風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
正文
Developing Countries Are Not Easily Bullied Anymore | A Talk With Dr. Vijay Prashad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd-9a0cn5sM&ab_channel=NeutralityStudies
Neutrality Studies 179,375次觀看 2023年3月23日
Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, journalist, and academic. He was a professor of International Studies at Trinity College, Connecticut and is the author of forty books, including “Red Star Over the Third World”, and “The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World”
His latest book “The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of U.S. Power” was written with Noam Chomsky. He currently serves as Executive Director of The Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research.
Vijay is a public intellectual and I consider him together with people like Noam Chomsky, Yanis Varoufakis, or Jeremy Corbin one of the leaders of “the global left” pointing the finger at where it hurts: that colonialism never actually ended and the majority of today’s wars are still the outcome of imperial Western politics.
???????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????
Welcome to our channel dedicated to neutrality in international relations. We are committed to providing a platform for unbiased and objective analysis of global affairs, with a focus on neutrality and non-partisanship.
????????????'???? ???????????????? ???????? ????????????????????
More about Neutrality Studies: neutralitystudies.com Academic Articles:
Lottaz, Pascal. “The Future of Neutrality”. Geneva Center for Security Policy, Policy Briefs, no.4, 2023. https://www.gcsp.ch/publications/futu...
Lottaz, Pascal and Heinz Gärtner. “Dual-Neutrality for the Koreas: A Two-Pronged Approach toward Reunification.” Defense & Security Analysis, 2022, http://doi.org/10.1080/14751798.2022.... Lottaz, Pascal. “The Politics and Diplomacy of Neutrality.” Oxford Bibliographies in International Relations, New York: Oxford University Press, 2022, http://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/9780199743...
Lottaz, Pascal. “Neutrality Studies.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies, New York: Oxford University Press, 2022, http://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/97801....
Lottaz, Pascal. “Going East: Switzerland’s Early Consular Diplomacy toward East and Southeast Asia.” Traverse: Zeitschrift für Geschichte 27 no. 1, 2020, 23–34, http://doi.org/10.5169/seals-881084
Lottaz, Pascal “Violent Conflicts and Neutral Legations: A Case Study of the Spanish and Swiss Legations in Wartime Japan.” New Global Studies 11, no.2, 20 17. 85–100, http://doi.org/10.1515/ngs-2017-0018 Academic Books
Lottaz Pascal, and Ingemar Ottosson. Sweden, Japan, and the Long Second World War 1931–1945. London: Routledge, 2021. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/o...
Lottaz Pascal, Heinz Gärtner, and Herbert Reginbogin, eds. Neutral Beyond the Cold: Neutral States and the Post-Cold War International System. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2022, https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781666901665...
Reginbogin, Herbert, and Pascal Lottaz, eds. Permanent Neutrality: A Model for Peace, Security, and Justice. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2020, https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781793610287...
Lottaz Pascal, and Herbert Reginbogin, eds. Notions of Neutralities. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2019, https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498582261...
???????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????' ???????????????????? ????????????????????????
Showdown Over NATO Accession: Turkey is blocking Sweden | Interview with Naman Habtom-Desta 
• Showdown Over NAT...
• Showdown Over NAT... Where Did Critical Peace Studies Go? | A Talk With Professor Dr. Werner Ruf | Neutrality Studies • Where Did Critica...
• Where Did Critica... The International Politics of Moldova and Transnistria in Early 2023 | Interview with David X Noack • The International...
• The International... national interest in international relations importance of national interest developing countries neutrality in international relations neutrality and nonalignment
what are you going to do is have like 50 Wars around the world to discipline the third world it's not going to happen
anymore I think that period has by and large come to a close and I think the
West has to understand that it that it's merely a group of countries in the world nothing special about the United States
it's just one among the 190 odd countries in the world they need to realize that it's not a city on a hill
it's just a country you know relax you're just another country [Music]
hello everybody this is Pascal from neutrality studies and I'm joined today by Vijay prashad who is an Indian
historian journalist and an academic he was a professor of international studies
at Trinity College Connecticut and is the author of 40 books including red
star over the third world and the darker Nations a people's history of the third
world his latest book the withdrawal Iraq Libya Afghanistan and the fragility
of U.S power was written with Noam Chomsky he currently serves as executive
director of The tri-continental Institute for social research Vijay is a
public intellectual and I consider him to gather with people like norm jomsky and his varufakis Jeremy and Jeremy
corbyn as one of the leaders of the global left who's pointing the finger at
where it actually hurts that colonialism never really ended and the majority of today's Wars are still the outcome of
Imperial with Western politics and vijayo correct me if that is wrong but that's how I perceive you so thank you
very much for joining me listen Pascal it's a pleasure and happy to talk to anybody who's domiciled in
Japan so great to be with you thank you very much so Vijay um you've written so
much about world politics and you've especially looked at the at the the third world and I'm putting it in quotes
because the third world the term itself comes out of the non-aligned states right who literally wanted to be neither
of the two um and where do you see this the third
world today and countries that try not to be sucked into this new Cold War that's that's unfolding in front of our
eyes you know we're in a really difficult situation um just a few days before we are now
talking Pascal the um intergovernmental panel on climate change the ipcc
released the summary document which if you haven't read it I recommend you not
read it because it's really scary I mean it's chilling you know what they show
um that the question of the climate catastrophe is accelerating um that's one problem every year un
agencies such as the UN development program um the UN conference on trade and
development even the international monetary fund every year they release reports about growing social inequality
in the world you know deepening inequality terrible inequality of billions of people having a hard time
finding food every day not Millions not hundreds of millions but billions that's
the Judgment of the food and agriculture organization of the UN and the UN sport
program world food program WPF um given that given the climate
catastrophe the growing inequality the despair in the world you'd think this is
