Chossudovsky, considered one of the greatest experts of economy and global geopolitics, analyzed in detail the most controversial events in the first four months of this year.
In the interview the orderly bombing on a military base deals with the Syrian government early last April; the growing rivalry between the United States and powers like China and Russia; the contradictions in the relationship maintained with the European Union; among other topics.
According to the also professor emeritus at the University of Ottawa , although initially mogul New York seemed to emerge as a president who would end the imperial foreign policy of his predecessors, his actions have demonstrated their claudication versus groups of interest that make up the so - called 'deep state' ( 'deep state'), made by oil companies, investment banks of Wall Street and the military industrial complex.
Noyola Ariel Rodriguez (ANR) .-
So far Trump shares are primarily a result of signing executive orders, building consensus is absent.
His budget plan for example, faces strong opposition among lawmakers, as Democrats, Republicans How much leeway think Trump has had in these first months to carry out his campaign promises?
Michel Chossudovsky (MC) .-
Well, first it is noteworthy that the election campaign of Donald Trump was supported mainly in rhetoric, beyond the goals that could actually deliver.
For me the fundamental element of its political platform had to do with some changes in foreign policy of the United States, for example , an eventual normalization of diplomatic relations with Russia.
The truth is that, so far, almost all previous statements from the rhetorical point of view have been canceled.
Relations with Russia are far worse than those held by the government of Barack Obama .
The offensive against Syria is a diabolical intervention.
The scope of the bombing that Trump authorized last April 7 go much further than had raised the Obama administration.
Another element that I think is important to note is that Trump is a president with very little experience in active politics , ie, is a person who does not know foreign policy ; go, not even know where some countries are located, remember how recently mistook the location of Iraq with Syria.
Before becoming president, he seemed to be very clear about what he would do, but now has been very limited when implementing its action plan since, in my opinion, lacks a cadre of serious analysis of the overall situation.
In a way Trump is handling foreign policy of the United States as if it were a "reality show"
What's more visible in this presidency is the debacle of international diplomacy as we knew, that is, in a way Trump is handling foreign policy of the United States as if it were a kind d e "reality show" , a matter of public relations; This was evident during his meeting with the president of China, Xi Jinping . Trump at the time gave the order to bomb Syria, just as I was having dinner with Xi.
Then we have a president who does not understand the complexities of international politics .
Does not understand much about the management of military affairs, he and his team have no clear idea, for example, from the terrible consequences of nuclear war.
But none of this is new.
US domestic propaganda since 2002 and 2003 is supported by the doctrine of "preventive war , " which presents the pump gathers r as an instrument that causes harm to civilians.
A big lie , however, is written in military manuals.
From my point of view, under the chairmanship of Trump continuity in the political orientation they adopted the administrations of Barack Obama and George W. Bush.
It is very unfortunate that the trend in the US of the last presidential administrations since Ronald Reagan Government at least is that whoever holds the executive power has no direct decisional power.
The presidency is an entity of public relations, serves to give speeches. Legally the president has of course a lot of power, but key decisions are dictated by the stakeholders of the deep state ( 'Deep state'), consisting of the major oil companies, investment banks of Wall Street and the military industrial complex .
The US president is more of a figurehead.
This was quite clear during the Obama administration, who admittedly, almost did not have room for maneuver , it was rather kidnapped, everything was dictated by the 'think-thanks' Washington as well as stakeholders of the' deep state ' (' Deep state ').
What was always very clear during the campaign Trump is that he never understood the logic of the 'Deep State' ( 'Deep state') or foreign policy, not the economy
We are witnessing the privatization of the American state.
The commander in chief is also privatized.
Trump does not respond properly to the interests of citizens, but due to different economic groups. What is different in relation to Trump is that, at least in the beginning, his campaign was not dictated by corporate conglomerates in the US, in contrast to Hillary Clinton .
Hillary received money directly from companies like Lockheed Martin, the military industrial complex, some investment banks like Goldman Sachs, Citibank and JP Morgan, oil companies, etc.
Hillary was closely linked to traditional interest groups in the United States, also it was supported by the corporate media simply for being a candidate willing to give continuity.
Trump was different because he had his own money.
It had a logic of financing their very different compared to Hillary election campaign; He was controlling your finances and, therefore, had the opportunity to submit proposals to break in some way with the guidelines issued by the 'deep state' ( 'Deep state').
