestra democracia y la dificultad de hacer justicia ante cualquier abuso por parte del Gobierno y las autoridades. Una empresa en Perú posee más del 80 % de la prensa escrita. Por ejemplo, vas a un quiosco, ves muchos diarios, y piensas que son diarios diferentes, pero son propiedad de la misma empresa. Tres empresas poseen el 84 % de toda la televisión, prensa escrita, estaciones de radio y sitios web de noticias.
No es casualidad que se hayan producido muchas protestas frente a las sedes de las estaciones de TV, por ejemplo. Los manifestantes saben que los medios peruanos desinforman y son un aliado real del Gobierno represor y, por supuesto, de la oligarquía. Los principales medios de comunicación no están cubriendo las masacres. Es realmente terrible. Solo para darte un ejemplo, hace unas semanas, Reuters publicó un vídeo de una cámara de seguridad que mostraba a un soldado disparando a un hombre por la espalda mientras el hombre estaba arrodillado para ayudar a un herido. La prensa peruana ni siquiera dio la noticia, a pesar de que prueba las violaciones a los derechos humanos por parte de este Gobierno.
Además, los principales medios de comunicación están ubicados principalmente en Lima y son los únicos que reciben dinero público a través de publicidad estatal. Entonces, los pequeños medios rurales casi no tienen recursos y, como consecuencia, la gente tiene que confiar en los medios alternativos y las redes sociales.
Perú necesita una ley para democratizar los medios para terminar con el monopolio que hoy existe en los medios, y solo podemos tener una democracia si hay una diversidad de medios y perspectivas.
Greg Wilpert
Ahora, otro tema, por supuesto, es cuál es el papel de los Estados Unidos en todo esto. La administración Biden, en particular, y también, por supuesto, la Organización de los Estados Americanos, que normalmente asumiría algún tipo de responsabilidad o papel en este tipo de situación.
¿Alguno de ellos, la Organización de los Estados Americanos, la OEA, o la administración Biden, ha hecho o dicho algo hasta ahora?
Francesca Emanuele
Sí, esa es una gran pregunta.
Estados Unidos ha estado apoyando a este Gobierno desde el principio. La Organización de Estados Americanos no ha dicho nada sobre las violaciones de los derechos humanos de este Gobierno y las masacres. Estados Unidos tampoco ha dicho nada desde el Departamento de Estado contra o llamando a detener las violaciones de los derechos humanos o la violencia cometida por el Gobierno contra los manifestantes. La Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos viajó a Perú en diciembre y supuestamente iba a elaborar un informe, pero no fue así. Hace unos días visitó de nuevo el país, era la segunda visita, la segunda delegación, y dio una conferencia de prensa donde señaló lo horribles que eran las violaciones de los derechos humanos.
Entonces, si pensamos en el sistema interamericano, sí, la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos ha denunciado estas masacres y la clara violación de los derechos humanos cometida por este Gobierno y la criminalización de la protesta. Hasta ahora, como he dicho, la Organización de los Estados Americanos, que en realidad condenó los ataques fascistas en Brasil, no ha condenado la conducta de este Gobierno en Perú. La administración Biden tampoco lo ha hecho. Continúa apoyándolo.
Greg Wilpert
Tengo entendido que incluso enviaron algo de dinero. ¿Puedes decir algo sobre eso y para qué es ese dinero?
Francesca Emanuele
Sí, así lo anunció el embajador de EE. UU. en Perú, que se entregó una nueva donación de ocho millones de dólares a Perú para combatir el narcotráfico. Este anuncio tuvo lugar menos de un mes después de que el Gobierno de Dina Boluarte asumiera el poder. Así que muestra claramente el apoyo de los Estados Unidos a este Gobierno.
Greg Wilpert
Eso fue poco antes de la masacre en Puño.
Ahora, mirando hacia el futuro, ¿qué crees que debe pasar para que esta crisis se resuelva? ¿Existen actores políticos en Perú en este momento que estén trabajando hacia una resolución positiva, y cuáles son sus posibilidades?
Francesca Emanuele
Sí, para resolver la crisis, necesitamos una transformación de las estructuras estatales que refuerzan el racismo y la exclusión. Un primer paso sería abrir el sistema democrático para que esos grupos que están protestando y que están excluidos de la participación electoral puedan participar en las elecciones. El sistema de partidos es prácticamente impenetrable para los movimientos sociales y para los grupos de izquierda sin recursos económicos, que son prácticamente todos. En este momento, solo tenemos partidos que son de derecha, y solo tenemos partidos que son propiedad de empresarios corruptos.
No sé si hablé de esto la última vez que hablamos, pero una de las líderes de la izquierda en Perú, Verónika Mendoza, recibió cerca de tres millones de votos en las elecciones presidenciales de 2016 y casi llega a la segunda vuelta. Hasta ahora, ella no ha podido registrar su partido debido a requisitos extremadamente difíciles de cumplir. Entonces, eso te da un ejemplo de lo difícil o impenetrable que es el sistema de partidos en Perú. Pensar en un paso más efectivo para resolver la crisis es iniciar un proceso para un nuevo pacto social que conduzca a una nueva Constitución.
Si me preguntas ahora mismo cómo podría empezar a producirse el cambio, creo que sería la dimisión inmediata de la presidenta, Dina Boluarte, y adelantar las elecciones a 2023, como exige la gente en las calles. Pero claro, si no se dan las condiciones para la participación en las próximas elecciones de los sectores excluidos de la sociedad peruana, los que protestan ahora, el poder lo va a retomar totalmente la derecha, la derecha que está siendo rechazada en las calles, y continuaremos con esta crisis política y social de larga data.
Greg Wilpert
No sabía que el partido de Verónika Mendoza, creo que se llama Nuevo Perú, no se ha podido registrar. ¿Significaría eso que si hubiera elecciones para el Congreso, ella no podría tener ninguna representación en el Congreso?
Francesca Emanuele
Es probable.
Greg Wilpert
Bien, bueno, definitivamente continuaremos siguiendo los acontecimientos allí, pero lo dejaremos ahí por ahora.
He estado hablando con Francesca Emanuele, una estudiante peruana de doctorado de Antropología en la Universidad Americana.
Gracias de nuevo, Francesca, por haberme acompañado.
Francesca Emanuele
Muchas gracias, Greg.
Greg Wilpert
Gracias a nuestra audiencia por unirse a The World on Fire.
Hasta la próxima vez.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter Email(Required)Name(Required) First Last Δ
“Francesca Emanuele is a Peruvian sociologist and a research assistant at American University in Washington, D.C., where she is pursuing doctoral studies in Anthropology.”
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
Was Lula’s response proportional to the attacks on the presidential palace, Congress, and the Supreme Court?
Apartheid Drives the Conflict in PeruPro-Bolsonaro Attacks Following Bannon’s Playbook?Brazil: Hope for the First Time in a Very Long TimePeru’s Systemic Political Crisis Deepens as President is ArrestedLula Wins in Brazil but “Will Have to Tread Very Carefully”After Bolsonaro’s Failures, Why was Brazil’s Election so Close?Chile’s Devastating VoteA Paradigm Shift for ColombiaReversal of Fortune for Colombia’s Left?Does Nicaragua Under President Ortega Deserve Progressives’ Support?Burying Neoliberalism in ChileHonduras: The End of the Nightmare?A Second Pink Tide in Latin America? – Pt 2/2Haiti, Aristide, and U.S.-Backed CoupsBiden Reneged on Cuban Campaign Promise – James EarlyHaitian Ruling Families Create and Kill MonstersUS Institutions Encourage Coup Impunity in BoliviaThe Left Wins Peru’s Presidential ElectionColombia Enters a New Phase of Popular MobilizationBiden Continues the US War on CubaPeru: Left vs. Far-Right – Dramatic Choice in Presidential ElectionEcuador’s Socialist Loses as Left SplitsLula Returns as Covid Runs Wild in BrazilBiden’s Venezuela Policy: Continuity with TrumpHaiti: Canada & U.S. Support Coups and DictatorsA New Beginning for BoliviaHaiti’s Century of US Coups, Invasions & Puppets – Abby MartinUS Media’s Sins of Omission in Ecuadorian Election CoverageThe Mixed Record of Mexico’s AMLO, Two Years InVenezuela’s Socialists Win Election Despite Declining SupportPeru: Mass Protests Against Hypercapitalist Narco-State Force Presidents’ ResignationsVenezuela’s Opposition Split Over Election BoycottBolivia: Barricades and Crisis in a Crisis Transcript * Spanish Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Guest * Music*
Sharmini Peries
Welcome to theAnalysis. I’m Sharmini Peries, and I’ll be right back with Professor Lorena Barberia.
As we watch the events leading up to the two rounds of presidential elections in Brazil and then the inauguration of President Lula da Silva on January 1, many of us wondered how long Lula will be able to fend off a political crisis or even a coup. This is given the very narrow margin of his electoral victory and the fact that supporters of former President [Jair] Bolsonaro happened to be very strategically embedded in the military, in the police, in Congress, the Supreme Court, and some critical states.
So then, we were not surprised that a week after Lula’s inauguration, former President Bolsonaro’s supporters attacked the presidential palace, Congress, and the Supreme Court and ran havoc in Brasília.
Joining me now to discuss the recent political turmoil and the rise of the far-right in Brazil is Lorena Barberia. She is a professor of Political Science at the University of São Paulo. Lorena, thank you so much for joining us.
Lorena Barberia
Thank you, thank you. I’m glad to be here.
Sharmini Peries
Lorena, as we watched the event unfolding in Brasília on Sunday, as mobs attacked the presidential palace, Congress, and the Supreme Court, one just could not ignore the parallels to the December 6 [January 6] insurrection on Capitol Hill in the U.S. Now, can you draw attention to the parallels that I’m referring to here and what your observations were?
Lorena Barberia
Yes, so I think there are some similarities and there are some differences, and it’s important to preface that. Of course, Bolsonaro, while he was in office, watched the January 6 insurrection and learned; it was a very effective theater for him to see. He has been closely following a lot of [Former U.S. Pres. Donlad] Trump’s actions.
So what is different is that Bolsonaro was not physically present in Brasília, in the capital, at that moment, and Lula had already been inaugurated, which is different. So that’s one thing that’s very strikingly different. The insurrection, or what we are calling in Brazil terrorist attacks on these institutions, it happens when the transition has already occurred, but on a Sunday when legally or when those offices are not occupied physically by people working and the buildings are being attacked. But physically, the government is not in operation. So it’s a little bit different from January 6 in the sense that Congress wasn’t in session, the Supreme Court wasn’t in session, and the equivalent of our White House wasn’t a regular work day. It was a Sunday. But it was the first week in office in a very rocky and very difficult transition.
We have to remember that Bolsonaro did not hand over power to Lula. He left on a diplomatic passport before the transition could take place, the transition ceremony. Throughout his government, he stressed and emphasized that the elections would be manipulated, and he questioned the legitimacy of the election. When Lulu assumed power on January 1, that occurred in the context of assuming power with a very fragile electoral majority. As you noted, he won by 50.9% of the vote. Congress, many congressmen were elected that supported Bolsonaro. We also have a strong military and police support of Bolsonaro. Several governors were also elected that supported the president.
So he assumes power trying to construct a broad coalition cognizant of the opposition that exists to his election and trying to build consensus about the need to make a peaceful transition within democracy given his electoral victory, but also recognizing important forces of dissent. Not only that, throughout Brazil, not only in Brasília, Bolsonaro supporters constructed encampments starting in November and December that were really well-staffed, well-organized encampments right near the military barracks. So there are already these mobilizations, and those mobilizations grow in Brasília to have at least 40,000 people in the encampments in December before Lula transitions.
So there’s already kind of an environment that’s indicating that there’s interest in provoking the police, provoking the military, and creating instability that would lead to the military wanting to intervene.
Sharmini Peries
Lorena, 40,000 in encampments are fairly large in terms of preparation for any kind of resistance against Lula. Now, many people analyzing these events alluded to the fact that the role of the military and the police– one clip I saw said that the police were actually sitting on the sidelines, sipping on their coconuts and ignoring the mobsters that were attacking these democratic institutions in Brazil. What are your thoughts on that?
Lorena Barberia
So I think it’s important– I’ve spoken with a number of people who visited the encampments. When we talk about these encampments, it’s important to underscore they had electricity, they had generators, and they had hospitals, mini hospitals set up already. They had computers and offices working in these barracks, in these encampments near the barracks. So you don’t do that unless you have a lot of people who are very experienced in logistics and financing. This is not some kind of ‘Boy Scout’ encampment in the imaginary. People need to understand these are very well set up camps that were very well organized and well set up. They’re right; they’re situated near the barracks. But what’s important to understand is that, as you were alluding, the security in Brasília is managed by the state government because it’s a federal district, and the governor of Brasília is in charge of the policing in the federal district and provides security during the transition to the government that’s in office.
The chief of police of Bolsonaro, we have to remember, this is a person who, during the elections, mobilized and set up inspections of buses to try to slow down the voting in the poorer parts of the Northeast of Brazil especially. Sanctioned by the chief of police of Bolsonaro, there was already, during the elections, a lot of activity by the chief of police. When Bolsonaro loses the election, the governor who governs in this federal district of Brasília appoints the same police chief as the head of policing in the city. And that already signals alarm bells because this is the police chief that’s going to be in charge of the transition, in charge of ensuring security for the Lula government taking office.
There’s a bomb that goes off on December 26 in the airport as Brasília is getting lots of influx of newly appointed ministers and newly appointed elected officials and different civil servants that are coming in to take over and start working on the transition. So there’s a bomb that goes off. The chief of police is managing the security in a very adverse context, not sharing a lot of information with the Lula government. On top of that, you have these kinds of very well-funded and organized encampments in Brasília, but in other parts of Brazil.
As that happens, one of the things that we start to notice and we know is that there’s a huge mobilization in terms of the military and in terms of police forces neglecting or indicating lackluster support for guaranteeing security during the transition. And that includes the fact that during the naming of his staff, Lula tries to negotiate with the military by naming into the military establishments– the generals that are the ones who have seniority and not someone who’s trusted by Lula. So as a way to compromise, Lula, understanding this very difficult political context, tries to strike a compromise by saying, “I will cede and let the key posts in the military be named by who has more seniority and not by who’s more trusted by me.” So neither the chief of police nor the key military posts are really people close to the newly elected administration. It’s a very difficult context.
Just today, as we speak today, we have found documents because the Supreme Court ordered an inspection of the former police chief of Brasília House. They discovered documents that there was a three-page document actually outlining an order that would be admitted that would be used to justify the illegitimacy of the elections and justify an intervention to not allow the transition to take place.
Right now, what we know is not only were there actual speeches made by these figures in the military and in the police, publicly and on social media, decrying the legitimacy of the elections and not ensuring security during the transition period, but there’s actually physical evidence that they had written documents to plan how they would precisely decree the non-legitimacy of the election. So we know that this isn’t some theoretical conspiracy theory we have. There is actual evidence that they spent a lot of time working on the documents that would legitimize intervening and not transitioning power to who was democratically elected.
Sharmini Peries
Now, a lot of analysts looking at this situation knew that Lula really needed to get the military and the police under his wing in order to maintain stability once he took office. So these were really critical appointments. It’s interesting that you focus on that particular issue. Given all of this, how do you think Lula responded to the attacks and the unrest? Do you think it was proportional, and will it discourage further attacks on his presidency?
Lorena Barberia
Lula was not physically present in Brasília during the attacks. He was in São Paulo on official business. He flew in that evening into Brasília. Before flying in, he quickly mobilized and was really effective in calling all of the governors of the 26 states of Brazil, calling his cabinet, declaring, in this case specifically of the federal district, removing the chief of police from being in charge of security. So kind of getting the legitimacy ready for first taking back these government offices, getting the police to be under a supervisor, kind of an independent supervisor that came from the Ministry of Justice that would supervise the state government of Brasília, ensuring more transparency and more oversight over what was happening in the takeover back of these buildings.
But I think what was really important is he made a really strong effort to build a coalition that in taking back and going back to Brasília, him physically, he would go with the 26 governors. He would go with the 26 governors, many of whom did not support him and supported Bolsonaro during the elections. The idea was to signal that we believe in democracy, we believe in the rule of law and we believe that these people need to be prosecuted for the violent acts that they’re committing. We have a strong consensus in Brazilian institutions about the way forward. I think, in this case, I think Lula came out very successfully. This really strengthened his position, strengthened the conversation that he’s having with the opposition in terms of understanding that we really need to think about a way to cooperate more in a very polarized context, but that we can’t allow the situation to become as violent as it has in Brazil, as we saw on Sunday.
Sharmini Peries
Now, Lorena, many people have accused Bolsonaro and his supporters of drawing act and verse from the Trump playbook. As we speak, Bolsonaro is in the U.S. On arrival, he went to Mar-a-Lago, and that’s in Florida, where Trump lives. We also know that he’s hospitalized at the moment with some stomach pains. But we also know that Steve Bannon, the far-right mastermind of the Trump presidency, has been commenting on Bolsonaro supporters as if they were some sort of freedom fighters– on Twitter and in his commentaries, some media has picked up on this. What are your thoughts on this?
Lorena Barberia
So I think it is really important to point out the geopolitics of this. It is really controversial– if we think about the equivalent of what was happening in the U.S., imagine if when all of this happened, Trump fled to the U.K., and from the U.K. all of a sudden had people traveling back and forth from the U.S. to the U.K. maybe taking funds, maybe taking back secret intelligence, maybe doing other types of things internationally that are fueling attacks in Washington, D.C.
Right now, the difficulty for the U.S. and Brazil in this moment for us to think about is you have the President who left on a diplomatic passport, who is now no longer in office, so he doesn’t have the legitimacy to be in the U.S. under a diplomatic passport, receiving visits from supporters from Brazil, returning back to Brasília. These supporters have been seen during the protests and have been seen in some of these things. We know Bolsonaro and his sons; his family met over 80 times with Steve Bannon. So I think there’s a lot of issues that this raises of discomfort.
We have a long history of the U.S. intervening in Latin America. The U.S. needs to send out a message about its support for democracy and how strongly it’s willing to support democracy in the region. And that includes monitoring when we have authoritarian tendencies and evidence, as we have in the case of Brazil and these leaders exile themselves to the U.S., how the U.S. monitors what they’re doing in the U.S., and what funds or what other operations are occurring that if it was in the case of the U.S., this would be treated as something very diplomatically that we would be raising with authorities and foreign governments and expressing our discomfort about this issue. So I think it’s a really difficult issue for the U.S. right now. Why is Bolsonaro being allowed to kind of do and operate in the U.S. in a context where the same actions and the same type of activities would be considered violations of U.S. sovereignty if the U.S. was witnessing similar things– Trump in a foreign country doing similar actions? So it’s a very difficult and uncomfortable situation for the U.S.
I think, for Latin America right now, we’re looking at the Biden administration and asking a little bit. We want to see a kind of goodwill, and we want to build confidence in the transition in Brazil. That requires regional support for the Lula government that goes beyond just lip service of sending out tweets saying the transition needs to go forward in Brazil. It requires concrete actions. If there are financial transactions from the Bolsonaro government of funds being sent to Brazil, those need to be investigated. Some of the leaders in Brazil, in the opposition, are already talking about if there is evidence of these types of things, this is the type of activity that needs to be– his bank accounts need to be frozen in the U.S. Those activities need to be investigated if they’re financing terrorism.
Sharmini Peries
Lorena, let’s pause for a moment and look back on Brazilian history. Now, one of the reasons for this rise of the far-right in Brazil and why its connections internationally are so alarming is because of the very real history of Brazil and the military dictatorship of the past in Brazil. Take us back. What alarm bells go off in your knowledge of political history and its alliance with the dictatorship of the past in Brazil?
Lorena Barberia
I think there are two things that I think are very important to stress. First, Bolsonaro and the rise of the Right is nothing new. We know throughout the history of Brazil, the Right, first the oligarchy and then elites and authoritarian elites– we have a strong history of the military governing in Brazil for a long period of time. The Right, during the transition to democracy in Brazil, unlike Argentina, for example, negotiated to have impunity, to not be punished; there were never trials in the case of Brazil of the military government and their activities. There wasn’t the type of transitional justice that we saw in other countries. As a result, many of the people who we’re speaking about right now in the Bolsonaro government, who have been active and who have been supporting the questioning of the elections, are military who have roots in authoritarian rule in Brazil prior to the transition to democracy. So we have learned to coexist with the Right in Brazil. But the Right has a long history in Brazil and a long history of also having to manage and trying to navigate democracy with the Right.
When we think about Lula’s first Presidency, he named a president from the Right to govern as his vice president because there’s this idea that, and it’s very necessary that as someone from a more progressive political party gets elected, he needs to bring the Right along to ensure the legitimacy of having the Left govern in Brazil. So I think we have a long history of compromising and working together across ideological extreme views.
