Instruction: Write an article about: Many Global South countries blame US/NATO for Ukraine war, not Russia. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: Brazil, China, India, Iran, Laos, NATO, Nicaragua, North Korea, Russia, South Africa, Ukraine, Venezuela, Vietnam

Output:
While Western powers impose sanctions on Russia, many countries in the Global South blame the US and NATO for the Ukraine war, including South Africa, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, and Eritrea. China, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Mexico, Vietnam, and more remain neutral. These represent the majority of the world’s population.

The United States and its Western allies have exclusively blamed Moscow for the war in Ukraine, imposing crushing sanctions aimed at suffocating Russia’s economy and ultimately provoking regime change in the Kremlin.
But the reality is very different in the Global South.
While the governments representing the roughly 15% of the global population living in North America and Europe portray the proxy conflict in Ukraine as a battle between the so-called “international community” on one side and Russia on the other, that it not how it is seen by many states representing the vast majority of humanity in the Global South.
South Africa, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, and Eritrea, among other nations, have all clearly said that it is the United States and its NATO military alliance that bear responsibility for causing the war in Ukraine, not Russia.
Many other countries in Asia, Latin America, and Africa have expressed neutrality in the conflict, refusing to join the Western campaign to isolate Moscow.
The largest nation on Earth, China, has publicly maintained neutrality, while backing Russia economically and blaming “US hegemony” and NATO in its media.
Even India, the world’s second-biggest country by population, whose right-wing government has become a close US ally in recent years, has been careful to stay neutral.
India is also developing an alternative payment mechanism to circumvent Western sanctions on Russia and instead do trade in Indian rupees and Russian rubles, cutting out the dollar.
Pakistan, the world’s fifth-most populous nation, is neutral as well, while leaning toward supporting Moscow.
Bangladesh, the ninth-largest country, is also neutral, and is considering using the Chinese currency, the yuan, to evade sanctions and continue trading with Russia.
Vietnam has likewise shown neutrality, calling for dialogue to lead to a peaceful resolution, while still maintaining friendly relations with Russia.
Many African nations are neutral, including Algeria, Angola, Burundi, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Uganda, and Tanzania.
One of the most important US trade partners, Mexico, has taken a neutral stance as well. The center-left government of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) has refused to give in to Washington’s pressure to impose sanctions on Russia.
The government of Bolivia’s socialist President Luis Arce has shown neutrality, while anti-imperialist former President Evo Morales blamed NATO and said “the US uses Ukraine to militarily, politically, and economically attack the people of Russia.”
Morales made a “call for an international mobilization to stop the interventionist expansionism of NATO and the US,” declaring that its “hegemony of weapons and imperialism puts world peace at risk.” He has since helped organize popular workshops teaching people about the crimes of NATO.
Even the notoriously pro-US regime of Brazil’s far-right President Jair Bolsonaro has stayed neutral. Brazil’s foreign minister, Carlos Franca, said the country’s position was one of “impartiality,” not siding firmly with Russia or Ukraine.
Brazil’s left-wing Workers’ Party published a statement blaming the United States and NATO expansion onto Russian borders for the conflict, although it later deleted the post and took a more neutral position. Former president Dilma Rousseff expressed a similar stance.
Russia is part of the BRICS framework, uniting Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa in an attempt to create an alternative political and economic infrastructure to challenge Western hegemony.
All of the other countries in this bloc, which represent some of the largest economies in the world, have stayed neutral over Ukraine, while some have explicitly blamed the US and NATO.
The countries in yellow have sanctioned Russia. The countries in gray have not sanctioned Russia. pic.twitter.com/0md8fPxOoB
— Ollie Vargas (@OVargas52) March 25, 2022

The government of South Africa has pointed the finger at NATO for starting the war in Ukraine.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said in parliament, “The war could have been avoided if NATO had heeded the warnings from amongst its own leaders and officials over the years that its eastward expansion would lead to greater, not less, instability in the region,” in comments reported by Reuters.
“There are those who are insisting that we should take a very adversarial stance against Russia. The approach we are going to take (instead) is … insisting that there should be dialogue,” the South African president said. “Screaming and shouting is not going to bring an end to this conflict.”
The South African leader did not however endorse Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, stating that his government “cannot condone the use of force and violation of international law.”
Ramaphosa is the leader of the African National Congress (ANC) party that led the struggle to overthrow the system of racial apartheid imposed by Dutch colonialism in South Africa.
The ANC has maintained a neutral foreign policy, balancing between the Western powers, Russia, and China.
The views expressed by South Africa’s government are shared by many other countries on the continent.
The governments of Algeria, Angola, Eritrea, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe, which waged successful anti-colonialist struggles, have either blamed NATO for the war, or stayed neutral.
The Western political establishment’s frustration over African neutrality was made clear in a March 28 report in British elite newspaper The Guardian.
Drenched in neocolonialist rhetoric, this article had the title “Cold war echoes as African leaders resist criticising Putin’s war,” and the subtitle “Many remember Moscow’s support for liberation from colonial rule, and a strong anti-imperialist feeling remains.”
The condescending report conceded that numerous African states are “calling for peace but blaming Nato’s eastward expansion for the war, complaining of western ‘double standards’ and resisting all calls to criticise Russia.”
The Guardian lamented, “Support from many African leaders and governments for Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine – or at least reluctance to condemn it – has dismayed western officials.”
The British newspaper reluctantly acknowledged that many African nations, such as South Africa, Zimbabwe, Angola, and Mozambique, “are still ruled by parties that were supported by Moscow during their struggles for liberation from colonial or white supremacist rule.”
In Latin America, positions on the war in Ukraine are transparently divided on ideological lines: left-wing anti-imperialists have blamed the US and NATO for the war, while right-wing pro-US forces have demonized Russia and heroized Ukraine.
As Multipolarista previously reported, a top US official admitted that Washington’s sanctions on Russia over Ukraine also intentionally seek to hurt Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua.
These three Latin American nations with socialist governments, where the United States has constantly organized coup attempts, have blamed US aggression against Russia and NATO expansion for the crisis in Ukraine, while simultaneously emphasizing how tragic war is and how much the world needs peace.
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro said his government “laments the mockery and breaking of the Minsk agreements by NATO, promoted by the United States of America,” accusing Washington and NATO of causing the conflict because they “generated strong threats against the Russian Federation.”
Cuba’s Foreign Ministry wrote, “The U.S. determination to continue NATO’s progressive expansion towards the Russian Federation borders has brought about a scenario with implications of unpredictable scope, which could have been avoided.”
The Cuban government added, “History will hold the United States accountable for the consequences of an increasingly offensive military doctrine outside NATO’s borders, which threatens international peace, security and stability.”
Nicaragua’s President Daniel Ortega stressed that war is never a good thing, causing people to “lose their humanity” and generating destructive economic consequences. But he put the blame for this war squarely on Washington.
The Sandinista leader recalled that the United States organized a violent coup in Ukraine in 2014, overthrowing its democratically elected government with “terrorism,” and then installing into power “political forces subordinated to the North American government and European imperialism, who have thought that now is the time that Europe and the United States eliminate Russia, without keeping in mind that there are big changes in the world, that there are other powers in the world.”
Very similar comments were made by the government in Iran, another Global South nation that waged a successful revolution against a Western-backed regime.
Iran’s public media outlet Press TV reported: “Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has blamed the American regime for the current Ukraine crisis, and demanded an end to the war in Ukraine.”
“The US disrupted the stability of the country [Ukraine] by interfering in its affairs and organizing rallies and creating a color coup,” Khamenei said, referring to the US-sponsored 2014 coup in Kiev.
“We oppose the killing of people and the destruction of the infrastructure of nations,” he added.
The Iranian supreme leader referred to the United States as “basically a mafia regime – political mafia, economic mafia, arms mafia and all kinds of mafias that run and rule the policies of that country and control the country.”
He said the US “regime is a crisis-producing and crisis-consuming regime, and it feeds off creating crises in the world,” and explained that the military-industrial complex needs conflicts like the war in Ukraine: “If the United States fails to create a crisis, the arms factories will not be able to make the most of it. They have to create crises in order to maximize the interests of these mafias.”
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) likewise blamed “the hegemonic policy of the U.S. and the West” for the war in Ukraine.
“The root cause of the Ukraine crisis totally lies in the hegemonic policy of the U.S. and the West which indulge themselves in high-handedness and arbitrariness towards other countries,” the DPRK’s Foreign Ministry wrote in a statement in the official KCNA news agency.
“The U.S. and the West, in defiance of Russia’s reasonable and just demand to provide it with legal guarantee for security, have systematically undermined the security environment of Europe by becoming more blatant in their attempts to deploy attack weapon system while defiantly pursuing NATO’s eastward expansion,” it continued.
” The U.S. and the West, having devastated Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are mouthing phrases about ‘respect for sovereignty’ and ‘territorial integrity’ over the Ukrainian situation which was detonated by themselves. That does not stand to reason at all,” Pyongyang wrote.
It concluded: “The greatest danger the world faces now is high-handedness and arbitrariness by the U.S. and its followers that are shaking international peace and stability at the basis. The reality proves positive once again that peace would never settle on the world at any time as long as there remains the unilateral and double-dealing policy of the U.S. which threatens peace and security of the sovereign state.”


