Richard D. Wolff & Michael Hudson |How the U.S. Took Over the World: The End of International Law.
Dialogue Works • 1:30:31 •
—
NIMA ALKHORSHID: Today is Thursday, October 17th, and we're having Richard Wolff and Michael Hudson with us to talk about U.S. foreign policy. And the title of this video today, Richard and Michael, is over the world, the end of international law. We know whenever they're talking about the foreign policy of the United States, they're talking about the rules-based international order. And Michael, let's start with you. Why have they decided to put an end to international law?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, you're right. That the build-up of this whole U.S.-sponsored aggression from Ukraine to Israel has caused a breakdown of international law. And just as important, what does international law mean when there's no means of enforcement if there's laws against genocide, laws against ongoing attacks on civilians? What can anyone do about it? There seems to be a global war, and all of the tactics now are different from all the wars that we've seen before, and we'll get into that.
The basic political issues today in this new Cold War, very much like Europe's Thirty Years' War (from 1618 to 1648). That Thirty Years' War ended with the Peace of Westphalia, and that led to the creation of international law that has ruled the world all the way from 1648 until the creation of the United Nations. Until just a few years ago, when the United States replaced it and said, ‘We are no longer following international law. We are following our own law. We call it the rules-based order, and it's our rules, and our rules of order are the reverse of everything that international law has said before.'
It's a radical change, and hardly anybody's talked about this, because what do you do about the fact that you have the United States, Ukraine, Israel, NATO, all of a sudden reversing the principles that were considered to be the very basis of civilization for almost four centuries now? It's very radical.
The United States has a unipolar drive for control over countries. The whole basis of international law after the Thirty Years' War was to prevent future wars by saying no country can interfere with the political affairs of other countries. Every country has its own autonomy, and that's what, essentially, the war was fought over. The Catholic countries were attacking the Protestant countries, and it was the largest and most devastating war that Europe had until World War I. But at the end they got together, and at the Peace of Westphalia they said, ‘How do we prevent this from happening again?
We're going to recognize all nations are sovereign, and no country, as I said, permitted to interfere with other countries to bring about regime change.' There was to be religious and political freedom, and the world was to be multipolar. They didn't use that word, but that meant there wouldn't be any single group dominating them, and they were referring specifically to the Catholic Church and the Habsburg monarchy. The Hapsburgs controlled Spain, that had all of the silver coming in from the New World, and was the big military power – as was France – and they were allied against Germany, Sweden, and the northern European Protestant countries.
A multipolar world was the whole basis of international law, and that was supposed to be the basis of the United Nations. And violation of these principles was viewed as if it was an attack on civilization itself. Emmanuel Kant and other German philosophers wrote about how this was finally a universal law, and you needed this universal law of individual freedom for persons, but also for nations.
Well, all this is now being rejected by the United States and its allies, and the proxy state of Israel in the Near East. The world is being separated into blocks between the East and West. In the conflict today, really, is whether the [?] nations, the BRICS – Russia, China, Iran, and the allies that they've been putting together – are going to be able to design their own destiny, or whether they're going to have to be subject to whatever the United States does.
And you've seen in the last few days in Ukraine, the non-president Zelensky has just said, ‘We're going to raise the money to buy arms and to bribe all of our officials to be loyal by selling off Ukraine's titanium mines, to sell off the natural resources. So even if Russia takes over, the international law that America supports is going to say, wait a minute, we've already privatized all these resources.
Yes, you can take them over, Russia, but you won't have any control over the land, or your ability to tax them, because we've privatized it all.' That's the kind of transformation of the way the world has organized that nobody could have expected before. So there's a kind of ideological inquisition that's taking place throughout the world by the United States that rejects the most basic principles of national sovereignty.
And what's so remarkable in this is we're seeing an economically shrinking and deindustrializing – the United States and Europe – trying to prevent the global majority from aiming at its own economic and political independence. The rest of the world has 85% of the world's population, and it's trying to recover from over a century of colonialism, and the financial neo-colonialism that the United States put in place after 1945.