What’s different at this moment, and I think is important, is that the Right has become much more propense to undertake violent actions to intimidate voters, to intimidate and impede due process, and to lie, in fact, in order to put people in jail to that extreme, in order to ensure to secure power. So the Right is becoming really comfortable with manipulating democratic processes in order to secure power. And that’s what makes it difficult for us in Brazil, at this moment, is that it’s a very difficult conversation to have. We want to preserve democracy, we want to preserve the institutions, we want corruption to be investigated, and we want judges to do the right thing and to judge when people commit criminal acts. At the same time, we also know that the military, the police, and the Right are not playing by the same rules, necessarily, and they’re manipulating information; they’re lying.
Afterward, we find evidence to show that there’s actual misinformation or disinformation and lies being used when actually the evidence is showing no, there was actually, as we’re just talking about now, on January 8, they actually did have the document ready. It just so happened that it wasn’t as successful of an attack as they wanted, but the documents were ready to decree and not recognize the legitimacy of the election. And that’s been something that took a lot of planning. It took a lot of discussions and agreement for you to get to the point that you have that type of consensus to actually bar the transition of someone who’s democratically elected. So we have a very difficult situation, but nothing new. I think that’s important to stress. The Right has always existed in Brazil.
Sharmini Peries
Lorena, let’s take this up as our final point. The legislative type coups are becoming somewhat trendy, and we know that Latin America is really the laboratory of the U.S. empire. Previously, when Lula was accused of corruption, Judge [Sergio] Moro took up his case, he was imprisoned, and then, of course, Lula’s handpicked successor, Dilma Rousseff, was also impeached. These types of legislative coups are becoming more common, at least in Brazil. They’ve tested the ground. How much of a hand do you think external forces have in terms of what’s going on in Brazil, and what is it we need to be alerted to and aware of?
Lorena Barberia
I think one thing that’s really important that we’re debating a lot at the moment in Brazil is judicial activism. You alluded to Judge Moro, who launched the investigations into Lula and was responsible for prosecuting him, and later, he was exonerated for the charges that put him in jail because the evidence was actually proved to be not sufficient and the allegations didn’t hold. So I think now, similarly, in the January 8 uprising, there’s been very important actions that took place by the Supreme Court.
During the elections, the electoral courts were very important in terms of ensuring the security of the election and respect for the electoral process. But the judiciary and the activeness of the judiciary to mediate political conflict in a democracy is something important for us to be reflecting on. If we think about it, that’s something that, on the one hand, judges are not elected; they don’t represent us. They’re in office for a long time. So when you have a society, a democracy, in which judges have a strong role, that role can be beneficial, but it can also be very dangerous. I think that’s one of the things that we’re trying to grapple with at this moment. Because of judicial activism, we’ve had many of the bad things that have happened in Brazil politically, and also, some of the reasons that we’ve been able to get out of bad moments are because of judges and the judicial process. But is that the way to deliberate correctly, disagreement and political conflict in a democratic society, or is it something that we need to work through elections, through legislative debate, through the passing of laws, through the vetoing, or the rejection of what is passed in the legislature?
I think there’s a lot of room for that, at this moment, to be debated. The people who uphold Lula, the best place for them to do that is in Congress through laws. At the same time, for the people who support Lula and who want change, the best place for us to ensure that he’s able to govern is by getting a Congress more representative of the types of policy reforms we want to see. I think that, actually, I’m more hopeful, or I actually think that the Senate and strengthening Congress at this moment, it would be something beneficial because it’s something transparently we can monitor. We have oversight about how a law is being deliberated. What is the actual vote? What are the implications of the law? Whereas a lot of the judicial interpretations of the law can be really questionable, as we’ve seen in Brazil. Evidence can be fabricated. A judge can read what he wants into the evidence, cite specific evidence, and ignore the rest of the evidence. And it takes many, many years often to overturn a judicial decision. So I think I’m more hopeful about the role of Congress and the executive and strengthening those institutions and more worried about the role of the judiciary.
Sharmini Peries
Alright, Lorena, let’s leave it there. I’ve been speaking with Professor Lorena Barberia, and she is coming to us from the University of São Paulo, Brazil. Lorena, we will definitely continue this conversation moving forward. Thank you so much for joining me today.
Lorena Barberia
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Sharmini Peries
Thank you for joining us here on theAnalysis.
Sharmini Peries
Bienvenido The Analysis. Soy Sharmini Peries y volveré enseguida con la profesora Lorena Barberia.
Mientras observamos los acontecimientos previos a las dos vueltas de las elecciones presidenciales en Brasil y la posterior toma de posesión del presidente Lula da Silva el 1 de enero, muchos de nosotros nos preguntamos durante cuánto tiempo podría Lula evitar una crisis política o incluso un golpe de Estado. Esto es debido al estrecho margen de su victoria electoral y al hecho de que los partidarios del expresidente Bolsonaro estaban estratégicamente integrados en el ejército, en la policía, en el Congreso, la Corte Suprema y algunos estados claves.
Entonces, no nos sorprendió cuando, una semana después de la investidura de Lula, partidarios del expresidente Bolsonaro atacaron el palacio presidencial, el Congreso, la Corte Suprema y causaron disturbios en Brasilia.
Me acompaña ahora para hablar de la reciente agitación política y el ascenso de la extrema derecha en Brasil Lorena Barberia. Es profesora de Ciencias Políticas en la Universidad de São Paulo.
Lorena, muchas gracias por acompañarnos.
Lorena Barbería
Gracias, gracias. Es un placer estar aquí.
Sharmini Peries
Lorena, mientras observábamos el desarrollo de acontecimientos en Brasilia el domingo, cuando grupos de personas atacaron el palacio presidencial, el Congreso y la Corte Suprema, era imposible no ver los paralelismos con la insurrección del 6 de diciembre [6 de enero] en el Capitolio de los EE. UU. ¿Puedes hablar sobre estos paralelismos y cuáles fueron tus observaciones?
Lorena Barberia
Sí, creo que hay algunas similitudes y hay algunas diferencias, y es importante ponerlo en contexto.
Por supuesto, Bolsonaro, cuando estaba en el cargo, vio la insurrección del 6 de enero y aprendió; para él fue un teatro muy efectivo. Ha estado siguiendo de cerca muchas de las acciones de Trump. Lo que es diferente es que Bolsonaro no estaba físicamente presente en Brasilia, en la capital, en ese momento, y Lula ya había asumido el cargo, a diferencia de Biden. Así que eso es claramente diferente.
La insurrección, o lo que llamamos en Brasil los atentados terroristas contra estas instituciones, ocurre cuando la transición ya ha tenido lugar, pero un domingo, cuando legalmente… o cuando esas oficinas no están ocupadas físicamente. No había gente trabajando cuando atacaron los edificios. Físicamente, el Gobierno no está en funcionamiento. Así que es un poco diferente al 6 de enero en el sentido de que el Congreso no estaba en sesión, la Corte Suprema no estaba en sesión, y el equivalente a la Casa Blanca… No era un día normal de trabajo, era domingo.
Pero fue la primera semana en el cargo en una transición muy accidentada y muy difícil. Hay que recordar que Bolsonaro no entregó el poder a Lula. Se fue con un pasaporte diplomático antes de que pudiera tener lugar la transición, la ceremonia de transición. A lo largo de su mandato subrayó y enfatizó que las elecciones serían manipuladas, y cuestionó la legitimidad de las elecciones.
Cuando Lula asume el poder el 1 de enero, esto ocurrió en el contexto de una mayoría electoral muy frágil. Como has señalado, ganó con un 50,9 % de los votos. El Congreso… Salieron elegidos muchos congresistas que apoyaban a Bolsonaro. También tenemos un fuerte apoyo militar y policial a Bolsonaro. Fueron elegidos varios gobernadores que apoyan al presidente. Así pues, asume el cargo tratando de construir una amplia coalición consciente de la oposición que existe a su elección y tratando de construir consensos sobre la necesidad de hacer una transición pacífica en el marco de la democracia dado que había conseguido una victoria en las urnas, pero también reconociendo importantes fuerzas de disidencia.
No solo eso, en todo Brasil, no solo en Brasilia, partidarios de Bolsonaro construyeron campamentos ya desde noviembre y diciembre que eran campamentos muy bien organizados y con personal justo al lado de cuarteles militares. Entonces, ya existen estas movilizaciones, y esas movilizaciones crecen en Brasilia con al menos 40 000 personas en los campamentos en diciembre antes de la transición de Lula. Así que ya vemos una atmósfera que indica que existe la intención de incitar a la policía, de incitar a los militares, y de crear inestabilidad que llevaría a los militares a intervenir.
Sharmini Peries
Lorena, 40 000 en campamentos es considerable en términos de preparación para cualquier tipo de resistencia contra Lula. Muchas personas que analizan estos acontecimientos aluden al hecho de que el papel de los militares y la policía… Vi un clip en el que se veía que la policía en realidad se estaba manteniendo al margen, bebiendo su agua de coco, y no hacían nada con respecto a las muchedumbres que estaban atacando estas instituciones democráticas en Brasil. ¿Cuáles son tus pensamientos sobre eso?
Lorena Barberia
Creo que es importante… He hablado con varias personas que visitaron los campamentos. Cuando hablamos de estos campamentos, es importante subrayar que tenían electricidad, tenían generadores, y tenían hospitales, minihospitales, ya instalados. Tenían ordenadores y oficinas en funcionamiento en estos barracones, en estos campamentos cerca de los cuarteles. Y no haces eso a menos que tengas mucha gente con mucha experiencia en logística y financiación. Esto no es una especie de campamento imaginario de boy scouts. La gente debe entender que estos son campamentos muy bien construidos y bien organizados. Y están situados cerca de los cuarteles.
Pero lo que es importante entender es que, como decías, la seguridad en Brasilia es administrada por el Gobierno del estado porque es un distrito federal, y el gobernador de Brasilia está a cargo de la policía en el distrito federal y de la seguridad durante la transición al Gobierno de turno. Recordemos que el jefe de policía de Bolsonaro es una persona que durante las elecciones movilizó y organizó inspecciones de autobuses para tratar de frenar la votación en las partes más pobres, en el noreste de Brasil especialmente. Con la aprobación del jefe de policía de Bolsonaro. Ya hubo mucha actividad por parte del jefe de policía durante las elecciones.
Cuando Bolsonaro pierde las elecciones, el gobernador de este distrito federal de Brasilia nombra al mismo jefe de policía como jefe de policía de la ciudad. Y eso ya da señales de alarma porque este es el jefe de policía que va a estar a cargo de la transición, encargado de velar por la seguridad en la toma de posesión del Gobierno de Lula.
El 26 de diciembre estalla una bomba en el aeropuerto, cuando Brasilia está recibiendo gran afluencia de ministros y funcionarios electos recién nombrados y diferentes funcionarios que llegan para tomar el relevo y empezar a trabajar en la transición. Así que hace explosión una bomba. El jefe de policía está gestionando la seguridad en un contexto muy adverso, no comparte mucha información con el Gobierno de Lula.
Además de eso, vemos estos campamentos muy bien financiados y organizados, en Brasilia, pero también en otras partes de Brasil. Mientras eso sucede, una de las cosas que empezamos a notar y que sabemos es que hay una gran movilización entre los militares y entre las fuerzas policiales de descuidar… o que muestran un apoyo tibio por garantizar la seguridad durante la transición. Y eso incluye el hecho de que durante el nombramiento de su personal, Lula intenta negociar con los militares nombrando a generales en los estamentos militares que tienen antigüedad y no a alguien de confianza de Lula. Entonces, como término intermedio, Lula, entendiendo este contexto político tan difícil, trata de llegar a un acuerdo diciendo: “Cederé y dejaré que los puestos clave en las fuerzas armadas sean aquellos con más antigüedad y no aquellos que tienen mi confianza”. Por tanto, ni el jefe de policía ni los puestos militares clave son realmente personas cercanas a la nueva administración.
Es un contexto muy difícil. Precisamente hoy, mientras hablamos hoy, se han encontrado documentos… Porque la Corte Suprema ordenó un registro de la casa del exjefe de policía de Brasilia y descubrieron documentos. Había un documento de tres páginas que describía una orden admisible ante un tribunal que se utilizaría para probar la ilegitimidad de las elecciones y justificar una intervención para no permitir que se produzca la transición.
En este momento, lo que sabemos es que estas figuras en el ejército y la policía no solo pronunciaron discursos públicamente y en las redes sociales, negaron la legitimidad de las elecciones y no garantizaron la seguridad durante el periodo de transición, sino que en realidad hay evidencia física de que tenían documentos escritos en los que se planificaba cómo decretarían precisamente la no legitimidad de las elecciones. Así pues, sabemos que esta no es una teoría de conspiración que tenemos. Hay pruebas reales de que dedicaron mucho tiempo trabajando en los documentos que legitimarían la intervención para no traspasar el poder a quien fue elegido democráticamente.
Sharmini Peries
Muchos analistas que veían esta situación sabían que Lula realmente necesitaba tener al ejército y la policía a su lado para mantener la estabilidad una vez que asumiera el cargo. Así que estos eran nombramientos realmente críticos. Sería interesante que comentases ese tema en particular. Ante todo esto, ¿cómo crees que respondió Lula a los ataques y disturbios? ¿Crees que fue proporcional? ¿Desalentará más ataques contra su presidencia?
Lorena Barberia
Lula no estaba físicamente presente en Brasilia durante los ataques. Estaba en São Paulo por asuntos oficiales. Voló esa noche a Brasilia. Antes de volar, se movilizó rápidamente y fue realmente efectivo al llamar a todos los gobernadores de los 26 estados de Brasil, llamó a su gabinete y, en este caso específicamente del distrito federal, relevó al jefe de policía de la seguridad durante la investidura.
Así que preparó la legitimidad para, primero, recuperar estas oficinas gubernamentales, y asignó un supervisor a la policía, una especie de supervisor independiente que vino del Ministerio de Justicia, que supervisaría el Gobierno del estado de Brasilia, asegurando más transparencia y más supervisión sobre lo que estaba sucediendo en la toma de estos edificios.
Pero creo que lo realmente importante es que hizo un gran esfuerzo para construir una coalición para que al volver a Brasilia, físicamente, iría con los 26 gobernadores. Iría con los 26 gobernadores, muchos de los cuales no lo habían apoyado, apoyaron a Bolsonaro durante las elecciones. La idea era señalar que creemos en la democracia, creemos en el Estado de derecho, y creemos que estas personas deben ser procesadas por los actos violentos que están cometiendo. Tenemos un fuerte consenso en las instituciones brasileñas sobre el camino a seguir.
En este caso, creo que Lula salió muy bien. Esto realmente fortaleció su posición, fortaleció la comunicación que está teniendo con la oposición en cuanto a entender que realmente debemos pensar en una manera de cooperar más en un contexto muy polarizado, pero que no podemos permitir que la situación se torne tan violenta en Brasil como vimos el domingo.
Sharmini Peries
Bien, Lorena, mucha gente ha acusado a Bolsonaro y sus seguidores de seguir al pie de la letra la cartilla de Trump. En este momento, Bolsonaro está en EE. UU. Al llegar, se fue a Mar-a-Lago, la casa de Trump en Florida. También sabemos que está hospitalizado en este momento por dolores de estómago. Pero también sabemos que Steve Bannon, el cerebro de extrema derecha de la presidencia de Trump, ha hecho comentarios sobre los partidarios de Bolsonaro como si fueran una especie de luchadores por la libertad, en Twitter y en sus comentarios, y algunos medios han informado de esto. ¿Cuáles son tus pensamientos?
Lorena Barberia
Creo que es muy importante señalar la geopolítica de esto. Es realmente controvertido, si pensamos en el equivalente con lo que pasó en los Estados Unidos. Imagínate si cuando todo esto pasó, Trump hubiera huido al Reino Unido, y desde el Reino Unido, de repente hubiera gente que viajaba de un lado a otro, de los EE. UU. al Reino Unido, quizá moviendo fondos, quizá llevando información de inteligencia secreta, quizá haciendo otro tipo de cosas a nivel internacional, que están fomentando los ataques en Washington, DC.
Ahora mismo, la dificultad para EE. UU. y Brasil en este momento que debemos considerar es que el presidente se fue con un pasaporte diplomático, y ahora ya no está en el cargo, por lo que no tiene la legitimidad para estar en los EE. UU. con un pasaporte diplomático, recibiendo visitas de simpatizantes de Brasil, que después regresan a Brasilia. Estos simpatizantes han sido vistos durante las protestas, han sido vistos en algunas de estas cosas. Y tienes… Sabemos que Bolsonaro y sus hijos, su familia, se reunieron más de 80 veces con Steve Bannon.
Así que creo que esto plantea muchos problemas, es incómodo. Tenemos una larga historia de intervención de Estados Unidos en América Latina. Estados Unidos debe enviar un mensaje sobre su apoyo a la democracia y asegurar que está dispuesto a apoyar firmemente la democracia en la región. Y eso incluye dar seguimiento a posibles tendencias autoritarias y a la evidencia, como tenemos en el caso de Brasil, cuando estos líderes se exilian a los EE. UU., cómo los EE. UU. vigilan lo que están haciendo en los EE. UU., y qué fondos o qué otras operaciones están ocurriendo. Porque si fuera el caso de EE. UU., estaríamos planteando esto a nivel diplomático con autoridades y Gobiernos extranjeros, y expresando nuestro malestar por este tema. Así que creo que es un tema realmente difícil para los EE. UU. en este momento. ¿Por qué se le permite a Bolsonaro operar en los EE. UU. en un contexto donde las mismas acciones y el mismo tipo de actividades serían consideradas violaciones de la soberanía de EE. UU. si este estuviera presenciando cosas similares, Trump en un país extranjero llevando a cabo acciones similares?
Entonces, es una situación muy difícil e incómoda para los EE. UU. Creo que, para América Latina en este momento, miramos a la administración de Biden y hacemos preguntas. Queremos ver buena voluntad, y queremos generar confianza en la transición en Brasil. Eso requiere apoyo regional para el Gobierno de Lula que vaya más allá de la simple palabrería de enviar tuits que digan: “La transición debe avanzar en Brasil”. Requiere acciones concretas. Si hay transacciones financieras del Gobierno de Bolsonaro, de fondos enviados a Brasil, estas deben ser investigadas. Algunos de los líderes en Brasil, en la oposición, ya están hablando de que si hay pruebas de este tipo de cosas, este tipo de actividad debe ser… sus cuentas bancarias deben congelarse en los EE. UU. Esas actividades deben ser investigadas si están financiando el terrorismo.
Sharmini Peries
Lorena, detengámonos un momento y recordemos la historia de Brasil. Una de las razones de este ascenso de la extrema derecha en Brasil y por qué sus conexiones a nivel internacional son tan alarmantes es por la historia muy real de Brasil y la dictadura militar del pasado en Brasil.
Háblanos de eso. ¿Qué es lo que te preocupa con base en tu conocimiento de la historia política y su alianza con la dictadura del pasado en Brasil?
Lorena Barberia
Creo que hay dos cosas que me parece muy importante recalcar.
Primero, Bolsonaro y el ascenso de la derecha no son nada nuevo. Sabemos que a lo largo de la historia de Brasil, por la derecha, primero la oligarquía y luego las élites y, en particular, las élites autoritarias, tenemos una fuerte historia de Gobierno militar en Brasil durante un largo periodo de tiempo. La derecha, durante la transición a la democracia en Brasil, a diferencia de Argentina, por ejemplo, negoció para obtener impunidad, para no ser sancionada; nunca hubo juicios, en el caso de Brasil, del Gobierno militar y sus actividades. No hubo el tipo de justicia transicional que vimos en otros países. Como resultado, muchas de las personas de las que estamos hablando en este momento en el Gobierno de Bolsonaro que han estado activas y que han estado apoyando el cuestionamiento de las elecciones son militares con raíces en el Gobierno autoritario en Brasil antes de la transición a la democracia.
Hemos aprendido a convivir con la derecha en Brasil. Pero la derecha tiene una larga historia en Brasil y es también una larga historia de tener que gestionar… tratar de hacer funcionar la democracia con la derecha. Cuando pensamos en la primera presidencia de Lula, nombró como vicepresidente a un presidente de la derecha porque existe esta idea, y es muy necesaria, de que cuando alguien de un partido político más progresista es elegido, debe incluir a la derecha para asegurar la legitimidad de un Gobierno de izquierda en Brasil.