a great opportunity for leading powers of the world to come together you know
um to use multilateral institutions like the UN in good faith attempt to broker
deal listen to each other's national interests you know the insecurities that
countries are facing and so on but in fact we are going in the opposite direction we're going in a direction of
Greater confrontation and less collaboration even the pandemic didn't provoke countries to Greater
collaboration you know um half the countries on the African continent spent more paying off their
debts during the pandemic than they did on Health Care um you would have thought that at that
point wealthy bondholders would have been told wait guys let let's first take
care of the pandemic your profits come late and by the way when Credit Suisse got into trouble uh they The Regulators
had no problem telling the wealthy bondholders we're going to do a haircut you're going to lose your money you know grade A bondholders were basically told
sorry you get out of the line we're not going to pay you you know and there's going to be some legal repercussions for
both the Swiss government and UBS which is absorbed Credit Suisse so at a time
of a banking crisis they're okay to tell wealthy bondholders you're out of the
queue but during the pandemic they still allowed wealthy bondholders to claim wealth from African countries now given
this confrontation given this lack of concern for the climate catastrophe for
social inequality and so on it's no wonder that increasingly countries in
the global South the third world and so on are saying wait a minute we don't want to lie sign up behind the west or
we don't even want to line up behind Russia or anybody we want to operate on the basis of our national interests and
if our national interests for instance the Indian government a good test case if our national interests mean that
we're going to continue to trade with Russia during this war we're going to do it what can you do about it you know
this is our national interest it's not our national interest to sanction Russia at this time in fact the government of
Japan very in a similar way said we're not going to actually slice our energy
agreements with with the Russian government the circle in two project for instance in which Japan has a very large
Financial stake it's not cutting that stake Japan joined the G7 statement
condemning Russia for the war in Ukraine but it didn't cut succulent too I
noticed that immediately so what we're seeing is we're seeing countries of different kinds not only struggling
countries but also oecd countries like Japan essentially say look our national
interests are important we don't want to be sucked into what they see and I think rightly as an ideological
conflict you know a conflict around ideology around political power they
don't want to um damage further their economic situation in order to help maintain the
Western countries as the dominant countries in the world so I think that to a great extent
um you know helps us understand why many countries seem to now be saying look I'm
not sure I want to really get involved in this conflict like you want me to
the ideological spin that especially the West put on the current war in Ukraine
is tremendous right it's again again good against evil from the Western
perspective right just as it was good against evil when when the U.S had to justify its war in Iraq just as every
every single War you fight is always good against evil right otherwise you
don't go to war and neutral countries and and not aligned countries and the third world they always have the same
problem that they need to explain to both of these of these also publics and that's what we are doing right we are
talking to the publics of the US Europe Russia and maybe even China to tell them
look why you are on either side um how do you approach that problem I
saw like an interview with the Indian foreign minister a couple of months ago and it was really difficult for him really difficult to get the point across
to the to the interviewer that you know India is not on the side of evil it's
under the side of like one or the other it's just on its own side why is that so
difficult and how do you deal with it because I believe you must have dealt with that problem over and over right Pascal I'm really glad you used the word
evil and that's it because it's such an interesting concept and I don't want to
get too theological about this but I think we have to enter a world view a
welcome song and a perspective that exists which is a worldview that comes
out of not maybe all abrahamic religions but certainly Christianity in other words the idea of evil
um I don't for instance believe in the idea of evil I believe in the concept of contradictions people have very
contradictory things terrible things happen in the world um they happen for structural reasons
they happen because of individual choices because people suspend their ethical Judgment at crucial moments but
I don't believe in good and evil in an abstract sense you know I don't believe for instance that the United States
government is good and everything it does therefore is is salvation you know
um over a million people killed in Iraq is not salvation um just because the United States
conducted that war it doesn't get a free pass in my opinion at the same time I
don't consider the United States evil because over a million people died in Iraq I think this is the point of
understanding the world for its complexity the contradictions different Power groups that are in power at
different times they have suspension of ethical judgment they go into a war ruthlessly kill a lot of people and so
on in the same way I don't think all the adversaries of the United States are evil I mean look until 2007 it was the
Western countries that built up the reputation of Vladimir Putin it was Tony
Blair who said that who went and visited Mr Putin went to the Opera with him made
a public comment saying I vouched for Mr Putin it was George W bush who said I looked into his eyes and I see an honest
man it was Thomas Friedman you know the the the Great sloganier of the New York
Times the so-called paper of record of the United States it was Thomas Friedman who wrote I'm rooting for Putin suddenly
when Mr Putin goes to the Munich security conference in 2007 gives a
speech saying we don't believe there should be a single master in the world you know he directly confronts the
United States suddenly the Press starts to say he's evil he's a dictator he's this in fact let's stop for a minute
with the term dictator it's interesting that the Western press is now calling Mr Putin a dictator who set up the system
in Russia that gave Mr Putin all those Powers it was Western political
scientists State Department officials non-governmental officials who went to
Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union who worked to give the presidency enormous Powers because at the time it
was their friend Boris Yeltsin in fact they even stole an election for Mr Elson against Gennady sugano who seemed to
have won an election and even Time Magazine reported that the election was stolen so you know you're now saying the
oligarchs in Russia you produce the system that gave those people the ability to privatize all the assets and
so on it's very interesting how this idea of Good and Evil is mobilized