Instruction: Write an article about: Pakistan’s Imran Khan compares his ouster to CIA coup in Iran, criticizes Western colonialism. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: CIA, coup, Ebrahim Raisi, Imran Khan, Iran, Israel, Mohammad Mossadegh, Pakistan, Palestine

Output:
Pakistan’s ex Prime Minister Imran Khan compared the US-backed coup against him in April 2022 to the CIA plot that overthrew Iran’s elected PM Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. He praised Tehran’s sovereignty, criticized Western colonialism, and reaffirmed support for Palestine.

(Se puede leer esta nota en español aquí.)
Pakistan’s former Prime Minister likened the US-backed parliamentary coup that removed him from power in April 2022 to the violent CIA operation that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953.
The CIA-organized coup “was a very similar pattern followed in when my government was dismissed,” Khan said.

He likewise praised Iran’s independence today, stating that Western sanctions means that “the people of Iran might have suffered, but they haven’t lost their dignity.”
Khan added that, while Pakistan and Iran may have some differences, “you cannot disagree with them standing for their sovereignty. So I admire that about them.”
As prime minister, during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, Khan publicly called on the United States to lift its illegal sanctions on Iran, arguing, “It is very unjust they are dealing with such a large outbreak on one side, and on the other they are facing international sanctions.”
Since his ouster, Pakistan’s unelected, US-backed coup regime has hit Khan with baseless “terror” charges, violently repressed protests, banned public broadcasts of his speeches, and arrested dissidents for criticizing it on social media.
Prominent journalists who exposed the corruption of the coup regime, like Arshad Sharif, were killed in mysterious circumstances.
A gunman even tried to assassinate Khan, shooting him in the leg at a rally in November.
Khan made these comments likening the coup against him to the CIA putsch against Mossadegh, and commending Iran for its independence, in a December 28 interview with the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), a think tank based in Istanbul, Türkiye.
In the discussion, Khan stressed the supreme importance of sovereignty, saying “a sovereign country is the key for me to success.”
He criticized the US-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF) for limiting the sovereignty of developing nations like Pakistan.
Khan also emphasized that he will always support the struggle of the Palestinian people and would never recognize Israel.
Khan said of Iran in the interview:
Well, in Iran, during Mohammad Mossadegh’s premiership, his government was removed, and this is now documented, it was removed by the CIA. And it was because an independent-minded prime minister took over Iran, and wanted to make policies for the interest of the people of Iran. And so we all know what happened to him.
There was, first of all, there was this campaign of propaganda campaign against him in the media. Then the opposition parties were paid to do demonstrations against the government of Prime Minister Mossadegh. And then his own party members were given money to change party affiliation. And eventually it was finally the army which removed him.
So it was a very similar pattern followed in when my government was dismissed.
But, you know, let me just talk about Iran. I find that it is most important for a country to live with dignity and self-respect. I mean, that for me is the most important thing.
You know, we Muslims, our oath with the Almighty is “La ilaha illa Allah” – “There is no god but Allah.” It gives us dignity, self-respect. We are not supposed to bow in front of anyone but the Almighty.
And the Muslim countries, when they become subservient or when they become blind states, when they lose their dignity – unfortunately, in Pakistan, we have suffered from this.
I have found that Pakistan’s foreign policy, the vast majority of the people of Pakistan have found it very undignified, because we have relied on aid, and we stretch our hands, and we get money.
Or we fight other people’s war, and then we participate, a lot of our own people die in this, and we do it for foreign aid or US dollars. And I think it has consequences for our society.
Number one, the society never learns to stand on its own feet, because only when you stand on your own feet do you realize your strength. But when you are always having crutches of foreign aid, just because you are trying to serve someone else’s foreign-policy objectives, you lose your dignity.
And for me, the people of Iran might have suffered, but they haven’t lost their dignity.
They, you know, we will disagree with maybe what their world view is. We might disagree with the world view of Islam. But you cannot disagree with them standing for their sovereignty. So I admire that about them.
Later in the discussion, Khan reiterated similar comments about the supreme importance of sovereignty:
Eventually, a country has to be sovereign.
I believe that a country must stand its own feet, have dignity and self-respect, and that’s what gives it strength, because you rely on your own resources.
A human being that walks on crutches, his legs will waste away. The bigger the weight we lift, it strengthens us. Same with human societies.
If you start depending on aid, which we have, and if you depend on foreign loans and the IMF, you would never really learn how to stand on your own feet.
So a sovereign country is the key for me to success.
Khan argued that developing countries are still recovering from the harms of European colonialism:
You see, the problem most of the developing world, or what you call the ex colonies, all of us, the problems we faced are the same. We have struggled to establish rule of law, justice. I mean, justice means rule of law. Rule of law means that everyone is equal before the law. And when you have colonialism, basically the colonials are above law.
And in Pakistan, unfortunately, and like most of the developing, like most of the ex-colonial countries, when they got their independence, the rulers mostly took the role of the colonizers, and they put themselves above law.
And so when you do not have rule of law, corruption becomes one of the biggest symptoms of the lack of rule of law, because the powerful elite goes above law.
And when they start making money, the state institutions cannot check the corruption. And that’s how countries become poor, not because of lack of resources, but the corruption of the ruling elite that bankrupts countries.
And that’s the case with almost the entire developing world. It’s certainly the case with Pakistan. We suffer because, after colonialism, either we had military dictatorship, half the time we were ruled by military dictators – and military dictators, clearly, when they when they take over a country, when they decide to impose martial law, they break the constitution. It’s against the constitution and the rule of law.
But unfortunately, when we’ve had civilian government, so called democratic government, they also have put themselves above law, which is why they have been able to make so much money through corruption and take the money abroad.
And it’s the same story in almost all the developing world. What you have in the developing countries are the ruling elites siphoning off money and taking it abroad.
…
You know, the problem about the Muslim world is that we are still evolving. We are coming out of colonialism; we haven’t found our feet. Our education system lags behind. We don’t have a great many scholars who can direct us. We have a split.
We have the Westernized elites in the Muslim world who have moved quite far away from the religion and don’t understand much about it. And then we have a lot of conservatives who do not understand the Western thought.
Khan reaffirmed his strong support for Palestine and reiterated that he would never recognize Israel:
The founder of Pakistan [Muhammad Ali Jinnah], whom we call Quaid-e-Azam, the “Great Leader,” you know, he in 1948 gave a statement on Palestine, and he spoke about the injustice which was being done to the people of Palestine.
And he was very clear that Pakistan would not accept or would not recognize Israel as long as the people of Palestine were not given justice. So that has been basically the line of all Pakistani heads of state since then.
And secondly, we have – the issue of Palestine is almost exactly the same as the people of Kashmir. So the moment we give up our principled stand on the recognition of Israel means that we give up on Kashmir, too, because the issues are more or less the same.
…
So the United States, being a superpower, every country wants to have a good relationship with them. So the temptation is that, if you are friendly, if you recognize Israel, you will have a good relationship with the US.
But the problem in Pakistan is that it is a democratic country. And anyone who wants to go to the people, he knows that the public will never accept any head of state who has recognized Israel.


Instruction: Write an article about: ‘Western dominance has ended’, EU foreign-policy chief admits, warning of ‘West against the Rest’ geopolitics. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: EU, European Union, Gaza, General Assembly, Global South, Josep Borrell, Sahel, Ukraine, United Nations

Output:
The European Union’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, admitted that the “era of Western dominance has indeed definitively ended”. He warned that the EU must not divide the world into “the West against the Rest”, as “many in the ‘Global South’ accuse us of ‘double standards’”.

Europe’s top diplomat has acknowledged that the “era of Western dominance has indeed definitively ended”.
Josep Borrell, the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs, wrote this in a blog post on the official website of the EU’s diplomatic service on February 25.
“If the current global geopolitical tensions continue to evolve in the direction of ‘the West against the Rest’, Europe’s future risks to be bleak”, he warned.

The wars in Ukraine and Gaza, along with the anti-colonial uprisings in Africa’s Sahel region, have “significantly increased this risk” of Europe becoming geopolitically irrelevant, Borrell said, lamenting that “Russia has managed to take advantage of the situation”.
The European foreign-policy chief revealed that “improving our relations with the ‘Global South'” is one of ” the four main tasks on EU’s geopolitical agenda”.
“Many in the ‘Global South’ accuse us of ‘double standards'”, he confessed.

Borrell is known for sporadically making frank comments, admitting inconvenient truths that most European diplomats leave unsaid.
In 2022, the EU foreign-policy chief confessed, “Our prosperity was based on China and Russia – energy and market”, with “cheap energy coming from Russia” and “access to the big China market” as the cornerstone of the European economy.
However, Borrell’s insistence that Europe must not divide the world into the “West against the Rest” was contradicted by his insistence in the same February 2024 article that the EU must expand its “cooperation with key partners, and in particular the US”.
The top European diplomat wrote that “recent months have reminded us how important NATO remains to our collective defence”, calling to strengthen the US-led military bloc.
In 2023, the influential think tank the European Council on Foreign Relations published a white paper titled “The art of vassalisation”. It warned of “Europe becoming an American vassal”, noting how the war in Ukraine had “revealed Europeans’ profound dependence on the US”.
The EU’s foreign-policy chief does recognize that it would be an error to pit “the West against the Rest”, yet he is simultaneously calling for deepening the trans-Atlantic alliance between the US and Europe, which only exacerbates that geopolitical division.
On the global stage, Europe frequently joins the United States in violating the will of the international community.
At the United Nations, the US and Europe often vote together, while the vast majority of member states, which are located in the Global South, vote against them.
Source: Alastair Iain Johnston, “China in a World of Orders: Rethinking Compliance and Challenge in Beijing’s International Relations”, International Security (2019)
The US only voted with the majority of the world at the UN General Assembly 32.7% of the time from 1983 to 2012.
In 1988, just 15.4% of overall UNGA votes coincided with the US vote.
Europe is the only region of the world that consistently votes with the US.