Así que creo que tenemos una larga historia de acuerdos y trabajo conjunto entre puntos de vista ideológicos extremos. Lo que es diferente en este momento, y creo que es importante, es que la derecha se ha vuelto mucho más propensa a emprender acciones violentas para intimidar a los votantes, intimidar e impedir el debido proceso y mentir, de hecho, para encarcelar personas incluso, para asegurarse el poder. La derecha ahora no tiene ningún escrúpulo en manipular los procesos democráticos para asegurarse el poder.
Eso es lo que nos dificulta en Brasil, en este momento… Es una conversación muy difícil de entablar. Queremos preservar la democracia, queremos preservar las instituciones, queremos que se investigue la corrupción, y queremos que los jueces cumplan con su deber y juzguen a las personas cuando estas cometen actos delictivos. Al mismo tiempo, también sabemos que los militares, la policía y la derecha no juegan con las mismas reglas, necesariamente, y están manipulando información, están mintiendo. Encontramos pruebas que demuestran que hay información errónea o desinformación y se usan mentiras cuando en realidad la evidencia muestra que en realidad, como decíamos, el 8 de enero sí tenían listo el documento. En última instancia, no fue un ataque tan exitoso como querían, pero los documentos estaban listos para decretar y no reconocer la legitimidad de las elecciones. Y eso ha sido algo que requirió mucha planificación, requirió muchas discusiones y acuerdo para llegar al punto en el que tienes ese tipo de consenso para bloquear la transición de alguien elegido democráticamente.
Entonces, tenemos una situación muy difícil, pero nada nuevo. Creo que es importante subrayar esto. La derecha siempre ha existido en Brasil.
Sharmini Peries
Lorena, tomemos esto como nuestro punto final. Los golpes de tipo legislativo se están poniendo de moda, y sabemos que América Latina es realmente el laboratorio del imperio estadounidense.
Anteriormente, cuando Lula fue acusado de corrupción, el juez [Sergio] Moro tomó su caso. Él fue encarcelado y, luego, por supuesto, la sucesora elegida por Lula, Dilma Rousseff, también fue acusada.
Estos golpes legislativos son cada vez más comunes, al menos en Brasil. Han hecho un experimento. ¿Qué influencia crees que tienen las fuerzas externas en términos de lo que está pasando en Brasil, y cuáles son las señales de alerta que debemos reconocer?
Lorena Barberia
Creo que una cosa muy importante que estamos debatiendo mucho en este momento en Brasil es el activismo judicial. Has hablado del juez Moro, que abrió las investigaciones a Lula y se encargó de procesarlo. Posteriormente, fue exonerado de los cargos por los que fue encarcelado porque en realidad se demostró que las pruebas no eran suficientes y las acusaciones no se sostenían.
Pienso que ahora, de manera similar, en el levantamiento del 8 de enero, la Corte Suprema llevó a cabo acciones muy importantes. Durante las elecciones, los tribunales electorales fueron muy importantes en cuanto a garantizar la seguridad de las elecciones y el respeto al proceso electoral.
Pero el poder judicial y la actividad del poder judicial para mediar en conflictos políticos en una democracia es algo sobre lo que deberíamos reflexionar. Si lo pensamos bien, eso es algo que… Por un lado, los jueces no son elegidos, no nos representan. Están en el cargo durante mucho tiempo. Entonces, cuando tienes una sociedad, una democracia, en la que los jueces tienen un papel importante, ese papel puede ser beneficioso, pero también puede ser muy peligroso. Creo que esa es una de las cosas con las que estamos tratando de lidiar en este momento. El activismo judicial ha sido la causa de muchas de las cosas malas que han sucedido políticamente en Brasil y, también, algunas de las razones por las que hemos podido salir de malos momentos son los jueces y el proceso judicial.
Pero ¿es esa la manera de deliberar correctamente el desacuerdo y el conflicto político en una sociedad democrática, o es algo que debemos resolver mediante elecciones, mediante el debate legislativo, mediante la aprobación de leyes, mediante el veto o el rechazo de lo que se aprueba en la legislatura? Creo que hay mucho espacio para debatir eso en este momento. El mejor lugar para que hagan esto aquellos que apoyan a Lula es en el Congreso a través de leyes. Al mismo tiempo, para las personas que apoyan a Lula y que quieren un cambio, el mejor lugar para asegurarnos de que pueda gobernar es conseguir un Congreso que sea más representativo de los tipos de reformas políticas que queremos ver.
Creo que, en realidad, tengo más esperanzas… o en realidad creo que el Senado y el fortalecimiento del Congreso en este momento sería algo beneficioso porque es algo que podemos observar de manera transparente. Supervisamos cómo se debate una ley, cuál es el voto real, cuáles son las implicaciones de la ley. En contraste, muchas de las interpretaciones judiciales de la ley pueden ser realmente cuestionables, como hemos visto en Brasil. La evidencia puede ser falsificada. Un juez puede interpretar esa prueba como quiera, citar una prueba específica y pasar por alto el resto. Y se necesitan muchos años para anular una decisión judicial.
Así que creo que tengo más esperanzas sobre el papel del Congreso y el ejecutivo y el fortalecimiento de esas instituciones y estoy más preocupada por el papel del poder judicial.
Sharmini Peries
Muy bien, Lorena, dejémoslo ahí.
He estado hablando con la profesora Lorena Barberia, y nos habla desde la Universidad de São Paulo, Brasil.
Lorena, definitivamente continuaremos esta conversación en el futuro. Muchas gracias por acompañarme hoy.
Lorena Barbería
Gracias. Muchísimas gracias.
Sharmini Peries
Gracias por acompañarnos aquí en The Analysis.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter Email(Required)Name(Required) First Last Δ
“Lorena G. Barberia is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of São Paulo. Her primary fields of interest are comparative political economy, Latin American politics, and political methodology. Her work analyzes redistributive politics in Latin America.”
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
In honor of Martin Luther King Day, we republish his speech, Why I am Opposed to the War in Vietnam.
- Transcript
- Listen
- Donate
- Subscribe
- Music
The sermon which I am preaching this morning in a sense is not the usual kind of sermon, but it is a sermon and an important subject, nevertheless, because the issue that I will be discussing today is one of the most controversial issues confronting our nation. I’m using as a subject from which to preach, “Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam.”
Now, let me make it clear in the beginning, that I see this war as an unjust, evil, and futile war. I preach to you today on the war in Vietnam because my conscience leaves me with no other choice. The time has come for America to hear the truth about this tragic war. In international conflicts, the truth is hard to come by because most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations and the incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for superficial patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery. Freedom is still the bonus we receive for knowing the truth. “Ye shall know the truth,” says Jesus, “and the truth shall set you free.” Now, I’ve chosen to preach about the war in Vietnam because I agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal.
The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing, as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we’re always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on. Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony. But we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for in all our history there has never been such a monumental dissent during a war, by the American people.
Polls reveal that almost fifteen million Americans explicitly oppose the war in Vietnam. Additional millions cannot bring themselves around to support it. And even those millions who do support the war [are] half-hearted, confused, and doubt-ridden. This reveals that millions have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism, to the high grounds of firm dissent, based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Now, of course, one of the difficulties in speaking out today grows the fact that there are those who are seeking to equate dissent with disloyalty. It’s a dark day in our nation when high-level authorities will seek to use every method to silence dissent. But something is happening, and people are not going to be silenced. The truth must be told, and I say that those who are seeking to make it appear that anyone who opposes the war in Vietnam is a fool or a traitor or an enemy of our soldiers is a person that has taken a stand against the best in our tradition.
Yes, we must stand, and we must speak. [tape skip]…have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam. Many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns, this query has often loomed large and loud: “Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent?” Peace and civil rights don’t mix, they say. And so this morning, I speak to you on this issue, because I am determined to take the Gospel seriously. And I come this morning to my pulpit to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation.
This sermon is not addressed to Hanoi, or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Nor is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in a successful resolution of the problem. This morning, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans, who bear the greatest responsibility, and entered a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.
Now, since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is…a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed that there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the Poverty Program. There were experiments, hopes, and new beginnings. Then came the build-up in Vietnam. And I watched the program broken as if it was some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money, like some demonic, destructive suction tube. And you may not know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend $500,000 to kill each enemy soldier, while we spend only fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and much of that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people that are not poor. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor, and attack it as such.
Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hope of the poor at home. It was sending their sons, and their brothers, and their husbands to fight and die in extraordinarily high proportion relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in Southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with a cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same school room. So we watch them in brutal solidarity, burning the huts of a poor village. But we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago or Atlanta. Now, I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.
My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettos of the North over the last three years–especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through non-violent action; for they ask and write me, “So what about Vietnam?” They ask if our nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without first having spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence I cannot be silent. Been a lot of applauding over the last few years. They applauded our total movement; they’ve applauded me. America and most of its newspapers applauded me in Montgomery. And I stood before thousands of Negroes getting ready to riot when my home was bombed and said, we can’t do it this way. They applauded us in the sit-in movement–we non-violently decided to sit in at lunch counters. The applauded us on the Freedom Rides when we accepted blows without retaliation. They praised us in Albany and Birminghan and Selma, Alabama. Oh, the press was so noble in its applause, and so noble in its praise when I was saying, Be non-violent toward Bull Connor; when I was saying, Be non-violent toward Jim Clark. There’s something strangely inconsistent about a nation and a press that will praise you when you say, Be non-violent toward Jim Clark, but will curse and damn you when you say, “Be non-violent toward little brown Vietnamese children. There’s something wrong with that press!
As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1964. And I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was not just something taking place, but it was a commission–a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for the brotherhood of Man. This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances. But even if it were not present, I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me, the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the Good News was meant for all men, for communists and capitalists, for their children and ours, for black and white, for revolutionary and conservative. Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved His enemies so fully that he died for them? What, then, can I say to the Vietcong, or to Castro, or to Mao, as a faithful minister to Jesus Christ? Can I threaten them with death, or must I not share with them my life? Finally, I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be the son of the Living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood. And because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned, especially for His suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come today to speak for them. And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak not now of the soldiers of each side, not of the military government of Saigon, but simply of the people who have been under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution until some attempt is made to know these people and hear their broken cries.
Now, let me tell you the truth about it. They must see Americans as strange liberators. Do you realize that the Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945 after a combined French and Japanese occupation. And incidentally, this was before the Communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. And this is a little-known fact, and these people declared themselves independent in 1945. They quoted our Declaration of Independence in their document of freedom, and yet our government refused to recognize them. President Truman said they were not ready for independence. So we fell victim as a nation at that time of the same deadly arrogance that has poisoned the international situation for all of these years. France then set out to reconquer its former colony. And they fought eight long, hard, brutal years trying to re-conquer Vietnam. You know who helped France? It was the United States of America. It came to the point that we were meeting more than eighty percent of the war costs. And even when France started despairing of its reckless action, we did not. And in 1954, a conference was called at Geneva, and an agreement was reached, because France had been defeated at Dien Bien Phu. But even after that, and after the Geneva Accord, we did not stop. We must face the sad fact that our government sought, in a real sense, to sabotage the Geneva Accord. Well, after the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come through the Geneva agreement. But instead the United States came and started supporting a man named Diem who turned out to be one of the most ruthless dictators in the history of the world. He set out to silence all opposition. People were brutally murdered because they raised their voices against the brutal policies of Diem. And the peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by United States influence and by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem’s methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown, they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictatorships seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace. And who are we supporting in Vietnam today? It’s a man by the name of general Ky [Air Vice Marshal Nguyen Cao Ky] who fought with the French against his own people, and who said on one occasion that the greatest hero of his life is Hitler. This is who we are supporting in Vietnam today. Oh, our government and the press generally won’t tell us these things, but God told me to tell you this morning. The truth must be told.
The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support and all the while the people read our leaflets and received regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps, where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move or be destroyed by our bombs. So they go, primarily women, and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the towns and see thousands of thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers. We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation’s only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the United Buddhist Church. This is a role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolutions impossible but refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that comes from the immense profits of overseas investments. I’m convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered.
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be changed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth with righteous indignation. It will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, “This is not just.” It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say, “This is not just.” The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war, “This way of settling differences is not just.” This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. Oh, my friends, if there is any one thing that we must see today is that these are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. They are saying, unconsciously, as we say in one of our freedom songs, “Ain’t gonna let nobody turn me around!” It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo, we shall boldly challenge unjust mores, and thereby speed up the day when “every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the rough places shall be made plain, and the crooked places straight. And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.”
A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies. This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing, unconditional love for all men. This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of mankind. And when I speak of love I’m not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of John: “Let us love one another, for God is love. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us.”
Let me say finally that I oppose the war in Vietnam because I love America. I speak out against this war, not in anger, but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart, and, above all, with a passionate desire to see our beloved country stand as the moral example of the world. I speak out against this war because I am disappointed with America. And there can be no great disappointment where there is not great love. I am disappointed with our failure to deal positively and forthrightly with the triple evils of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism. We are presently moving down a dead-end road that can lead to national disaster. America has strayed to the far country of racism and militarism. The home that all too many Americans left was solidly structured idealistically; its pillars were solidly grounded in the insights of our Judeo-Christian heritage. All men are made in the image of God. All men are bothers. All men are created equal. Every man is an heir to a legacy of dignity and worth. Every man has rights that are neither conferred by, nor derived from the State–they are God-given. Out of one blood, God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth. What a marvelous foundation for any home! What a glorious and healthy place to inhabit. But America’s strayed away, and this unnatural excursion has brought only confusion and bewilderment. It has left hearts aching with guilt and minds distorted with irrationality.
It is time for all people of conscience to call upon America to come back home. Come home, America. Omar Khayyam is right: “The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on.” I call on Washington today. I call on every man and woman of good will all over America today. I call on the young men of America who must make a choice today to take a stand on this issue. Tomorrow may be too late. The book may close. And don’t let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, “You’re too arrogant! And if you don’t change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I’ll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn’t even know my name. Be still and know that I’m God.”
Now it isn’t easy to stand up for truth and for justice. Sometimes it means being frustrated. When you tell the truth and take a stand, sometimes it means that you will walk the streets with a burdened heart. Sometimes it means losing a job…means being abused and scorned. It may mean having a seven, eight year old child asking a daddy, “Why do you have to go to jail so much?”
And I’ve long since learned that to be a follower to the Jesus Christ means taking up the cross. And my bible tells me that Good Friday comes before Easter. Before the crown we wear, there is the cross that we must bear. Let us bear it–bear it for truth, bear it for justice, and bear it for peace. Let us go out this morning with that determination. And I have not lost faith. I’m not in despair, because I know that there is a moral order. I haven’t lost faith, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. I can still sing “We Shall Overcome” because Carlyle was right: “No lie can live forever.” We shall overcome because William Cullen Bryant was right: “Truth pressed to earth will rise again.” We shall overcome because James Russell Lowell was right: “Truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne.” Yet, that scaffold sways the future. We shall overcome because the bible is right: “You shall reap what you sow.” With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when the lion and the lamb will lie down together, and every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree, and none shall be afraid because the words of the Lord have spoken it. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when all over the world we will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we’re free at last!”With this faith, we’ll sing it as we’re getting ready to sing it now. Men will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. And nations will not rise up against nations, neither shall they study war anymore. And I don’t know about you, I ain’t gonna study war no more.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter Email(Required)Name(Required) First Last Δ
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
Remembering Salvador Allende’s speech at the UN in 1972 and the call of world nations for a New International Economic Order, Harris Gleckman explains how global corporations were more effective at setting the rules. Lynn Fries interviews Gleckman on GPEnewsdocs.
No Evidence to Support FED 2% Inflation Target – Robert Pollin 50 Years After Allende at the UN: A Corporate Triumph Named MultistakeholderismTime Bomb in Global Finance – Rob JohnsonMonopoly Power vs Democracy – Matt Stoller Capitalism’s Structural Crisis and the Global RevoltThe Story Behind “The Con”Why the Media Doesn’t Understand Control FraudMichael Hudson: Biden Between BlackRock and a Hard PlaceBill Black pt 9/9 — The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own OneBill Black pt 8/9 — The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own OneBill Black pt 7/9 -The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own OneBill Black pt 6/9 – The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own OneBill Black pt 5/9 – The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own OneBill Black pt 4/9 – The Best Way to Rob a Bank is To Own OneBill Black pt 2/9 – Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own OneBill Black pt 1/9 – The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own OneCan You Destroy $20 Billion in Wealth Without Committing a Crime? – Bill BlackPolarization, Then a Crash: Michael Hudson on the Rentier EconomyPeoples’ Lives vs. Profits of Pharmaceutical Monopolies – GPE NewsdocsFED’s $10 Trillion Defends Assets of the Rich – Michael Hudson Transcript * Listen * Donate * Subscribe * Guest * Music*
LYNN FRIES: Hello and welcome. I’m Lynn Fries, producer of Global Political Economy or GPEnewsdocs with guest Harris Gleckman.
A recent symposium marking the 50th anniversary of Salvador Allende’s speech at the UNGA in 1972 delved into the topic of “Corporate Power: Then and Now.”
In this segment, I invite our guest to expand on an argument he made at that symposium. Notably, that to build a stronger democratic multilateral system accountable to the public interest and committed to a sustainable planet we not only need to think about the narrative of where we want to go but we have to think about the institutional ways of making that happen.
I should note our guest speaks from first hand experience of the ways in which corporate power undermined institutions set up in response to Allende’s appeal. And how into the present, corporate power has shaped or as some would say misshaped the international economic order where among other inequalities, transnational corporations but not citizens are protected under hard law at the international level.
Joining us from Massachusetts, Harris Gleckman is Senior Fellow at the Center for Governance and Sustainability, UMass-Boston. He’s Director of Benchmark Environmental Consulting and Board Member of the Foundation for Global Governance and Sustainability. And the author of Multistakeholder Governance and Democracy: A Global Challenge.
Among other distinctions and of particular relevance to today’s conversation, from the early ‘80s until it was shut down in 1992, Harris Gleckman was a staff member at the United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations. He served as chief of the UNCTC environment unit (1988-1992) and in this capacity prepared the benchmark survey and recommendations on sustainable development management for the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.
I am delighted to welcome Harris Gleckman. Over to you. Harris.
HARRIS GLECKMAN: Thank you and thank you very much, Lynn for inviting me to join your series. The panel reflecting on Allende’s crucial role in initiating global conversations about the power of multinationals was a wonderful marker in history.
I want to pick up on your invitation to say what we really would like to see as a narrative for governing the international market and the institutions for doing that. I think that that at a minimum, we have a good model in theory which is what happens in the industrialized countries. And there are essentially five parts.
The first part is the state is intended to be the buffer between consumers and the industry; to be a buffer between the workers and the owners of industry. And the state has this intermediary role and an institutional role in balancing those sets of powers.
It sets up an administrative system to review mergers, to review technology issues, to review disclosure. It has an administrative structure.
It also has a series of organizations that explicitly say: here is what a product safety standard should look like. Here is what a medical device for testing efficiency should look like. Here is how workers should be protected in their workplace. It has a separate set of institutions to make all those activities happen.
It has a tax system which says this is the way in which the corporate world, in principle anyway, ought to be providing resources to meet, amongst other things, these needs.
And it has a court system.
When we move into the international space, we need all of those functions. And we need some additional ones because we have jurisdictional and political boundaries between countries. So those boundaries pushed by the corporate sector issue: They’ve demanded free movement of money going into the country, free movement of money going out, profits. They’ve demanded free movement of their technologies going in.
But we do not have free movement of people. And we do not have clarity about how to deal with liability and responsibility and obligations across borders. All of that needs to be part of a package. The best of the national practices and a whole other collection of institutional and conceptual features to regulate a global market.
But that’s not where we are. And there’s a lot of reasons why we’re not there. And amongst those that Allende flagged in his keynote address to the UNCTAD Session Three meeting in Santiago that initiated global attention to the need to figure out how to manage the international market.
Let me explain to you why we’re not where we ought to be. Out of Allende’s statement, a message of which he repeated in the General Assembly [the United Nations General Assembly], the Economic and Social Council brought together a group of eminent persons to say: President Allende, are you really right? Is it really necessary to do this?
And those eminent persons – a mixture of academics, labor, people from the corporate world, people from the legal profession – came with a resounding yes; we do need to do this. And they reported that to the Economic and Social Council who created two bodies. One, a standing body of governments to continue b the political aspects of this, the Commission on Transnational Corporations. And a staff called, as you referred to it, the Center on Transnational Corporations (most commonly used initials, UNCTC).
The Commission at its Second Session said to the staff, we’re giving you three major assignments. First is to address the normative legal basis for how to deal with transnationals in the international market. And please help us develop a Code of Conduct [on Transnational Corporations].
Second, they said: part of the reason President Allende’s appeal for assistance occurs in many, many countries of the developing world is because they need technical and legal and financial assistance in negotiating with multinationals and in writing their own laws. So the Center was asked to provide day in and day out technical assistance to developing countries on matters relating to transnational corporations.
