個人資料
正文

Sachs 中國曆史性推動多極世界結束美國的統治

(2023-08-01 12:03:50) 下一個

傑弗裏·薩克斯談中國“曆史性”推動多極世界結束美國的統治

https://www.democracynow.org/2023/4/25/jeffrey_sachs_china

2023 年 4 月 25 日

嘉賓
傑弗裏·薩克斯
經濟學家、哥倫比亞大學可持續發展中心主任、聯合國可持續發展解決方案網絡主席。

“美國新外交政策的必要性”

中國在國際事務中發揮著越來越強硬的作用,幫助促成伊朗和沙特阿拉伯恢複關係,為烏克蘭提供12點和平計劃,並加強與歐洲和拉丁美洲大國的關係。 上周,中國繼續開展外交活動,提議在以色列和巴勒斯坦之間舉行會談。 “中國不希望美國成為超級大國。 它希望與美國共存,”哥倫比亞大學可持續發展中心主任、聯合國可持續發展解決方案網絡主席、經濟學家傑弗裏·薩克斯說。 他還曾擔任三位聯合國秘書長的顧問,目前擔任秘書長安東尼奧·古特雷斯領導下的可持續發展解決方案倡導者。 他最新文章的標題是“美國新外交政策的必要性”。

成績單
這是一份匆忙的記錄。 副本可能不是最終形式。
艾米·古德曼:中國駐法國大使在電視采訪中質疑前蘇聯國家根據國際法享有的主權後,中國在歐洲麵臨批評。 波羅的海國家立陶宛、拉脫維亞、愛沙尼亞譴責了這一言論,並召見中國特使解釋北京的官方立場。 中國外交部反駁了大使的言論,稱“中國尊重所有國家的主權、獨立和領土完整”。

這場外交爭端發生之際,中國因其外交努力而成為全球頭條新聞,盡管在美國可能沒有那麽嚴重。 2月下旬,中國發布了結束烏克蘭戰爭的12點和平計劃。 3月10日,伊朗和沙特阿拉伯宣布,作為中國斡旋協議的一部分,他們將恢複關係。 幾天後,三月中旬,中國國家主席習近平會見了巴西總統路易斯·伊納西奧·盧拉·達席爾瓦,討論烏克蘭、貿易和擺脫美元等問題。 隨後,習近平在北京會見法國總統馬克龍。 馬克龍訪問期間,習近平談到了中法在國際事務中的作用。

習近平主席:當今世界正在發生深刻曆史性變革。 中法作為聯合國安理會常任理事國和具有獨立傳統的大國,作為世界多極化和國際關係民主化的推動者,有能力、有責任超越分歧和束縛; 堅持穩定、互惠、發展、進步的中法全麵戰略合作夥伴關係; 踐行真正的多邊主義; 維護世界和平、穩定、繁榮。

艾米·古德曼:法國總統馬克龍在北京期間建議法國和歐洲國家在台灣問題上不應成為美國的附庸。

馬克龍總統:[翻譯]法國支持單一的對華政策以及尋求和平解決該問題的方案。 這是歐洲的立場。 這是一個始終與盟友角色相適應的立場。 但這恰恰強調了戰略自主的重要性。 盟友並不意味著成為附庸。 這並不是因為我們一起做事就不能單獨思考,而是因為我們要跟隨人民——這是與我們結盟的國家中最艱難的。 當我們審視事實時,無論是在烏克蘭、薩赫勒還是台灣,法國都沒有任何人可以吸取教訓。

艾米·古德曼:中國上周提出在以色列和巴勒斯坦之間舉行會談,繼續開展外交活動。

為了更多地了解中國最近的外交行動,哥倫比亞大學可持續發展中心主任兼聯合國可持續發展解決方案網絡主席傑弗裏·薩克斯(Jeffrey Sachs)加入了我們的行列。 他還曾擔任三位聯合國秘書長的顧問,目前擔任秘書長安東尼奧·古特雷斯領導下的可持續發展解決方案倡導者。 他最新發表的文章標題為“美國新外交政策的必要性”。

薩克斯教授,非常感謝您與我們在一起。 中國的所有外交姿態——你知道,在北京與馬克龍會麵,在北京與盧拉會麵,促成伊朗和沙特阿拉伯之間達成這項協議,現在不僅提出在烏克蘭和俄羅斯之間進行談判,而且還提出在以色列和巴勒斯坦之間進行談判——這幾乎是不可能的。 引起美國媒體的關注。