In November 2023, the West voted against the vast majority of the world in UN General Assembly resolutions concerning democracy, human rights, cultural diversity, mercenaries, and unilateral coercive measures (sanctions).
In April 2023, the West once again voted as a bloc against the other countries on the UN Human Rights Council, defending unilateral sanctions, which violate international law.
In December 2022, the West voted against the rest of the planet in UN General Assembly votes calling for a new international economic order.
West votes against democracy, human rights, cultural diversity at UN; promotes mercenaries, sanctions


Instruction: Write an article about: Wikileaks: US supported Khmer Rouge to weaken Soviet-allied Vietnamese communists. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: Cambodia, Khmer Rouge, Soviet Union, USSR, WikiLeaks

Output:
Classified 1978 diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks show the US government supported the Khmer Rouge, in order to maintain “stability” in Cambodia and weaken the Vietnamese communists, which were allied with the Soviet Union.

Formerly classified 1978 diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks show that the US government supported the Khmer Rouge, in order to maintain “stability” in Cambodia and weaken the Vietnamese communists, which were allied with the Soviet Union.
The State Department sent a cable to six US embassies in Asia on 11 October 1978 stating, “We believe a national Cambodia must exist even though we believe the Pol Pot regime is the world’s worst violator of human rights.”
The Phnom Penh Post reported:
Yet while the US government was aware of the horrific actions of the Pol Pot regime, with a July 21 cable from the US Embassy in Laos estimating 2 million people had died at its hands, it refused overtures from the country’s previous leadership to challenge the Pol Pot government’s right to represent Cambodia at the United Nations.
A 16 December US State Department cable to the UN stated, “If the Pol Pot regime was toppled, this could result in indefinite guerrilla warfare in Cambodia.”
The US government insisted that, in spite of the roughly 1 to 2 million people killed by the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot maintained “stability” in Cambodia, and that was most important.
Renowned muckraking journalist John Pilger, who witnessed firsthand the brutality of Pol Pot’s regime, has detailed how the US and UK helped give rise to the Khmer Rouge in the first place.
Pilger explained in detail in 2000:
Declassified United States government documents leave little doubt that the secret and illegal bombing of then neutral Cambodia by President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger between 1969 and 1973 caused such widespread death and devastation that it was critical in Pol Pot’s drive for power. “They are using damage caused by B52 strikes as the main theme of their propaganda,” the CIA director of operations reported on 2 May 1973. “This approach has resulted in the successful recruitment of young men. Residents say the propaganda campaign has been effective with refugees in areas that have been subject to B52 strikes.” In dropping the equivalent of five Hiroshimas on a peasant society, Nixon and Kissinger killed an estimated half a million people. Year Zero began, in effect, with them; the bombing was a catalyst for the rise of a small sectarian group, the Khmer Rouge, whose combination of Maoism and medievalism had no popular base.
After two and a half years in power, the Khmer Rouge was overthrown by the Vietnamese on Christmas Day, 1978. In the months and years that followed, the US and China and their allies, notably the Thatcher government, backed Pol Pot in exile in Thailand. He was the enemy of their enemy: Vietnam, whose liberation of Cambodia could never be recognised because it had come from the wrong side of the cold war. For the Americans, now backing Beijing against Moscow, there was also a score to be settled for their humiliation on the rooftops of Saigon.
To this end, the United Nations was abused by the powerful. Although the Khmer Rouge government (“Democratic Kampuchea”) had ceased to exist in January 1979, its representatives were allowed to continue occupying Cambodia’s seat at the UN; indeed, the US, China and Britain insisted on it. Meanwhile, a Security Council embargo on Cambodia compounded the suffering of a traumatised nation, while the Khmer Rouge in exile got almost everything it wanted. In 1981, President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said: “I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot.” The US, he added, “winked publicly” as China sent arms to the Khmer Rouge.
In fact, the US had been secretly funding Pol Pot in exile since January 1980. The extent of this support – $85m from 1980 to 1986 – was revealed in correspondence to a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. On the Thai border with Cambodia, the CIA and other intelligence agencies set up the Kampuchea Emergency Group, which ensured that humanitarian aid went to Khmer Rouge enclaves in the refugee camps and across the border. Two American aid workers, Linda Mason and Roger Brown, later wrote: “The US government insisted that the Khmer Rouge be fed . . . the US preferred that the Khmer Rouge operation benefit from the credibility of an internationally known relief operation.” Under American pressure, the World Food Programme handed over $12m in food to the Thai army to pass on to the Khmer Rouge; “20,000 to 40,000 Pol Pot guerillas benefited,” wrote Richard Holbrooke, the then US assistant secretary of state.
I witnessed this. Travelling with a UN convoy of 40 trucks, I drove to a Khmer Rouge operations base at Phnom Chat. The base commander was the infamous Nam Phann, known to relief workers as “The Butcher” and Pol Pot’s Himmler. After the supplies had been unloaded, literally at his feet, he said: “Thank you very much, and we wish for more.”
In November of that year, 1980, direct contact was made between the White House and the Khmer Rouge when Dr Ray Cline, a former deputy director of the CIA, made a secret visit to a Khmer Rouge operational headquarters. Cline was then a foreign policy adviser on President-elect Reagan’s transitional team. By 1981, a number of governments had become decidedly uneasy about the charade of the UN’s continuing recognition of the defunct Pol Pot regime. Something had to be done. The following year, the US and China invented the Coalition of the Democratic Government of Kampuchea, which was neither a coalition nor democratic, nor a government, nor in Kampuchea (Cambodia). It was what the CIA calls “a master illusion”. Prince Norodom Sihanouk was appointed its head; otherwise little changed. The two “non-communist” members, the Sihanoukists, led by the Prince’s son, Norodom Ranariddh, and the Khmer People’s National Liberation Front, were dominated, diplomatically and militarily, by the Khmer Rouge. One of Pol Pot’s closet cronies, Thaoun Prasith, ran the office at the UN in New York.
In Bangkok, the Americans provided the “coalition” with battle plans, uniforms, money and satellite intelligence; arms came direct from China and from the west, via Singapore. The non-communist fig leaf allowed Congress – spurred on by a cold-war zealot Stephen Solarz, a powerful committee chairman – to approve $24m in aid to the “resistance”.
Until 1989, the British role in Cambodia remained secret. The first reports appeared in the Sunday Telegraph, written by Simon O’Dwyer-Russell, a diplomatic and defence correspondent with close professional and family contacts with the SAS. He revealed that the SAS was training the Pol Pot-led force. Soon afterwards, Jane’s Defence Weekly reported that the British training for the “non-communist” members of the “coalition” had been going on “at secret bases in Thailand for more than four years”. The instructors were from the SAS, “all serving military personnel, all veterans of the Falklands conflict, led by a captain”.
The Cambodian training became an exclusively British operation after the “Irangate” arms-for-hostages scandal broke in Washington in 1986. “If Congress had found out that Americans were mixed up in clandestine training in Indo-China, let alone with Pol Pot,” a Ministry of Defence source told O’Dwyer-Russell, “the balloon would have gone right up. It was one of those classic Thatcher-Reagan arrangements.” Moreover, Margaret Thatcher had let slip, to the consternation of the Foreign Office, that “the more reasonable ones in the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in a future government”. In 1991, I interviewed a member of “R” (reserve) Squadron of the SAS, who had served on the border. “We trained the KR in a lot of technical stuff – a lot about mines,” he said. “We used mines that came originally from Royal Ordnance in Britain, which we got by way of Egypt with marking changed . . . We even gave them psychological training. At first, they wanted to go into the villages and just chop people up. We told them how to go easy . . .”
The Foreign Office response was to lie. “Britain does not give military aid in any form to the Cambodian factions,” stated a parliamentary reply. The then prime minister, Thatcher, wrote to Neil Kinnock: “I confirm that there is no British government involvement of any kind in training, equipping or co-operating with Khmer Rouge forces or those allied to them.” On 25 June 1991, after two years of denials, the government finally admitted that the SAS had been secretly training the “resistance” since 1983. A report by Asia Watch filled in the detail: the SAS had taught “the use of improvised explosive devices, booby traps and the manufacture and use of time-delay devices”. The author of the report, Rae McGrath (who shared a joint Nobel Peace Prize for the international campaign on landmines), wrote in the Guardian that “the SAS training was a criminally irresponsible and cynical policy”.
When a UN “peacekeeping force” finally arrived in Cambodia in 1992, the Faustian pact was never clearer. Declared merely a “warring faction”, the Khmer Rouge was welcomed back to Phnom Penh by UN officials, if not the people. The western politician who claimed credit for the “peace process”, Gareth Evans (then Australia’s foreign minister), set the tone by calling for an “even-handed” approach to the Khmer Rouge and questioning whether calling it genocidal was “a specific stumbling block”.
Khieu Samphan, Pol Pot’s prime minister during the years of genocide, took the salute of UN troops with their commander, the Australian general John Sanderson, at his side. Eric Falt, the UN spokesman in Cambodia, told me: “The peace process was aimed at allowing [the Khmer Rouge] to gain respectability.”
The consequence of the UN’s involvement was the unofficial ceding of at least a quarter of Cambodia to the Khmer Rouge (according to UN military maps), the continuation of a low-level civil war and the election of a government impossibly divided between “two prime ministers”: Hun Sen and Norodom Ranariddh.
The Hun Sen government has since won a second election outright. Authoritarian and at times brutal, yet by Cambodian standards extraordinarily stable, the government led by a former Khmer Rouge dissident, Hun Sen, who fled to Vietnam in the 1970s, has since done deals with leading figures of the Pol Pot era, notably the breakaway faction of Ieng Sary, while denying others immunity from prosecution.
Once the Phnom Penh government and the UN can agree on its form, an international war crimes tribunal seems likely to go ahead. The Americans want the Cambodians to play virtually no part; their understandable concern is that not only the Khmer Rouge will be indicted.
The Cambodian lawyer defending Ta Mok, the Khmer Rouge military leader captured last year, has said: “All the foreigners involved have to be called to court, and there will be no exceptions . . . Madeleine Albright, Margaret Thatcher, Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George Bush . . . we are going to invite them to tell the world why they supported the Khmer Rouge.”
The 1978 documents released by WikiLeaks also indicate that the Chinese government joined the United States in supporting the Khmer Rouge. At the time, a decade after the Sino-Soviet split, Beijing was an ally of Washington; the two were united in their intense antipathy toward the Soviet Union, which they both targeted for overthrow.
The Phnom Penh Post reported that “Chinese support for Cambodia was driven by fear of Vietnamese expansionism in the region,” and the Vietnamese were important allies of the Soviets.
The newspaper added that China had gone so far as to claim that the “reports of mass killings in Cambodia were untrue.”
Those who follow Middle Eastern politics may notice that the US policy toward the Khmer Rouge sounds a lot like the US policy in West Asia today, echoing Washington’s support for hyper-repressive theocratic Gulf monarchies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and NATO’s backing of Khmer Rouge-style Salafi-jihadist death squads in Syria, Libya, and Yemen.