And the third thing they asked of us was to do research and build a data base about the nature of transnational corporations. Because while certain elements were well known, many more had to be researched.
What was the response to this from the corporate world?
Part of it was supporting the Center on Transnational Corporations. Part, however, went to the OECD. And the OECD produced a competing set of standards which they called guidelines. So that introduced us to the first major tension about how we did not get to what needed to be an international arrangement for dealing with the international market.
The OECD explicitly said it’s guidelines. It’s voluntary: We will set some benchmarks, but it’s up to each company, each country, it’s going to be voluntary. This was the beginning of undermining an effort to build a constructive global system for managing an international market.
The narrative and the wording in negotiations around the Code of Conduct remained a tension point. Because when there are references to good accounting, to consumer protection, the concern of those in the corporate world was that these ideas might permeate at the national level in developing countries into law. And that, that in their view was a bad idea.
And so every section of the discussion of the Code of Conduct which might have been binding became a battle over the power of the narrative being moved into a legally binding system at least at the national level.
Lynn, you were referring to in terms of developing the criteria for sustainable development as a contribution to the 1992 Rio Conference on Environment and Development. This was an explicit request from the Economic and Social Council. And the Center convened many discussions with many advisors and produced this set of criteria for sustainable development management.
The pressure on that; sorry, I need to back up and say every idea that was in the criteria had a footnote which said some company in the world was actually doing that activity at that level of environmental and sustainable behavior. That wasn’t good enough.
As an example of the kind of pressure, the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris went to the Swedish government who had helped fund the work we were doing on the criteria and accounting standards. And the Chief negotiating delegate for the Swedish government in this process which was a very active country, was explicitly told, don’t incorporate this into the material.
And even more was told: don’t talk to the Center on Transnational Corporations. I can be honest with you, they basically did that. But as you understand, there was a conversation because I learned of that pressure brought through the International Chamber of Commerce through the Swedish government that constrained its contribution to the 1992 Rio Conference.
In 1992, something else happened. The Center on Transnational Corporations itself was shut down. That’s also a reflection of the political power of just trying to develop some guidance, some assistance to countries; some research was seen as too much of a challenge to parts of the corporate sector.
But that’s only a part of the story. Another part as I was indicating is that the idea of law and regulatory practices normally done at the national level in developed countries was moved into the area of volunteerism. Whatever standards there were, they had to be voluntary.
Another way in which this battle took place was over what for many it would be a mundane issue which is accounting standards. Part of accounting standards, so far as countries are concerned and so far as people are concerned, is the taxes that can be appropriately charged to international business. That turned accounting standards into a political fight.
The Center on Transnationals hosted an international standards of accounting and reporting body to give developing country accounting professionals and leaders a chance to meet and to recommend the standards they wanted. But the predominant role of setting the standards for the accounting profession worldwide is a voluntary set run through corporate organizations.
Let me just indicate how different these standards could be. Our colleague at the Center on Transnationals used to work in Asia for Exxon. And he would be asked by Exxon headquarters, did we make enough? How much did we make this year?
And his answer, which he repeated, says tell me, I have three different accounting standards I can use to answer your question. The US standard, the standard in the country, the internal Exxon standard, and he could have said, a fourth, the ISAR standard [International Standards of Accounting and Report]. Tell me which one you want, and then I can answer you the question, how much profits, which relates to the ability of the countries to do taxing.
Another area which is missing from what is the national practice is to set product safety standards for workers, for consumers. And here the UN was asked to produce a consolidated list of the rules and regulations about risks from chemicals and medical products.
A book early edition looked like this. As you can see, it was a substantial amount of work. This is a compendium of decisions made by independent countries so that it could be shared with other countries, both from a scientific point of view and an administrative point of view.
Well, you won’t be surprised this also got shut down. That means that the process which would be the equivalent at the national level of environmental protection agencies, occupational health and safety agencies that doesn’t have even a starting point in the way in which the corporate sector has that from happening, constrained the international level.
Another area is in the area of courts. In the developed world, you have a largely independent court system. You have administrative of courts. All designed to have the leverage to arbitrate facts and the power to order the implementation of decisions.
At the international level, there are no real courts of that nature. But what the corporate world has done is come up with a counter proposal, a counter structure, of the investor dispute settlement arbitration hearings [ISDS].
One of the key differences between that in a court is that the investor dispute settlement arena has an unusual criterion. The corporation has a platform to sue governments who enact health and safety environmental zoning rules, which might disrupt the profitability of the enterprise.
Again, the power of the corporate world on the, on the international level has blocked even the analogous institutions that operate regularly in the developed world. Two other areas where that is occurring; one is in governance.
In many developed countries, corporations, citizen groups, worker groups are encouraged to share their perspectives, to lobby the state, to say what the rules should be. At the international level, when Allende spoke and many years of the Center on Transnational’s and the Commission on Transnational’s life, the companies worked with their governments and the governments expressed certain views. Again, playing this moderating role but heavily influenced by corporate lobbying.
Subsequently, that wasn’t seen as adequate enough and corporations wanted to become at the table in setting rules and standards. And one of the ways in which they did this is create another form of institution called a multistakeholder body.
These multistakeholder bodies exist in the area of setting product standards: The Marine Stewardship Council, the Forest Stewardship Council. In effect, these are the analogs to the national bodies. But now the firms involved are on the governance of these bodies.
The firms or their spokesperson organizations wanted to be in the policy debate through multistakeholder forums. And this is now a direction which is, for the last 15 years now, a push from the World Economic Forum.
And unfortunately, to be candid with you, one which the current Secretary General [the United Nations Secretary General, Antonio Guterres] has largely agreed to. And has a partnership agreement with the World Economic Forum to open the door more for these multistakeholder bodies which brings the corporation into the governance process.
The current Secretary General has proposed as part of going forward after the 75 years of the United Nations: Our Common Agenda is his report. That report says that six other multistakeholder bodies should be created to deal with global policy issues. And it’s also telling that the Secretary General made no recommendations for governments to negotiate new international agreements.
So another way in which the pressure from the corporate world has influenced the governance of the market is that the firms now are seeking and have got a seat at the table for a number of the standard setting practices and policy making in global governance.
And I want to share one other which is quite central to this discussion. And it’s quite central to the discussion in the climate discussions and in the sustainability discussions.
The sustainable development goals are negotiated between governments. But those governments who have the capacity and the money for doing it didn’t put up the money, are not putting up the money. Because they’re leaving the door open for corporate philanthropies and individual firms to decide how to fund the future needs.
And so corporate philanthropy power is very serious. We just had a very dramatic example of that political leverage through funding in the institution set up to deal with COVID – to fund the vaccine access for many developing countries – called COVAX.
COVAX did not meet its goals. COVAX was a multistakeholder body. But, two weeks ago, one of the funders of COVAX, it’s called GAVI, the Global Alliance on Vaccine Initiative, said: It’s not working. We’re going to stop funding it.
GAVI is supported largely and centrally by the Gates Foundation. Meanwhile, the World Health Organization is saying very clearly, COVID is still a problem in the developing world and other parts of the world, and we need money. But the corporate funders have said that’s enough.
Unfortunately, also by the current Secretary General’s advice, many countries who might have previously given their donations to the World Health Assembly to do vaccines for COVID, instead, we’re encouraged to give their money to COVAX. And now COVAX is collapsing.
Now I mention [all] that as the six different ways in which what ought to be the system for governing multinationals and transnationals has been undermined in the last 30 years.
So where can we pick up some of Allende’s enthusiasm and the enthusiasm and commitment of many other people around the world going forward? Let me offer five possible routes for maintaining and pushing forth further on this.
First is the need to keep transnationals [transnational corporations] out of the governing process of international affairs. At the level of products, this is actually being done in the case of tobacco and infant formula. Where the treaties explicitly say that firms in that industry cannot be in the room, cannot participate, cannot contribute. Because the space is for governments to figure out how to make decisions.
But that’s not what’s happening in climate. In climate, the corporations were all over the recent Conference of Parties in Egypt (COP 27). They struck an agreement with the Egyptian government, Coca-Cola, to fund part of the cost of the COP. They held sales exhibitions; oil and gas companies could put up tents to show how good they are.
A new wall has to be built to reassert the space for governments to meet without the corporate world interfering in setting what should be the rules for the global market.
A second area is some work under the United Nations Human Rights Council where they’re negotiating a binding treaty dealing with the issue of cross border liabilities. This is one of the areas where on the international market, there’s an enormous hole. And this gap prevents those who may cause problems from having a court room where those who have been harmed can make their case and that settlements can be enforced.
So, there’s an effort for a binding treaty for the Human Rights Council. And that work is an area which would be very helpful for many people to be aware of and to join that activity in Geneva.
A third area is to keep raising the attention the way multistakeholder bodies provide a frame, an institutional space for the corporations to enter public decision making. These are presented as if we now got everybody in the room. But everybody in the room has been ones which the f unders or the powerful actors have selected. And governments are treated as if they are equal to academics or to the corporate world or civil society.
This forum does not have a base in any concept of democracy. And that’s an area, you know, Lynn that I’ve been writing on for a while.
Another direction, a fourth, is to begin envisioning what would the next commission on transnational corporations, the next Center on Transnational Corporations, what would they look like? In terms of the narrative, their assignment, their institutional relations, planning how to build the next foothold. To begin to construct the kind of ways in which we ought to be able t o govern the international market.
And my last suggestion is the toughest one, as we need to figure out what is, what we really would like to scale up democracy at a global level. And how does this fit well with regulating dominant forces in the market?
And this is a tough question right now; our basic principle is enshrined in the ‘one country one vote’. It doesn’t take a lot of quick of study to realize that there are a lot of small countries in the world population wise, and there are a number of very large countries in the world population wise.
But at most democracies are based on individuals. And we haven’t got that kind of system at the international level. Do we want it? That’s one of the questions about envisioning what one would want out of a whole global governance system.
A key part of that would be how to make sure that the right balance is maintained between the international firms and workers who are employed directly or indirectly by them; between international firms and the products and services that they provide; and between international firms and the natural resources that they are using. Those features of a global oversight of a market are essential. Thank you, Lynn.
FRIES: With those thoughts, we are going to leave it here for now. Thank you, Harris. And from Geneva, Switzerland thank you for joining us in this segment of GPEnewsdocs with Harris Gleckman.
Harris Gleckman is Senior Fellow at the Center for Governance and Sustainability, UMass-Boston and Director of Benchmark Environmental Consulting. He is Board Member of the Foundation for Global Governance and Sustainability. He was a staff member of the UN Centre on Transnational Corporations and head of the NY office of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. He is the author of Multistakeholder Governance and Democracy: A Global Challenge.
Select one or choose any amount to donate whatever you like* any amount * $5 * $15 * $25 * $50 * $100 * $500 * $1,000 Custom Amount$Make this donation each month (optional)Donate with Credit Card
Never miss another story Subscribe to theAnalysis.news - Newsletter Email(Required)Name(Required) First Last Δ
“Harris Gleckman is a senior fellow at the Center for Governance and Sustainability at the University of Massachusetts Boston and Director of Benchmark Environmental Consulting. Gleckman has a Ph.D. in Sociology from Brandeis University. He was a staff member of the UN Centre on Transnational Corporations, head of the NY office of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, and an early member of the staff for the 2002 Monterey Conference on Financing for Development.”
theAnalysis.news theme music written by Slim Williams for Paul Jay’s documentary film “Never-Endum-Referendum“. Never-Endum-ReferendumArtist WebsitePaul Jay’s Documentaries
What led to the Shah's downfall and the establishment of clerical rule in Iran? Talia Baroncelli speaks to historian Pouya Alimagham.
On this episode of The Source, Zain Raza speaks with Lawrence Wilkerson, retired Army Colonel and former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, about the latest developments in the war in Ukraine. They talk about the significance of Zelenskyy's visit to Washington and the latest military developments. This interview was produced by acTVism Munich.
Lula da Silva was inaugurated for a third non-consecutive term as president of Brazil, dramatically reversing the country's trajectory of the past eight years. In the first few days in office, Lula presented more progressive policy changes than many believed would be possible, says freelance journalist Michael Fox.
A Bank for International Settlements study says 60+ trillion dollars of off-the-books currency swaps could be a profound, systematic risk. Robert Johnson joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
When Julian Assange was arrested, he was holding up a copy of Paul Jay’s book, "Gore Vidal’s History of the National Security State.” This mini-documentary is the original 2005 interview with Vidal, upon which the book is based. We republish it now as a way of protesting the persecution of Assange and the threat to what’s left of press freedom in the United States.
Talia Baroncelli interviews historian Pouya Alimagham about the historical context of the current Iranian uprising.
In dieser Folge von The Source debattieren wir mit dem preisgekrönten Dokumentarfilmer, Journalisten und Chefredakteur von theAnalysis.news Paul Jay über den Krieg in der Ukraine.
Are antitrust laws effective as a mechanism to break up monopolies and Big Tech? How monopolies enable price-gouging and drive inflation. Talia Baroncelli speaks to Matt Stoller, Research Director at the American Economic Liberties Project.
In part 2 of our conversation with award-winning documentary filmmaker and editor-in-chief of theAnalysis.news Paul Jay, we talk about the situation in Iran and why the U.S. is no longer seeking a nuclear agreement. We also talk about why the mainstream media is now coming out in support of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The interview was conducted by Zain Raza for acTVism Munich.
In this episode of The Source, we debate the war in Ukraine with award-winning documentary filmmaker, journalist, and editor-in-chief of theAnalysis.news Paul Jay. The interview was conducted by Zain Raza for acTVism Munich.
The arrest of Peru's leftist President Pedro Castillo represents the latest and most serious twist in the country's ongoing systemic political crisis, says Peruvian Ph.D. student and columnist Francesca Emanuele.
From fintech to food systems and social media to all domains essential for society and the economy, the State of Big Tech compendium of fifteen essays offers a vision and blueprint for the 99% to break out of privatized status-quoist enclosures.
In this episode of The Source, we talk with Lawrence Wilkerson, retired Army Colonel and former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, about foreign policy with a focus on North Korea, Iran, and Ukraine. Lawrence Wilkerson served in the U.S. Army for 31 years and is now a Senior Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. This interview was produced by acTVism Munich.
Rich fossil fuel states blocked real solutions at COP27, but what needs to be done is well known. People need to organize and elect candidates with a green agenda. Robert Pollin joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Economist Bob Pollin says government stimulus and higher wages are not the primary drivers of today's inflation. Higher interest rates are not the solution. Bob joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
The Ukrainian missile that hit Poland and was first attributed to Russia was one of the most dangerous moments since the Russian invasion. Daniel Ellsberg says as it was for Kennedy in 1962 in Cuba, so it is now for Putin in Ukraine. There is no actual national security threat, only a threat to the leader's domestic political survival. That does not mean the danger isn’t real.
Why did Corporate Democrats “cede” the economic argument? Are they really fighting inflation or trying to weaken worker’s bargaining power? Tom Ferguson joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Larry Wilkerson and Paul Jay discuss the results of the U.S. midterm elections, the reluctance of Democrats to defend stimulus spending, and the need for negotiations to end the war in Ukraine.
Larry Wilkerson reflects on Veterans Day and meeting wounded soldiers thinking he helped put them in harm's way for a war about oil and profits.
Richard Kozul-Wright describes the current state of global economic disorder, as presented in UNCTAD’s Trade and Development Report, and discusses the possibility and limits of effective regional responses. Lynn Fries interviews Richard Kozul-Wright on GPEnewsdocs.
Lula Wins by a whisker, but Bolsonarist Christian Right remains a powerful threat. Lorena Barberia joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Air Force drone analyst Daniel Hale exposed how the U.S. drone program is killing civilians and was sentenced to 45 months in prison. In a moving tribute, Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky say young people like Hale give them hope for the world.
While the Jan 6th committee will produce hundreds of hours of testimony important for the historical record, have they investigated the reasons why ten former secretaries of defense and the editorial board of the Financial Times thought a coup was in progress - on Jan 4th? What was the role of Christian Nationalism in the military? What is the threat of another coup attempt in the future? Gerald Horne joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
GRAIN researcher Devlin Kuyek says the report “An agribusiness greenwashing glossary” identifies ten key greenwashing terms used by Big Food & Big Agribusiness that serve to protect their profits and that confuse people and block real solutions to climate change. Lynn Fries interviews Kuyek on GPEnewsdocs.
The Soviet Union became dependent on easy energy sales, and consumer production stagnated, says Sommers. Gorbachev’s democratic and economic reforms supposedly meant to head towards a European style social-democracy, but instead created conditions for the rise of the oligarchs and the free for all of the ‘90s. Jeffrey Sommers joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Noam and Daniel discuss the rising fascist movement and its roots in American history. They analyze the significance of the coming elections and the necessity to vote against overt fascism and continue to organize for more profound political change. Ellsberg and Chomsky on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
Iranians protest brutal repression and why U.S. statements of solidarity are empty without a reversal of crushing sanctions. Assal Rad joins Talia Baroncelli on theAnalysis.news.
"Terror and tyranny in the USSR arose more from war and the demands of state security services required to survive, and the paranoid politics it enabled, rather than any “inevitable” path from the socialist path taken," writes Jeffery Sommers. He joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news to discuss the end of the Soviet Union.
An important Chinese commentator warns that a cornered Russia may lead to “unimaginable consequences”. Larry Wilkerson says there must be immediate negotiations to end the war to avoid the danger of nuclear conflict and to refocus the world on the climate crisis. Wilkerson and Jay also discuss rising fascism in the U.S.
Biden again declares he will "defend" Taiwan with U.S. forces, essentially threatening nuclear war against China. Why is he dropping "ambiguity" and raising the level of tension? Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg join Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
The Federal Reserve is trying to increase unemployment and strip U.S. workers of the small gains in bargaining power they have achieved in the aftermath of the COVID economic lockdown. Robert Pollin joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg discuss the significance of the life of Mikhail Gorbachev and what the deconstruction of the Soviet Union means for today's world. Noam and Daniel join Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
The overwhelming rejection of Chile's newly drafted constitution represents a devastating blow to the efforts to overcome the legacy of the Pinochet dictatorship, says Chilean political analyst and SUNY Binghamton professor René Rojas.
By opposing deep democratic reforms from below, Gorbachev laid the groundwork for privatization and the looting of the 1990s. Buzgalin joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
“It’s beyond lunacy,” say Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg. In their 90s, the two men tirelessly fight to warn people of the need for urgent action to deal with climate change and the threat of nuclear war. Joining Paul Jay, they discuss the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the war in Ukraine, and the climate crisis.
Paul is asked if a strong Russia is a positive counterbalance to U.S. global hegemony. Paul is interviewed by Colin Bruce Anthes on theAnalysis.news.
Paul comments on the events of 2014, the role of Zelenskyy, the deception of humanitarian intervention, and dying and killing for a nationalism that serves the oligarchs. Paul Jay is interviewed by Colin Bruce Anthes on theAnalysis.news.
Some viewers have written we are too critical of Russia and don’t focus enough on NATO expansion. Paul responds in an interview hosted by Colin Bruce Anthes.
The so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” will have a positive affect on the climate crisis, but it does not phase out fossil fuel and is far from what’s needed. Big industrial states like New York and California can and must go much further. Bob Pollin on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay
Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan was reckless and stupid, but why does anyone care? More important is what is driving American aggressive and incoherent policy towards China. Paul Jay is interviewed by Colin Bruce on theAnalysis.news.
Retired Ambassador Chas Freeman, Nixon’s translator during his 1972 trip to China, says U.S. policy to China remains a desire to hold on to primacy globally and regionally. Biden’s approach so far is not much different than the aggressive posture of Trump. This interview was originally conducted on March 12, 2021.
Nancy Pelosi is considering a visit to Taiwan which Col. Lawrence Wilkerson calls a needless provocation that undermines the policy of "strategic ambiguity”. It makes U.S. China policy even more dangerous.
Jason Call is running for Congress in Washington State District 2 against a longtime Democratic incumbent who receives support from Boeing and the fossil fuel industry. Boeing is the district’s largest employer.
Russia faces the catastrophic consequences of climate change and an economy dependent on fossil fuel exports. Boris Kagarlitsky joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Kagarlitsky responds to criticism he underestimates NATO provocations. He also analyzes the changing politics of Ukraine and growing anti-war feelings in Russia.
One of the world’s leading “organizers’ organizer” Jane McAlevey has trained thousands of activists in building more militant unions and winning electoral organizing; she sees the fight for effective unions as critical to winning transformative climate policy. Jane tells her story to Paul Jay on Reality Asserts Itself.
AcTVism Munich has compiled excerpts from previous interviews they conducted with experts on the Julian Assange case in 2021 and 2022.