But at the same time, which was always very clear during the campaign Trump it is that he never understood the logic of the 'Deep State' ( 'Deep state') or foreign policy, not the economy.
He said he would create mass employment in the United States through a restructuring of free trade agreements, or threatening companies, automakers, for example, to relocate production stop.
These are important issues, of course, but he believed that rhetoric alone would solve everything.
The global economy does not work.
Contradictory relations between low- and high salaries are part of the logic of the global economy.
Companies produce in China because the salary is 20 times lower than in the United States.
Whatsoever, it is true that the rhetoric of Trump was supported by the working class located in cities like Detroit, one of the main settlements in the automotive industry.
The reality is that US companies were not going to abandon the logic of offshoring production and assembling in countries with low wage only because it wanted to Trump.
In Mexico for example, this is how maquiladoras installed on the border work; and you can not change the story around a series of statements on behalf of a candidate.
And when he becomes president, Trump approaches simply not found the bases to materialize.
The formation of the cabinet Trump so obvious:
Rex Tillerson in the State Department, Mike Pompeo at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA, for its acronym in English), James Mattis at the Department of Defense, etc.
The designation of these characters is a clear demonstration of submission of Trump versus stakeholders deep state ( 'Deep state'), all represent continuity.
ANR.- of the most controversial executive orders have been executed by Trump - related immigration.
For example, restricting the entry of Muslims into US territory under the pretext of "combating terrorism", a decision which later was vetoed by the Supreme Court. Equally controversial is the plan to build a wall along the border with Mexico.
How dangerous are Trump policies for the Muslim population?
Do you think Trump actually is persecuting immigrants, or rather part of the propaganda?
MC.- In this there is also continuity. Islamophobia is not new in the United States. I think yes, it is an element of propaganda, but we must take into account that propaganda has its specific elements.
Let Guantánamo as an example of propaganda.
At the beginning people I was saying "oh what horror at Guantanamo torture committed" was public knowledge.
But it also served for propaganda: "These are terrorists, so it is important to remain locked up there (...) the Guantanamo military base helps ensure US security."
The main terrorist groups have been created by the CIA, are instruments of the intelligence services of the United States. That's why the "war on terrorism" is a lie.
The executive order to restrict the entry of Muslims can be interpreted in the same way, although you may march back at some point.
But the element of propaganda littering the Muslims and say they are a 'miscreants' ( 'bad guys') is part of the language that Trump used;
thereby sends the message that "we [Americans] are civilized , " however "these 'miscreants' ( 'bad guys') that do not respect women 's rights are terrorists".
These speeches are created to support the so - called "war on terror".
But we know perfectly well that the justification for the "war on terror" is extremely fragile from the ideological point of view.
The main terrorist groups have been created by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA, for its English acronym), are tools of the intelligence services of the United States.
For that reason, it is that
the "war on terrorism" is a lie.
But to sustain a lie is necessary to have not only an anti-terrorist discourse , we must extend it against the entire Muslim population to justify the wars that are being fought in Muslim countries.
In fact, the US military ideology, if read carefully, is based on the "war on terror" , even is interesting to note that justified the use of nuclear weapons against Al Qaeda.
They say there are four countries that are targets of "preventive nuclear war" (China, Russia, Iran and North Korea) , but also are white Al Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS, its acronym in English), it is something absurd.
On the other hand, we know perfectly well that the United States supports Al Qaeda in Syria, and supports ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Obama's initiative in 2014 to bring an operation to combat terrorism was a trap.
In fact, all US intervention in Syria and Iraq were aimed at supporting the insurgency in Al Qaeda, obviously with the support of its main allies (Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar).
ANR.-
Many were surprised by the fact that Trump has ordered to attack a military base of the Syrian government , especially since there was never a strong research to show that Bashar Al Assad has ordered the use of chemical weapons against the population.
In this sense, do you think Trump could regret having dabbled militarily in Syria unilaterally?
MC.- Frankly I do not think Trump will backtrack on its line of action against Syria .
There was a report released by the White House regarding what they called the "chemical attack" extremely weak, even was refuted by several important sources.
We also have the study conducted by Theodore M. Postol, a renowned scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT, its acronym in English), a person close to the people in the Pentagon.
Theodore denied the veracity of the report of the White House.