但在世界各地,頭條新聞要多得多——有關此事的頭條新聞要多得多。 談論這一點的重要性,如果你看到中國所取得的所有進展與美國對中國日益增加的敵意之間有直接的相似之處。

傑弗裏·薩克斯: 謝謝,艾米。 很高興和你在一起。

事實上,這是一個至關重要的話題。 正如習近平主席在與馬克龍會麵時所說,這是世界正在經曆的曆史性分水嶺。 從中國的角度來看,中國追求的就是真正的多邊主義。 這意味著什麽,或者真正的多極化,他們使用的另一個術語,這意味著他們不想要一個美國領導的世界,他們想要一個多極世界。 其依據是美國人口占世界人口的4.1%,中國人口占世界人口的17.5%。 中國的經濟與美國經濟相當,而且中國確實是世界大部分地區的主要貿易夥伴。 所以中國是在說:“我們也在那裏,與你們並肩作戰。 我們想要一個多極世界。 我們不想要一個美國領導的世界。”

雖然美國有時會談論基於規則的秩序,但事實是,美國的大戰略,如果我們可以使用美國國家大戰略家的術語——將我們在美國的大戰略視為 是統治地位。 我經常引用我在哈佛大學的一位前同事、受人尊敬的美國大使羅伯特·布萊克威爾 (Robert Blackwill) 在 2015 年寫的一篇文章,我認為這篇文章非常清晰、簡潔和具有啟發性。 文章——“自建國以來,美國始終奉行一項宏偉戰略,重點是獲取和保持對各種競爭對手的卓越實力,首先是北美大陸,然後是西半球,最後是全球。”

嗯,中國不希望美國成為超級大國。 它希望與美國共存。 布萊克威爾在 2015 年撰文稱,中國的崛起對美國的領先地位構成威脅。 他列出了拜登政府實際上幾乎正在一步步遵循的一係列步驟。 布萊克威爾早在 2015 年就已經提出,美國應該在美國朋友和盟友之間建立新的優惠貿易安排,通過有意識地排除中國的工具來增加共同利益。 應該建立一個“技術控製製度”來阻止中國的戰略能力,引用“美國在中國周邊的朋友和盟友的強權政治能力”,並加強美國在亞洲邊緣地區的軍事力量,盡管中國有任何限製 反對。 這已成為拜登的外交政策。 中國知道這一點。 中國確實在反擊。

但非常重要且值得理解的一點是,我們在烏克蘭戰爭的動態中清楚地看到了這一點:世界大多數國家也不希望美國成為全球超級大國。 世界上大多數國家都希望建立一個多極世界,因此不會支持美國對俄羅斯等的製裁。 這也是盧拉總統訪華傳達的信息,他對習近平主席說:“我們作為巴西也想要多極化,真正的多極化,我們想要和平,比如在俄羅斯和烏克蘭的戰爭中,這是基於 不是美國對主導地位的看法——比如北約東擴——而是反映多極世界的和平。”

這是真的。 這在世界各地都在發生。 事實是,這是一個曆史性的分水嶺,是潛在的經濟和技術變革造成的。 美國不再是世界經濟的主導,美國、加拿大、英國、法國、意大利、德國和日本七國集團的經濟規模實際上小於金磚國家巴西、俄羅斯、印度、 中國和南非。 事實上,我們確實處於一個多極世界,但在意識形態方麵,我們處於衝突之中。

胡安·岡薩雷斯:傑弗裏·薩克斯,我想問這個問題。 你提到了金磚國家。 金磚國家銀行現在位於中國——盧拉總統任命迪爾瑪·羅塞夫為金磚國家銀行行長——其在世界經濟多極化方麵的重要性,甚至創造美元替代主要貨幣的潛力 金磚國家聯盟對世界事務有何影響?

