Prof. Sachs: "Change will not come from the US. It needs to come from Europe" 

Alessandro Bianchi

It is with deep emotion, we do not hide it, that we had the honor of meeting in his presence in Rome these days for a series of lectures, the director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and chairman of the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Professor Jeffrey Sachs.

On l'AntiDiplomatico we compulsively translate his writings and statements, because we firmly consider Professor Sachs the most important reference to follow in the stormy waters in which we navigate these days. How did it get to the abyss of potential total conflagration? It is the first in a series of questions that flow like a raging river in our interview for "Hegemony." We have had five presidents in a row (Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden) who have each led us closer to nuclear war." The origins of the evil lie in the dastardly neoconn policy that has become law since the 1990s in the United States and, through NATO, in Europe. No one can explain this in more detail than Professor Sachs. "Europe surrendered its own security and autonomy (and economic wellbeing) by going along with the US", the Professor argues. The conflict in Ukraine after the Maidan coup served to make the countries of the European continent full-fledged protectorates of Washington, severing all economic and trade ties with Moscow, the most important source of possible independence and self-determination. The terrorist acts on the Nord Stream pipelines, the largest attack on Europe's logistical infrastructure since the end of World War II, brought about a point of no return.

But the thirst of the neoconn is not satiated and to keep unilateral power standing before a world that by entropy will become multipolar is leading to final escalation, as we are witnessing not only in Ukraine, but in the Middle East and in the new attack on Venezuela's sovereignty. Change will not come from the US.  Change needs to come from Europe." Sachs often repeats to us in his answers to which we rely, indeed literally cling, in the urgency of the moment and in the conviction that an extra effort is required of each of us to prevent the neoconn barbarities from having complete and final fulfillment.

THE INTERVIEW.

Professor, we have to start with the crisis in the Middle East. In less than 24 hours Israel has carried out two terrorist attacks outside Palestine, first in Beirut where its rockets hit a residential building, then in Tehran, where Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas politburo, was killed by a missile in the house where he was staying after attending the inaugural ceremony of the new Iranian president Pezeshkian. What role do you think Washington played in the operations? And are we one step closer to the feared escalation?

While we don’t know the inside details, there is little doubt that the CIA and Mossad are in constant contact and close coordination. Immediately after Israel’s assassination of Haniyeh, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin declared that the US “will help defend Israel.”  This seemed to be closely coordinated. Netanyahu wants a wider war, and the US seems incapacitated to stop it.  Biden is basically out of view, and possibly not fully functional; the Israel Lobby predominates; and there are few if any other political or practical brakes on Israel’s extremist behavior or on American backing of Israel’s extremism. Of course, a wider war could prove absolutely devastating for Israel, if not for the world if it escalates, which is completely possible. These are very dangerous moments.  

     

This week, after the highly successful Iran-Saudi Arabia agreement, Chinese diplomacy had brought Palestinian factions together for a stronger postwar Palestine. Are these two attacks also a challenge to Beijing's role in the area? 

China is very successfully playing a long game, based on building China’s deep diplomatic links around the world rather than through China’s direct engagement in military conflicts.  China’s diplomacy is impressive to behold, and can make an important contribution to peace and multilateralism in the years ahead.  

Professor, in your recent articles you often remind us how we have never been so close to midnight according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists' Doomsday Clock. How concerned do you feel and what may change from this point of view with the next U.S. elections?

We have had five presidents in a row (Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden) who have each led us closer to nuclear war.  The US has deeply undermined the nuclear arms control architecture in many ways: abandoning the ABM Treaty; placing Aegis missile systems in Poland and Romania; expanding NATO relentlessly eastward, with intentions for Ukraine and Georgia; abandoning the INF Treaty; abandoning the JCPOA; committing to new intermediate-range missiles in Germany, some with at least the potential of nuclear payloads; arming Taiwan over China’s objections; and many US wars of choice and regime-change operations.  All of this has brought us to “90 seconds to midnight.”  The elections in November won’t change this. What is needed is a more fundamental overhaul of the US world view, from one based on America’s delusional quest for hegemony (unipolarity) to one based on peaceful co-existence among the major powers. 