ideologically uh used when it benefits people I frankly don't believe in the
philosophy of good versus evil I believe the world is much more complicated than that it's a childish approach to the
world if I may say so even less than theological I I agree I agree with you
wholeheartedly my question is why is it possible for let's say let's call it a
free Society I mean the West has its faults and its mistakes but one of the things that's good is that we can have
these debates and you know we are it is relatively relatively free but how is it
possible in a in a free Society to sell to a majority of people that idea of
good against evil and to break and to make the world that's simplistic while you know the contradictions are just
overwhelming right I mean Saudi Arabia is not exactly a beacon of democracy and
Egypt neither but they are the closest buddies right of of Europe and the
United States and we have these huge contradictions huge right at the moment we have asked to believe that you know
Russia blew up its own pipeline or that it's a mystery who did that you know these are they're so glaring so huge
that I wonder how is it possible to still get a narrative and we we
understand the world in narratives right as historians we understand that very well how is it possible to still sell
that narrative and then control the current six weeks of politics right that
politics is constant continuation of six weeks that you need to control and this control seems to be working and that's
how you get so many people rallied behind the idea only uh only a military Victory is a good victory in Ukraine
which is the root of all uh bloody wars what's your what's your
take yeah it's it's really interesting there's a number of layers let's first go to an ideological layer and then to a
kind of Sociology of knowledge if you will first the ideology um there is a very much un uh damaged
idea that the West is essentially benevolent um now God knows where this comes from
because there's a long history of colonialism genocide this that and the other you know um you can never call say
the United States genocide genocide is always for the Barbarian you know there is a kind of racist way in which
um the West is always benevolent you know regardless of the history I mean Belgium and the Belgian King Leopold
could have conducted Mass genocides in the Congo but yet it's the Congolese who
will be seen as Savages and the belgians who will be seen as civilized you know look at what the one of the foreign
officials of Europe said he said Europe is a garden and the rest of the world is a jungle I mean man this is incredible
it's it's kind of a 19th century language but Europe is a garden meaning
that Europe is benevolent Europe doesn't do things wrong I remember reporting the
war in Libya and when NATO command was asked by human rights agencies and the
United Nations uh for evidence that NATO had not committed war crimes Peter Olsen
who was the lead attorney for NATO wrote a letter public letter in which he said
that NATO never commits war crimes it's just a contradiction in terms to put the words NATO and war crimes in a sentence
in other words there's an ideology of benevolence that's the first thing then there's a sociology of knowledge you
know you mentioned Norm Chomsky earlier um Mr Chomsky is a very old friend of mine we've done a book together we talk
a lot Chomsky has never really been in mainstream Publications talking politics
he was recently published in the New York Times not about Ukraine of which he
has studied opinions on you know not about that not about the new Cold War
against China or the blockade on Cuba things in which he has very interesting opinions no he he was published in the
New York Times on his opinions about artificial intelligence you know um he's permitted to talk about that but
he's not even permitted on National Public Radio any of these forums to have a discussion about his ideas you know
and he complains about this all the time in his own right way you know he has a million platforms but they're all often
quite small compared to the mainstream platforms major American intellectual a kind of profit of the American
um you know traditions of justice is not able to speak to the general public well
that's interesting it speaks to the sociology of knowledge the same people
who promoted the war against Iraq continue to be analysts for every single
U.S foreign policy Adventure they will never get um in a sense uh you know set aside they
will never get delegitimized at all in in indeed the people who participated in
constructing that war um George W bush Condoleezza Rice they're still brought on television in
the United States now to talk about their opinions on Ukraine and so on you know but of course people who have a
different view are not brought on and that that says a little bit about the sociology of knowledge you know yes of
course I agree with you there's a lot of openness you know the Storm Troopers don't break through your door to prevent
us from having a conversation on a podcast that's fine but the big players
The Washington Post the Wall Street journals the cnns and so on just don't
have a great diversity of opinion you know even things like MSNBC during the
campaign of Bernie Sanders the most liberal television channel mainstream channel in the United States never
really made any room for Mr Sanders in his surrogates you know he was off limits even Sanders was off limits so
there are in a sense lines drawn or what is permissible now you can say whatever
you want on the street and that's fine but there are no real public channels
you know for mass communication with people now BBC is interesting in the UK
because after all that's a government uh supported channel it's supported by licensing fees of the public you think
well in BBC they should have all kinds of opinions talk to Jeremy corbyn ask Mr
Corbin uh how frequently he is allowed to contribute his opinion when Gary
lineker was recently junked because of his opinions about refugees you know he's the Great British football player
England's football player led them to victories all over the place Gary lineker was the presenter of a show on
football but he made some tweets complaining about the British government's Refugee policy he was
thrown out by BBC you know they suspended his show and Jeremy corbyn
went out in public and defended Gary lineker well shouldn't BBC have invited Jeremy in to have a conversation after a
former labor leader not a chance when Kia stammer said that Jeremy corbyn is
not going to be able to run on a labor ticket in North Islington uh BBC didn't
call Jeremy into the studio for a discussion so there are lines you know there's a lot of freedom Jeremy can say
whatever he wants on Twitter and so on but there are lines when it comes to mass communication that's controlled by
big corporations and even by governments in the case of BBC there are limits to what's permissible now I understand that
you know people in power have their own limits but let's not pretend that it's you know Karl Popper's open Society
no you're right and it was Noam Chomsky who explained to us more than 30 years ago how the sociology of manufacturing
consent works and how this is a self self-correcting mechanism that that then that then creates these these ships