The U.S.-centered rules of international trade and investment that sort of forced other countries to supply raw materials instead of industrializing and feeding their own population and their own economies and raising their own living standards. So you have this U.S.-NATO "Golden Billion" waging this new Cold War against most of the Western world, without an army, really, to enforce it.
Its policy makers have followed an entirely different track than was done before. They deem other countries and adversaries to be a different civilization altogether. And I'll get to that shortly. It's trying to dominate the world, but it no longer has the military dominance that it had in 1945. It's lost its former ability to dominate the world monetary system, and by economic means. Its aim of retaining its former unipolar policy has been replaced by a whole different strategy, by escalating it all. We're dealing with the end of civilization, and the end of civilization is supposed to be the United States taking control of the whole world, by imposing a neo-liberal privatization ethic, Thatcherizing and Reaganizing the whole world.
RICHARD WOLFF: Let me come at it. I appreciate very much Michael's historical framework. I think it's very helpful to keep that in mind. It avoids all kinds of mistakes. Let me add some comments to the story he's told. In my view, what is going on is a desperate effort of a declining situation – a declining regime, if you like, a declining historical phase, that doesn't want to give up, which I understand. They don't usually go quietly, these empires, when they go down. I think the theory that you're breaking all the customary rules that were in place – either explicitly or implicitly – for several centuries, is the right way to look at this. It'll help us understand things that we might not see connected, but that are.
Number one, a level of horror in Gaza. I want to be clear. What was denied by people who could not face what was done to Jews in Europe in the Holocaust. We have the phenomena of people who have to deny it. That's a way of recognizing how horrible that thing was that you can't stand it. So you literally erase it.
It's not the appropriate response – one should recognize it – but it helps you underscore just how horrible it was that people have to do that. It underscores in Gaza that the Israelis don't want you to call this a genocide because if you do, then the victims of one Holocaust are busily perpetrating another one. This is horrible.
And you can't have the United States quite deal with it, for a number of reasons. Number one, because Israel is the same settler colonialism that the United States is. We are a country of Europeans who come over to the Western hemisphere and ethnically cleanse the indigenous population out of existence, with the exception of the horrible condition the few remaining ones live out in the so-called reservations scattered across the United States, making their living from gambling, casinos, and so on. It's this remarkable obliteration.
The United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa: These are horrible examples of settler colonialism, but they were accomplished at a time when that was historically possible. Israel has the unfortunate historical fact that it isn't possible anymore and trying to do it now is self-destructive – although it might take them a while.
But let me show you some other ways to connect. The international rules were that countries could keep their reserves, the backing for their currency in foreign banks. Russia kept a good part of its dollar and gold holdings in foreign banks. Those were seized early on in this war. That's a violation.
To this day, there are legal ramifications percolating in Europe, even in England, questioning. For example, they couldn't, they decided, because they're torn too, about obliterating existing law. So they didn't take that money. They froze it, which is already not legal. But when it came to giving the money to Ukraine, they have decided just to give the interest earned by those stolen funds. This is a playing-with-giving-up the rule, the idea, of the sacrosanct private property of Russia. And then you take the interest from it. That's stealing too. These are lawyerly games. What's important here is, as Michael says, leaving it.
Then there's the war in Ukraine itself. Okay. Ukraine says it needs to have security. Russia says it needs to have security. Ukraine is behaving badly towards its Russian minorities. The Russians want to protect their minority. Okay. This has to be worked out. This is not the first time you've had this kind of a conflict. There's nothing unique about that conflict.
You know, there were Germans living in the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. There were other examples. This could have been worked out as those others were, but it wasn't. And that's what's interesting. The decision was made not to. Now, yes, it's the United States flexing its muscle. But I see it a little bit less grandiosely, as – Michael put it – reshaping the world. It is that, but it comes out of a defensive posture. It comes out of desperation. It comes out of, ‘We are losing in the world and we will not tolerate losing again. You will not stop us from doing what we want to do in Ukraine. You will not stop us from having Israel as our secure outpost. You cannot attack it. We don't care what your issue is. You are Palestinians, you were there, that's not interesting for us.