The latest report from the IPCC on the climate crisis is apocalyptic in its language. It’s clear that 1.5 degrees warming is a disaster, and we are on our way to 2 and even 3 or more degrees warming - which is beyond catastrophic. Peter Carter joins Paul Jay to review the report.
John Bellamy Foster explains the 'solution' master-minded by global finance to resolve the imminent environmental crisis: create a multi-quadrillion dollar's worth of assets on the back of everything nature does and expropriate it from the global commons to make a profit. Worse still: it is already happening. Lynn Fries interviews Foster on GPEnewsdocs.
On Juneteenth weekend, activists converged on Washington in support of the Mass Poor People's & Low-Wage Workers' Assembly. Grossly underreported by corporate media, the demonstration was led by the co-chairs of the Poor People's Campaign, Reverend Dr. William J. Barber ll and Reverend Dr. Liz Theoharis.
On January 10, 2021, four days following Trump's attempted coup, Gerald Horne stated that "class-based reforms must be combined with a fierce crackdown on the violators of the law on January 6." Horne discusses the historical background and the lead-up to this event with Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Paul Jay is asked about his personal identity, the climate crisis, and the war in Ukraine. Colin Bruce interviews Jay for "The Bridge", episode six.
NATO expansion and the defense of Donbas are not the primary motivations for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, says Kagarlitsky. Stoking nationalism to shore up support for Putin’s government is. Two corrupt oligarchies fight a war that only fossil fuel firms and Western arms manufacturers can win.
In yet another surprising turn of events, Colombia's leftist presidential candidate, Gustavo Petro, managed to win the presidential run-off election after all. Following the first round, he seemed to face an uphill battle when the combined votes for the right outstripped his result by 13 points. In the end, coming from behind, he managed to overtake the right-wing, to usher in what Colombia analyst Gimena Sanchez calls "a complete paradigm shift" for Colombia.
Daniel Ellsberg discusses the significance of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the growing danger of nuclear war with U.S. and NATO.
When PM Diefenbaker said no to nuclear missiles in 1961, Kennedy helped Lester Pearson become Canadian Prime Minister. John Boyco author of “Cold Fire: Kennedy’s Northern Front” joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Leftist presidential candidate Gustavo Petro and his running mate Francia Márquez were expected to make history on May 29th by becoming shoo-ins for the run-off election. However, despite the strong first-round showing they are now expected to lose the June 19th run-off against a populist right-wing candidate. What happened? Colombia expert Gimena Sánchez of the Washington Office on Latin America analyzes the result.
Central banks are raising interest rates to create more desperation amongst workers and weaken their bargaining power. Bob Pollin joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Crushed by the 2008 financial crisis, Patrick Lovell joined Eric Vaughan and white-collar crime expert Bill Black to expose “control fraud” and the real story behind the 2007/08 crash. Lovell and Vaughan join Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Paul Jay on the role of conspiracies in history; and national identity and the war in Ukraine. Jay is interviewed by Reed Hoffman.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon has united all the major left parties around a very progressive agenda for the June French National Assembly elections. He stands a good chance of becoming the next Prime Minister of France. Renaud Lambert of Le Monde Diplomatique joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Paul Jay was a guest on Law and Disorder hosted by Michael Smith, where he was asked about his research into the events of 9/11.
Right-wing quant trader billionaires, Robert and Rebekah Mercer, gave Trump Breitbart, Bannon and Conway and helped make him president. Then they got a sweetheart deal on a 7 billion dollar tax bill. Steve O'Keefe joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
There are serious discussions about the use of “tactical” nuclear weapons. Is a limited nuclear war possible? How can we avoid it? Col. Lawrence Wilkerson on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
The hosts of On the Barricades, Maria Cernat and Boyan Stanislavski, report on how the Russian invasion of Ukraine is affecting Romania and Poland. This is a special episode co-produced by On the Barricades and theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
Greg Godels and Paul Jay discuss the invasion of Ukraine, imperialism’s roots in global monopoly capitalism including the U.S. and Russia, and what activists should demand to end the war and avoid nuclear Armageddon.
Paul Jay is the guest on The Barricade discussing the poisonous witches brew of the U.S. military-industrial complex and Christian nationalism, which are pushing conflict with China and long-term war in Ukraine.
"I feel frustrated with those who condemn war atrocities in Ukraine, but then use them as a reason to go on fighting a war that will inevitably produce even more such atrocities,” says veteran journalist Patrick Cockburn on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
Chris Hedges and Paul Jay discuss the Russian invasion, the threat of nuclear war, and big tech censorship.
A strike can force recognition of a union; a supermajority strike is powerful when bargaining; a strike with mass support can be a political weapon to change society. Jane McAlevey on the final segment of this episode of Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay.
"We do workers and contracts. We don't do faith and religion. We cannot afford to leave one ounce of power on the table." Jane McAlevey joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
On the 54th anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination on April 4, 1968, we republish his speech, Why I am Opposed to the War in Vietnam.
The Ukrainian people are paying the price for a struggle over spheres of big power influence. Vijay Prashad joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
“We're not going to win anything in the broader society if we don't start with the foundation of strong worksite unions and organizing workers who may not agree with us. Under a capitalist system, the single most powerful thing workers can do is walk off the job and stop production.” Jane McAlevey joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
The U.S. wants to remain a dominant force in Europe, and see’s the Russian invasion of Ukraine as strengthening NATO, weakening Russia and pushing back China. Russian aggression and U.S provocation are risking nuclear war. Vijay Prashad joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
The invasion of Ukraine is a reflection of the crisis of global capitalism. That said, Putin may have believed he would face the same impunity that was the case with the Western imperialist powers after invading Iraq, says Ukrainian activist Denis Pilash on theAnalysis.news.
Is China’s Belt and Road initiative a socialist or capitalist approach to trade? Michael Hudson and Patrick Bond discuss and debate on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay
The Oligarchs of Russia and Ukraine are destroying the country and the wealth they stole from the people should be expropriated. First, Russia must withdraw its troops, and Ukrainians will fight until they do. Imperialism in all its forms must be fought, says Denis Pilash on theAnalysis.news
In part two, Denys Gorbach discusses the events of 2014, the role of the Ukrainian far-right, and the need for solidarity with Ukraine against the Russian invasion.
The economic doctrine promoted by the IMF after the fall of the Berlin Wall brought massive damage in the countries now at war. Prabhat Patnaik looks at how the role of the IMF was instrumental to the advance of Western metropolitan powers in the post-Soviet region. Lynn Fries interviews Patnaik on GPEnewsdocs.
Denys Gorbach, a member of the editorial collective of the Ukrainian socialist website “Commons,” says while NATO expansion should be opposed, it’s not why Russia invaded.
Will China resist financialization and lead the way on climate policy, or is it a form of capitalism that will not reduce inequalities much further and isn’t serious about phasing out fossil fuel? Michael Hudson and Patrick Bond in a discussion about what we can expect from the CCP. Note: this was recorded before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Matt discusses his recent article on the rise of Putin and the current situation in Ukraine with Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
The latest report from the IPCC on the climate crisis is apocalyptic in its language. It’s clear that 1.5 degrees warming is a disaster, and we are on our way to 2 and even 3 or more degrees warming - which is beyond catastrophic. Peter Carter joins Paul Jay to review the report.
UC Santa Barbara Sociology professor William I. Robinson and the Nicaragua-based writer John Perry debate whether Nicaragua under President Ortega con be considered a leftist government, whether US intervention is a factor in that country, and whether the recent presidential election was legitimate.
The end of the cold war was the beginning of the America unipolar moment. But the "end of history" was followed by contradiction and arrogance which brought the conflict in Ukraine into being. Gerald Horne joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
The billionaires of the U.S., Russia and Ukraine are all willing to sacrifice the sons and daughters of working families in wars for profit and hegemony. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
In an interview recorded on Feb. 23rd, Buzarov says the Russians have invaded and violated Ukrainian sovereignty. Buzgalin says the people of Donbass have a right to independence if they choose, but a peace movement should be built to oppose the oligarchs and bureaucrats on all sides who are inflaming the situation for profits.
This interview was conducted on February 20th, one day before Russia recognized Donetsk and Luhansk.
Much has been said about the ongoing global conflict between American imperialism and the Russian bear, which appears to have awoken from its long winter slumber. Global public opinion has been bombarded with a slew of misinformation and misinterpretations based on the ideological biases of various media outlets. With massive propaganda exercises on both the Western and Russian sides, the information war has clearly reached a new high point. We appear to be witnessing a form of propaganda retaliation on the part of the Russians who were accused of wanting to invade and destabilize Ukraine in recent days. They are now accusing Ukraine of planning an attack on the country's two breakaway republics in the east. The big powers are treating Ukraine like a piece of garbage throughout this game. And no one is asking what the future of Ukrainian society should be. We all know that a full-fledged war is the worst-case scenario. But what are the alternatives? Can the powers that be in Russia, the United States, and Ukraine actually prevent war? Is it possible to reach some minimum agreements? Who is most interested in maintaining tensions and who is most interested in peace?
This interview was conducted on February 19th, two days before Russia recognized Donetsk and Luhansk.
In the midst of the escalating tensions in and around Ukraine, the hosts of "On the barricades" have invited a special guest who is a political scientist, security analyst, and academic currently residing in Kiev. Andrey Buzarov is originally from Donyetsk, and he not only shares his expertise and comments on current events, but he also provides an insightful perspective of someone who is on the ground in Kiev and has relatives living in East Ukraine.
Maria Cernat and Boyan Stanislavski speak with Andrey about the events of the last 72 hours, which appear to show that another massive escalation is taking place. Is this just another propaganda exercise this time on the part of the Russians? Is a Ukrainian invasion of the breakaway republics really a threat? What do Ukrainian politicians hope for? Is Zelensky's game as clever as it appears? Are there any negotiations going on behind closed doors? How does the sudden escalation of tensions affect Ukrainian society?
On the Last Minute Wrestling podcast, Paul Jay discusses the situation in Ukraine and his film “Hitman Hart, Wrestling with Shadows”.
In part two of a two-part interview, Buzgalin continues his analysis of Russian attitudes towards Ukraine. Aleksandr Buzgalin joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Tension and fear of the 'other' is very profitable for the rulings circles in the U.S., Russia and Ukraine. Prof. Buzgalin joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
James K. Galbraith discusses the shift of US capitalism from an industrial state to what he calls a predator state: a finance-led, military-centered corporate republic that continues to prevail. To overcome it, he lays out what is needed to focus on employment, stability and adjustments to rising resource costs. Lynn Fries interviews Galbraith on GPEnewsdocs.
Advocacy and mobilizing are directed at people who support your cause. Organizing is a strategic plan to win over workers who don’t agree. Jane McAlevey joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news
The riot on the Hill was not an insurrection, but it was the final violent act of a failed coup. But why is the role of Mitch McConnell and the National Association of Manufacturers not being examined? Paul Jay joins the By George podcast Pt3/3.
President Biden appears to have abandoned his pledge to withdraw all support for the Saudi war in Yemen. Annelle Sheline and Trita Parsi join Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
The U.S. is not defending democracy in the Ukraine. The insistence on NATO expansion is to keep Russia out of European markets and maintain U.S. dominance. Larry Wilkerson joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Ellsberg book 'Doomsday Machine' and Assange’s Wikileaks reveal the fabrications that underpin U.S. militarism. Paul Jay on the “By George” podcast (pt 2/3).
Great powers, especially the Americans, believe prestige and “strategic power,” in other words a pissing match, is worth sending other people’s kids to die for. This is a fight between the oligarchs on all sides. They will all find ways to make money out of the tension, even if they are playing with nuclear fire. Paul Jay joins George Clark on his podcast By George (pt 1/3).
Stanislav Byshok will explain the attitudes of the Russian public and the reactions of the Russian media to the growing tensions between Moscow and Washington over Ukraine in a two-part conversation hosted by Maria Cernat and Boyan Stanislavski. Other aspects of the Russian perspective on recent events and processes are also being discussed.
By purchasing controlling interest of the major American fossil fuel companies, the federal government can phase out fossil fuels, transition to sustainable energy, and enforce a lower price of oil which will alleviate inflationary pressures. Bob Pollin joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
On April 30, 1967, Martin Luther King delivered an anti-Vietnam War speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia. Titled, Why I am Opposed to the War in Vietnam, King speaks out on America's involvement in the war connecting it to economic injustice and lack of moral standing.
What exactly happened last week in Kazakhstan? This is a question that many people have. Was this a genuine protest, or a western-led American jab in Russia's soft underbelly? Was this a working-class movement or yet another post-Soviet attempt at a color revolution? It appears that there was a little bit of everything. The context is one of deep contradictions in Kazakhstan's ruling class and society as a whole.
Boyan Stanislavski and Maria Cernat carefully examine the chronology of last week's events in Kazakhstan, highlighting the most doubtful moments and carefully explaining what conclusions can be drawn based on facts that are now public record. The hosts of "On the Barricades" also mention some possibilities for which there is only circumstantial evidence and which cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt at this time.
Were the events in Kazakhstan a popular workers uprising, a "Colored Revolution", or a manifestation of power struggles within the Kazakh establishment? Or all of the above? The Barricade's Boyan Stanislavski and Maria Cernat discuss the general political realities in Kazakhstan today, as well as the fundamental premises for such violent events to have occurred.
The Trump administration engineered one of the most remarkable agricultural political business cycles in American history. Tom Ferguson joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Big oil, coal and parasitical private equity corps highly favored Trump and the GOP in 2020 - and likely will again. Thomas Ferguson joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
The events of Jan 6th were the last gasp of a failed Trump coup, fuelled by the power of Christian extremists in the military and Congress. Their objective is a form of Christian authoritarianism, and they are planning for an open fight in 2024 or sooner. Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
With Biden increasingly treating Taiwan as an independent country, is he provoking a military response from China that could go nuclear? Larry Wilkerson joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Witnesses testified on how the greenhouse effect will change the global climate system and possible solutions.”
Gabriel Boric was elected president of Chile on December 20th - probably the most leftist president Chile has elected since Salvador Allende in 1970. Boric promised that while Chile was neoliberalism's birthplace under Dictator Pinochet, it will now be neoliberalism's burial place as well. Patricio Zamorano, a Chilean political analyst and director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA.org) talks about what we can expect from a Boric presidency.
Paul Jay on 'theatre of the absurd democracy', and organizing for a vibrant peoples' movement as the focus for theAnalysis.news in the coming year.
Putin is asking NATO not to expand into Ukraine. Is it an unreasonable demand? Col. Lawrence Wilkerson joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
By Jan 6th events, the majority of corporate America wanted Trump gone, but money continued to flow to GOP. Tom Ferguson joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
While climate change is an existential threat, the more immediate danger is nuclear war which would end human life on earth. Both must be averted. Andrew Cockburn joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news
The election of the leftist Xiomara Castro as Honduras's first female president means a significant rupture with the country's recent right-wing - even fascist - past, says Center for the Americas director Laura Carlsen. However, whether Castro will be allowed to actually govern is another question, given that the state is deeply embedded in corruption and drug trafficking.
On the first anniversary of the death of our dear friend Leo Panitch, we republish this 2015 interview with Leo by Chris Hedges.
More than effective weapons, geopolitics or national defense, profit and massive budgets drive U.S. military and nuclear weapons spending. Andrew Cockburn joins Paul Jay to discuss his new book “Spoils of War”.
Analysis of voters in the 2016 elections indicates that Covid and political money will lead to many lost Democratic seats in 2022. Political scientist Tom Ferguson joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
In this second part of the interview series with filmmaker and journalist Paul Jay, they assess Biden’s foreign policy since taking office. They also explore whether the fight for press freedom will continue if Julian Assange is extradited to the U.S., and why the national security state continues to pursue him despite the serious consequences for press freedom.
Tom Ferguson, a leading expert on money and politics, weighs in on how much democracy is there with so much wealth and power in so few hands. Tom joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
The panel discusses how the oligarchs on all sides of the confrontation use nationalism to push their agendas. Does Eastern Europe consider Russia a threat? Boyan Stanislavski and Maria Cernat join Paul Jay for a collaboration on theAnalysis.news and the Barricade.
Biden is threatening severe sanctions claiming Russia is getting ready to invade Ukraine. Russia says NATO expansion is a threat and Ukraine is provoking a confrontation. East European journalists Maria Cernat and Boyan Stanislavski join Paul Jay in a collaboration between “The Barricade” and theAnalysis.news.
In this episode of The Source, Zain Raza talks with filmmaker and journalist Paul Jay about YouTube censorship and the threat of nuclear war. In addition, we talk about the growing threat of war with China and why militarization is on the rise around the world.
The story of big open bargaining and revitalizing the nurses union in Las Vegas. Jane McAlevey joins Paul Jay on Reality Asserts Itself.
In spite of self-righteous posturing as a peaceful nation, the Canadian military-industrial complex helped develop and fuel nuclear weapons. Yves Engler, author of “Stand on Guard for Whom?” joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Workers must face up to race to unite the class. Fighting for a just transition, the workers' movement is critical to any chance of having an effective climate policy. Organizer Jane McAlevey joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
From Nicaragua to Tennessee, learning how to organize to win the right to dignity. The organizers' organizer, Jane McAlevey on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay.
One of the world's leading "organizers' organizer" Jane McAlevey has trained thousands of activists in building more militant unions and winning electoral organizing; she sees the fight for effective unions as critical to winning transformative climate policy. Jane tells her story to Paul Jay on Reality Asserts Itself.
Vanessa Nakate, Ugandan Climate Justice activist takes on the big companies and especially the fossil fuel industry which makes up the largest contingent to COP26.
25 COPS and at every one leaders have come to these climate negotiations with an array of new pledges...
In this special episode produced in collaboration with The Analysis, Maria Cernat (Romania) and Boyan Stanislavski (Bulgaria) of The Barricade and Małgorzata Kulbaczewska-Figat (Poland) of Strajk.eu discuss these topics.
Polls show at least 10% of conservative Republicans consider climate change a top priority, 24% consider it important and favor stronger Federal action. Paul Jay's interview by Muslim TV.
Workers need to know that oil companies have lied to them for years; the elites imagine a world at four degrees warming is acceptable; that a just transition for fossil fuel workers is affordable. Patrick Bond joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
The global elites call for technology and market “solutions” they know will not reach the necessary targets. They are condemning human society to its demise. A mass movement to demand real solutions is urgently needed. Patrick Bond and Paul Jay discuss the climate crisis on theAnalysis.news.
House of Representatives Oversight Committee held hearings with the CEOs of the largest oil companies where Chairwoman Maloney read quotes from internal Exxon documents, which exposed that Exxon knew for years that fossil fuels were causing global warming and that it would lead to catastrophic consequences. She attempted to get the CEOs to acknowledge having lied, which they refused to do. This is an excerpt from the House of Representatives Oversight Committee held on October 28, 2021.
High oil prices and supply chain disruption are driving inflation, not workers’ modest wage increases or government debt. Bob Pollin joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news
Daniel Ellsberg participated in an Italian press conference demanding freedom for Julian Assange.
Paul Jay participated in an Italian press conference demanding freedom for Julian Assange.
Financialization of the economy and pervasive corruption go hand-in-hand. The stronger the financial sector and more parasitical it becomes, the more profound and systemic the corruption. Paul Jay joins “The New Untouchables” for a discussion about Bill Black’s conception of “control fraud.”
It looks like there’s not much left of Biden’s climate legislation as he heads to Glasgow planning to lecture China and the world. What should he be doing about the climate crisis? Bob Pollin joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Anthony Adams is running for mayor of Detroit on a progressive platform. He's being marginalized by local media and opposed by the Democratic Party, including President Biden. Anthony Adams joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Sections of the elites remain in climate denial, or believe technology will save the day, or dream about living in futuristic cities where most humans are expendable. Are there members of the elites who see the real danger and are willing to take effective action? Paul Jay is interviewed by Andrew Van Wagner.
The Biden Administration is intertwined with Wall Street but must deliver some election promises to workers. Michael Hudson joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Research by Tim Wise (GDAE-Tufts University) is conclusive and fully resonates with claims by Africa's biggest grassroots movement, the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa: the corporate capture of food systems should be rejected. Donors and government funding must shift to agroecology. This is an interview hosted by Lynn Fries of GPEnewsdocs.
Paul is interviewed by Andrew Van Wagner about the urgency of the climate crisis and the lack of an effective plan coming from most governments. Paul says a just transition for fossil fuel workers could change the politics of the issue in the U.S., but it’s not part of the Biden plan.