right that you can steer so I just you know we were going through this whole
the internet is going to revolutionize everything and make an open society and no it doesn't we are still living in a
world dominated by States and state narratives and state interests and we are still the propagandized uh general
public who's then asked to hate another general public over there um and the sociology keeps on spinning
um but maybe let me ask you because this this um spinning of the war narrative
seems not to be working in the third world I mean Africa southeast Asia East
Asia South America they are all kind of rejecting this the stupid Narrative of
good against evil and they all see see things in a more nuanced way and have these self-interests and
um my point is this like a neutral position is not only good for these countries it
can also help to broker some kind of agreement do you also see uh um more
good coming out of taking a third position or do you see dangers in that well firstly if you go back 20 years
you'll remember that most countries in the third world were very much opposed to the U.S war on Iraq
um Becky for instance then president of South Africa made public statements condemning the lead to war and so on so
did the Indian government cautioned and said that Indian soil will not be used uh you know they will not allow over
flights from Diego Garcia to Iraq and so on um countries at the time were also
uneasy about a U.S Adventure like that but they didn't have the kind of
confidence uh you know because they were all sort of in the thrall of globalization at that time remember this
is less than 10 years after the World Trade Organization was established you see today 20 years later things have
changed and I think part of the change has to do with the economic emergence of
China and China actually putting Institute occasional alternatives on the table for instance the People's Bank of
China are offering currency swaps gives a country an option not necessarily to
go straight to the IMF and take a structural adjustment loan or to go to
the London or Paris groups to the creditors and raise money through an IMF
uh backed um you know project a kind of you know program that the IMF sets now
they have choices largely because of the emergence of the belt and road project and so on the fact of the choice
available to countries has increased the political space for countries to say
look I'm not interested because you see when Janet Yellen the treasury Secretary
of the US towards Africa and tells countries you gotta vote with us on Ukraine or you've got to send weapons to
Ukraine they're going to look at her and say Madam Secretary were not interested because now you can't in in the back
room tell us if you don't accept what I'm saying politically we're going to squeeze you on credit you can't tell us
that because we'll go to the Chinese there are now Alternatives and I think the reason why you see smaller countries
Namibia for instance the Prime Minister was extremely Frank when she spoke at
this year's Munich security conference the reason countries can do this now where they felt slightly less confident
20 years ago is principally because the economic emergence of China has changed
the political Dimension I think the West is completely aware of this and understands this and you know if you're
a country like say Namibia and you know the Chinese have come and said look we're going to invest so many 100
million dollars to build a railroad to build a hospital to build whatever um and the United States Embassy says
don't take the deal the government of Namibia is going to turn to the Embassy and say what's on the table from you and
because of the kind of tax strike in the U.S the financial essentialization of the economy there's simply nothing that
the US government can put on the table you know the Millennium challenge Corporation set up by the Bush
Administration in 2004 as a contest in a way you know it was supposed to be the new Peace Corps or the new martial plan
or whatever is now used as a contest against China but you know you we're
talking about you know hundreds of millions of dollars Anthony blinken was recently in Niger in the Sahel region
and he promised 150 million dollars to the Sahel for humanitarian you know that
the Chinese can give you in 15 minutes that's they right they can give you that in cash they have much more
um Surplus available for Investments of different kinds so this gives countries a lot of confidence Pascal they are not
living in 2002 anymore they are now in 2023 when there are these choices before
them and I think that accounts for a lot of the public demurals countries saying
look I don't want to come out in public on this it's it's not in my national interest why because I don't want to I
don't need to firstly you can't strong arm me I've got options from China and also I would like to let you know that
we have also older relations with Russia I think that's another point to put on the table which is that many of these
countries particularly in Africa many of them feel grateful not to Russia but to the Soviet Union for their assistance
during the National Liberation movement and that generation is now in power and many of them that I have spoken to heads
of of major um you know uh offices on the African continent Finance ministers
um foreign ministers and so on and in two cases heads of government they say openly look we we are grateful to the
Soviet Union for its assistance during our Liberation movements in the 1960s
and 70s and now we have old friends in Russia and that has is by the way also
playing role which we shouldn't underestimate also plays a role in India because people may not remember in 1971
the United States sent the seventh fleet to threaten India during the Bangladesh
Liberation war and India signed a friendship treaty with the Soviet Union even the right-wing government in India
today references that event and says that look we can't we can't abandon the Russians they helped us in our time of
need I am afraid that one of the things the U.S and the West uh including the
European Union is going to take away from this situation will be we need more interventionism in these countries that
are not in line and we need to we need to put the nabibians back to you know knowing knowing which which uh road to
Thai and I'm afraid that this will that the U.S that you can see this already this Onslaught against the undecided
ones or against the ones who are not with us right do you see danger there or do you think
the the choice that is now available will make it easier for the third world to navigate the the coming cold or the
new Cold War I mean look I don't want to um I don't want to mock the dangers or minimize the
dangers there are dangers but what I would say to Washington and Paris and so on is good luck you know Paris has just
faced a strategic defeat in Burkina Faso and Mali and I think uh you know they
will find it difficult going in Niger and Benin right now it looks like Niger and benina friendly countries those
governments are sitting on a Razor's Edge because the populations are looking towards Burkina Faso and Mali and
watching the military governments led by young people with a kind of welfare restorientation to the population these
countries are saying to the French you know you're not welcome in the Sahel and these defeats that are being faced by