傑弗裏·薩克斯:這是一件大事。 事實上,美國正在退出——它不一定知道這一點,我們的政治家不明白這一點,但我們的政治家正在退出世界金融和貨幣舞台,並為一種完全不同的國際格局開辟了空間。 金融。

我給你舉個例子。 美國是世界銀行的創建者。 但現在美國國會不會向世界銀行注入新資金。 正因為如此,世界銀行實際上是一個相當小的機構。

它的名字很大,但在金融計劃中它是一個相當小的機構。 美國不會投入更多資金。國會說:“不會。” 我們為什麽要在國際上浪費錢呢?” 諸如此類,你會對此議論紛紛。 因此,中國和其他金磚國家說,“好吧,我們將建立自己的開發銀行”,然後他們建立了新開發銀行,有時也稱為金磚國家銀行,總部設在上海。

這隻是真正改變這一現狀的機構之一。 事實上,亞洲基礎設施投資銀行(AIIB)的總部設在北京。 正如盧拉總統所說,在烏克蘭戰爭的背景下,人們正在放棄使用美元,而美國認為,“嗯,這是我們的王牌。 你知道,這是我們對事情的最終控製,因為我們可以使用製裁,我們可以使用我們的金融控製,讓其他國家保持一致。” 但其他國家則表示:“呃,沒那麽多。 我們將以人民幣進行交易。 我們將用盧布進行交易。 我們將用盧比進行交易。 我們將以我們自己的國家貨幣進行交易。” 他們正在迅速建立替代機構來做到這一點。

美國加倍下注:“我們將沒收你們的儲備。 如果你不跟的話,我們會的。” 其他國家則表示:“你知道,如果你想通過聯合國並獲得真正的多邊規則,我們會支持你。 但如果你隻是想強加規則,我們就不會遵守。” 因此,我們有一個非常有趣的表達方式,稱為“基於規則的國際秩序”。 美國政府每天都在使用它。 但是這是什麽意思? 誰製定規則? 事實上,世界上大多數國家想要的是多極或多邊環境下製定的規則,而不是美國和少數朋友和盟友製定的規則。

胡安·岡薩雷斯:我想問你——你經常擔任聯合國顧問。 安理會常任理事國的數目還能維持多久? 因為,巴西和全球南方其他國家顯然一直在表示聯合國需要改革,拉丁美洲國家,特別是巴西和非洲國家應該在聯合國安理會和常任理事國中擁有代表權。

傑弗裏·薩克斯:是的,你知道,常任五國,即美國、中國、俄羅斯、法國和英國,是 1945 年二戰的戰勝國。他們寫入了聯合國規則, 順便說一句,他們將成為安理會常任理事國,並對《聯合國憲章》的任何修改擁有否決權。 所以,它確實是一個賦予自己權力的團體,世界上其他 188 個國家都會看著並說:“這是什麽? 我們需要改變。”

我想說,對此最感到驚訝和沮喪的國家實際上是印度。 印度現在是世界上人口最多的國家。 美國大約有 3.35 億人口; 英國、法國,大約6000萬; 印度,14億人口——不是安理會成員,一個核國家,一個世界超級大國,今年的G20主席,對此真的很不高興。 巴西是南美洲最大的經濟體,同樣沒有進入安理會。 所以,這個問題已經存在了20多年了。 五常以各種方式封鎖了特定國家,但總的來說,五常說:“你知道嗎? 這是我們的俱樂部。 我們希望保持常任五強的地位。”

但我認為,當我們真正麵對現實時,這不僅僅是一個後美國主導的世界,而且實際上是一個後西方主導的世界,因為美國是所謂西方的主導力量, 指的是美國、英國、歐盟以及西方榮譽會員國,比如說日本。 但我們是後西方國家,也是後美國國家。 處於統治地位。 這些國際機構需要改變,否則它們將無法在 21 世紀發揮作用。 如果它們不起作用,對我們來說實際上是一場災難。 如果它們不存在,我們就必須製造它們,因為我們需要它們發揮作用,所以我們還需要翻新它們。

艾米·古德曼:我想談談中國正在談判這些不同的協議。 讓我們來看看巴西總統路易斯·伊納西奧·盧拉·達席爾瓦在會見中國國家主席習近平之前的講話。

路易斯·伊納西奧·盧拉·達席爾瓦總統:[翻譯]普京想要什麽? 普京無法保住烏克蘭的領土。 也許我們甚至不討論克裏米亞,但他將不得不重新考慮他所入侵的地區。 而且,澤連斯基不可能得到他想要的一切。 北約將無法在邊境駐紮。 所以這是我們必須擺在桌麵上的事情。 ……我認為這場戰爭已經拖得太久了。 巴西已經批評了它該批評的事情。 巴西捍衛每個國家的領土完整,因此我們不同意俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭。

艾米·古德曼:因為看起來烏克蘭正處於對俄羅斯進行大規模反攻的邊緣,為了做到這一點,需要西方國家的大量支持,即軍事武器,你能談談中國在這裏扮演的角色嗎? 它提出的計劃,還有中國正在幫助談判的其他協議,例如沙特阿拉伯和伊朗之間的成功和解,以及他們對以色列和巴勒斯坦有何建議?