For us, we need a reliable agent in the Middle East. Israel has been that, and we will protect it. And we have now controlled Ukraine. We rearranged their politics a few years earlier to make that the case. It's ours. It's part of our expansion of NATO.' And the horror is that the Russians should resist. The Russians should say – and this has nothing to do with whether the Russians are right or wrong in any of this – ‘This is an empire,' say, in the words of Lyndon Johnson, "So far and no further" (in good Texas English). So, I see the taking of the reserves from Russia, I see the misunderstanding of what's going on, in terms of Russia's allies, the power that the BRICS have. Forget, yes, that it takes time to replace the dollar.
The BRICS have made some moves in that direction, but they still have a long way to go. No question. No question. But the reality is the BRICS have made real moves. And one of the most important was supporting Russia against the United States and Europe in the Ukraine. That's the reality. It's not about right or wrong or anything else. This is about how you try to handle and understand what's going on.
The United States is desperate. And, by the way, I want people to see it internally. If it were just external I wouldn't be saying these things. But it's internal too. The reason we have a character like Trump in a position to be president, there it is. That's a symptom. People are so angry with what is happening to their lives here that they want something different and they don't care who he has abused, or what he has said, or how many times he's gone bankrupt. These are details.
He says he's going to change everything and go back to when it was better. That is understood by people whose reality has decreased. When production leaves the United States, as it has. Manufacturing, in huge portion, has left the United States and moved overseas. It took the best jobs, it took the strongest unions, and decimated them by moving. UAW is a shadow of what it once was.
The same is true of the steelworkers, and all the rest of them. That's a reality. That means jobs are not what they once were. That means the standard of living isn't what it was, and the security of your job isn't what it was. And what was done by the relocation of jobs to profit from overseas expansion will now be continued with another technological wave. This time not the computers and robots. This time artificial intelligence, which will be used for profit-making purposes at the expense of the quality and the quantity of jobs. People are correct. The empire that concentrated production and income growth here, is now not here anymore. It left. And the people understand that they are left behind. There is no mystery.
My last point. The media have been obsessing for several years now, with the Democrats, over the problem: The economy is doing well: Why do the mass of people answer every public poll with the statement, the economy is a disaster? The economy is a disaster. I'm in a disaster.
This is not because they are stupid. It's not because they aren't educated. None of those things. It's a different experience. People question me: The stock market is doing well? Well, 85 to 90 percent of stocks are owned by 10 percent of the people. They're doing well. But the other 90 percent are spectators about a process of prosperity from which they are excluded, and they identify with the shrinking American empire abroad.
For them, they're losing their status as an American worker and they're losing their status as an American. In short, they're losing and they don't want to continue to lose. No one addresses any of that. The Republicans say, ‘Let's go backward.' Okay, that's a fantasy. That's not a very good long-term proposal. That won't go very far. He lost a good bit of the benefit of that the first time when he didn't do shit (if you pardon my Spanish) to take us back to anything. He's not going to do it in the second term either.
What you have is a declining situation and the spectacle of a politics that doesn't either understand, or have any handle whatsoever on any of it. So you're watching a dysfunctional system run by a dysfunctional government. I want to remind everyone of, what a great tactician once said are, the preconditions for revolution. They are two. Number one, that the people in charge don't know how to govern anymore. Number two, that the mass of people feel that the people at the top can't govern anymore. If you have those two conditions met, you're going to have a revolution. We are getting real close in this country.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, Richard, you begin by discussing what's unique in the situation we're in today. You use the word "desperation." What you've been describing is desperation right along. That indeed is what makes it unique. The United States and the West no longer can mount a war of military occupation. That's another part of the by-product of what you've been describing economically. Ukraine showed that the United States can't win a war and that NATO needs proxy armies because their own population would resist if there were a draft. So the U.S. and NATO forces have only one policy to use: They can only bomb and shoot missiles. The basic political fact remains that they are too weak to win on the battlefield, according to the rules of war that formerly guided international law, and that made genocide illegal.