Adolph Reed says, "The right-wing political alliance anchored by the Republican party and Trumpism coheres around a single concrete objective— taking absolute power in the U.S. as soon and as definitively as possible." Reed joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Paul is interviewed by Andrew Van Wagner where they continue their discussion about nuclear weapons, the media, and climate crisis.
In an episode of the Empire Files Podcast, Abby interviews Paul about his investigation into the 9/11 attacks, his experiences in Afghanistan, and his interviews with climate scientists.
In an episode of the Empire Files podcast, Abby interviews Paul about his investigation into the 9/11 attacks, his experiences in Afghanistan, and his interviews with climate scientists.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who was a special assistant to a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, comments on Milley‘s phone call to China, the nuclear submarine sale to Australia, and the danger of a single man, the president, having the ability to launch a nuclear strike and end life on earth.
In a commentary, Daniel Ellsberg explains that Gen. Milley’s call to China may have prevented a near catastrophe, as happened in 1983 when the Soviet Union believed Reagan had gone mad and planned a first strike. He calls for a fundamental change in U.S. nuclear strategy.
Paul is interviewed by Andrew Van Wagner, and in this segment, he talks about working with Daniel Ellsberg on a documentary film based on the book Doomsday Machine.
Twenty years later, Thomas Drake still says the NSA knew about the 9/11 plotters prior to the attack, and likely reported the intel through a back channel to VP Cheney. Nothing was done to prevent the attack, says Drake a former senior executive at the NSA. Why? To prepare public opinion in favor of invading Iraq. Drake joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
New documents claim intelligence on Bid Laden, Al-Qaeda targets withheld from congress' 9/11 probe. This interview was produced September 8, 2011, with Paul Jay.
Ray McGovern and Jason Leopold: The intelligence agencies had the information, the question is why didn’t they use it. This interview was produced September 11, 2011, with Paul Jay on TRNN.
Hit and Run is a co-production with an Israeli company that also produced the series Fauda. David Clennon, a veteran American actor, turned down an audition because he considers Israel a racist and apartheid state. David joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Geo Maher, the author of the just-released book, A World Without Police, talks about why the police are actually designed not to do what we think they are supposed to do, to "serve and protect" the general public, but actually serve and protect property owners and more generally those who benefit from racism and inequality. He goes on to outline what a world without police could look like.
Even stabilizing at 1.5 degrees in global warming creates an unprecedented extreme climate. To avoid surpassing it we need radical measures now. IPCC co-lead author of chapter 11, Xuebin Zhang, joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
The U.S. armed jihadists and invited Bin Laden as part of the Cold War; abandoned the country to criminal warlords and civil war; created conditions for rise of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda; since 9/11 waged brutal war and broke every promise to rebuild the economy - Wilkerson and Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Imperialism which existed in the colonial era persists to this day and the system cannot do without it. In a 3 Part series, Prabhat Patnaik discusses his read on the history of capitalism from colonialism into the present. Prabhat Patnaik reviews the connection between imperialism and capitalism through history to stress that by necessity of the accumulation of wealth, somewhere demand has to be suppressed to provide cheap inputs to 'the markets'. The colonialist relation is retained to the present, with changing subjects.
In a 3 Part series, Prabhat Patnaik discusses his read on the history of capitalism from colonialism into the present. Prabhat Patnaik shows that as capital is relocated, real wages do not rise, inequality widens, and global demand is suppressed. The system remains in protracted crisis, Keynesianism in the North alone is no solution. The struggle is everywhere.
Imperialism which existed in the colonial era persists to this day and the system cannot do without it. In a 3 Part series, Prabhat Patnaik discusses his read on the history of capitalism from colonialism into the present. Prabhat Patnaik explains how the colonial system led to depression. Then, in advanced countries governments stepped in to increase demand and productivity, but how unless the periphery is available for extraction of wealth and cheap provision of inputs the system would collapse. So, the Global South was absorbed by a globalization process where finance becomes predominant, income deflation is widespread and governments everywhere are turned into the servants of financialization.
The IPCC report is a dire warning delivered with an urgency not expressed in previous reports. The key to climate politics is guaranteeing fossil fuel workers no loss in salary as sustainable energy replaces carbon-based fuel - and this would cost “a pittance”. Robert Pollin on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
This story was first posted on YouTube on Feb. 6th and was then deleted and a warning was issued to theAnalysis.news about spreading "misinformation" about the 2020 election results, namely that they were won by fraud. You watch the piece and see if there is any truth to it.
On this edition of “On the Barricades” we welcome back Paul Jay – the Canadian-American journalist, broadcaster, and filmmaker, the host of theAnalysis.news. With Paul we discuss the nature of the American empire, and how do the elites exert their influence compared to Russia. We discuss how serious one should take the endless squabbles between Russia and the US in respects to Ukraine, and what differentiates Russia’s role in the world compared to the US. We discuss the efforts of a New Cold War with China.
In 1958 some U.S. military leaders advocated a nuclear first strike against China over control of Taiwan. There are some that are planning for it today. Larry Wilkerson on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
On this episode of “On the Barricades” we continue our discussion with our frequent guest Paul Jay, Canadian-American journalist, broadcaster and filmmaker back on the program. The founder and host of theAnalysis.news responds to questions on Kamala Harris and what are the current state of affairs in the US in year two of the Biden Administration. We revisit a previous discussion on the efforts of Trump’s supporters in storming Capitol Hill and the characteristics between the two rival oligarch parties The Democrats and Republicans.
With the left's recent electoral successes in Peru and Bolivia, and previously in Mexico and Argentina, does this mean that there is a second so-called "Pink Tide" in Latin America? If so, how do we make sense of the first Pink Tide, its successes and failures, and what might Latin America's left have learned from the first tide, as it gets ready to take power in several countries? René Rojas, professor at SUNY Binghamton, and Hilary Goodfriend, of Jacobin Magazine Latin America, argue that while the left needs a clearer economic plan, it is at an advantage at the moment because of the right's disarray across the region.
As part of our series on the modern history of Haiti, Jafrikayiti analyses the rise of Aristide and the American-backed coups against him. He is also part of a group organizing a rally on August 6th, 2021, calling on Canada to stop interfering in the internal affairs in Haiti.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Mr. Drake says that in the name of national security we are eating out the very heart of democracy; what will be left will be a garrison state. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced August 7, 2015, with Paul Jay.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Mr. Drake tells Host Paul Jay that mass surveillance is not about protecting people, in the end it’s about social control. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced August 5, 2015, with Paul Jay.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Mr. Drake says the suspension of the Constitution that took place in secret after 9/11, for all intents and purposes, developed with executive orders, regulations, statutes, and oftentimes in cooperation with the Congress – since 1947. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced August 4, 2015, with Paul Jay.
On Reality Asserts Itself, former NSA senior executive Mr. Drake and host Paul Jay talk about the “dark state” and how 9/11 opens up disturbing questions about power, who we are, who’s in charge and the secret subversion of the U.S. constitution. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced August 3, 2015, with Paul Jay.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Mr. Drake, a former Senior Executive at the National Security Agency, says he was targeted by the NSA because he exposed that the agency had intel that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks and because he blew the whistle on a massive secret surveillance program aimed at Americans. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced August 2, 2015, with Paul Jay.
Christian fundamentalist nationalists in the senior ranks of the military, see Trump as an instrument of God’s plan to create an authoritarian Christian state. The military allows active proselytizing and recruitment of soldiers, contrary to the constitutional separation of church and state. Many of these officers and soldiers were involved in the events leading up to and on Jan 6th, which has been described as an attempted coup. Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news
The Watergate break-in was leaked to Smith before Woodward and Bernstein, but the Times refused to pursue the story. Bob and Paul discuss how bias and suppression of important stories continue to this day, on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
Sad news that Bob Moses, a leader of the civil rights movement, died on July 25, 2021. We commemorate his work with a replay of his appearance on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, first released on June 20, 2014. Mr. Moses describes how in 1874 the white racist Democratic Party violently overthrew the Governor of Mississippi (who had been elected by a mostly black Republican Party), and how these Dixiecrats became a wing of the national Democratic Party right up to 1964, when the Mississippi Freedom Democrats ended their reign.
Sad news that Bob Moses, a leader of the civil rights movement, died on July 25, 2021. We commemorate his work with a replay of his appearance on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, first released on June 20, 2014. Mr. Moses says one of the main ways we get to Freedom Summer is the assassination of Medgar Evers.
The Times lost its impartiality when covering Donald Trump, and suppressed stories on Watergate and the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. Bob Smith on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
Four journalists from Eastern European countries analyze the rise of far-right movements, governments, and Western hypocrisy. This is a co-production between the Barricade and theAnalysis.news.
Four journalists from Eastern European countries analyze the rise of far-right movements, governments, and Western hypocrisy. This is a co-production between the Barricade and theAnalysis.news
President Biden broke with Obama's agreements with Cuba and is continuing Trump's sanctions and aggressive stance. There are real problems in Cuba, but democratization and economic reforms will be decided by the Cuban people, not the U.S. or the "Miami mafia". James Early on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
YouTube has censored and suppressed my report on the events of January 6th. I'd like to know why, but Google doesn't owe me an answer. They can promote or suppress whatever they please. Now a new book by Washington Post reporters confirms my report. This is my post from Feb. 20, 2021
The Haitian oligarchy collude with the U.S., Canada, foreign corporations and organized crime to exploit the labor and resources of the country. These families pick "black faces" to front dictatorships that do their bidding, and kill them when they are no longer useful. Jafrikayiti joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news
When Nixon went to China, he had no idea the consequences of rapprochement would be a rival global power. Gerald Horne on theAnalysis.news
The Right, and some of the Left, don’t want to acknowledge the critical role of white supremacy and settler colonialism in the founding of America and shaping sections of the working class. Gerald Horne joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news
As Bolivia's new government under Luis Arce prepares to prosecute the people behind the 2019 coup against Evo Morales, prominent US institutions such as Human Rights Watch, Washington Post, and the State Department urge Arce not to move against them. Ollie Vargas, a journalist and analyst based in Bolivia, says the prosecution is essential at a time when coups are back in vogue in Latin America.
Shir Hever discusses the campaign to Boycott, Divest and Sanction Israel for its apartheid policies, on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay
In a report from rural Wisconsin, Ann Morrison says she and her neighbours are suffering from decades of neglect as the local economy has been wrecked by neoliberal polices from both major parties. She calls for an FDR style New Deal and to stop blaming the poor for poverty.
Eleven years ago, the mass arrests at the Toronto G20 was a model for training police across North America in techniques for repressing peaceful mass protests. Led by the RCMP, the strategy was to arrest over one thousand people and later release them once their right to demonstrate had been eliminated. The Ontario Ombudsman called it the greatest violation of civil rights in Canadian history. Alok Mukherjee, at the time was Chair of the Toronto Police Services Board, joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Aggressive and hypocritical actions by the U.S. bolster the Iranian theocracy whose only mission is defense of their own power and state. Hamid Dabashi analyzes the recent presidential elections and the U.S. and Iranian relationship on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
Chuck Collins, a member of Patriotic Millionaires, has unraveled how the super-rich use the wealth defense industry to gain power in its efforts to hoard and hide their clients' assets. As a result, it becomes a parasitical appendage on the real productive economy, extracting rents and fees from the wealthy and enterprising sectors of the economy. Mr. Collins joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news
With the Ryanair flight ordered to land and the arrest of a right-wing opposition figure, President Alexander Lukashenko became enemy #2 of the West (after Putin, of course). Western hypocrisy and Russophobia doesn't make Lukashenko "anti-imperialist," any less brutal, and certainly not socialist. Paul Jay is joined by Polish journalist Malgorzata Kulbaczewskawho and Bulgarian journalist Boyan Stanislavski for a nuanced and deeper analysis of this volatile region.
No individual is more the embodiment of what is depicted as the horrors of socialism and communism than Joseph Stalin. A sober assessment of Stalin is necessary to envision what a democratic form of socialism might look like. Alexander Buzgalin joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news
The Dodd-Frank legislation and stress test, do nothing to stop systemic-risky financial institutions from blowing up the economy again. Bill Black joins theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
Bill picks up the history of financial fraud with the Obama administration. Finance has targeted Black and Latinx families with sub-prime and liars loans and the crash wipes out 60-70% of their accumulated household wealth. What does Obama do? Bill joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news
Bill continues his history of modern financial fraud in America. He says the dark side of "financial discipline", is the Merrill Lynch's and Goldman Sachs of the world don't provide discipline. They provide cash. They fund the expansion knowing it's crap because they know as long as it's going up, they personally, not Goldman, they personally will make a ton of money. Bill Black on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
Why did the Fed allow the collapse of Lehman Brothers? How did liars loans and fraud become so pervasive throughout the financial sector? Bill Black continues his history of financial fraud on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
Standing Together is an organizing body for Palestinian and Jewish citizens of Israel. They say the struggle is for a society in which all Arabs and Jews enjoy security, freedom from violence, and, most of all, equality. Rula Daood and Alon-Lee Green join theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay, who asks, can there be equality for Palestinians within a Jewish state?
The NATO summit is meeting in Brussels and claims to be dealing with threats from Russia and China. But who is really threatening whom? And why does NATO still exist? Col. Lawrence Wilkerson and Yves Engler join Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news
The weakness of regulations and resources to enforce accountability on the finance sector is by design. Regulators’ budgets have been gutted, and even weak laws made unenforceable. Unless individual bankers go to jail when they commit fraud, nothing will change. Bill Black on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
For the first time in Peru's history has a leftist and working-class candidate won the presidency. While Pedro Castillo's election has generated big expectations, his ability to govern faces many challenges. Peruvian journalist and analyst Francesca Emanuele analyzes the election result.
Mega-corporations are all set to walk away with the keys to global governance of food and agriculture at the UN Food Systems Summit later this year. Pat Mooney talks about what is at stake and The Long Food Movement counter strategy.
Matt Taibbi talks about the rise of Putin, Russia-gate, and Rachel Maddow and Russophobia in the U.S. He joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news
In a biographical interview, Matt tells the story of how he became a left-fielder for the Uzbek and Russian baseball teams and wound up as a journalist for Rolling Stone and a best selling author. Matt Taibbi on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay.
While the Israeli billionaires control much of the economy, the political and military class mostly control the state. Many of the billionaires just want to find ways to invest outside of the country. Shir Hever pt2 on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
Shir Hever, a political economist who grew up in Israel, talks about the extreme right-wing radicalization of most of the Israeli Jewish population.
How does a corrupt mortgage scam by brokers in California become a massive national fraud that puts the whole economy into a deep crisis? Bill Black on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
Paul is asked to comment on the state of the Jan 6th inquiry and issues related to policing and systemic racism. Paul is a guest on Muslim Network TV.
Will a large infrastructure plan create inflation? If inflation is linked to higher wages, that's not bad for workers, says Pollin. Large increases in inflation have been linked to higher oil prices which are unlikely. What's missing from the Biden plan is it doesn't sufficiently address a just transition for fossil fuel workers. Bob Pollin joins theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
Why is the Fed buying corporate junk bonds and debt but won't buy out student debt? Michael Hudson on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson argues that American one-sided support for Israel is a danger to the region and U.S. interests. He says the U.S. should withdraw militarily from the Middle East and end support for Israel and Saudi Arabia. Doing so would encourage regional compromise, not war. Larry Wilkerson on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
The mass protests forced global media attention and sufficient state resources supplied to the prosecution; this may not be replicable. Chauvin may have been a bad apple, but the police barrel of apples is deliberately stocked with such rot. Gerald Horne joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news
In part two of the series, Bill picks up the story of the S&L fraud of the '80s, when bankers were charged and went to jail - unlike what has happened since. Bill Black joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news
Short documentary on Uganda's US-backed dictatorship, the country's freedom struggle from colonialism until today, and the geo-strategic role the regime plays for US Imperialism.
Reagan created the model for Trump. Reagan flipped the media industrial complex in America on its head and was not just a hero to the Republican Party; he was a hero to American media. Matt Trynauer, director of the documentary series "The Reagans," joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news
Pedro Castillo, a leftist, unexpectedly won first place in Peru's first-round presidential election last Sunday. However, he now faces far-right second-place finisher, Keiko Fujimori. The outcome was largely due to a completely delegitimized political class in Peru, says Peru analyst Francesca Emanuele.
Ecuador's progressive presidential candidate Andrés Arauz narrowly lost the election last Sunday. But the left's internal divisions were not the only problem, explains CodePink's Leonardo Flores.
For sustainable recovery from the COVID-19 global economic shock, it’s imperative to break from policy choices that produce a concentration of economic power and wealth in a limited section of the economy but old habits, die hard warns UNCTAD’s Richard Kozul-Wright.
It will take a miracle to avoid catastrophic climate change and nuclear war, but it’s still possible we can create such a miracle. Daniel Ellsberg on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
Historian Peter Kuznick looks at the significance of Daniel Ellsberg's fight against America's insane nuclear war strategy, his exposure of the lies of the Viet Nam War, and his continuing fight against the American war machine.
The U.S. SEC has opened an investigation into Archegos Capital's Bill Hwang and trades that led to $20 billion in losses for his firm and perhaps billions more for various banks. What kind of perverted system allows such chaos? Bill Black on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
In the first of a series of video comments from viewers, Ann Morrison, who lives in rural Wisconsin, talks about why her neighbors vote for Republicans and Trump and against the Democratic Party.
The demand by Democrats for Big Tech to censor right-wing conspiracies on social media is a betrayal of the ideals liberals claim to stand for, says Thomas Frank. The real question is why so many people, particularly in rural America, believe such outlandish lies. Thomas joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news
The Australien Government has made an ad about Australian Values for people planning to become citizens, and it's another biting satire.
Many progressives are ignoring U.S. aggression around the world despite its involvement in many wars and expanding arsenal of nuclear weapons. Medea Benjamin joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news.
Brazil's president Bolsonaro continues to deny the Covid crisis, as Lula's return to politics creates shockwaves from the favelas to Wall St.
In Venezuela, brutal sanctions and the recognition of a phony president continue to wreak havoc. Biden has not implemented any real change to US policy towards the country. Historians Steve Ellner and Greg Wilpert discuss the reasons why.
A new study says even six feet of separation is dangerous if schools reopen without updated ventilation systems. It adds children, where schools are open, can spread Covid into the community. Phillip Alvelda and Thomas Ferguson of INET join Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news
Progressive Americans hoped Biden would quickly restore the Iran deal and relations with Cuba. Instead, the administration seems firmly entrenched behind Trump’s walls of hostility. Medea Benjamin joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news
Contrary to the Biden administration's claim, it seems that the recent missile strike in Syria was not carried out in consultation with at least one of the US's main allies in the region: Norway. But why is Norway involved in the Middle East anyway? Greg Wilpert talks about the issue with Eirik Vold, a parliamentary advisor to Norway's Red Party.
In Haiti, President Moise refused to leave when his term was over, and hundreds of thousands have protested in the streets demanding his resignation. Canada and the U.S. have supported dictators and coups in Haiti for decades. Joining Paul is Jafrik Ayiti, an author, radio show host, public speaker, activist, artist; and Yves Engler, a Montreal-based activist, and author.
Abby Martin speaks to Eugene Puryear to discuss the big picture of US imperialism in Africa: From the Berlin Conference to the subversion of liberation movements to neocolonial puppets and the current sprawl of AFRICOM "counterterrorism."
The corporate sector mostly supports the stimulus package as fears of inflation have subsided and it wants the economy to expand. Many of Biden's policies are very progressive and open a path for the left to fight to make them permanent. But have no illusions about the class character of the Biden administration or its foreign policy. Paul Heideman (Jacobin) and Paul Jay discuss what the left should do, on theAnalysis.news
Nicole Fabricant says Bolivia's new president Luis Arce faces a neo-fascistic right, while negotiating a new relationship with the country's social movements that fragmented under his mentor, Evo Morales. Fabricant is Bolivia researcher and associate professor of anthropology at the University of Maryland Towson.
Retired Ambassador Chas Freeman, Nixon's translator during his 1972 trip to China, says U.S. policy to China remains a desire to hold on to primacy globally and regionally. Biden's approach so far is not much different than the aggressive posture of Trump.
UMass Amherst professor and PERI Co-Director Robert Pollin discuss his latest book that he co-authored with Noam Chomsky, about the Global Green New Deal and the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead in addressing the climate crisis. Hosted by Rob Johnson on his podcast Economics and Beyond.
The bombing of Syria was a violation of U.S. and International law. It was the U.S. that violated the nuclear deal with Iran and Biden should rejoin the agreement without new conditions. Phyliss Bennis and Larry Wilkerson join Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news
Paul Jay joins host David Swanson to discuss the events of Jan. 6th and what the Financial Times called a coup in progress - on Jan. 4th. Why are so few talking about this now?