傑弗裏·薩克斯:盧拉總統用幾句話說出了這個問題的核心,我們——我們大多數媒體都不敢向美國人民解釋,那就是北約的擴張。 這場戰爭從根本上來說是關於美國試圖將美國軍事聯盟擴大到烏克蘭和格魯吉亞的戰爭。 格魯吉亞是高加索地區的一個國家,也瀕臨黑海。 幾十年前,美國的戰略一直是在黑海包圍俄羅斯,烏克蘭、羅馬尼亞、保加利亞、土耳其和格魯吉亞這些北約成員國都在黑海包圍俄羅斯及其海軍艦隊,其海軍艦隊 自1783年以來一直是俄羅斯黑海海軍艦隊。俄羅斯曾說過,“這是我們的紅線”。 這句話已經說了幾十年了。 2007 年,在小布什 (George W. Bush Jr.) 於 2008 年宣布並迫使北約宣布烏克蘭將成為北約成員之前,我將其稱為輕率的想法,它就明確表達了這一點。

這就是盧拉總統所說的話,也是中國國家主席習近平所說的話:我們不能爆發一場本質上是俄羅斯和美國之間因美國軍事同盟擴張而進行的代理人戰爭。 與俄羅斯的邊界長達 1,200 公裏甚至更長,俄羅斯將其視為——我可以理解地認為——對俄羅斯構成根本性的國家安全威脅。 保留一些空間。 保持一定的距離。 這就是盧拉總統的意思。 這就是中國在其和平計劃中所說的意思:“我們希望製定一個尊重各方安全利益的和平計劃。” 那是“締造和平”的暗號。 結束戰爭。 但不要將北約擴大到邊境。”

美國民眾一直沒有聽到對此的解釋。 這讓我感到震驚,因為作為 30 年來的密切觀察者,這一直是戰爭的理由。 然而我們的報紙甚至不會報道這件事的背景。 但這就是為什麽中國、南非、印度、巴西都在說:“我們想要和平,但我們不希望北約東擴成為所謂和平的意義。 我們希望超級大國之間能夠給彼此一些空間和距離,這樣世界就不會處於刀刃上。” 這正是盧拉總統所說的,也正是中國和平倡議的意義所在,就是說,“是的,絕對要實現和平。 保護烏克蘭的主權和安全。 但對北約擴張不行。”

但拜登政府甚至不會討論這個問題。 在我看來,這是我們的重大失敗,也是我們無法坐到談判桌前的原因,即使澤連斯基在 2022 年 3 月表示,“也許不是北約,也許是其他國家。” 俄羅斯和烏克蘭接近達成協議,美國介入烏克蘭並表示,“我們認為這不是一個好的協議”,因為所謂的美國新保守派一直在推動以北約東擴為核心。 這個問題。

但這又回到了我們更普遍的觀點,即從中國、俄羅斯或其他國家(包括巴西、現在的沙特阿拉伯、伊朗)的角度來看,烏克蘭、台灣和許多其他問題的利害關係 以及其他問題,是美國是否做了它想做的事,或者美國是否尊重其他國家所說的一些限製,“好吧,這就是我們的想法,所以我們需要真正的多極化,而不是美國單獨的主導地位,製定的規則” 我們所有人製定的規則,而不是美國獨自製定的規則。”

胡安·岡薩雷斯:傑夫·薩克斯,我們隻剩下一些時間了——大約還剩一分鍾,但我想知道你是否可以評論一下北約在歐洲進一步擴張和向東擴張之間的相似之處——今年是北約成立 200 周年。 門羅主義,門羅總統向所有歐洲列強宣布西半球是他們的禁區,試圖將他們的軍隊和軍隊轉移到拉丁美洲。 近200年來,拉美地區實質上一直是美國的主要勢力範圍。 然而,我們在這裏說,俄羅斯無權宣布其直接邊界國家不歡迎北約部隊加入。