Instruction: Write an article about: Russia leaves neoliberal West to join World Majority – Economists Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson explain. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: dollar, economics, Geopolitical Economy Hour, Michael Hudson, Radhika Desai, Russia, sanctions, trade, Ukraine

Output:
Economists Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson discuss Russia’s economic transition away from the neoliberal West and integration with what it calls the “World Majority” in the Global South.

In this episode of their program Geopolitical Economy Hour, economists Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson discuss Russia’s economic transition away from the neoliberal West and integration with what it calls the “World Majority” in the Global South.
You can find more episodes of Geopolitical Economy Hour here.

RADHIKA DESAI: Hi everyone, welcome to the seventh Geopolitical Economy Hour, a program about the political and geopolitical economy of the fast-changing world of today. ‘m Radhika Desai.
MICHAEL HUDSON: And I’m Michael Hudson.
RADHIKA DESAI: And as some of you know I just got back from Russia which is why we are doing this show with a week’s delay.
Of course it’s been a really interesting time there. I attended many conferences, talked to loads of people: economists, political observers, commentators, etc.
Michael and I thought that what we’d do today is talk about my impressions, and also weave them into a broader discussion about how the world order is changing towards multipolarity. So many things have happened.
President Xi went to Russia, and President Macron went to China, and so many things are going on. So we’ll weave all of that into a broader discussion about my impressions from Russia.
So what Michael and I thought we’d do is focus on two particular points that we thought were interesting that I picked up when I was in Russia is that during the whirlwind of conferences that I was at, at which some very prominent Russians spoke, the one thing that I heard that was really interesting is a decisive statement coming from some of the most influential speakers, that essentially Russia is moving away from the West and will never return.
And the second idea, which is also very fascinating, is that increasingly the Russians are now thinking of themselves as part of a “World Majority.”
Right, Michael? To us these are the two most interesting things.
MICHAEL HUDSON: The important point is that once you break away from the West, what are you going to break to?
And while you were in Russia talking about how they wanted something new, the whole West was in a turmoil. We’re really at a turning point of a civilization, probably the biggest turning point since World War I.
Where, in order to not follow the West, there has to be a whole new set of institutions that are non-Western. A new kind of International Monetary Fund (IMF), meaning some kind of a means of financing trade and investment among the non-Western countries.
Some kind of a new World Bank. Well so far we have the Belt and Road Initiative for a new kind of investment.
And what we’re really talking about, since a theme of our talk all along has been Biden saying that this split is going to go on for twenty years, we’re really talking about the split between Western finance capitalism and the global majority moving towards socialism.
RADHIKA DESAI: Exactly. And it seems as though there has been an increasing consciousness of this in Russia. So, just to elaborate on the first point, which is of Russia turning away from the West.
I was at a conference at the Higher School of Economics, and it’s important to underline this is a very prestigious, post-communist institution which was designed in order to essentially develop and entrench neoliberalism in Russia.
And in the hallowed halls of this institution, which by the way is very beautiful. It was a former military academy. They have an annual conference every year on economic policy and so on.
And this is where, in a [panel] on the “World Majority”, as it was entitled, I heard Dmitri Trenin make a really interesting statement.
Now, Demitri Trenin is also interesting and important. He used to be, again, part of this larger pro-Western, pro-neoliberal group of people. He headed the Carnegie Institution in Moscow and interestingly particularly after 2014, and after 2022, when many people of his ilk had left Russia, he has decided to stay and he is still very much in the forefront of the commentariat in Russia.
He said, “When the war is over, Russia will not strive to be part of the West.” That chapter, he said, is over.
So that’s really fascinating. That somebody like he should say that. And just as a matter of settled fact.
And this is interesting because if you sort of cast your mind back, you know, Lenin, from the earliest days of the Russian Revolution, and even before realizing that Russia’s fate was tied up with the East.
But then in particular, after the Second World War and Khrushchev all that, you saw an increasing turn to the West and Russia has remained very oriented to the West. And now this is over.
And the chair of the session was an elderly professor called Sergei Karaganov. And he had been one of the founders of the Valdai Club. Again, the Valdai Club, which is sort of the equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States.
The Valdai Club was also set up as a way in which Russian intellectuals would meet Western intellectuals and think about Russia as part of the West.
But Sergei Karaganov also concluded the session by reiterating, and he said, “Russia will never come back to the West. It’s done there,” he said. So I thought this was really fascinating.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well the interesting thing there is that while you’re talking about what Russia’s future is with China, Iran, and the rest of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, there was a sort of frantic talk in Washington, especially at this week’s meetings with the IMF and the World Bank about — well, if Eurasia goes that way, what is going to happen to what we call the Global South. What’s going to happen to Latin America and Africa?
Well you’ve had the first Mr. Blinken of the US, and then Vice President Harris go to Africa and to say, “We want to make sure that we have your cobalt, we have your raw materials, and that you leave all of the US and NATO investments in place and do not give any of the cobalt or lithium or other raw materials to China and Russia and Eurasia.”
So, essentially, the southern hemisphere countries are being faced with a choice. What’s so interesting is what makes this choice different from what it was in, say, 1945.
After World War II, the United States had all sorts of economic arguments as to why capitalism was going to offer prosperity to the whole world, including the southern hemisphere. And Soviet Russia at that time was pushing communism.
Well, there’s no ideological discussion today.
On the one hand, the West doesn’t have any attempt to justify joining the US and NATO bloc. All it says is, — If you don’t join us, we’re going to do to you what we did to Libya, and we’re going to do to you what we did to Ukraine. Use pure force.
The question is now what the global majority and what Eurasia is going to say. — Well, we’re not going to force you. We’re not going to attack you. We’re not going to have a color revolution. But here is the economic future and the way of organizing the international trade and investment market that is going to help you.
Well, you can just imagine if Jesus had come in and tried to found Christianity by saying, —We’re going to kill everybody who disagrees with this.
That would not have ever taken off.
I think that the neoliberal plan today has about as much chance of taking off. You’re not going to get the world to follow you just by threatening to bomb it, but that’s all that America and NATO have to offer: refraining from bombing other countries if they don’t leave things the way they used to be.
RADHIKA DESAI: Exactly. All the West has to offer is sticks. Whereas China comes loaded with all the carrots that you can imagine. The juiciest carrots that you can imagine.
So this World Majority concept that’s come up is essentially all the non-Western world, the World Majority, can see these carrots, they are responding to these carrots.
And the other interesting thing is that these carrots are not neoliberal carrots. This is the other thing that is very clear.
But let me just first deal with this World Majority thing, because again, at the same conference, it turned out that the session was titled “Development for the world’s majority”.
And so the the chair of the of the meeting, Professor Karaganav, also said that this idea had actually come up at the Higher School of Economics in some kind of a brainstorming session in which the purpose was to say, — Okay, Russia is not the Third World, Russia is not the developing world, so Russia is part of the post-communist world, so how do we conceive of a single entity of which Russia is now very active part, and is going to be one of the leaders of this?
And so, having brainstormed a lot, somebody came up with this idea of the World Majority. So increasingly, the Russians are thinking of themselves, not as being part of the West, whose attractiveness is shrinking and whose borders are also rather small if you think about it.
The bulk of the GDP and people in the world are outside the West. And this is also becoming increasingly clear. The West now accounts for about 30% of world GDP, so this is the rest of the 70%. And it’s only going to grow.
Meanwhile, the West’s neoliberal policies are accelerating the decline of this.
And Michael, we’re going to talk about these institutions in a second, but let me just say one other thing about the domestic policy which you touched. Then we’ll move over to the institutions that the world majorities work to create.
And that is that, we attended another conference as well at the start, that’s where we arrived, the St. Petersburg Economic Forum].
And the St. Petersburg [International Economic Forum] is another annual event. And what really struck us this time, we attended the plenary session at which a lot of very important people, including Sergei Glazyev, who is leading the Eurasian integration process in Russia, spoke.
The President of the Free Economic Society of Russia spoke. A number of important ministers and others also spoke.
And at this conference, what was remarkable is that, barring the one or two diehard neoliberals who also spoke at the main plenary session, the overwhelming majority of the speakers voiced an anti-neoliberal consensus.
Neoliberalism is finished in Russia. The overwhelming consensus is that behind some sort of a developmental state that is going to engage in a fairly effective, high degree of state intervention to ensure that Russia does not lag behind technologically. That Russian industry is revitalized. That Russia, in trade terms, is in a winning situation.
Basically, across the board there was a consensus against neoliberalism which I thought was really remarkable.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, the problem in what you say is the word “finished”.
It’s one thing to say, “We are going to have a new non-neoliberal new order.” And of course that’s what Russia, China, and Iran, and the other countries, India, are all trying to do.
But the problem is that there still is a neoliberal world order that covers a lot of the World Majority.
And what are we going to do about the survival of these neoliberal institutions? What are we going to do about all the massive foreign debt that’s owed to the West by what we can call here the Global South, because that’s really who owes the debt, not the World Majority.
And that’s really what has been under discussion in the United States while you were in Russia.
How do they use this carryover, this legacy of debt, as a stranglehold on the Third World countries?
Well, there have been a lot of articles about what China has to say about this.