I want to focus on the effect of all of what you've described on what it means for international law and the global fracture that we're seeing today. I think the U.S. and NATO fight to control the world – from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from the United States and England all the way to the China Sea – can only be won in a dirty way – in violation of international law – by focusing on killing civilians, bombing hospitals, schools, and other basic institutions. That's what makes this war unique.
U.S. naval fighting concentrates on civilian, instead of military, targets. You've seen Ukraine, focusing on the Russian-speaking civilian population, hoping that the civilians will say, ‘Please don't bomb us anymore. We want our own Boris Yeltsin, or some Pinochet or Zelensky, to take over. We'll do anything for peace.' But that's not what they did. They rallied around Russia and say, ‘You know what, you killing us is wrong and we're not going to submit to you, because if you're killing us now, what are you going to do if there were peace?' So this is genocide in Ukraine, just as it's genocide in Palestine.
The other countries are seeing that it's a moral evil and it's an attack on the very principle of civilization and common humanity. So what is the U.S. and NATO to do?
They're relying on Ukraine and Israel Nazis to uproot or destroy any population that resists its economic or financial and political control, or are simply in their way. It's a war of extermination – not a military war against armies – but a war of extermination of people, in order to create a neo-colonialism. That's what the U.S. and NATO are doing. They are trying to create a neo-colonialism to make one world. Not a group of different civilizations. One civilization, that is the U.S. neo-liberal civilization. And other countries in their way are not really an alternative civilization. There's no plurality of civilizations where each country or region can make its choice. There's only supposed to be one.
Now this is evil, but it's historically a characteristic of religious wars and wars of hatred – ethnic, national and even racial hatred – in the case of Europe's colonialism and America's war in Asia. Soldiers, and even the domestic civilian population, are propagandized to view the enemy as being sub-human and therefore it can be treated in utterly different ways than the rules of war. That's the character of Israel's war against Islamic countries, and against any population that stands in the way of Israel expanding from the sea to the ocean.
That is, all the land, and oil, and natural resources, extending from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean. That's the aim. The broad West Asian area is to be turned into a land without a people. That's what Netanyahu means. A land without a people, just as what Israel's settlers did to the Palestinians who lived there for millennia. The occupants are held to be non-people, to be treated as the biblical Amalek whom the Lord directed his religionists to exterminate, along with all their cattle, trees and productive resources capable of sustaining life.
So when Israel goes into Gaza or the West Bank or now into Lebanon, they're not fighting another army. They're destroying the hospitals. They're tearing up the olive trees that take 30 to 50 years to develop. They're tearing up the infrastructure. They're making it impossible to continue to live there. That's what makes this unique, and even more destructive than the earlier wars, which at least left the civilization and the basic infrastructure in place. But it's destructive because of what you said: Desperation of the West, and the U.S. and Europe, is the only kind of war they can fight.
RICHARD WOLFF: Let me tell you a story, even if I've done it once before, that I hope we'll bring it home to an American audience. I once took some European visitors to a town in Massachusetts called Old Deerfield. It is a part of a little town called Deerfield located on the Deerfield River in Western Massachusetts. The town of Old Deerfield is a recreated community that has recreated all the houses in it to look like they did in colonial days, before the United States emerged as an independent country. If you visit this place and you start looking at these interesting old reconstituted houses, and you go inside and you see the colonial furniture and all that, you will be confronted with little plaques on the outside of each house that give you a little thumbnail description of life when this house was occupied by living family, etc.