In whose "national interest" is an alliance a with a criminal state that sponsors terrorism, viciously suppresses domestic dissent, acts against democratic movements, and promotes war in the region? Phyllis Bennis and Larry Wilkerson join Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
Juice Media's hilarious expose of the Australian government's new media legislation that allows News Corp in on Big Tech's action.
Amidst mass protests against their US-backed dictator, Abby Martin covers how the US Empire has determined the destiny of the Haitian people for generations.
Paul Jay is interviewed on Parallax Views with J.G. Michael on a wide range of topics including his political formation, pro wrestling, the Soviet Union and Russia Gate, U.S./China rivalry, hyper-capitalism, climate change, and what to do now. Yea, it's a lot.
A Detroit community demands a new Amazon warehouse meet job and environmental guarantees; Amazon workers in Alabama fighting to unionize. Community activists and union organizers Tonya Myers and Frank Hammer on theAnalysis.news
By omitting crucial information about the recent presidential election in Ecuador, such as how the leftist front-runner Andrés Arauz has had to overcome countless obstacles in order to participate, the US media once again contribute to the effort to undermine a free and fair election, says media analyst and Ecuador specialist Joe Emersberger.
Paul Street argues that it's wrong to call January 6th an "insurrection"; this wasn't a grassroots rank and file populist uprising by the people, it was instigated from the top down and part of a larger organized fascist effort.
Abby Martin explains what President Biden really means by the duplicitous language in his major Feb. 4 foreign policy speech on ending the Yemen war.
YouTube has censored and suppressed my report on the events of January 6th. I'd like to know why, but Google doesn't owe me an answer. They can promote or suppress whatever they please.
Paul Jay is a guest on Muslim Network TV discussing Trump's attempt to enlist a military intervention in the transfer of power and McConnell's role in the lack of security on Capitol Hill.
One of Reagan's geniuses was to convince people to vote against their own self-interest. In the name of lower taxes and the Cold War, he expanded investment in "defense" systems, that benefited the oligarchs who brought him to power. Matt Tyrnauer, director of “The Reagans” on Showtime, joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news
Thomas Frank and Paul Jay discuss censorship by monopolies and changes in the political landscape of Kansas, on theAnalysis.news
Corporations have stepped beyond lobbying governments. They are integrating in policy making at the national and international levels. Decisions historically taken by governments are increasingly taken by secretive unaccountable bodies run by corporations says Nick Buxton describing The Great Corporate Takeover mapped by peoples movements and scholars.
Trump didn't win the working class, the Democrats lost it; it's urgent that progressive organizing focus on the working class and unions - human civilization depends on it. There should be a focus on union organizing at Amazon. Noam Chomsky on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
Shireen Al-Adeimi, Yemen anti-war activist and professor at Michigan State University, discusses the many interests behind the war on Yemen, which have the potential of derailing Biden's announced ending of US support for the Saudi-led coalition in this war that has devastated one of the Middle East's poorest countries.
The Biden climate plan has important reforms, but can't reach the stated targets with market mechanisms and carbon capture high tech. Patrick Bond gives a sweeping look at the climate crisis on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
(This video is based on the article released earlier.) Did Donald Trump attempt a military coup against the incoming Biden administration? Did Mitch McConnell, as majority leader of the Senate and the person who is ultimately responsible for the Capitol Hill Police, deliberately allow the protestors into the Capitol Buildings? Why is mainstream media so quiet about what's so obvious?
As Israel gears up for its fourth general election in two years, it has become increasingly clear that Israeli politics is in the process of disintegration. It's largely due to an ever more fragmented party system based on identity politics, says Shir Hever, author of the book, The Privatization of Israeli Security.
Reagan was the master of racist "dog whistles", plausible deniability that allowed Reagan to protect himself. It has allowed the Republican Party for the last four decades to deny who Ronald Reagan was and turn him into a hero. Matt Tyrnauer, director of "The Reagans" on Showtime, joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news
No Honeymoon for Biden is telling progressives you have to learn the lessons of history. Previous Democratic administrations have not delivered on promises made, and there should be maximum pressure put on Biden right away, says Jeff Cohen of RootsAction.org on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
Henry Giroux and Paul Jay discuss the events of Jan 6th, the destruction of public education and degeneration of mass culture, on theAnalysis.news
How has the turmoil of Jan 6th and talk of coups affected American ability to control global events, especially as regards to China? The basis for fascism exists in the U.S. as a significant number of people who voted for Trump support a more racist and repressive state. Historian Gerald Horne on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
The Biden administration announced an end to US support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. This is in larger part thanks to the constant activism and mobilization of peace groups around the US. Guest host Greg Wilpert talked to Hassan el Tayyab, the Legislative Manager for Middle East Policy of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, shortly before the announcement was made. He outlines the background of the war, the history of US support, what an end to US support would mean, and what further steps need to be taken to put an end to the devastation in Yemen.
Laura Carlsen talks to guest host Greg Wilpert about Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador's first two years in office, including his mixed record on the pandemic, corruption, social justice, and immigration.
Biden has appointed many old guard interventionists and new Cold Warriors, but there is some hope for a better Iran policy. Watch out for attempts by Israel to scuttle the nuclear deal. A wide-ranging discussion with Phyllis Bennis and Larry Wilkerson on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
As the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons enters into force on January 22, join the world-renowned intellectual for “The Threat of Nuclear Weapons: Why Canada Should Sign the UN Nuclear Ban Treaty” Presented by the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute.
The recent protests in Russia were more about the failed economic policies of Putin than support for Navalny, whose program may be even worse than Putin's. The West loves Navalny because they think he will open Russia to U.S. finance capital. From Moscow, Prof. Alexander Buzgalin joins theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
Katrina vanden Heuvel joins Paul Jay to discuss Biden's attempts at bipartisanship and the need for progressives, inside the Democratic Party and the movement outside, to mount massive pressure for real reform.
Reagan understood the American psyche from within it. He used his acting skills to sell right-wing "dog whistles" and militarism. Matt Tyrnauer director of "The Reagans", on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
The documentary series "The Reagans" shows that President Ronald Reagan's roots are corruption, racism, and corporatism. Trumpism is not an anomaly but walks in the footsteps of a right-wing construct aimed at achieving tax cuts for the rich and undoing the New Deal. Director Matt Tyrnauer joins theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
If there were a real fear of inflation, there wouldn't be such an appetite for long term government debt at what amounts to a negative interest rate. Rana Foroohar and Mark Blyth on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
Working families are suffering, is the Biden plan big enough? Why doesn't Wall St. fear inflation or a drop in the US dollar? Bob Pollin on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
Intellectual property like pharmaceutical patents is one reason so many people face a long wait for COVID-19 vaccines says Dean Baker. GPEnewsdocs
As Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, Bernie Sanders can force votes on Medicare for All and cuts to the military budget. He will face opposition from the GOP and within the Democratic Party. Rob Johnson was a Senior Economist for the Budget Committee and Chief Economist for the Senate Banking Committee. He joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news podcast.
Congresswoman Tlaib says impeach Trump and use the 14th amendment against others responsible for attack on the Capitol. Tlaib says people should demand Biden urgently deal with poverty and inequality and not cater to corporate interests. Rashida Tlaib on theAnalysis.news with Paul Jay.
Paul Jay is the guest on The Barricade, a news outlet set up by a group of left-oriented activists from around Eastern Europe – Bulgaria, Poland, Slovakia, and Serbia. Paul was asked to provide background on the events in D.C. on Jan 6th.
Matt, Norman and Paul discuss the events of Jan. 6th, the nature of growing fascism and the need to make progressive demands and critique of the Democratic Party - "with no honeymoon."
Class based reforms must be combined with a fierce crackdown on the violators of the law on January 6th, says Gerald Horne. He provides deep historical context in this discussion with Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news podcast.
Was it a deliberate plan to allow the rampage or just incompetence? Was it a plot by Mitch McConnell to discredit and destroy Trump or just the welcomed result? Wilkerson and Jay on the events of Jan 6th on theAnalysis.news podcast.
The Indian government is pushing austerity rather than stimulus and using the pandemic as an opportunity to introduce policies they thought would go through without much opposition - but that's not what happened. Jayati Ghosh joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news podcast.
While corporate media is drumming up anti-Russia hysteria about an alleged hack that “threatens national security”, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson says so far it looks like the phony claims about WMD in Iraq. On theAnalysis.news podcast with Paul Jay.
While corporate media is drumming up anti-Russia hysteria about an alleged hack that "threatens national security", Col. Lawrence Wilkerson says so far it looks like the phony claims about WMD in Iraq. On theAnalysis.news podcast with Paul Jay.
Allied with landlords and monopolists, the finance sector is extracting economic rents from the economy that’s impoverishing US government, industry and labor says Michael Hudson discussing the chokehold of pro-finance, pro-rentier capitalism reaching into the present COVID-19 crisis.
The roots of the Democratic Party's foreign policy are found in WWII, the atomic bombing of Japan and militarization during the Cold War. Biden supported the Iraq War but fought for the nuclear agreement with Iran. What should we expect from his administration? Vijay Prashad joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news podcast.
A breakdown of Biden's new defense cabinet and what it means for war & peace. Who is Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Avril Haines, Lloyd Austin, and Linda Thomas-Greenfield? Abby Martin presents an Empire Files update.
The Australien Government was not allowed to speak at the latest Climate Summit, so it made an ad about its climate policy instead – and it’s surprisingly honest and informative. More great satire from Juice Media.
Corporate Democrats see market economies as the future and love to see rich people get richer. The left wants a society where government is committed to health care, education, and housing as a human right. The question is, how can a progressive movement grow strong enough to force the Biden administration to deliver on a more democratic-socialist and non-militarist agenda? Norman Solomon on theAnalysis.news podcast with Paul Jay.
Larry Kopald of The Carbon Underground says making soil healthy again, known as Regenerative Agriculture, the natural process of pulling carbon out of the atmosphere can help alleviate the climate crisis. On theAnalysis.news podcast with Paul Jay.
The media is driven by the enormous profits made during election campaigns. Feeding the fury and the fear of all types is just good for business. Bob McChesney joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news podcast.
While there is no evidence of fraud, an opposition boycott and declining government support drove abstention in Venezuela's legislative elections to record levels, says Ricardo Vaz of Venezuelanalysis.com
Democrats are caught in structural hypocrisy as they juggle the interests of Wall. St, workers, the right-wing and the progressive wing of the party. Rana Foroohar and Mark Blyth join Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news podcast.
The governments of India and South-Africa backed by about 100 countries and counting are calling for a waiver on patents over COVID-19 related medicines and equipment. Headquarter countries of Big Pharma are opposing it. The debate is going on at the WTO and will be decided soon.
From 2010 to 2012, during the Obama administration, four nuclear scientists were killed in Iran. Though Israel never took credit for the executions, reports were conclusive that Israel, working with the MEK, was behind the killings.
Israel analyst Shir Hever speaks to guest host Greg Wilpert about the different ways in which US Secretary of State Pompeo's latest effort to demonize the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel actually exposes the far right's internal contradictions and could help BDS in the long run.
Peter Carter of the Climate Emergency Institute says "net-zero" carbon emissions by 2050 and targeting 2 degrees warming are a recipe for runaway climate catastrophe. On theAnalysis.news podcast with Paul Jay.
The notion that racism and sexism were the primary factors driving the Trump vote is not born out by the data, economics was very important too. The rural working-class found their lives a little better under Trump and don't believe the Democrats care about them. Will Biden address the inequality or bend to the demands of Wall Street? Thomas Ferguson joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news podcast.
Three presidents in one week as massive youth-led protests shake Peru's political system. Patricia Oliart, head of Latin American Studies at Newcastle University in the United Kingdom, joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news podcast. Produced in collaboration with Other News.
Another brilliant piece of satire by Juice Media exposing the conspiracy, inside the conspiracy, you didn't know you were in. Very funny, very scary.
Historian Peter Kuznick and Paul Jay discuss the significance of the generals' statements and what can be learned from FDR during the 1930's - on theAnalysis.news podcast.
The Federal Reserve is directly buying stocks, bonds, junk bonds, mortgages, junk mortgages, all to prop up the value of assets owned by the top 5%. This does not spur much new production or create jobs. Michael Hudson joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news podcast
Larry Wilkerson says Americans must defeat Trump, but he fears the Democratic Party's militarists influence on Biden's foreign policy - On theAnalysis.news podcast with Paul Jay
On Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay: In the last interview before his death in September 2019, Ambassador Joe Wilson says that a neocon conspiracy will use a compliant Trump in a march towards war - Watch out for a "war-time" President in 2020. Wilson's wife Valerie Plame was outed as a CIA officer by VP Cheney's office after Wison exposed lies that lead up to the Iraq War. The story was depicted in the movie "Fair Game", Wilson was played by Sean Penn. PT (01/06)
Corporations bribed politicians—it’s legal, it’s called campaign contributions—and they funded projects the Defense Department contracted out, giving the crooks a lot of money; that’s still going strong today – says Lester Earnest, founder of the AI Lab at Stanford. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced December 26, 2018.
This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced December 23, 2019, with the late Stephen Cohen. After the fall of the Soviet Union, a dysfunctional and pro-American Russian President Yeltsin presided over the chaos of the 1990s; when Putin came to power, the West was very disappointed at the independent and nationalist character of the Putin led state and the demonization began.
This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced December 18, 2019, with the late Stephen Cohen. Trump’s stated aim is to reduce tensions with Russia, but is it motivated by peaceful objectives or is it preparations for aggression towards Iran and China – Stephen Cohen joins host Paul Jay for a spirited discussion.
Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg tells Paul Jay of "theAnalysis," the danger of nuclear war is as present today as during the Cold War. He says seeking profit in spite of the risk of nuclear winter is "institutional madness."
With his criticism of excessive capitalism and of climate change, Pope Francis has become the target of the far-right, and especially of the secretive Opus Dei sect within the Catholic Church, explains former priest Matthew Fox. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced August 20, 2019.
This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced May 6, 2019, with the late Stephen Cohen. "I realized it wasn’t the Soviet Union that was the great danger, it was the potential of nuclear war, and it’s still the case today" – says Stephen Cohen.
This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced April 29, 2019, with the late Stephen Cohen. Prof. Stephen Cohen was a professor emeritus of politics at Princeton University and of Russian studies and history at New York University. In his book titled ‘War with Russia? From Putin and Ukraine to Trump and Russiagate’; Cohen discusses the forces that shaped his political thinking.
This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced April 16, 2019, with the late Stephen Cohen. “The claim that Russia attacked America during the 2016 presidential election is both exceedingly dangerous and a complete falsehood,” says Stephen Cohen.
Artificial Intelligence can make the world better or be a tool for war – says Lester Earnest, founder of the Artificial Intelligence Lab at Stanford, on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced January 4, 2019.
“Patents block progress” – says Lester Earnest, founder of the Artificial Intelligence Lab at Stanford, on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced January 2, 2019.
After working on the MIT SAGE radar system and at the Joint Chiefs, Earnest concluded “it’s basically a money-making system, that’s what it’s about and has nothing to do with real defense” – Lester Earnest on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced December 28, 2018.
Profit and deception drove cold-war militarization, says Lester Earnest, founder of the Artificial Intelligence Lab at Stanford; Earnest says the anti-nuclear bomber SAGE radar system never worked and carried on for 25 years – Lester Earnest on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced December 24, 2018.
A massive reduction in ICBM’s and transforming the economy away from the military-industrial complex are prerequisites for our survival – says Daniel Ellsberg on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced November 29, 2018, with Paul Jay.
Congress should hold hearings into nuclear winter and eliminating the hair-trigger and obsolete ICBM’s – says Daniel Ellsberg on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced November 27, 2018, with Paul Jay.
An H-Bomb first strike will create firestorms and smoke that ends most human life; this is a fact ignored by military planners and by the Trump administration which doesn’t believe in climate science – says Daniel Ellsberg on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced November 23, 2018, with Paul Jay.
General Curtis LeMay, who directed the firebombing and nuclear attacks on Japan said, “War is killing people, when you kill enough of them, the other guy quits” – quotes Daniel Ellsberg on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced November 21, 2018, with Paul Jay.
In 1958, then Senator John F. Kennedy claimed there was a “missile gap”, saying the USSR was far ahead in ICBM weapons; when satellite photos showed the astounding true number, it meant the USSR did not have plans for global domination, but it remained a secret, says Daniel Ellsberg on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced November 19, 2018, with Paul Jay.
There are many fingers on the nuclear missile's trigger and once an attack begins, even the President can’t order it reversed, says Daniel Ellsberg on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced November 15, 2018, with Paul Jay.
Every President since Truman has used a nuclear first strike threat as leverage in U.S. foreign policy; it’s institutional insanity says Daniel Ellsberg on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced November 12, 2018, with Paul Jay.
U.S. cold-war nuclear plan called for all-out attack on China, even if it was not involved in the war, says Daniel Ellsberg on Reality Itself with Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced November 9, 2018, with Paul Jay.
The U.S. military still thinks that a nuclear war can be won by targeting Russian leadership in a bizarre Dr. Strangelove logic; it’s a recipe for unmitigated catastrophe, says Daniel Ellsberg on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced November 4, 2018, with Paul Jay.
The British bombing of Hamburg in 1942, and the American firebombing of Japan in March 1945 that killed as many as 120,000 people in one night, created the conditions for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were considered mere extensions of the firebombing tactics, says Daniel Ellsberg on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced November 4, 2018, with Paul Jay.
To intimidate the Soviet Union and prove to Congress the nuclear program should be funded, Truman dropped nuclear weapons on Japan to end the war; no scientist came forward to warn of the dangers to life on earth, says Daniel Ellsberg on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced November 2, 2018, with Paul Jay.
Hitler ended the German nuclear weapons program in 1942 when told it could end life on Earth—the Americans were willing to take the risk; since the end of WWII the Cold War was to a very large extent, from beginning to end, a marketing campaign for subsidization of the aerospace industry, says Daniel Ellsberg on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced October 31, 2018, with Paul Jay.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Daniel Ellsberg tells host Paul Jay that US intelligence agencies knew that Stalin was not planning to invade Western Europe or seek world domination, but based on the myth, the world came close to nuclear war – and it’s all happening again.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Prof. Aleksandr Buzgalin says the conditions for socialism did not exist in the 1920s but now they do, but there will be many zigs and zags getting there – with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced July 29, 2018.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Prof. Aleksandr Buzgalin says Russian oligarchs find an oil-based economy too profitable to consider transitioning away from it – with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced July 27, 2018.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Prof. Aleksandr Buzgalin says the West doesn’t like Putin defying the American world order, but this does not make Russia a progressive country – with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced July 25, 2018.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Prof. Aleksandr Buzgalin says under the slogans liberal democracy and market capitalism was delivered chaos and crime; Putin stands for traditional Russian values and culture, social order and making Russia great again – with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced July 23, 2018.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Prof. Aleksandr Buzgalin says while Putin heads a powerful state, this is not a system of one man rule; more than 100 billionaires and a stratum of top bureaucrats have political power – with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced July 22, 2018.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Prof. Aleksandr Buzgalin says after the chaotic ‘90s, the Russian oligarchs needed a stronger central state to defend their class interests, but Putin’s individual power should not be exaggerated – with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced July 20, 2018.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Prof. Aleksandr Buzgalin says the collapse of the Soviet Union was followed by the rise of billionaire oligarchs as the “free market” led to the impoverishment of the people – with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced July 19, 2018.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Prof. Aleksandr Buzgalin says that he returned from a vacation in the countryside to find Gorbachev was arrested, Yeltsin was leader and the Soviet Union was no more – with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced July 16, 2018.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Prof. Aleksandr Buzgalin says that many Communist Party leaders supported Gorbachev’s perestroika reforms, but what they really wanted, was to drop restrictions on accumulating great wealth – with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced July 15, 2018.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Prof. Aleksandr Buzgalin says that “market fetishism”, the hunger for commodities, became a major obstacle to building socialism – with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced July 13, 2018.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Prof. Aleksandr Buzgalin says the threat of European fascism propelled the militarization and bureaucratization of the USSR. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced July 12, 2018.