傑弗裏·薩克斯:嗯,是的,一點同理心會有很大幫助,實際上,我們可以避免很多戰爭。 但對於美國人來說,這樣想會很有用:假設墨西哥與中國結成軍事聯盟。 美國會說:“好吧,這是墨西哥的權利。

或者可能會在短時間內發生入侵或類似的事情? 我強烈建議中國和墨西哥,不要在國內嚐試。 不要嚐試這個。 但美國政府拒絕這種同理心,因為——換句話說,拒絕將自己置於對方的立場上。 這是認為世界規則由你決定的根本傲慢。 傲慢的問題不僅在於它的報應,而且你不能——你陷入你甚至不理解的可怕危機,因為美國不被允許——公眾甚至不被允許思考 另一方的視角。 所以,這個比喻其實是一個非常非常清楚的比喻。 中國、俄羅斯和其他國家一直在說,“為什麽要實行雙重標準? 為什麽我們不真正以相互尊重的方式來對待彼此,而不是按照你製定的規則呢?”

艾米·古德曼:我們要感謝傑弗裏·薩克斯加入我們,他是哥倫比亞大學可持續發展中心主任、聯合國可持續發展解決方案網絡主席。 我們將鏈接到您的新文章“美國新外交政策的必要性”。 薩克斯教授在西班牙科爾多瓦向我們發表講話。

接下來,我們來看看福克斯新聞解雇塔克·卡爾森。 和我們在一起。

Jeffrey Sachs on China's "Historic" Push for Multipolar World to End U.S. Domination

https://www.democracynow.org/2023/4/25/jeffrey_sachs_china 

APRIL 25, 2023


GUESTS
  • Jeffrey Sachs
    economist, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and president of the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

China is taking an increasingly assertive role in world affairs, helping to broker a restoration of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, offering a 12-point peace plan for Ukraine, and strengthening its relationships with European and Latin American powers. Last week, China continued its diplomatic outreach by offering to hold talks between Israel and Palestine. “China doesn’t want the United States to be the preeminent power. It wants to live alongside the United States,” says economist Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and president of the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has also served as adviser to three U.N. secretaries-general and currently serves as a sustainable development solutions advocate under Secretary-General António Guterres. His latest article is headlined “The Need for a New US Foreign Policy.”


Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: China is facing criticism in Europe after China’s ambassador to France questioned the sovereignty of former Soviet states under international law during a television interview. The Baltic countries Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia condemned the remarks and summoned Chinese envoys to explain Beijing’s official position. The Chinese Foreign Ministry walked back the ambassador’s comments, saying, quote, “China respects all countries’ sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity.”

The diplomatic spat comes as China is making headlines across the globe, though maybe not so much in the United States, for its diplomatic efforts. In late February, China released a 12-point peace plan to end the war in Ukraine. On March 10th, Iran and Saudi Arabia announced they would restore ties as part of an agreement brokered by China. Days later, in mid-March, Chinese President Xi Jinping hosted the Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to talk about Ukraine, trade and moving away from the U.S. dollar. Xi Jinping then met with French President Emmanuel Macron in Beijing. During Macron’s visit, Xi spoke about the roles of China and France in world affairs.

PRESIDENT XI JINPING: [translated] The world today is undergoing profound historic changes. As permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and major countries with a tradition of independence, China and France, as promoters of the multipolarization of the world and the democratization of international relations, have the ability and responsibility to transcend difference and restraints; adhere to the comprehensive strategic cooperative partnerships between China and France with stability, reciprocity, development and progress; practice true multilateralism; and maintain world peace, stability and prosperity.

AMY GOODMAN: While in Beijing, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, suggested France and European nations should not become a vassal of the United States when it comes to Taiwan.

PRESIDENT EMMANUEL MACRON: [translated] France supports the single China policy and the search for a peaceful solution to the situation for that matter. It’s Europe’s position. It’s a position that has always been compatible with the role of an ally. But it’s precisely one stressing the importance of strategic autonomy. Ally doesn’t mean being a vassal. It’s not because we do things together that we can’t think alone, that we’re going to follow the people in — that are the toughest in a country that’s allied with us. When we look at the facts, France has lessons to be received from no one, be either in Ukraine, in Sahel or in Taiwan.

AMY GOODMAN: China has continued its diplomatic outreach by offering last week to hold talks between Israel and Palestine.