I went and I looked at it, like my guests, and we all immediately reacted because of what it says on the plaques. To my knowledge, that's what it says right now, as we're speaking. It describes the family of John Jones and his wife and the children, and then on this difficult day back in 1691, the savages attacked. And then periodically it's all about the savages who were then eventually beaten back. And the Europeans looked at each other, and I looked at them and they at me. The Europeans arrived here, killed these people, took their land, and called them savages; shot them like animals because the indigenous people didn't have guns and gunpowder, and all the rest of that, whereas the Europeans did. So, it was quite easy to shoot them, and to deal with them as animals. They were savage.
When they resisted their land and their animals being taken from them, then they became more savage, and absolutely subject to extermination, which was considered a 100% acceptable social solution. The final solution to the Native American ‘problem,' you might call it.
But you know, again, this is not about Europeans or Native Americans. It's about settler colonialism that has a ‘problem.' That's why it has to imagine that the land is empty because otherwise it would be confronted with, ‘What are you doing if the land is full?' Well, you are creating a Them versus Us. If you read the literature of those who support Netanyahu, that's what they say every day. It's them or us.
That's what the colonial people in Old Deerfield felt. It was them or us, and they would celebrate the attack of the savages because it confirmed how savage they were. It didn't confirm that settler colonialism might be questioned. That never occurred to them. I mean, it's a study in what can happen to human beings when they trap themselves, or are trapped, in a dead end that they don't want to confront. Well then, they rethink it, so it isn't a dead end, it isn't a problem. It is now [as] understandable as getting rid of these pesky animals that stand in the way of the noble Christian civilization we are constructing.
And in Israel simply substitute Jewish, or Zionist, or whatever word you want. But we do have to understand that this isn't new. Michael is right. It is a particular historical conjuncture. That's what's fading. My fear is if we give it too much uniqueness, you'll miss the fact that it is a rerun.
Look, the world looks back on those years 1933 to 1945. Twelve years, a long time. Twelve years. Mr. Hitler came to power in January of 1933 and he was finished in World War II. So from '33 to '45 – twelve years – he, the Nazis ruled, and the whole world has ever since looked back in horror at what they did, and what they were. For those twelve years it was scary, and people shook their heads and didn't want to believe it, and turned away from it. But eventually – and it took 75 years for right-wing fascistic types to put their heads up above the sand – and we see them now again. But again, it took a long time.
The Israeli behavior will take a long time, and we will look back on it the way we look back on what the Nazis did in their part of Europe with the same horror, except we will have learned, maybe, something from this time more than we learned the first time.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, I think, Richard, what you're describing is there is something unique today, and that is that there's a whole ideology to support something that supports what the settlers did in America – and you're quite right to draw that parallel – and what settler states are doing elsewhere, and what the United States and NATO are trying to expand other countries. It's much more than a clash of civilizations, like between the English settlers and the domestic indigenous population here.
It's an attack on the very principle of what people traditionally have considered to be civilization, and I think America's policy makers have come to realize that their plan for world dictatorship that they celebrated in 1992 as the "End of History" by Francis Fukuyama, has been a failure. That their idea of civilization, as everyone will funnel Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and will privatize the economy – and now that the Soviet Union is dead there is no alternative?
Well, Fukuyama's book was very quickly replaced a year later by a book by his teacher at Harvard Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations: Remaking of World Order. And Huntington described the real organization, civilization, is U.S. nationalism, a neo-liberalism and its doctrine of a unipolar world, that was his definition of civilization as a universal world. Other civilizations are basically how indigenous populations were treated, and Huntington warned that the United States faced future fights that were not simply a move from a different trade and monetary policy by countries seeking to escape from the legacy of colonialism and U.S. dominance.
He meant a clash of culture and that's really the key: Not to accept U.S. dominance was deemed to be trying to create a new civilization. So it wasn't just the fight of the English settlers of America or the Jewish settlers of Palestine to take land. It was a cultural civilizational fight. That's what made it basically different for all this and the principle of national self-determination and personal religious and political freedom used to be considered the basis of civilization.