France from small countries you know in in terms of their power and influence in
the world is considerable um so good luck I mean good luck to the United States I don't think that
Lincoln's two visits he visited Ethiopia and he visited Niger I don't think those
are going to bear fruit Ethiopia anyway has had has developed a very antipathic relationship to the West as a
consequence of the war against the Tigre people and so on they were developing a
very strong Anti-Imperialist attitude in Ethiopia and in Niger as I said despite
the fact that there's a major drone base costing almost 300 million dollars the
US has a big Base Air Base 201 and also the the French have a major
uranium mine in the town of Arlene north of agadesh toward the Libyan border good
luck controlling all that my friends because two things uh endangering the control of the West and the sahil which
is a test case for what we're talking about you know can you reverse the tide uh two things one is the Jihadi element
that was awoken by the West's ridiculous war against Libya which is there knocking on the doors of the of the
French uranium a mind in our lead and secondly the fragility of these governments because the military young
Military Officers in their countries are looking at the presidential Palace and saying you guys are corrupt and we're
coming for you and I think these young officers are not willing to break bread
with um with the French or with the Americans they are not easily bought off you know they have different orientations and and
I so I don't think that whatever the West wants to do you know what are you going to do is have like 50 Wars around
the world to discipline the third world it's not going to happen anymore I think that period has by and large come to a
close and I think the West has to understand that it that it's merely a group of countries in the world nothing
special about the United States it's just one among the 190 odd countries in
the world they need to realize that it's not a city on a hill it's just a country you know relax you're just another
country nothing special about you you know it's a little bit like Israel nothing special about you you're just
anymore I think that period has by and large come to a close and I think the
West has to understand that it that it's merely a group of countries in the world nothing special about the United States
it's just one among the 190 odd countries in the world they need to realize that it's not a city on a hill
it's just a country you know relax you're just another country [Music]
hello everybody this is Pascal from neutrality studies and I'm joined today by Vijay prashad who is an Indian
historian journalist and an academic he was a professor of international studies
at Trinity College Connecticut and is the author of 40 books including red
star over the third world and the darker Nations a people's history of the third
world his latest book the withdrawal Iraq Libya Afghanistan and the fragility
of U.S power was written with Noam Chomsky he currently serves as executive
director of The tri-continental Institute for social research Vijay is a
public intellectual and I consider him to gather with people like norm jomsky and his varufakis Jeremy and Jeremy
corbyn as one of the leaders of the global left who's pointing the finger at
where it actually hurts that colonialism never really ended and the majority of today's Wars are still the outcome of
Imperial with Western politics and vijayo correct me if that is wrong but that's how I perceive you so thank you
very much for joining me listen Pascal it's a pleasure and happy to talk to anybody who's domiciled in
Japan so great to be with you thank you very much so Vijay um you've written so
much about world politics and you've especially looked at the at the the third world and I'm putting it in quotes
because the third world the term itself comes out of the non-aligned states right who literally wanted to be neither
of the two um and where do you see this the third
world today and countries that try not to be sucked into this new Cold War that's that's unfolding in front of our
eyes you know we're in a really difficult situation um just a few days before we are now
talking Pascal the um intergovernmental panel on climate change the ipcc
released the summary document which if you haven't read it I recommend you not
read it because it's really scary I mean it's chilling you know what they show
um that the question of the climate catastrophe is accelerating um that's one problem every year un
agencies such as the UN development program um the UN conference on trade and
development even the international monetary fund every year they release reports about growing social inequality
in the world you know deepening inequality terrible inequality of billions of people having a hard time
finding food every day not Millions not hundreds of millions but billions that's
the Judgment of the food and agriculture organization of the UN and the UN sport
program world food program WPF um given that given the climate
catastrophe the growing inequality the despair in the world you'd think this is
a great opportunity for leading powers of the world to come together you know
um to use multilateral institutions like the UN in good faith attempt to broker
deal listen to each other's national interests you know the insecurities that
countries are facing and so on but in fact we are going in the opposite direction we're going in a direction of
Greater confrontation and less collaboration even the pandemic didn't provoke countries to Greater
collaboration you know um half the countries on the African continent spent more paying off their
debts during the pandemic than they did on Health Care um you would have thought that at that
point wealthy bondholders would have been told wait guys let let's first take
care of the pandemic your profits come late and by the way when Credit Suisse got into trouble uh they The Regulators
had no problem telling the wealthy bondholders we're going to do a haircut you're going to lose your money you know grade A bondholders were basically told
sorry you get out of the line we're not going to pay you you know and there's going to be some legal repercussions for
both the Swiss government and UBS which is absorbed Credit Suisse so at a time
of a banking crisis they're okay to tell wealthy bondholders you're out of the
queue but during the pandemic they still allowed wealthy bondholders to claim wealth from African countries now given
this confrontation given this lack of concern for the climate catastrophe for
social inequality and so on it's no wonder that increasingly countries in
the global South the third world and so on are saying wait a minute we don't want to lie sign up behind the west or
we don't even want to line up behind Russia or anybody we want to operate on the basis of our national interests and
if our national interests for instance the Indian government a good test case if our national interests mean that
we're going to continue to trade with Russia during this war we're going to do it what can you do about it you know
this is our national interest it's not our national interest to sanction Russia at this time in fact the government of
Japan very in a similar way said we're not going to actually slice our energy