Prof. Aleksandr Buzgalin joins Paul Jay on Reality Asserts Itself; born two years after the death of Stalin, he talks about growing up in the Soviet Union. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced July 11, 2018.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Prof. Leo Panitch says as he became politically active, he concluded that neither the bureaucratic socialism in the Soviet Union or Canadian social-democracy would democratize the economy or the state – with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced March 8, 2018.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Prof. Leo Panitch says it’s a dilemma that the gradualism of European social-democracy and attempts at a more radical transformation have so far both failed; Panitch says a first step towards democratizing the economy is to make finance a public utility – with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced March 15, 2018.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Prof. Panitch talks about how the Labour Party moved from being a Tony Blair party of class reconciliation and war, to a truly left mass party with more than 600,000 members that may take power. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced March 13, 2018.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Ms. Foroohar and host Paul Jay discuss the merging of finance and big tech and the threat AI poses to working people and the economy; they also discuss the potential of AI in addressing the climate crisis and making a more rational and equal society possible – with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced May 9, 2018.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Ms. Foroohar says many wealthy people understand that the climate crisis, deep recession, and war are real threats, but they believe “apres moi le deluge [after me comes the floods];” the Financial Times columnist and author of “Makers and Takers” said many of the rich have escape plans thinking “they can avoid the apocalypse” – with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced May 9, 2018.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Ms. Foroohar says growing inequality and record student, household and corporate debt is creating a dangerous bubble, similar to the lead up to the ’29 crash; the Financial Times columnist and author of “Makers and Takers” says a few on Wall St. see it, but most businesses are doing too well to care – with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced May 9, 2018.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Ms. Foroohar says President Bill Clinton’s finance team further deregulated Wall St. including eliminating Glass-Steagall legislation allowing even riskier investments; the Financial Times columnist and author of “Makers and Takers” says this helped create the world’s largest financial institution—Citigroup— headed by Clinton’s former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin – with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced May 9, 2018.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Ms. Foroohar says the legalization of stock buybacks in 1982 allowed companies like Apple to now spend only 15% of their investments on R&D, while the majority is spent on market manipulation; the Financial Times columnist and author of “Makers and Takers” said the move from traditional pensions to 401k’s makes everyone feel they benefit from finance when the vast majority of profits go to the elites and most people’s living standards deteriorate – with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced May 9, 2018.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Ms. Foroohar says financialization delivers stagnant wages, inequality, and economic crisis; the Financial Times columnist and author of “Makers and Takers” says the financial sector represents only 7 percent of the U.S. economy but takes around 25 percent of all corporate profit while creating only 4 percent of all jobs – with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced May 9, 2018.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Prof. Leo Panitch talks about the political culture of his family, shaped in Winnipeg’s radical Jewish community before and after World War Two; Labor Zionists, Social Democrats, and Communists debated and organized within the Jewish working-class movement – with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced March 5, 2018.
On Reality Asserts Itself, actor Gabriel Byrne says his journey as an Irish immigrant helped to radicalize him, as did his disillusionment with leaders who promised transformation and delivered conservatism with a “different tie” – with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced December 26, 2017.
On Reality Asserts Itself, actor Gabriel Byrne says that in the ’70s, being Irish in London was like being a Muslim now; PM Thatcher’s campaign to crush the miners union in 1984 helped him understand how the media were anti-working class and anti-union – with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced December 24, 2017.
On Reality Asserts Itself, actor and climate activist Gabriel Byrne speaks of growing up in a working-class family that was religious, Irish nationalist, and where joining a seminary made parents proud. He came to understand the injustice of the life working men like his father faced; with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced December 22, 2017.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Trita Parsi says the Israelis are trying to push the United States to reestablish the pre-Iraq War status quo, but it’s not possible any longer. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced August 30, 2017, with Paul Jay.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Trita Parsi tells Paul Jay that diplomacy, not sanctions and coercion, will help the U.S. work with Iran to find solutions to regional problems. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced August 28, 2017, with Paul Jay.
From Afghanistan to Iraq, the Trump administration, leading Democrats, and much of the foreign policy and military establishment believe the U.S. should be more aggressive towards Iran. That’s a very dangerous situation that can lead to war, noted Iran expert Trita Parsi tells Paul Jay on Reality Asserts Itself. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced August 21, 2017, with Paul Jay.
In an interview that took place days before Trump was elected President, Bill Ayers discusses what needs to be done as we head into a ”form of friendly-looking and familiar fascism or some other form of extreme social disintegration”. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced November 13, 2016, with Paul Jay.
Bill Ayers tells Paul Jay the Weathermen were delusional about armed struggle because they mistakenly thought the American people were in a revolutionary crisis during the Vietnam War. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced November 8, 2016, with Paul Jay.
On Reality Asserts Itself Bill Ayers joins Paul Jay to discuss his journey from an apolitical life to the militant group the Weatherman to social activism and organizing. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced November 7, 2016, with Paul Jay.
President Bush was like a “head coach” ordering intelligence agencies to all move in the same direction – not preventing the attacks and covering up the role of Bandar and the Saudi government. This interview was produced September 11, 2016, with Paul Jay on Reality Asserts Itself.
Senator Bob Graham, former Co-Chair of the Joint Congressional Committee investigating 9/11, says there is evidence in the "28 redacted pages" that the FBI knew of Saudi Ambassador Bandar's links to al-Qaeda terrorists before the attacks. This interview was produced September 10, 2016, with Paul Jay on Reality Asserts Itself.
Mr. Abunimah says no state exists as an absolute right, but there is a people’s right to self-determination. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced May 15, 2014.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Mr. Hari tells Paul Jay that the conventional understanding of drug addiction is wrong, and alternative drug policy in Portugal and Canada can lead the way. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced March 6, 2015.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Mr. Hari tells Paul Jay that from the 1914 legislation criminalizing drugs, to the targeting of singer Billie Holiday, to today’s “War on Drugs”, racism is at the heart of the policy. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced February 6, 2015.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Mr. Pollin says if we let the market operate on its own without some form of major public sector intervention, there’s no chance whatsoever that we’re going to achieve climate stabilization. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced January 14, 2015.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Mr. Pollin says the politics around climate change has deteriorated; a few years ago even President Bush and Senator McCain were both talking about measures to increase energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced January 13, 2015.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Mr. Pollin says no-GDP growth is unrealistic and unnecessary as the way to achieve carbon emission targets – green economists must be advocates of job creation. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced January 11, 2015.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Mr. Pollin says no-GDP growth is unrealistic and unnecessary as the way to achieve carbon emission targets – green economists must be advocates of job creation. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced January 11, 2015.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Mr. Pollin says there’s no evidence technology will make fossil fuel clean, and it’s more cost-effective to achieve energy efficiency and produce alternative energy. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced January 9, 2015.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Mr. Pollin says Germany runs its economy at twice the energy efficiency as the U.S. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced January 8, 2015.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Mr. Pollin says a global 1.5% of GDP per year investment in energy efficiency is the first step towards achieving necessary targets – but the fossil fuel industry is against it. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced January 7, 2015.
Mr. Pollin tells Paul Jay the most likely scenario is that the level of CO2 carbon dioxide emissions are going to be twice the level that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says is necessary to have a chance to stabilize the climate. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced January 6, 2015.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Gabriel Byrne says that mutant capitalism seeks only profit and corporate media’s agenda avoids the climate crisis; Byrne says its up to us, no superhero will save us – with host Paul Jay. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced November 27, 2017.
Eva Bartlett talks about her experiences living in Gaza. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced October 5, 2014, with Paul Jay.
Eva Bartlett talks about her experiences living in Gaza. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced October 5, 2014, with Paul Jay.
Mr. Flassbeck says people must get politically engaged and find an alternative or we will face dictatorship because today’s capitalism is out of answers. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced August 3, 2014, with Paul Jay.
Mr. Flassbeck, former head of UNCTAD, says we’re going into the Japanese scenario, a stagnation with a kind of deflation because we have no purchasing power in the hands of the mass of the consumers. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced July 31, 2014, with Paul Jay.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Mr. Flassbeck says the stock market bubble can burst at any moment because everybody knows there is no real growth behind it; then we are really in trouble as the whole effect of stabilization will disappear in one moment. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced July 31, 2014, with Paul Jay.
Mr. Flassbeck, former head of UNCTAD, says current economic policy is heading back to the 1930s, a race to the bottom, they have no solution at all, we will end up again in trade wars or other wars. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced July 29, 2014, with Paul Jay.
Mr. Flassbeck, former director of UNCTAD, discusses growing up in a US-dominated Germany and his opposition to the birth of neoliberal economics. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced July 25, 2014, with Paul Jay.
Sad news that Bob Moses, a leader of the civil rights movement, died on July 25, 2021. We commemorate his work with a replay of his appearance on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, first released on June 20, 2014. On Reality Asserts Itself, Mr. Moses recounts the story of challenging the racist Dixiecrats at the ’64 Democratic Convention; says what’s needed now is black and white workers to create a ‘We the People’ force to challenge the elites in both parties.
Sad news that Bob Moses, a leader of the civil rights movement, died on July 25, 2021. We commemorate his work with a replay of his appearance on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, first released on June 20, 2014. Mr. Moses says mass incarceration helped build the American steel industry, and while there has been progress, there is still slavery by another name.
Sad news that Bob Moses, a leader of the civil rights movement, died on July 25, 2021. We commemorate his work with a replay of his appearance on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, first released on June 20, 2014. Mr. Moses says the only way to earn the trust of the people was to get knocked down and get right back up.
Sad news that Bob Moses, a leader of the civil rights movement, died on July 25, 2021. We commemorate his work with a replay of his appearance on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, first released on June 20, 2014. Mr. Moses traces the events that led him to take up a leading role in Freedom Summer.
Sad news that Bob Moses, a leader of the civil rights movement, died on July 25, 2021. We commemorate his work with a replay of his appearance on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, first released on June 20, 2014. Mr. Moses says America from 1875 down to the civil rights movement, was slavery by another name.
Sad news that Bob Moses, a leader of the civil rights movement, died on July 25, 2021. We commemorate his work with a replay of his appearance on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, first released on June 20, 2014. Mr. Moses describes growing up in post-World War Two, cold war America.
Sad news that Bob Moses, a leader of the civil rights movement, died on July 25, 2021. We commemorate his work with a replay of his appearance on Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, first released on June 20, 2014. Mr. Moses was a brilliant educator and an organizer. He begins his story from growing up in Harlem to becoming a main organizer of the 1964 Mississippi Freedom Summer project that helped register black voters in the Deep South.
Mr. Abunimah says there’s conspicuous consumption in Palestine but the reality for the vast majority in the West Bank and Gaza is increasing poverty. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced May 18, 2014.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Ali Abunimah, founder of Electronic Intifada, says that Palestinians need to know that even in a country with formal legal equality, the reality can mean mass incarceration, economic inequality and racism. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced May 14, 2014.
Mr. Abunimah, founder of Electronic Intifada, says after the Israeli 2006 invasion of Lebanon and the 2008 attack on Gaza, he knew what he had to do. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced May 13, 2014.
Mr. Robock says coal burning must end now and fracking is not a good transitional form of energy production. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced May 6, 2014.
Mr. Robock says a nuclear war between the United States and Russia would produce so much smoke that temperatures would get below freezing even in the summertime, crops would die and there would be no food for the entire planet. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced May 5, 2014.
Mr. Robock takes on many of the arguments against the thesis that CO2 produced by industrial society is the main contributor to global warming. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced May 4, 2014.
On Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, Mr. Robock says his initial work led him to investigate the role of volcanoes in global warming, but years of reports convinced him that CO2 is the most likely cause. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced April 30, 2014.
On Reality Asserts Itself, climatologist and IPCC lead author Alan Robock tells Paul Jay that he’s a skeptic who tries to be critical and make conclusions based on the evidence.
Mr. Shallal says at the local level is where you can make a change. It’s very hard to expect change on the national level. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced March 28, 2014.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Mr. Shallal says we went from No Child Left Behind under the Bush era to no kid left untested, then to no teacher left unstressed, and our schools are still doing very poorly. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced March 27, 2014.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Mr. Shallal tells Paul Jay how speaking out against war led to his passion about schools. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced March 26, 2014.
Mr. Shallal, owner of Busboys and Poets restaurants and candidate for DC mayor, tells Paul Jay that after coming to America as a child, the shocking death of MLK led him to discover how much race permeates everything. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced March 25, 2014.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Mr. Abunimah says that justice in Palestine does not require Israeli Jews giving up any legitimate rights, but they must give up the “right” to supremacy. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced May 19, 2014.
Sen. Bob Graham, a former Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says the President should declassify the Senate report on CIA torture and the still secret 28 pages of the Congressional report on who financed the 9/11 attacks. This interview was produced March 17, 2014, with Paul Jay on Reality Asserts Itself.
Mr. Ratner tells Paul Jay that he warned of a growing police state a month after 9/11, as constitutional rights continue to evaporate in the name of national security. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced March 13, 2014 with Paul Jay.
Mr. Ratner tells Paul Jay that Reagan ushered in a period of murderous suppression of opposition to US hegemony in Latin and Central America. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced March 12, 2014 with Paul Jay.
Mr. Ratner tells Paul Jay that in the ’70s, the thrust for a more radical movement in New York was led by the fight for Puerto Rican independence. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced March 11, 2014 with Paul Jay.
Mr. Ratner tells Paul Jay that Gov. Rockefeller ordered the 1971 massacre of rebelling black prisoners to send a message throughout the US prison system. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced March 10, 2014 with Paul Jay.
Mr. Ratner tells Paul Jay how the message and death of Dr. King, the army occupation of Baltimore, and the police attack on the Colombia U. protest profoundly shaped the rest of his life. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced March 6, 2014 with Paul Jay.
TRNN Replay: On Reality Asserts Itself, Mr. Ratner tells Paul Jay of his journey – from seeing Israel as an extension of his Jewish identity to realizing Israel was a settler, colonial state. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced March 4, 2014 with Paul Jay.
Mr. Ratner, President Emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, tells Paul Jay that the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War transformed him from a “good liberal kid” into an activist questioning the role of America in the world. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced March 2, 2014 with Paul Jay.
Toby Jones, a Prof. at Rutgers University specializing in Middle East history, tells Paul Jay the Saudis are committed to victory in their rivalry with Iran and use money and sectarian ideology to achieve their geo-political interests. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced January 15, 2015.
Toby Jones tells Paul Jay that the Saudis' use of terrorism is driven by a fear of democracy and a desire to be the regional and oil hegemon. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced January 15, 2014.
On Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay: Glen Ford addresses the question whether black Americans constitute a nation, and if so, what is their role in the movement of the whole people. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced December 25, 2013, with Paul Jay.
Glen Ford, renowned journalist and activist, died on July 29th. Glen was a brilliant analyst filled with a militant spirit. In 2013 Glen was interviewed by Paul Jay on Reality Asserts itself.
On Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay: Glen Ford, Exec. Editor of Black Agenda Report, talks about helping create black radio news. He says that news media creates leaders by deciding what events are important and who is authorized to speak on the importance of those events. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced December 24, 2013 with Paul Jay.
On this episode of Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, Glen Ford says there is no evidence that Kennedy differed from other U.S. presidents in striving for global hegemony. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced November 23, 2013, with Paul Jay.
On RAI with Paul Jay, David Swanson says that nonviolent campaigns have been more successful than campaigns of violence. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced December 17, 2013, with Paul Jay.
On RAI, Paul Jay and David Swanson discuss the culture and economics of war. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced December 16, 2013, with Paul Jay.
On RAI with Paul Jay, David Swanson, author of “War is a Lie”, talks about becoming a full-time activist for peace. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced December 15, 2013, with Paul Jay.
On Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, Phyllis Bennis examines proposals to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced December 13, 2013, with Paul Jay.
On Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, Phyllis Bennis examines the Israeli debate about Iran and Palestine, and the complex changes taking place in Middle East politics. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced December 11, 2013, with Paul Jay.
On RAI with Paul Jay, Phyllis Bennis traces her development from active Zionist youth to whom Jewish identity meant support for Israel, to a leading American anti-Zionist writer and analyst. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced December 10, 2013, with Paul Jay.
On RAI with Paul Jay, Phyllis Bennis examines the coming Geneva conference on Syria and the unwillingness of the West to deal with the humanitarian crisis. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced December 10, 2013, with Paul Jay.
On RAI with Paul Jay, Chris Hedges says that while people are disgusted with the centers of power, unless there is a constructive alternative, any eruption will be nihilistic and could be fascist. This episode was produced on December 6, 2013.
On RAI with Paul Jay, Chris Hedges discusses the psychology of the super-rich; their sense of entitlement, the dehumanization of workers, and mistaken belief that their wealth will insulate them from the coming storms. This episode was published on December 5, 2013.
On this episode of Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, Glen Ford discusses the JFK presidency and its relative indifference towards the black freedom struggle. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced November 22, 2013, with Paul Jay.
On Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, James Early says the economic indices of the black community are worse at the mass level than they were before Obama became president. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced November 19, 2013.
On Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, James Early who has visited Cuba more than thirty times says what’s needed is more citizen participation and less centralization but Cuba is not headed towards the Chinese capitalist model. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced November 18, 2013.
In this series of Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, James Early talks about American identity and growing up African-American facing the deep racism of the South. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced November 18, 2013.
In this segment of Reality Asserts Itself, Paul Jay and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern discuss the relationship between seeking to be the world’s single superpower and the resulting blowback and need to suppress dissent at home. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced November 4, 2013.
In this segment of Reality Asserts Itself, Paul Jay and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern discuss the relationship between seeking to be the world’s single superpower and the resulting blowback and need to suppress dissent at home. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced November 4, 2013.
On RAI with Paul Jay, Senator Bob Graham says there was a pervasive pattern in police and intelligence agencies: “You don’t have everybody moving in the same direction without there being a head coach somewhere who was giving them instructions as to where he wants them to move” - a REPLAY of a 2013 interview by Paul Jay on Reality Asserts Itself.
Paul Jay asks Senator Graham if a culture of “not wanting to know” was created to prevent the conspiracy from being uncovered and to protect the role of the Saudi government – a REPLAY of a 2013 interview by Paul Jay on Reality Asserts Itself.
On RAI with Paul Jay, Senator Bob Graham explains why he persists in making the case that facts directly connect the Saudi government with 9/11 conspirators – a REPLAY of a 2013 interview by Paul Jay on Reality Asserts Itself.
In the final segment of Paul Jay’s interview with Vijay Prashad on Reality Asserts Itself, the subject is the undermining of international law and military interventions in the name of human rights. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced August 11, 2013, with Paul Jay.
In this segment of Reality Asserts Itself, Paul Jay and Vijay Prashad discuss the Chelsea Manning case in light of the 68th anniversary of signing the Nuremberg Charter which states it is illegal to follow orders to commit a war crime. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced August 9, 2013, with Paul Jay.
In part two of Reality Asserts Itself, Paul Jay and Vijay Prashad discuss the limits imposed on questioning the roots of inequality and how those who own the majority of property set the terms for everyone else. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced August 8, 2013, with Paul Jay.
Vijay Prashad talks about growing up in India and coming to the realization that liberalism could never eliminate poverty. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced August 2, 2013, with Paul Jay.
On the final episode of Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, Chris Hedges answers questions like: “Do you believe the US or Israel will attack Iran?” and “Is there any hope for Bradley Manning?” This episode was produced on July 25, 2013.
On Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, Chris Hedges says an effective movement that defies power will have to be disciplined and articulate what a vision of socialism might look like. This episode was produced on July 24, 2013.
On Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, Chris Hedges says the Democratic Party used to watch out for the interests of labor and even for the poor. But that all changed under Bill Clinton. Although Clinton, like Obama, continues to speak in that feel-your-pain language of traditional liberalism, they’ve completely betrayed the very people that they purport to represent and defend. This episode was produced on July 22, 2013.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Paul Jay asks Chris Hedges if the American Left bears responsibility for the weakness of the mass movement; Hedges says the gravest mistake of the left is not articulating a viable vision of socialism. This episode was produced on July 19, 2013.
In the continuation of Paul Jay’s Reality Asserts Itself interview with Chris Hedges, they discuss the fantasy that we can have everything we want and the reality of the grave dangers facing us. This episode was produced on July 18, 2013.
On Reality Asserts Itself, Chris Hedges tells Paul Jay about his criticism of the Iraq War and the events that led to him leaving the New York Times – “great reporters care about truth more than they do about news”. This episode was produced on July 17, 2013.
Paul Jay interviews author, journalist and activist Chris Hedges about the formative experiences that shaped his worldview. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself produced on July 16, 2013.
Former FBI agent Coleen Rowley discusses still unanswered questions about the lead-up to 9/11. This interview was produced October 25, 2009, with Paul Jay on Reality Asserts Itself.
Former FBI agent Coleen Rowley discusses still unanswered questions about the lead-up to 9/11. This interview was produced October 24, 2009, with Paul Jay on Reality Asserts Itself.
Former FBI agent Coleen Rowley discusses still unanswered questions about the lead-up to 9/11. This interview was produced October 23, 2009, with Paul Jay on Reality Asserts Itself.