Obviously, even though it was during the time of the Thirty Years' War that what you're describing was occurring in the settlement of America, but the U.S. neo-cons treated the idea of policy independence of other countries as all of a sudden a new alien civilization that threatens the entire West. The idea that there could be an alternative and that way of framing international relations inverts the whole traditional universal morality.
Well, so did the English settlement of America do it, and the Spanish settlement of America, but it was almost not even discussed by the legal theorists. It seemed to be outside the realm of something that could be discussed in terms of international law. And that gap, that creation of a new international law justifying settler colonialism, justifying the right of one nation to take over and destroy another's people and culture, as well as just taking their land, is essentially what World War II was fought against, the principle of Nazism.
RICHARD WOLFF: If I could add, the way this is spun nowadays, I think, illustrates what Michael is trying to get us to understand. Only let me show you the words. The clash of civilizations is a very convenient way, and here's a second way that is being used to make the same point: that one civilization is in favor of, and is roughly the equivalent of democracy, whereas the other civilization is the equivalent or equal to authoritarianism.
This is a wonderful dichotomization because what it allows you to do is to look at China and no matter how many times the Chinese tell you, ‘We have two goals.' By the way, they've been saying this for 50 years. Number one, to end a hundred years of humiliation by which they mean colonialism, because even though China as a whole never became a colony, parts of it did: The cities along the coast were taken over, some by the Germans, some by the British (it was horrible); and they fought the Boxer Rebellion and they were defeated, and all the rest.
The second goal of China was to raise its people out of the worst poverty the world has ever seen. Two goals: not to be humiliated by foreigners and to raise their standard of living, basically. That's what they set out to do and they have been the most successful in doing that in the history of the world, if you measure the amount of improvement and the time it took to achieve it. By those standards they are a roaring success. Notice I'm not commenting on their internal civil liberties or a whole lot of other qualities that are another conversation. But for the United States, it cannot see what they're doing or why they're doing it. They don't anymore have the lingo of a great struggle between Capitalism and Socialism because that really doesn't fit anymore.
So they have it between Democracy and Authoritarianism, which has no more pull or power of analysis than the old Capitalism versus Socialism ever did. These are ways of handling the rationalization that the United States needs to achieve what, for it, has become security. If you become a world power, then security requires you to control the world. If you don't want to be worried about the rest of the world then don't be a world power. Be a real strong power where the hell you are. But the United States has its 700-800 bases around the [world]. That's the aspirations of a world power. And now it has the problem: How do you rationalize wanting to be perpetually what no empire has achieved? Answer: Everybody else is a threat to all that is good in the world. It is either non-human, or a real bad civilization, or authoritarian.
Last point. The irony here which – either a Hegel as philosopher, or a Bertolt Brecht as a theater writer, or a George Carlin as a comedian – you need that level of brilliance to capture. The most authoritarian political structure exists inside every capitalist corporation. The CEO tells everybody else what to do. And the people he orders about, the employees have absolutely no recall over him whatsoever. They don't vote for him. They don't approve anything he does. If he doesn't like them, they're fired. Oh my god. Finding other societies authoritarian when this is your reality five out of seven days a week for the vast majority of, that takes extraordinary ideological discipline, because it's hard to be so blind in one area that you can call another area bad names that apply to you.
This is an extremity and I don't think these cultures can long sustain it. And if I'm right then that's another reason for those who run the United States to be very, very worried about their situation.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well then, the question is what are we going to do about it? What's the outcome going to be? When the English attacked the Native Americans, they didn't have an opportunity to create an alternative. All they could do is retreat further and further westward until they were backed into reservations, or what the Nazis called concentration camps.
Well, U.S. Presidents Biden and Donald Trump both have repeatedly tried to express their great fear that other countries will do what the Native Americans and the Palestinians couldn't do, that they'd create an alternative. And that's why they've designated China as America's existential enemy, and to prepare the ground for conquering it, they've said, ‘well, that requires weakening Russia and Iran because they're China's two great military allies and suppliers of oil of the energy that it needs.'