agreements with with the Russian government the circle in two project for instance in which Japan has a very large
Financial stake it's not cutting that stake Japan joined the G7 statement
condemning Russia for the war in Ukraine but it didn't cut succulent too I
noticed that immediately so what we're seeing is we're seeing countries of different kinds not only struggling
countries but also oecd countries like Japan essentially say look our national
interests are important we don't want to be sucked into what they see and I think rightly as an ideological
conflict you know a conflict around ideology around political power they
don't want to um damage further their economic situation in order to help maintain the
Western countries as the dominant countries in the world so I think that to a great extent
um you know helps us understand why many countries seem to now be saying look I'm
not sure I want to really get involved in this conflict like you want me to
the ideological spin that especially the West put on the current war in Ukraine
is tremendous right it's again again good against evil from the Western
perspective right just as it was good against evil when when the U.S had to justify its war in Iraq just as every
every single War you fight is always good against evil right otherwise you
don't go to war and neutral countries and and not aligned countries and the third world they always have the same
problem that they need to explain to both of these of these also publics and that's what we are doing right we are
talking to the publics of the US Europe Russia and maybe even China to tell them
look why you are on either side um how do you approach that problem I
saw like an interview with the Indian foreign minister a couple of months ago and it was really difficult for him really difficult to get the point across
to the to the interviewer that you know India is not on the side of evil it's
under the side of like one or the other it's just on its own side why is that so
difficult and how do you deal with it because I believe you must have dealt with that problem over and over right Pascal I'm really glad you used the word
evil and that's it because it's such an interesting concept and I don't want to
get too theological about this but I think we have to enter a world view a
welcome song and a perspective that exists which is a worldview that comes
out of not maybe all abrahamic religions but certainly Christianity in other words the idea of evil
um I don't for instance believe in the idea of evil I believe in the concept of contradictions people have very
contradictory things terrible things happen in the world um they happen for structural reasons
they happen because of individual choices because people suspend their ethical Judgment at crucial moments but
I don't believe in good and evil in an abstract sense you know I don't believe for instance that the United States
government is good and everything it does therefore is is salvation you know
um over a million people killed in Iraq is not salvation um just because the United States
conducted that war it doesn't get a free pass in my opinion at the same time I
don't consider the United States evil because over a million people died in Iraq I think this is the point of
understanding the world for its complexity the contradictions different Power groups that are in power at
different times they have suspension of ethical judgment they go into a war ruthlessly kill a lot of people and so
on in the same way I don't think all the adversaries of the United States are evil I mean look until 2007 it was the
Western countries that built up the reputation of Vladimir Putin it was Tony
Blair who said that who went and visited Mr Putin went to the Opera with him made
a public comment saying I vouched for Mr Putin it was George W bush who said I looked into his eyes and I see an honest
man it was Thomas Friedman you know the the the Great sloganier of the New York
Times the so-called paper of record of the United States it was Thomas Friedman who wrote I'm rooting for Putin suddenly
when Mr Putin goes to the Munich security conference in 2007 gives a
speech saying we don't believe there should be a single master in the world you know he directly confronts the
United States suddenly the Press starts to say he's evil he's a dictator he's this in fact let's stop for a minute
with the term dictator it's interesting that the Western press is now calling Mr Putin a dictator who set up the system
in Russia that gave Mr Putin all those Powers it was Western political
scientists State Department officials non-governmental officials who went to
Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union who worked to give the presidency enormous Powers because at the time it
was their friend Boris Yeltsin in fact they even stole an election for Mr Elson against Gennady sugano who seemed to
have won an election and even Time Magazine reported that the election was stolen so you know you're now saying the
oligarchs in Russia you produce the system that gave those people the ability to privatize all the assets and
so on it's very interesting how this idea of Good and Evil is mobilized
ideologically uh used when it benefits people I frankly don't believe in the
philosophy of good versus evil I believe the world is much more complicated than that it's a childish approach to the
world if I may say so even less than theological I I agree I agree with you
wholeheartedly my question is why is it possible for let's say let's call it a
free Society I mean the West has its faults and its mistakes but one of the things that's good is that we can have
these debates and you know we are it is relatively relatively free but how is it
possible in a in a free Society to sell to a majority of people that idea of
good against evil and to break and to make the world that's simplistic while you know the contradictions are just
overwhelming right I mean Saudi Arabia is not exactly a beacon of democracy and
Egypt neither but they are the closest buddies right of of Europe and the
United States and we have these huge contradictions huge right at the moment we have asked to believe that you know
Russia blew up its own pipeline or that it's a mystery who did that you know these are they're so glaring so huge
that I wonder how is it possible to still get a narrative and we we
understand the world in narratives right as historians we understand that very well how is it possible to still sell
that narrative and then control the current six weeks of politics right that
politics is constant continuation of six weeks that you need to control and this control seems to be working and that's
how you get so many people rallied behind the idea only uh only a military Victory is a good victory in Ukraine
which is the root of all uh bloody wars what's your what's your
take yeah it's it's really interesting there's a number of layers let's first go to an ideological layer and then to a
kind of Sociology of knowledge if you will first the ideology um there is a very much un uh damaged
idea that the West is essentially benevolent um now God knows where this comes from
because there's a long history of colonialism genocide this that and the other you know um you can never call say
the United States genocide genocide is always for the Barbarian you know there is a kind of racist way in which