In your writings Professor you highlight very well how U.S. foreign policy is hostage to the belligerent aims of the “neocon” who have also taken over, through NATO, Europe. The coup in Ukraine and the attack on Russia, in their vision, served to bind European countries in the form of protectorates to the United States by breaking all ties with Moscow. What are the next moves they have in mind for Europe?

Europe surrendered its own security and autonomy (and economic wellbeing) by going along with the US on NATO enlargement to Ukraine and Georgia (despite severe reservations of European leaders in the 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit); abandoning Minsk II despite the Normandy Process (by which France and Germany were to be guarantors of Minsk II); going along with the US-backed  overthrow of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 (despite having reached an agreement with Yanukovych to have early elections in Ukraine in 2014); and failing to support a negotiated end to the Ukraine conflict in April 2022, when a draft agreement between Russia and Ukraine was on the table (and was opposed by the US and UK).  In short, Europe surrendered its own foreign policy, even allowing the US-led destruction of Nord Stream 2 without a whimper.  This has left Europe weakened, vulnerable, and paralyzed, with Brussels and key capitals in Europe simply following Washington’s orders.  Change will not come from the US.  Change needs to come from Europe.  Europe’s interest lies in a negotiated end to the war in Ukraine, a restoration of economic links with Russia, an end of the extremist fear-mongering and Russophobia, and an independent and healthy relationship between the EU and China.  All of this is possible, not from the US but from Europe itself.    

What do you think could be the event that could convince the deep state inside the United States to give up unilateral imperialistic aims and agree to participate in the new multipolar conditions of the planet?

Reality.  The 30-year neocon quest for unipolarity has been a disaster for the US militarily, diplomatically, economically, financially, socially, and in terms of US national security.  More than a single political event, the US needs a rethink based on the lessons of the past 30 years and today’s realities inside the US and globally.   

Professor, you know very well China and you are an advisor for the New Silk Road. Italy had been the only G7 country to join it, but on Washington's orders the current government did not renew the memorandum. PM Meloni with a 4-day visit tried in these days to save the relations. What would it mean in economic terms for Italy to stop economic relations with Beijing as the United States and media corporation would like?

Europe and China are natural economic partners, in trade, technology, and building the infrastructure of Eurasia.  The Silk Road, after all, is a Roman-China innovation of 2,000 years, as was pointed out repeatedly on PM Meloni’s recent visit.  That 2,000-year history is not just rhetoric and nostalgia for Marco Polo, it’s a reality of life together of two great civilizations on the world’s largest contiguous landmass. 

Professor the 10 Brics countries in October will meet in Kazan and discuss a new alternative currency to the dollar for bilateral trade. Is dedollarization an irreversible process? And how will the United States respond?

Substantial de-dollarization will happen rapidly, in my view, meaning over the next 10 years, for three reasons.  First, technological changes will lead to new payments systems (e.g., Central Bank Digital Currencies) that will reduce the role of dollar-based banking (centered on the SWIFT payments systems).  Second, the share of the US in the world economy will continue to decline.  Third, the relentless misuse of economic sanctions by the US (and Europe) will drive the BRICS and other countries outside of the US alliance to use non-dollar payments mechanisms.  The US and EU confiscation of Russia assets (and similar confiscations by the US of assets of Venezuela, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea) will dramatically and understandably accelerate the development of non-dollar payments mechanisms.  Europe is profoundly foolish to join in grabbing Russia’s assets, an action which is blatantly against international law and the functioning of the world’s monetary and financial systems.  

Professor, to conclude, what would be the first economic advice you would give to the Italian government? 

Make peace, make trade, and live up to Italy’s tradition and reputation as one of the world’s greatest cultures and most beautiful and creative places in the world.  All roads lead to Rome, except in war.  Italy is a place to be savored in peace.