Many progressive groups argue that
the government of Bashar Al Assad has committed "atrocities" against the population, are statements without any documentation
On the other hand, the media in the United States insist on spreading the idea that Bashar Al Assad is responsible for this and also left itself in the United States is taking a completely contradictory position in relation to these facts .
Progressive groups are silent, do not say anything because somehow support the "humanitarian actions" of the US armed forces and NATO, with some nuances clear, this is not a homogeneous discourse.
Many progressive groups argue that the government of Bashar Al Assad has committed "atrocities " against the population, are statements without any documentation, they insist that we must promote regime change in Syria.
Also worth noting that public opinion in the US is very misinformed.
It is unfortunate that most of the American public has expressed agree with the bombing of Syria.
ANR.- As for the Asia-Pacific , also seems to have a continuity line.
While Donald Trump signed the first days of his government an executive order for the United States out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP, its acronym in English), military harassment against China persists.
Trump is propping up military cooperation with Japan and South Korea, while relations between the US and North Korea have reached a point of extreme tension What is your perspective on foreign policy Trump in Asia-Pacific?
MC.- THAAD missiles ( 'Terminal High Altitude Area Defense') were ready to be installed under the Obama administration.
The militarization of Southeast Asia, including the South China Sea, is part of a well formulated policy.
All this seeks to contain China. Now under the chairmanship of Trump there are some differences.
But Trump does not understand his actions of foreign policy towards Asia, does not understand the scope of the relations of military cooperation between the US and South Korea or Japan.
Trump does not understand, as I said, the dangers of the use of nuclear weapons.
The change from Asia is somewhat dialogue started now with China, with President Xi Jinping, but is largely supported by the political naivety.
Trump thought that if invited Xi to an event full of luxury at Mar-a-Lago, in Florida , offered a dinner and everything, then the relations between China and the United States would form a new line of conduct, and was not .
Trump does not understand their actions foreign policy towards Asia, does not understand the scope of the relations of military cooperation between the US and South Korea or Japan
China is closely linked to Russia in many multilateral agreements.
For example, through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) or BRICS ( an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). China is now a power, and can not treat your president as someone easy to bribe.
China has its own foreign policy guidelines .
I do not think that China will work a lot with the United States.
Emerging countries like China are aware that a multi-vector system is extremely important alliances.
Could have of course some cooperation with the United States in the economic field , for example, the bilateral relationship is highly developed commercially.
Financial institutions on Wall Street are stuck in China for many years. On the other hand there is a real collision in the military sphere: in the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, etc.
I have also noted that bilateral relations between China and North Korea are not so good.
There is a power play there, so that from the point of view of the Chinese possibly be related to certain opportunism in the United States but in terms of more fundamental issues, I do not think so.
The installation of missiles in South Korea is directed against China, not against North Korea.
The naval base and tripartite Air Force (United States, Japan and South Korea) located on the island of Jeju, an island south of the Korean peninsula, near Shanghai, was used by Japan as a strategic base during the Second World War.
Now the United States wants to militarize the entire maritime frontier of China, and this is known by the high command of the Communist Party of China.
The Chinese will never publicly disclose what their intentions are. They continue to work with who suits them.
A sector of Chinese elites is very pro-United States .
Specialized intellectual strata in social sciences and economics, some business groups are very pro-United States.
So that in China there are different factions and the United States is seeking alliances with Beijing seeking to weaken Russia , producing divisions.
But the Chinese will never publicly disclose what their intentions are . There are contradictions in the speech because the Chinese do not reveal their goals.
The Chinese will continue to work with who suits them.
Business groups know perfectly well that in certain areas there is confrontation.
I'm talking, for example, the oil sector, there is a face-to-face with US interests clash.
See also how is that China has been spreading through their trade relations in Africa and in Latin America , this represents a danger to the economic hegemony of the United States.
However, the Chinese do not have a hegemonic project itself in the construction of these commercial relationships, at least so far.
That is, their economic agreements are not accompanied by military relations, this is the difference with the United States.
Washington has an interest in Latin America, but also signs security agreements, installed base militare s, whereas China does not.
Chinese entering Africa and create successful business relationships with governments , but this goes against Western interests because it gives greater sovereignty national governments doing business with the Chinese.
For this reason the confrontation occurs not only in Asia through the geopolitics of the "pivot" made by Obama, but a confrontation in general.