um the West is always benevolent you know regardless of the history I mean Belgium and the Belgian King Leopold
could have conducted Mass genocides in the Congo but yet it's the Congolese who
will be seen as Savages and the belgians who will be seen as civilized you know look at what the one of the foreign
officials of Europe said he said Europe is a garden and the rest of the world is a jungle I mean man this is incredible
it's it's kind of a 19th century language but Europe is a garden meaning
that Europe is benevolent Europe doesn't do things wrong I remember reporting the
war in Libya and when NATO command was asked by human rights agencies and the
United Nations uh for evidence that NATO had not committed war crimes Peter Olsen
who was the lead attorney for NATO wrote a letter public letter in which he said
that NATO never commits war crimes it's just a contradiction in terms to put the words NATO and war crimes in a sentence
in other words there's an ideology of benevolence that's the first thing then there's a sociology of knowledge you
know you mentioned Norm Chomsky earlier um Mr Chomsky is a very old friend of mine we've done a book together we talk
a lot Chomsky has never really been in mainstream Publications talking politics
he was recently published in the New York Times not about Ukraine of which he
has studied opinions on you know not about that not about the new Cold War
against China or the blockade on Cuba things in which he has very interesting opinions no he he was published in the
New York Times on his opinions about artificial intelligence you know um he's permitted to talk about that but
he's not even permitted on National Public Radio any of these forums to have a discussion about his ideas you know
and he complains about this all the time in his own right way you know he has a million platforms but they're all often
quite small compared to the mainstream platforms major American intellectual a kind of profit of the American
um you know traditions of justice is not able to speak to the general public well
that's interesting it speaks to the sociology of knowledge the same people
who promoted the war against Iraq continue to be analysts for every single
U.S foreign policy Adventure they will never get um in a sense uh you know set aside they
will never get delegitimized at all in in indeed the people who participated in
constructing that war um George W bush Condoleezza Rice they're still brought on television in
the United States now to talk about their opinions on Ukraine and so on you know but of course people who have a
different view are not brought on and that that says a little bit about the sociology of knowledge you know yes of
course I agree with you there's a lot of openness you know the Storm Troopers don't break through your door to prevent
us from having a conversation on a podcast that's fine but the big players
The Washington Post the Wall Street journals the cnns and so on just don't
have a great diversity of opinion you know even things like MSNBC during the
campaign of Bernie Sanders the most liberal television channel mainstream channel in the United States never
really made any room for Mr Sanders in his surrogates you know he was off limits even Sanders was off limits so
there are in a sense lines drawn or what is permissible now you can say whatever
you want on the street and that's fine but there are no real public channels
you know for mass communication with people now BBC is interesting in the UK
because after all that's a government uh supported channel it's supported by licensing fees of the public you think
well in BBC they should have all kinds of opinions talk to Jeremy corbyn ask Mr
Corbin uh how frequently he is allowed to contribute his opinion when Gary
lineker was recently junked because of his opinions about refugees you know he's the Great British football player
England's football player led them to victories all over the place Gary lineker was the presenter of a show on
football but he made some tweets complaining about the British government's Refugee policy he was
thrown out by BBC you know they suspended his show and Jeremy corbyn
went out in public and defended Gary lineker well shouldn't BBC have invited Jeremy in to have a conversation after a
former labor leader not a chance when Kia stammer said that Jeremy corbyn is
not going to be able to run on a labor ticket in North Islington uh BBC didn't
call Jeremy into the studio for a discussion so there are lines you know there's a lot of freedom Jeremy can say
whatever he wants on Twitter and so on but there are lines when it comes to mass communication that's controlled by
big corporations and even by governments in the case of BBC there are limits to what's permissible now I understand that
you know people in power have their own limits but let's not pretend that it's you know Karl Popper's open Society
no you're right and it was Noam Chomsky who explained to us more than 30 years ago how the sociology of manufacturing
consent works and how this is a self self-correcting mechanism that that then that then creates these these ships
right that you can steer so I just you know we were going through this whole
the internet is going to revolutionize everything and make an open society and no it doesn't we are still living in a
world dominated by States and state narratives and state interests and we are still the propagandized uh general
public who's then asked to hate another general public over there um and the sociology keeps on spinning
um but maybe let me ask you because this this um spinning of the war narrative
seems not to be working in the third world I mean Africa southeast Asia East
Asia South America they are all kind of rejecting this the stupid Narrative of
good against evil and they all see see things in a more nuanced way and have these self-interests and
um my point is this like a neutral position is not only good for these countries it
can also help to broker some kind of agreement do you also see uh um more
good coming out of taking a third position or do you see dangers in that well firstly if you go back 20 years
you'll remember that most countries in the third world were very much opposed to the U.S war on Iraq
um Becky for instance then president of South Africa made public statements condemning the lead to war and so on so
did the Indian government cautioned and said that Indian soil will not be used uh you know they will not allow over
flights from Diego Garcia to Iraq and so on um countries at the time were also
uneasy about a U.S Adventure like that but they didn't have the kind of
confidence uh you know because they were all sort of in the thrall of globalization at that time remember this
is less than 10 years after the World Trade Organization was established you see today 20 years later things have
changed and I think part of the change has to do with the economic emergence of
China and China actually putting Institute occasional alternatives on the table for instance the People's Bank of
China are offering currency swaps gives a country an option not necessarily to
go straight to the IMF and take a structural adjustment loan or to go to
the London or Paris groups to the creditors and raise money through an IMF
uh backed um you know project a kind of you know program that the IMF sets now