To look more at China’s recent diplomatic actions, we’re joined by Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and president of the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has also served as adviser to three U.N. secretaries-general and currently serves as a sustainable development solutions advocate under Secretary-General António Guterres. His latest article published is headlined “The Need for a New US Foreign Policy.”

Professor Sachs, thanks so much for being with us. All of the diplomatic gestures of China — you know, the meeting with Macron in Beijing, with Lula in Beijing, brokering this deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia, now offering not only to negotiate between Ukraine and Russia, but Israel and Palestine — this hardly gets attention in the United States media. But around the world, the headlines are far more — there are far more headlines about this. Talk about the significance of this, and if you see a direct parallel between all the headway that China is making and increasing U.S. hostility towards China.

JEFFREY SACHS: Thanks, Amy. Very good to be with you.

And indeed, this is a crucial topic. And as President Xi Jinping said in that meeting with Macron, this is a — it is a historic watershed that the world is living through right now. What China is after, if we view it from China’s perspective, is what was also said: true multilateralism. And what that means, or true multipolarity, another term that they use, and that means they don’t want a U.S.-led world, they want a multipolar world. And the basis of that is that the United States is 4.1% of the world population, China is 17.5% of the world population. China’s economy is comparable to the U.S. economy, and indeed China is the lead trade partner for much of the world. So China is saying, “We’re there, too, alongside you. We want a multipolar world. We don’t want a U.S.-led world.”

And while the United States sometimes talks about a rule-based order, the fact of the matter is that the U.S. grand strategy, if we can use that term of the grand strategists of the U.S. state — see our grand strategy in the United States as being dominance. And I often refer to an article that I think is very clear, succinct and revealing by a former colleague of mine at Harvard University, Robert Blackwill, an esteemed ambassador of the United States, who wrote in 2015 — and I’ll quote from the article — “Since its founding, the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals, first on the North American continent, then in the Western Hemisphere, and finally globally.”

Well, China doesn’t want the United States to be the preeminent power. It wants to live alongside the United States. Blackwill, writing in 2015, said China’s rise is a threat to U.S. preeminence. And he laid out a series of steps that the Biden administration actually is following almost step by step. What Blackwill laid out already back in 2015 is that the United States should create, quote, “new preferential trading arrangements among U.S. friends and allies to increase their mutual gains through instruments that consciously exclude China.” There should be “a technology-control regime” to block China’s strategic capabilities, a build-up of, quote, “power-political capacities of U.S. friends and allies on China’s periphery” and strengthened U.S. military forces along the Asian rimland despite any Chinese opposition. This has become the Biden foreign policy. China knows it. China really is pushing back.

But what’s very important and interesting to understand, and we’ve seen it clearly in the dynamics involving the Ukraine war, most of the world also does not want the U.S. as the global preeminent power. Most of the world wants a multipolar world, and is, therefore, not lined up behind the United States’ sanctions on Russia and so forth. And this was also the message of President Lula visiting China, saying to President Xi Jinping, “We, as Brazil, also want multipolarity, true multipolarity, and we want peace, for example, in the Russian-Ukraine war, that is based on not a U.S. perception of dominance — say, NATO enlargement — but rather a peace that reflects a multipolar world.”

This is real. It’s happening all over the world. And the fact of the matter is, the reason why this is a historic watershed is that the underlying economics and technological change have made it so. The U.S. is no longer the dominant world economy, and the G7, which is the U.S., Canada, Britain, France, Italy, Germany and Japan, is actually smaller than the BRICS countries in economic size, which is Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. So we really are, in fact, in a multipolar world, but in ideology, we’re in a conflict.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Jeffrey Sachs, I wanted to ask about that. You mentioned the BRICS. The BRICS bank, that is now in China — and President Lula has named Dilma Rousseff as the head of the BRICS bank — its importance in terms of this multipolarity in the world economies, the potential for even the creation of alternative major currencies to the dollar as a result of the BRICS alliance, the impact of that on world affairs?

JEFFREY SACHS: This is a big deal. And in fact, the United States is withdrawing — it doesn’t know it necessarily, our politicians don’t understand this, but our politicians are withdrawing from the world financial and monetary scene and opening up the space for a completely different kind of international finance.