The Americans and NATO are all in agreement. South America and Africa can of course pay their debts if they don’t pay China. They’re blaming China for everything, who’s the last newcomer of all and is the least neoliberal.
China says, “Well wait a minute, we are not going to write down our debts to Africa and South America just so they can afford to pay you, the bondholders, for your loans that have gone bad. A loan that has gone bad is a bad loan and should be written off.”
But there isn’t any system for government bankruptcy because the whole purpose of having a financialized world order and finance capitalism is, you never let other countries declare bankruptcy and wipe out their debts like you can do in America and Canada and other domestic countries.
You want to keep this debt forever as an irreversible burden so that an indebted country can never break away from the US and NATO.
So the question is: How will these new organizations, these alternatives to neoliberalism for trade and investment, that you’ve been hearing them talk about, how are they going to deal with countering this legacy?
President Biden says, “You’re either with us or against us.”
So how are the rest of the countries going to choose which bloc they want to join?
RADHIKA DESAI: Well I think that the whole issue of debt, world debt in particular, has become a really important issue at this point, and it’s become an important issue because precisely now China is such a large part of the scene.
I remember going back to the earliest days of the pandemic when Third World debt had also figured as a major issue. Already at that point, the key reason why the debt issues were not going to be settled is because the West could not come to terms with the fact that it had to deal with China, and that it had to deal equitably with China.
Because what the West wants to do is precisely to get China to refinance the debt owed to it so that Third World debt repayments go to private lenders.
And China is basically questioning the terms of all of this, because for example China is saying, “Why should the IMF and the World Bank have priority? Why should its debt not be canceled?”
And the West is saying, “But this has always been so.”
And China is saying, “Well, if you don’t want to reform the IMF and the World Bank, then we are not going to accept their priority. If we have to take a haircut, they will also have to take a haircut.”
They simply do not accept that these institutions, the Bretton Woods institutions, have any sort of priority.
And this is part of the undermining, as you were saying. This is one of the biggest changes since the First World War. And part of these changes is that the world made at the end of the Second World War by the imperialist powers, who are still very powerful, is now increasingly disappearing.
MICHAEL HUDSON: You and I have been talking about this since Covid began in 2020, and it’s only right now that finally the IMF and the World Bank meetings are getting around to finding this out, three years too late.
They didn’t want to confront that finance capitalism has a problem. The debts ultimately cannot be paid. The debts mount up faster, especially on the Third World.
And the reason we discussed it and they didn’t was they didn’t want Africa and South America to deal with the problem. They wanted the problem just to go on and get worse and worse.
So now the IMF has published charts saying, “Wait a minute, most of the Third World countries are now in crisis.”
They are not attributing the crisis to the sanctions against Russian oil and food exports. They’re not attributing it to the increase in the dollar’s exchange rate by the Federal Reserve. They’re just blaming statism.
Well obviously, the one thing the characterizes the new global World Majority order is a mixed economy where other countries will do what China has done. They will make money and land, meaning housing, and employment into public rights and public utilities instead of commodifying them and privatizing them and financializing them as has occurred in the West .
So we’re really talking about, in order to move away from the dollar-NATO-sphere, we’re not really talking about just one national currency or another.
It’s not going to be a question of the Chinese yen and the Russian ruble and other currencies replacing the dollar. It’s a whole different economic system.
That’s the one thing that is not permitted in the mainstream media to discuss. They’re still on the “There Is No Alternative” Margaret Thatcher slogan, instead of talking about: What is the alternative going to be?
Because obviously things cannot last the way they are now.
RADHIKA DESAI: Absolutely. And I think that we want to talk about exactly what these new institutions are, because the thing is that you see two very different things going on.
On the one hand, there are a number of bilateral and multilateral arrangements being made on a regional basis, whether it’s the BRICS or the Shanghai Cooperation [Organization] and what have you. These arrangements are being made.
But on the other hand, people are also talking about trying to create some sort of universal system, some kind of bancor or International Clearing Union arrangements.
But the problem with them is that of course, at the moment, precisely because the West is taking the position that it’s taking, it is not going to cooperate in anything universal, and without that we will not have a universal agreement.
And in that sense, what we will see is necessarily the emergence of regional agreements, maybe quite substantial, but nevertheless they will still be regional.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, the question then is: What kind of a revolution is there going to be?
Pepe Escobar just wrote an article a few days ago saying that what’s happening now is, the world’s in another 1848, meaning a revolution.
But the 1848 revolution was a bourgeois revolution. It was the progressive force of industrial capitalism against the landlords, and against the banks, and against the rentier class that had survived from feudalism.
What was needed is a further revolution, obviously, a 20th century revolution, in order to not only free capital from the landlord and the banking class, but to free the whole population from the capital class in general.
That’s what nobody dares talk about.
And obviously you’re not having China proselytize. It’s not coming out and saying, — Here’s our economic system as opposed to yours.
And yet all of this philosophy is going to be implicit in any kind of restructuring that they’re going to have.
And so the question is: What will be the guidelines behind this?
To what extent are they going this far in the discussions you heard?
RADHIKA DESAI: That’s a really interesting point. I wanted to also say that, the impression one got when in Russia was: you didn’t get the impression that this is a nation at war.
There was no jingoism. There were hardly ever any of those “Z” signs to be seen. Maybe I saw a total of two or three of them, maybe perhaps all total during my travels around Russia.
And in many ways, support for the war is there, and it’s a very quiet kind of support. Whatever view one may have, everybody can see that Russian victory is absolutely essential, that a NATO victory would be disastrous for Russia and the rest of the world.
All of this is very clear. And in many ways it is a criticism of the Putin administration made by those who are some partisans of his developmental state. It is that the Putin government has not used the opportunity created by sanctions to move more decisively.
On the one hand, to mobilize for war more decisively, both in terms of mobilizing troops as well as economic mobilization, in order to win the war.
And then as part of the economic mobilization, the point that people would make, and some critical economics have made, is that the Putin administration is still leaning a little too much in the direction of neoliberalism.
For example, capital controls aren’t as extensive as they should be. Monetary policy is far tighter than it should be. The state has not tried to intervene in sectors other than defense production in order to try to increase production.
In all of these ways there is a criticism of the Putin administration. It comes from the fact that he has not been decisive enough.
So I would say that a couple of things emerged from this.
On the one hand, sanctions have definitely created the objective conditions in which anti-neoliberal direction of policy and developmental state direction of policy has become a necessity.
And I think that this is most important to remember: I think most countries will find that, if they wish to create any kind of development, they will have to adopt anti-neoliberal developmental policies.
So in that sense there are residual effects of neoliberalism, but circumstances are going to ensure that neoliberalism is essentially finished, because any successful attempts at creating development will have to involve the kind of state interventionism which is sort of “this far” away from socialism.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, while you were there both President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov have been using the same word over and over again, and that is “multipolarity”.
But multipolarity, that’s the sort of modern world for the 1648 [Peace of] Westphalia that ended the Thirty Years’ War.
The Westphalian system was that no nation should interfere with the policies of other nations.
And that was the law that governed basically all international relations until 1945 when the United States said, — Well, we get to interfere with every other nation, but no nation has any authority over us. And we will never belong to any organization in which we do not have veto power, as America has in the UN, IMF and the World Bank.
You can see the first stage of this. Countries are trading with each other. The recent deals between Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, to denominate their trade in their own currencies.
Well, this means that countries are going to hold, in their foreign reserves, each other’s currencies.
And the first question is: What will this mix of foreign currencies be?
Well I think the natural solution would be for the mix of currencies to reflect the proportions in which a country’s foreign trade is in.
Because China is the major trader of so many countries, obviously the Chinese currency is going to play a major role.
But as we’ve talked about before, this does not mean that China’s currency is going to replace the dollar. No currency will replace the dollar because there will never be a dollar standard again.
There will never be anything like one country controlling other countries with the ability to grab their money at will to cause a crisis by cutting them off from the SWIFT bank clearing system, from doing the things that the dollar did.
But much more than just holding each other’s currency, there’s the whole superstructure of how the economy is going to be structured behind that.
You and I have talked before about, given the fact that many countries now are having difficulty, to put it mildly, paying their foreign debts, the countries that agree to join with Russia and China and Eurasia are going to have access to a new kind of international bank.
And this international bank will create something that, in one sense, is like gold, in the sense of being a currency, a vehicle, that countries can use to pay debts to each other. That governments can use with each other. Not to be spent domestically.
Under the gold exchange standard, nobody was paying [domestically] in gold in the 1930s and 40s, or 1950s and 60s, but gold was used amongst central banks.
So we’re going to see something like the Keynes’s bancor currency that you and I have discussed so much, or like the International Monetary Fund’s SDRs, except that the new international bancor will not be created just to give to military countries to wage war against countries that the United States doesn’t like.
RADHIKA DESAI: Exactly. Moving towards that sort of situation, the bancor-like situation, would be very helpful. Because if you think about the principles that Keynes took into account when designing the International Currency Union and bancor and so on, what were some of the key things?