they have choices largely because of the emergence of the belt and road project and so on the fact of the choice
available to countries has increased the political space for countries to say
look I'm not interested because you see when Janet Yellen the treasury Secretary
of the US towards Africa and tells countries you gotta vote with us on Ukraine or you've got to send weapons to
Ukraine they're going to look at her and say Madam Secretary were not interested because now you can't in in the back
room tell us if you don't accept what I'm saying politically we're going to squeeze you on credit you can't tell us
that because we'll go to the Chinese there are now Alternatives and I think the reason why you see smaller countries
Namibia for instance the Prime Minister was extremely Frank when she spoke at
this year's Munich security conference the reason countries can do this now where they felt slightly less confident
20 years ago is principally because the economic emergence of China has changed
the political Dimension I think the West is completely aware of this and understands this and you know if you're
a country like say Namibia and you know the Chinese have come and said look we're going to invest so many 100
million dollars to build a railroad to build a hospital to build whatever um and the United States Embassy says
don't take the deal the government of Namibia is going to turn to the Embassy and say what's on the table from you and
because of the kind of tax strike in the U.S the financial essentialization of the economy there's simply nothing that
the US government can put on the table you know the Millennium challenge Corporation set up by the Bush
Administration in 2004 as a contest in a way you know it was supposed to be the new Peace Corps or the new martial plan
or whatever is now used as a contest against China but you know you we're
talking about you know hundreds of millions of dollars Anthony blinken was recently in Niger in the Sahel region
and he promised 150 million dollars to the Sahel for humanitarian you know that
the Chinese can give you in 15 minutes that's they right they can give you that in cash they have much more
um Surplus available for Investments of different kinds so this gives countries a lot of confidence Pascal they are not
living in 2002 anymore they are now in 2023 when there are these choices before
them and I think that accounts for a lot of the public demurals countries saying
look I don't want to come out in public on this it's it's not in my national interest why because I don't want to I
don't need to firstly you can't strong arm me I've got options from China and also I would like to let you know that
we have also older relations with Russia I think that's another point to put on the table which is that many of these
countries particularly in Africa many of them feel grateful not to Russia but to the Soviet Union for their assistance
during the National Liberation movement and that generation is now in power and many of them that I have spoken to heads
of of major um you know uh offices on the African continent Finance ministers
um foreign ministers and so on and in two cases heads of government they say openly look we we are grateful to the
Soviet Union for its assistance during our Liberation movements in the 1960s
and 70s and now we have old friends in Russia and that has is by the way also
playing role which we shouldn't underestimate also plays a role in India because people may not remember in 1971
the United States sent the seventh fleet to threaten India during the Bangladesh
Liberation war and India signed a friendship treaty with the Soviet Union even the right-wing government in India
today references that event and says that look we can't we can't abandon the Russians they helped us in our time of
need I am afraid that one of the things the U.S and the West uh including the
European Union is going to take away from this situation will be we need more interventionism in these countries that
are not in line and we need to we need to put the nabibians back to you know knowing knowing which which uh road to
Thai and I'm afraid that this will that the U.S that you can see this already this Onslaught against the undecided
ones or against the ones who are not with us right do you see danger there or do you think
the the choice that is now available will make it easier for the third world to navigate the the coming cold or the
new Cold War I mean look I don't want to um I don't want to mock the dangers or minimize the
dangers there are dangers but what I would say to Washington and Paris and so on is good luck you know Paris has just
faced a strategic defeat in Burkina Faso and Mali and I think uh you know they
will find it difficult going in Niger and Benin right now it looks like Niger and benina friendly countries those
governments are sitting on a Razor's Edge because the populations are looking towards Burkina Faso and Mali and
watching the military governments led by young people with a kind of welfare restorientation to the population these
countries are saying to the French you know you're not welcome in the Sahel and these defeats that are being faced by
France from small countries you know in in terms of their power and influence in
the world is considerable um so good luck I mean good luck to the United States I don't think that
Lincoln's two visits he visited Ethiopia and he visited Niger I don't think those
are going to bear fruit Ethiopia anyway has had has developed a very antipathic relationship to the West as a
consequence of the war against the Tigre people and so on they were developing a
very strong Anti-Imperialist attitude in Ethiopia and in Niger as I said despite
the fact that there's a major drone base costing almost 300 million dollars the
US has a big Base Air Base 201 and also the the French have a major
uranium mine in the town of Arlene north of agadesh toward the Libyan border good
luck controlling all that my friends because two things uh endangering the control of the West and the sahil which
is a test case for what we're talking about you know can you reverse the tide uh two things one is the Jihadi element
that was awoken by the West's ridiculous war against Libya which is there knocking on the doors of the of the
French uranium a mind in our lead and secondly the fragility of these governments because the military young
Military Officers in their countries are looking at the presidential Palace and saying you guys are corrupt and we're
coming for you and I think these young officers are not willing to break bread
with um with the French or with the Americans they are not easily bought off you know they have different orientations and and
I so I don't think that whatever the West wants to do you know what are you going to do is have like 50 Wars around
the world to discipline the third world it's not going to happen anymore I think that period has by and large come to a
close and I think the West has to understand that it that it's merely a group of countries in the world nothing
special about the United States it's just one among the 190 odd countries in
the world they need to realize that it's not a city on a hill it's just a country you know relax you're just another
country nothing special about you you know it's a little bit like Israel nothing special about you you're just
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