ANR.- Let 's talk about Europe .
It seemed that Trump would take away from the Organization of the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO), but then relented when he said he no longer considered "obsolete".
Moreover, he accused Germany of "manipulating the euro" for their own benefit ,
while a number of senior officials of the administration of Trump has proposed reducing the role Washington plays both the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank,
Prognostic ¿What future for the US role in NATO exercises? Trump Is an enemy of the institutions born at Bretton Woods?
MC.- What we see in Europe is that governments no longer have sovereignty before.
No interference from the United States in the domestic politics of several countries, including Germany, Spain, Italy and now even France .
In the latter case, the interference began to take shape from the government of Nicolas Sarkozy, who since the election campaign was the candidate 's favorite US president.
NATO is an organization dominated by the Pentagon.
The most important player is the United States :
member countries of NATO finance a military apparatus large that it is serving the interests of Washington . Trump , of course, want more funding for NATO.
All military cooperation agreements that the US firm, even those established with South Korea and Japan , have the grounds to impose on the participating countries funding the wars promoted by the United States.
And NATO follows the same logic: all its Member States fund but its course of action is determined by the Pentagon.
As for the institutions of Bretton Woods , we know that institutions are closely linked to the economic power of the United States. I'm talking about Wall Street, the Treasury Department, the 'think tanks', etc. It is the same spirit of what we call the "Washington Consensus".
What Trump is pointing out is that good yes , the other member countries should fund more Bretton Woods institutions the United States, but this is a well - worn speech.
IMF line of conduct against Greece , Trump does not understand. Look, when the IMF intervenes in any country, in Greece or any other country, according says, "we will pay 1,000 million dollars" ; but the reality is that money never enters the country .
That money, fictitious by the way, used to finance creditors, that the same could be investment banks on Wall Street or the German Government.
An IMF loan is not intended to finance the economic development of a country in trouble , is intended to ensure payment of the debt , it is an instrument of domination.
Whenever the IMF lends money to Greece , then that money goes into the coffers of Deutsche Bank or Goldman Sachs, the way things work. And these loans are funded by member countries. The Greek government takes it , but then these resources usually end up in the pockets of the big bankers.
Finally ANR.-, compared to what comes before the real threat of a Third World War breaks out , that this time would be nuclear, What can we do to plant a global resistance? How is it that society can avoid a dramatic denouement?
MC.- is very important that public opinion remains on alert against the US military incursions worldwide, especially on the border with Russia , on the border with Ukraine , the Middle East and in North Korea .
The possibility of a nuclear attack by the United States, either deliberately or by accident, is something to take seriously.
Should be reviewed in great detail studies on the impact of a nuclear war that could lead to the end of humanity as we know it.
They are quite serious studies that suggest that even a regional nuclear war would be a global catastrophe.
Should be reviewed in great detail studies on the impact of a nuclear war that could lead to the end of humanity as we know it.
As for what to do I would like to highlight two elements. First, the mass movements are necessary. But these movements need to take hold in the West.
In addition, they should break any ties with progressive circles have been complicit in the status quo in Europe and the United States.
In France this is very clear, but just in the United States, where the Democratic Party progressives promote the interests of the 'deep state' ( 'Deep state').
We must give a response to the anti-war who believe that the war taking place in Syria is a civil war movements. Many mistakenly think that the anti-war movement should not worry, that just accept the idea that a "humanitarian war".
The real anti-war movement is dead, so we need to build it again, taking into account the dangers of a Third World War.
And secondly, history tells us that changes in the state apparatus, in military coats, have to come from within the state, that is, from within the armed forces, intelligence services, etc.
There is a propaganda machine directed against the officers of the political and military apparatus of the United States.
It is essential that there is a change within the state apparatus, where decisions are made. This is not easy, it requires that civil society has links with different sectors of the institutional apparatus.
We see this in the United States through certain groups of former officers of the intelligence services, are people taking positions against the war but at some point they served the CIA and others of military equipment and intelligence States United.
Therefore, I stress again, the anti-war movement must take it to the very bowels of the state apparatus to achieve fundamental changes in decision-making.
ANR.- Thank you Michel, it has been a pleasure talking to you.
Economist graduated from the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Twitter: @noyola_ariel
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario
No se admiten comentarios con datos personales como teléfonos, direcciones o publicidad encubierta