I would say the first and most important thing is that countries would implement capital controls. Which is why central banks would retain their power to settle balances with this multilaterally-agreed international currency, which is not the domestic currency of any country.
So capital controls are also important because look at it this way.
One of the key reasons why a kind of sensible economic policy of the sort that you and I would endorse, a developmental economic policy, one that is designed to create a productive economy and a broadly-based prosperity, one of the key hindrances to this is the excessive financialization of the dollar system, and all the elites in various Third World countries and the World Majority countries, including Russia, that participate in this dollar system.
So I would say that imposing capital controls would be critical.
Another really important thing that comes out of this system is that Keynes’s system, the International Currency Union, was designed to minimize imbalances, persistent imbalances.
Countries would never have persistent imbalances in terms of trade or investment or anything. There would be no persistent export surpluses, no persistent trade deficits.
This is also the opposite of what we have right now. The US dollar-based system in fact relies on the systematic creation of imbalances in which the United States must run current account deficits in order to provide the world with liquidity.
And of course the United States and the Federal Reserve have also, in order to make the dollar more acceptable, sponsored the massive financialization of the dollar system generally.
And it would also therefore be a more stable system, and it would also be one in which the development of some parts of the world, and the underdevelopment of other parts of the world, does not become a perpetual part of the system.
Because what does balanced trade mean?
If one country starts generating too much export surpluses, and this is discouraged by taxing their earnings at the level of the International Clearing Union, then this creates an incentive for the country that is the most successful to invest in the success of other countries so that trade rises, but it does so in a balanced fashion.
So that is another principle.
And a final point I would like to make is that this new currency order that will be created, and I’m sure that when it’s already coming into existence the question is only: To what extent can it become a universal order?
But this new currency order will have one very important advantage, which is that the dollar system has always rested on the systematic devaluation of the currencies of other countries, which means that the rest of the world has to work its guts out in order to export vast volumes to First World countries, which is of course one of the key reasons why inflation has been so low in Western countries in the neoliberal period.
So they have to work harder and harder to export vast volumes and earn tiny amounts in value terms. So the discrepancy in the volume and value of Third World exports, or World Majority exports, is massive.
If the rest of the world, if the World Majority, starts getting a better value for their exports and starts enjoying a better exchange rate, essentially, then it will be better remunerated for its efforts.
And I think this is going to be very important for so many World Majority countries.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well you’ve made the key point right there. The dollar system has produced austerity. The international financial system’s result is austerity, and one way that it locked this in is in forcing other countries to devalue. They try to throw more and more of their currency onto the world market to pay their foreign debt.
Now, when a country devalues, what’s really devalued? The price of raw materials isn’t devalued. There’s a common world price for all raw materials. There’s a common world price for oil and energy. There’s a common world price for food. There’s a common world price for machinery and capital goods.
When you devalue, only one thing is devalued: the wages of labor, and domestic rents.
So when the IMF talks about austerity, what it really means is, our class war against labor to make sure that we can increase profits in the US-NATO core by continually reducing what we have to pay for labor that’s paid abroad.
And of course the sin of China was not letting its labor be devalued, but instead using industrialization, and even its financial links to the West, to build up and increase living standards, not roll them down.
So if you realize that the whole point of the financial system is: How do you make a financial system that doesn’t result in debt peonage and degradation of labor?
Well then, you may not want to use central banks. Central banks are created by the commercial banks, against the rest of society. It’s the central banks that have helped destroy industrial capitalism in the West.
You really only need the treasury, which is what you had before central banks, and what China uses.
Its Bank of China is really an extension of the treasury. It’s not an American- or European-style central bank whose job is to support real estate prices and make housing more expensive so that the domestic labor has to go into debt to buy more and more debt-leveraged housing, and that’s not to push up stock and bond prices of the 1%.
The treasury would represent the population as a whole.
Now, this used to be called democracy. But President Biden calls it autocracy. So “autocracy” is supporting labor. What he calls “democracy” is the financial war against labor, just to get the Orwellian vocabulary straight.
RADHIKA DESAI: Absolutely. Michael, you know better than me that the very origin of the word “tyrant” comes from the fact that debt crises in Rome regularly led to the election of rulers who ruled in the interests of the majority of the people, the debtors, and against the interests of the small number of creditors, which is why the creditors ended up calling them tyrants.
In fact, apparently the word tyrant does not mean anything bad, but it’s come to mean something bad because basically we live in a world in which our vocabulary tells us that anything that is against the interests of a tiny minority is somehow against everybody’s interest. But of course this is not so.
Michael, what you say makes me think of several things. Just one tiny clarification, and that is of course you’re absolutely right that the central banks as we have in the United States and most European countries are totally agents of big financial capitalists. I agree completely and that’s how they have behaved.
In a sense, the idea of a central bank is precisely to act as a buffer between the internal domestic economy and the external economy in a way that it acts as a kind of shock absorber, that if there are external shocks that the vast majority of the people are not to suffer them.
And that should be the case. Of course, this is subverted, but therefore central banks are important.
As you say, they should become arms of a broader financial system which is aimed at creating productive growth, stable growth, of course in our time ecologically sustainable growth. So just a small clarification about central banks.
But then three quick points.
Number one, you were pointing to how the dollar system bakes austerity into our system, and of course, again, Keynes’s design of the International Clearing Union and bancor was also interesting from this perspective because its thrust was the opposite.
Of course, capital controls was a keystone of the system. You have to have capital controls, and the purpose of doing that was to ensure that all governments, if they so wish, that is to say, if they were so inclined, they could run their economies for full employment with as much state intervention as necessary with as big a role for the government and the economy as necessary. And this could be done because of capital controls.
And this also brings me to my second point. It has been very fashionable, in our neoliberal era, to talk about the so-called trilemma of policy, which is that there are three goals which are considered by neoliberalism to be desirable, namely, having a stable exchange rate, having an autonomous monetary policy, and free capital flows.
They say you can only achieve two of these at any given time. But my point is, actually it is not a trilemma at all. It is an absolute no-brainer.
If you have capital controls, then you can have both an autonomous monetary policy and a stable exchange rate. There is no need to worry about it.
It is only by adding free capital flows as a desirable end to this mix that you create this artificial trilemma. It’s a completely artificial trilemma.
And my final point. If currencies were really valued realistically rather than this strange overvaluation of the dollar that we have all suffered from for so long, then in fact there would be even less need, even among the rich people of any country, would not feel such a big pressure to hold their money in dollars as they do today, because they only wish that because their own currencies are so subject to the vagaries of the dollar system.
The Fed decides to jack up interest rates, then all the money that has hitherto been flowing into these non-Western economies flows right out, creating currency crises, debt crises, trade crises, and all of these sorts of things.
The currencies of the rest of the world, of the countries of the World Majority, would also be more stable and that would actually decrease the attractiveness of dollars to even the elites of these societies.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well I think you’re quite right about capital controls.
When I went to work in international finance in the 1960s, there were dual exchange rates. The IMF every month would publish the exchange rate for normal trade in goods and services, and a different exchange rate for capital transactions, for debt and investments.
So you had two exchange rates. And that’s because there were capital controls.
The United States, via the IMF, got rid of capital controls so that other countries could not protect themselves. Only the United States could protect itself. That’s the double standard.
Also, as we discussed before, Keynes wanted to solve this by something that is very interesting that the US fought like anything not to accept.
Keynes said, “How do you make an international financial system that is not going to be dominated by the strongest currency, by one currency swamping the others? In other words, how do we avoid the disaster and world depression that the United States has brought on?”
He said, “If one country continues to run a balance of payment surplus and has enormous claims on other countries, and other countries accumulate a deficit, we can’t let them just be painted into a corner or we’re going to be back to the position of Germany and France in the 1920s.”
The country that has the major currency has it because it’s refusing to import from other countries. It’s refusing to help create an international, equitable world order, and so the dominant currency’s claims will be written down.
Well of course the United States knew that Keynes was talking about the dollar that was going to grow.
But just imagine today if China could say, — We thought about the discussions that took place at the end of World War II shaping how the world financial system developed and, yes, I know that the US and NATO say, — Well China’s going to dominate the whole area and end up being another America.
Well, China can say, — We’re in agreement with Keynes’s principle. If we really get so many export surpluses and so many claims on the rest of the country that they can’t pay, of course we’re going to write it down in order to maintain stability.
Imagine if the United States had done this in 1945 and accepted what Keynes did. Imagine how the whole world’s development would have been different for the last 75 years.