I’ll give you an example. The U.S. was the creator of the World Bank. But now the U.S. Congress won’t put new money into the World Bank. And because of that, the World Bank is actually a quite small institution. It’s got a big name, but it’s a quite small institution in the financial scheme of things. The U.S. won’t put more money in. The Congress says, “No. Why should we waste our money internationally?” and so forth, and you get a lot of hubbub about that. So, China and the rest of the BRICS say, “OK, we’ll make our own development bank,” and they established the New Development Bank, or sometimes called the BRICS bank, based in Shanghai.

And that’s just one of the institutions that is really changing the scene. There’s the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, AIIB, based in Beijing, in fact. There is, as President Lula said, and it’s happening also in the context of the Ukraine war, a move away from the use of the dollar, which the United States has thought, “Well, that’s our ace in the hole. You know, that is our ultimate hold on things, because we can use sanctions, we can use our financial control, to keep other countries in line.” But other countries are saying, “Eh, not so much. We’ll trade in renminbi. We’ll trade in rubles. We’ll trade in rupees. We’ll trade in our own national currencies.” And they’re quickly setting up alternative institutions to do this.

The United States doubles down: “We will confiscate your reserves. We will, if you don’t follow.” And the other countries are saying, “You know, if you want to go through the U.N. and get really multilateral rules, we’re with you. But if you want to just impose the rules, we won’t follow along.” And so, we have this very funny expression called a “rule-based international order.” The United States government uses it every day. But what does it mean? Who writes the rules? And what most of the world wants, in fact, is rules written in a multipolar or multilateral setting, not rules written by the United States and a few friends and allies.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask you — you’ve been an adviser to the United Nations for quite often. The issue of how much longer the permanent members of the Security Council can keep the number to five? Because, clearly, Brazil and other countries of the Global South have been saying the U.N. needs to be reformed, and countries from Latin America, specifically Brazil, and Africa should have representation on the U.N. Security Council, permanent members.

JEFFREY SACHS: Yes, you know, the P5, the permanent five, which is the United States, China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom, was the World War II victor group in 1945. They wrote into the rules of the U.N., incidentally, that they would be the permanent Security Council members and have a veto over any change in the U.N. Charter. So it’s really a group that gave itself power that the other 188 countries of the world look on and say, “What is this? We need change.”

I would say the country that is most amazed and frustrated by this, in fact, is India. India is now the most populous country in the world. The United States has 335 million, roughly, in the population; Britain, France, roughly 60 million; India, 1.4 billion — not on the Security Council, a nuclear power, a world superpower, the president of the G20 this year, really not happy about that. Brazil, the large — largest economy of South America, similarly not on the Security Council. So, this has been an issue for more than 20 years. The P5, in various ways, have blocked particular countries, but, added up, the P5 have said, “You know what? This is our club. We want to stay as the permanent five.”

But I think as we really face the reality of a — it’s not just a post-U.S.-dominated world, but actually a post-Western-dominated world, because it was the U.S. as the dominant power among the so-called West, which means the U.S., Britain, European Union, and honorary Western membership, Japan, let’s say. But we’re post-Western, as well as post-U.S. in dominance. And these international institutions need to change, or they won’t function in the 21st century. And if they don’t function, it’s actually a disaster for us. If they didn’t exist, we’d have to make them, because we need them to function, so we also need to renovate them.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to talk about China negotiating these various agreements. Let’s turn to Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva speaking before his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

PRESIDENT LUIZ INÁCIO LULA DA SILVA: [translated] What does Putin want? Putin can’t keep Ukraine’s territory. Maybe we don’t even discuss Crimea, but he will have to rethink what he has invaded. Also, Zelensky can’t have everything he wants to demand. NATO will not be able to set itself up at the border. So this is something we have to put on the table. … I think this war has dragged on for too long. Brazil has already criticized what it had to criticize. Brazil defends each nation’s territorial integrity, so we disagree with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

AMY GOODMAN: Because it looks like Ukraine is on the verge of a major counteroffensive against Russia, and, in order to do this, needs massive support from Western countries, meaning military weapons, can you talk about what China’s role is here, the peace plan it has put forward, but also these other deals that China is helping to negotiate, like the successful rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and then what they’re suggesting about Israel and Palestine?

JEFFREY SACHS: President Lula uttered, in a few words, the core of this issue, that our — most of our media dare not explain to the American people, and that is the expansion of NATO. This is a war fundamentally about the U.S. attempt to expand a U.S. military alliance to Ukraine and to Georgia. Georgia is a country in the Caucasus, also on the Black Sea. The U.S. strategy, going back decades, has been to surround Russia in the Black Sea, with Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Georgia, all NATO members, surrounding Russia and its naval fleet in the Black Sea, with a naval fleet that has been the Black Sea naval fleet of Russia since 1783. Russia has said, “This is our red line.” And it has said that for decades. And it said this clearly in 2007, before George W. Bush Jr. had the — I’ll call it the harebrained idea to announce in 2008, and force NATO to announce, that Ukraine will be a member of NATO.

And this is what President Lula was saying and what President Xi Jinping of China has been saying: We can’t have a war that is essentially a proxy war between Russia and the United States over the expansion of the U.S. military alliance right up to a 1,200-kilometer and more border with Russia, which Russia views — and I would say understandably views — as a fundamental national security threat to Russia. Keep some space. Keep some distance. That’s President Lula’s meaning. That’s what China means when it says in its peace plan, “We want a peace plan that respects the security interests of all parties.” What that is is code word for saying, “Make peace. End the war. But don’t expand NATO right up to the border.”

The American people have not heard an explanation of this all along. It’s shocking to me, because as a close observer of this for 30 years, this has been the casus belli. And yet our newspapers won’t even report the background to this. But this is why China, South Africa, India, Brazil are saying, “We want peace, but we don’t want NATO expansion as the meaning of so-called peace. We want the big superpowers to give each other some space and some distance, so that the world isn’t on a knife edge.” That’s exactly what President Lula was saying, and it’s exactly what the meaning of the Chinese peace initiative is, is to say, “Yes, absolutely make peace. Protect Ukraine’s sovereignty and its security. But no to NATO expansion.”

But the Biden administration won’t even discuss this issue. That has been the major failing and the reason why we have not been able to get to the negotiating table, in my opinion, even when Zelensky said in March 2022, “Maybe not NATO, maybe something else.” Russia and Ukraine were close to an agreement, and the United States intervened with Ukraine and said, “We don’t think that’s a good agreement,” because the U.S. neocons, so-called, have been pushing for NATO enlargement as the core of this issue.

But this goes back to the more general point for us, which is that what is at stake in Ukraine and over Taiwan and many other issues, from the point of view of China or Russia or other countries, including Brazil, now Saudi Arabia, Iran and others, is whether the U.S. does what it wants to do or whether the U.S. respects some limits based on what other countries say, “Well, this is what we think, so that we need true multipolarity, not U.S. dominance alone, rules written by all of us, not rules written just by the United States.”

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jeff Sachs, we only have a few — about a minute left, but I was wondering if you could comment on the parallels between this expansion of NATO further and further east in Europe — this year marks the 200th anniversary of the Monroe Doctrine, of President Monroe declaring to all the European powers that the Western Hemisphere was off-limits to them coming, attempting to move their forces and their militaries into Latin America. And for these past 200 years, Latin America has essentially been the major sphere of influence of the United States. And yet, here we are, saying that Russia has no right to declare that its immediate — the countries on immediately its borders cannot welcome in NATO troops.

JEFFREY SACHS: Well, yes, a little empathy would go a long way, would have spared us, actually, a lot of wars. But for Americans, it would be useful to think: Suppose Mexico made a military alliance with China. Would the United States say, “Well, that’s Mexico’s right. What are we going to do about it?” Or might there be actually an invasion in short order or something like that? I would strongly advise to China and Mexico, don’t try it at home. Don’t experiment with this. But the United States government refuses that empathy, because — in other words, refuses to put itself in the position of the other side. That’s the fundamental arrogance of thinking that you determine the rules of the world. The problem with arrogance is not only the comeuppance from it, but you can’t — you stumble into terrible crises that you don’t even understand, because the United States has not been allowed — the public has not been allowed to even think from the perspective of the other side. So, the analogy is actually a very, very clear analogy. It is what China and Russia and others say all the time, is, “Why have those double standards? Why don’t we actually deal with each other with mutual respect, not with the rules that you write?”

AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you, Jeffrey Sachs, for joining us, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, president of the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. We’ll link to your new article, “The Need for a New US Foreign Policy.” Professor Sachs was speaking to us from Córdoba, Spain.

Next up, we look at the firing of Tucker Carlson at Fox News. Stay with us.

[ 打印 ]
閱讀 ()評論 (0)
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.