That, I think, would be a great ploy by China.
RADHIKA DESAI: Absolutely. Remember that at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference, Keynes had gone there with these proposals for bancor, for International Clearing Union, and they were nixed by the United States because the United States wanted to impose the dollar on the rest of the world.
By contrast, by the way, you should know that in China there is quite a lot of interest in Keynes’s proposals for bancor and so on, for a couple of different reasons.
One thing I remember very vividly is I was precisely writing an article about Keynes and bancor and so on around the time of the 2008 financial crisis.
So I wrote it in the fall of 2008, and it was published in early 2009, and just before it went to press, the governor of the People’s Bank of China issued a short paper in which he recalled that Keynes had proposed a bancor and we need to return to those principles, and so on.
And thankfully I just managed to stick a reference to that into the article just before it went to press which was really lucky.
So the Chinese have a lot of interest. And that’s one thing.
I think you have to understand that the Chinese know the price that the Western economies, the American economy in particular, has paid for making the dollar the world’s money, which is an undermining of its own productive capacity, the financialization of its financial system in such a way that it is geared towards predatory and speculative activity rather than being geared towards financing productive investment.
So in all of these ways, actually all of the Americans have paid a huge price for making the dollar the world’s currency, which is only a good thing for the cream of the American elite and not for anyone else.
The second thing I wanted to say is, this idea that the national currency of any country can easily, stably, reliably, in a good way, be the currency of the world has become naturalized in our time, but it is a completely false idea.
And you see, Keynes’s career is very interesting from this perspective. I’ve written about this as well.
When Keynes started his career in the teens, he was fresh out of college, he went to work for the India Office, and there he learned how the British financial system worked, because as we’ve talked about before, it was so reliant on British India.
So his first book, published in 1913, was called “Indian Currency and Finance”, and it is widely regarded as the primer. If you want to understand how the gold standard worked, read “Indian Currency and Finance”.
And of course, why would a book like “Indian Currency and Finance” be the primer on the gold standard? Because British India was critical to its functioning.
Anyway, if you read this book, it’s full of praise for how wonderfully the system works. Keynes was completely uncritical.
And then over the course of the rest of his life which, if you think about it, Keynes’s career spanned the First World War, the thirty years’ crisis. The First World War began it, and the Second World War more or less ended it. He died in 1946.
So over this period, Keynes was witness to the steepest fall in the international standing and economy of any country he’d seen. Britain went from being the head of the empire on which the sun never set, to essentially being on the cusp of losing that empire and being turned into a weak, industrially declining, medium-sized economy.
So Keynes designed bancor. Keynes, over the course of his life, became a critic of the gold standard, its deflationary character, the costs it exacts on other countries. He absorbed all this.
And of course towards the end of his life he proposed a replacement for what used to be this gold-sterling exchange standard, which was a complete contrast. Which would not impose austerity. Which would not create financialization. Which would allow countries to run their economies for development, for prosperity, for full employment.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, you can say that Eurasia today is picking up the strain of world history where the world left off in 1913 and 1914.
World War I changed the whole direction of the world. It stopped the evolution of industrial capitalism into socialism, with the Russian Revolution and the great fight against the Soviet Union. And it replaced industrial capitalism with finance capitalism.
And today, over a century later, now finally Eurasia is taking the lead in rejecting this retrogression into neo-feudal finance capitalism and picking up where the world was evolving from industrial capitalism into socialism, which seemed to be the wave of the future for everybody who was writing until World War I was such a shock that it traumatized history.
We’re only right now getting over it with Europe and America fighting against it.
They don’t want the world to continue the way it was going in 1914. That’s why they sent all the troops into Russia to try to overthrow the revolution. They’re doing everything they can to prevent it and the rest of the world’s task is to fight for civilization against the forces of reaction.
RADHIKA DESAI: That’s so interesting. And I would say, Michael, that even Europe is probably going to get off this crazy pro-American track that it’s been on since early last year since the military operations began in Ukraine.
I mean, Europe’s position is definitely suicidal, I think increasingly there are voices emerging that are counseling against that. It is not a surprise that Macron, on his visit to China said, his words, not ours, — Europe should stop being a vassal of the United States.
I think that it’s very possible, although certainly the bloody-mindedness and crazy policies of European leaders are not giving us much hope, but nevertheless statements like Macron’s point to the fact that Europe is not in a very comfortable place and it’s going to have to, if only for its own economic survival, break these crazy attachments to US policy.
So that’s one thing. But I’ll say a couple of other things as we should probably wind down soon.
One thing is that, I completely agree with you. I’ve even written stuff about this, for example in this article about Keyes and bancor.
The last section, which looks at the US role in all of this, for example in nixing Keynes’s proposals and trying to exert its dominance over the rest of the world, which I have argued was never successful. I argued this in my “Geopolitical Economy”.
Anyway, the point is the section was entitled “The Strange Afterlife of Imperialism”, in the sense that the United States, in its desire to recreate the kind of dominance that Britain had enjoyed in the 19th century, the 20th century, that the US would enjoy the same sort of dominance.
This attempt managed to, of course, influence world history, but even still it was not successful.
But now the story of that attempt is also at an end. It can no longer realistically even try to create this sort of dominance.
And that means that the anti-imperialist tide that had begun with the outbreak of the First World War and in the thirty years’ crisis of 1914 to 1945, that anti-imperialist trend is now resuming in a bigger way after being sort of held back a bit by American attempts.
But you have to understand that even though the United States wanted to exert its power over the world, in the post-Second World War period it was never entirely successful for the simple reason that the communist world existed.
The communist world stretched from Prague to Pyongyang. It was huge. The United States was not the master of this world. Its existence put serious limits on what the United States could do.
In that sense, what you have seen is that only after the end of the Soviet Union you saw this hubristic attempt on the part of the United States to try to now finally exert its dominance over the world, but that has as we know ended really badly.
There is no unipolarity. Instead there is multipolarity, and the United States has reacted to this very badly and has therefore been engaged in nonstop wars since then.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, you’re right to point out Macron’s statement that Europe is caught in the middle. He’s sort of France’s Donald Trump. He’ll say whatever he thinks is going to be popular, and then he’ll just turn around and say to another side the exact opposite.
But Europe was in the middle after World War I. It agreed to pay the inter-ally debts, and that’s what forced it to impose the reparations on Germany that wrecked all of its development.
It was so rigid in holding to the old financial system in which a debt has to be paid, that it could not break.
But right now Europe is in the middle again, America’s war against Russia being fought in Ukraine.
I think that when Macron made his statement, that maybe Europe should go its own way, he’s trying to take the voting power away from the right wing of France.
The irony is it’s the right wing in almost every European country, the nationalistic wing, that is breaking away from the US, leaving the left way behind.
So the irony is that the left is not playing a role in creating an alternative to neoliberalism. The left has embraced neoliberalism ever since Tony Blair and Bill Clinton.
So it’s very unique that we’re seeing civilization, a new path of civilization, being developed without any reference to the past discussions at all.
I think it would be nice to have a discussion of classical economics, of the political economy of Adam Smith and John Stewart Mill and Marx about value and price. I think they were on to the important things in the 19th century.
It’s as if there’s a kind of technocratic class that is trying to reanalyze the world without really any reference to history at all, and I think that’s what you and I are trying to do in our lectures here.
We’re trying to provide a basis in history to say, — All this has happened before. What can we learn from the experience of what to do and what to avoid?
RADHIKA DESAI: Absolutely. And Michael, maybe we should bring this to an end, but I totally agree with you.
And indeed this is much of the argument of my book “Capitalism, Coronavirus, and War”. It tries to explain why it is that the left has essentially failed to understand imperialism, and this failure today accounts for the fact that it has uniformly become a cheerleader for the West’s disastrous policies against Russia, against China.
Whereas what I find really interesting, particularly in recent foreign policy statements, major statements that have come out of China and come out of Russia, is that they have put imperialism, and the understanding of imperialism, at the center of their understanding.
Every time I read these I’ve been like, this is astonishing. This is what we have been arguing for such a long time. And now the leaders of these major countries, the governments of these major countries, are essentially behind this, which is really so important.
I think that if the West finally wakes up and realizes what it needs to do, I think this can only be a very good thing for us here, because otherwise we are going to be in some sort of spiral of political dysfunction for a very long time.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well the West may wake up, but the Western leadership of politicians won’t wake up.
America has had its own color revolution by Wall Street here, and you can say that Europe had its color revolution.
RADHIKA DESAI: I like that. That was a very good way of putting what’s happening in Europe right now. Europe has been subject to a color revolution by the United States.
We’ve come up to nearly an hour. This has been a great discussion Michael.
Next time we are going to decide what exactly to talk about, but we have a couple of pending topics.
One of them is of course to examine in greater detail the political and geopolitical economy of the conflict in Ukraine, its effects on the various parts of the world, including Russia and Ukraine and the United States and Europe.
And of course we still have to finish our dedollarization final program.
If you have any other suggestions for topics, please let us know. Thanks for your attention, and see you in a couple of weeks.


Instruction: Write an article about: US-backed fascism in Japan: How Shinzo Abe whitewashed genocidal imperial crimes. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: Asia, China, CIA, fascism, Japan, Nobusuke Kishi, Shinzo Abe

Output:
Japan’s longest serving prime minister, Shinzo Abe tried to rewrite the Japanese empire’s genocidal history. After World War II, the US rehabilitated fascist war criminals, like Abe’s grandfather Nobusuke Kishi, putting them in power in a right-wing one-party regime.

Japan’s longest serving prime minister, Shinzo Abe tried to rewrite the history of the fascist Japanese empire and its genocidal crimes. And he and his Nazi-collaborating grandfather enjoyed staunch Western support.
After World War II, the US government pardoned and recruited many of the fascists who had led imperial Japan, putting in power war criminals who had committed genocide in China, Korea, and Southeast Asia, carrying out biological warfare, human experimentation, and mass sexual slavery.
Multipolarista editor Benjamin Norton discusses how Japan’s political system still today is a one-party right-wing regime run by descendants of these fascist war criminals.

Below are links to all the sources cited in this report, in chronological order:

Re: Abe's political party–A paragraph from American Exception discusses its establishment by yakuza/fascist war criminals rescued by the CIA to help re-establish the Anticommintern under US auspices after World War 2: pic.twitter.com/Kt2svla5Jb
— American Exception (@Aaron_Good_) July 8, 2022

Shinzo Abe, former Japanese prime minister, was assassinated. A powerful figure among Japan’s right-wing, Abe was an apologist for imperial Japan’s war crimes and supported US imperialist efforts in the Asia Pacific.
A thread on Abe ? pic.twitter.com/KLOcw7pkmy
— Nodutdol | 노둣돌 (@nodutdol) July 8, 2022

NATO’s 2022 plan declares second cold war on Russia and China

Nazi Germany's former ally Japan has removed its official neo-Nazi designation for Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov militia, because the fascist gang plays such an important role in Ukraine's government
Japan is again helping Nazis. What could possibly go wrong!https://t.co/bwHqfpTIU8
— Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) April 9, 2022


Instruction: Write an article about: UN lies about US military occupation of Syria, reporter calls out Ukraine hypocrisy. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.

Input: Dana Stroul, Donald Trump, Edward Xu, Farhan Haq, Fox News, Kurds, Mark A Milley, oil, Syria, Tom Bowman, UN, United Nations

Output:
US troops have illegally occupied Syria’s oil-rich territory for years, but a top United Nations official, Farhan Haq, falsely claimed “there’s no US armed forces inside of Syria”. Chinese reporter Edward Xu called out the UN’s hypocrisy on Ukraine.

US troops have illegally occupied Syria’s oil-rich territory for years, but a top United Nations official falsely claimed “there’s no US armed forces inside of Syria”.
In a press briefing on March 24, Farhan Haq, the deputy spokesman for UN Secretary-General António Guterres, sparred with Chinese reporter Edward Xu.

Xu pressed Haq about a US airstrike on Syria, which killed a dozen people, following an attack on US troops that have been illegally occupying Syrian territory.
“Do you think the presence of the US military in Syria is illegal or not?” Xu asked.
“That’s not an issue that we’re dealing with at this stage”, Haq replied.
Xu countered, “A foreign ministry based presence in another country without invitation, sounds like something else to me”.
The UN spokesman then falsely claimed, “There’s no US armed forces inside of Syria… It’s not a parallel situation to some of the others… I believe there’s military activity. But, in terms of a ground presence in Syria, I’m not aware of that”.
This statement is simply not true.
US troops have illegally occupied Syria's oil-rich territory for years, but a top United Nations official falsely claimed "there's no US armed forces inside of Syria"
A reporter called out his lie, exposing the UN's hypocrisy on Ukraine.
Full video here: https://t.co/9rOeW53fT8 pic.twitter.com/fp42QG9Fje
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 29, 2023

The New York Times published an article on March 4 revealing that US General Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has demanded that troops remain in Syria.
“America still has more than 900 troops, and hundreds more contractors, in Syria”, the Times reported.
In a March 24 newswire on the US airstrike in Syria, the Associated Press reported that “American troops have been in Syria since 2015“.
The news outlet Kurdistan24 has published video footage of US armored vehicles occupying oil wells in Syria.

In 2018, the Washington Post printed an article boasting, “In Syria, we ‘took the oil’“.
The piece quoted the director of research at the neoconservative, US government-funded think tank the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), who proudly stated, “We have this 30 percent slice of Syria, which is probably where 90 percent of the pre-war oil production took place… This is leverage”.
US state media outlet NPR followed up in 2020, stating very clearly: “U.S. forces in northeastern Syria have a relatively new mission: securing oil fields not only from ISIS, but also from Syrian government and Russian forces”.
NPR noted that its embedded reporter Tom Bowman “has been travelling with American military forces”.
Bowman explained that President Donald Trump “agreed to keep a small number, about 600 or so, to secure these oil fields not only from ISIS but also from Syrian government and Russian forces. Now, they want their Kurdish forces, their allies, to use the proceeds from the oil to pay for their operations”.
For his part, Trump was strikingly honest about what Washington was doing in Syria. He told Fox News, “I left troops [in Syria] to take the oil. I took the oil. The only troops I have are taking the oil. They’re protecting the oil. I took over the oil… We have the oil. Right now, the U.S. has the oil”.
Here’s irrefutable video evidence of Trump “fighting the deep state” ?
“I left troops [in Syria] to take the oil. I took the oil. The only troops I have are taking the oil. They’re protecting the oil. I took over the oil… We have the oil. Right now, the U.S. has the oil” pic.twitter.com/IYaep53GP5
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 31, 2023

A hard-line neoconservative activist Dana Stroul, who oversaw Washington’s Syria Study Group, boasted in 2019 that the US military “owns” one-third of Syria, including its oil-rich “economic powerhouse”.
When President Joe Biden came to power in 2021, Stroul was made the top Middle East policy official in the US Department of Defense.
The top Pentagon Middle East policy official, neocon Dana Stroul, confirmed Biden is keeping troops to illegally occupy sovereign Syrian territory
Stroul once boasted that the US military "owns" 1/3rd of Syria, including its oil-rich "economic powerhouse"pic.twitter.com/NIEJ9elxhs https://t.co/01kZ22dhJ4
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) August 15, 2021

An official UN transcript of the March 24, 2023 press briefing follows below:
Journalist Edward Xu: A couple of questions on Syria. Yesterday, there’s a drone attack to a US base in north-east Syria which resulted in one death and six injured. After that, US launched an air strike, also killed 11 people in Syria. Any reaction from the Secretary-General on this incident?
UN Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq: Oh, well, of course, we continue to be worried about all of the continuing tensions, and we are trying to see what can be done to lower the tensions from different forces in Syria and will continue with those efforts.
Edward Xu: Do you not urge everybody to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria?
Farhan Haq: Well, of course, that’s a given, and obviously, it’s important that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria is respected. At the same time, you’re aware of the complexity of the situation of foreign forces, but we call for them to exercise restraint.
Edward Xu: But, do you think the presence of the US military in Syria is illegal or not?
Farhan Haq: That’s not an issue that we’re dealing with at this stage. There’s been a war.
Edward Xu: But, is that… because it sounds very familiar this week. We talk a lot about the UN Charter, the international law and relative resolutions. But, it sounds to me, a foreign ministry based presence in another country without invitation, sounds like something else to me.
Farhan Haq: I’ll leave your analysis to you. That there’s… At this stage there’s no…
Edward Xu: What’s the difference between the situation in Syria and the situation in Ukraine?
Farhan Haq: There’s no US armed forces inside of Syria. And so I don’t have a… It’s not a parallel situation to some of the others.
Edward Xu: You’re sure there’s no US military personnel in Syria?
Farhan Haq: I believe there’s military activity. But, in terms of a ground presence in Syria, I’m not aware of that.
Edward Xu: Okay. Five US service members were injured in that attack. If there were no US service members in Syria, how could they got injured? That’s weird, right? Should I ask you about that? And by the way, if you’re talking about the resolution, the international law here is the resolution from Security Council 2254 (2015), I believe, it says in its PA [preambular] paragraph, “reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”.
Farhan Haq: Yes. I’m aware of that. And as you see, that is accepted by the members of the Security Council itself.
Edward Xu: Yeah. So, again, back to my question, is that illegal to have presence in Syria for the US base, according to the relevant resolution that I just read out?
Farhan Haq: The relevant resolution does call for that and we call on all countries to respect that. I wouldn’t go beyond that at this stage.