However U.S. foreign policy suffers from the Hubris that it has always had. It assumes that foreign countries will have no active response. They'll passively surrender like the Native Americans did to the settlers or, like the Palestinians did when they simply left the country or got killed.
China and Russia have taken the lead in moving to create an alternative world order that is going to defend their independence. And that's what we've been talking about on this show for about a month now. They've created a set of alternative organizations to those of the West.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization has become a defensive counterweight to NATO, and the BRICS are creating a full-spectrum alliance to achieve trade and financial self-reliance independent of the U.S. and NATO bloc. Well, NATO's foray into Ukraine to try to end Russia's ability to survive as a fiscal state has failed. Russia's got even stronger and Ukraine's NATO-backed troops are close to total defeat.
So, the United States has shifted its military support to its long-term aim of gaining control of the world's oil trade. For instance, well, if we can't win on the battlefield, let's control the key organs of control. And its policy here is very similar to that which it followed in Ukraine. It's backing Israel to conquer the entire Near East, starting with the domestic Palestinian population and extending territory to absorb Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, culminating in the long-expressed hope that they're going to be able to defeat Iran and pull it into greater Israel and control, as I said, the whole swath of oil, lands, and geography from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean. And like Ukraine, Israel's military is focused much more on the population that's in its way than on military targets. It really doesn't care about that.
If you can destroy a civilization's hospitals, infrastructure, its culture, the basis that holds it together politically and culturally, then you don't need to engage in a military war that you're sure to lose. Well, it is this focus on attacking civilians and cultural genocide that violates the civilized world's rules of warfare that I talked about at the beginning. The U.S.-NATO countries don't have any troops of their own, so their target is extended to include entire populations: ‘Well, we can bomb them. We're not going to fight them.
All we can do is bomb them, as long as they don't have a bomb to fight back.' And the Palestinians have no bombs, and they're not being supported by other Islamic countries. There's no religious or ideological support of the countries around the Near East and West Asian area that are willing to realize that they're all under threat, that this drive for Lebensraum is not simply a Judaic Lebensraum, for its own population, it's for the Western Lebensraum to control natural resources, sub-soil resources, oil, minerals, the land, infrastructure.
The concept of Lebensraum has morphed into great control of all of the pre-conditions of social survival. That's why the Israeli soldiers concentrate on killing children and bombing hospitals and schools. If you kill the children, there won't be any population you have to fight in the future. Netanyahu and the Israeli cabinet: Again, ‘that's why we're killing children. That's why we're bombing hospitals. We don't want the population to survive.'
Well, that aim is genocide and it's to prevent other peoples and countries from surviving and living to provide an alternative. Like Ukraine, Israel's promoting racial hatred to justify its genocide against the Palestinians and Arabs. Just as it calls adversaries sub-human, just as the Ukrainians called the Russian speakers cockroaches, sub-human, the Israelis are treating the Arabs as that. That's really what Huntington's Clash of Civilizations means in progress, in practice: There's really only one civilization in his view, and the other civilizations are the indigenous population in the way of the settlers. What's this done? It's reviving World War II Nazi ideology of hatred that was so shocking that it's driving the whole world into an alliance to defend itself.
That's what the United States, our planners, didn't realize: that countries fear that the genocide in Gaza and Israel's West Bank may be their own fate if the United States seeks to prevent them from following their own independence or achieving their own self-reliance, their own monetary system, their own trade, their ability to tax American corporations or to fine them if they're polluting their land, if they deviate from the U.S. neoliberal policies. That is basically the U.S.-new religion. If other countries try to escape from their dollar debt or the incessant regime change consequences, they're going to end up like the victims of the settlers.
So we can think of economic settlement of a country, economic settlement of taking over the rules of a country's trade, its domestic laws, its ability to tax corporations to control its oil and mineral resources in its own natural interest, instead of letting American and European firms take them over and siphon off all of their output and the economic value of these resources for itself.
So we're really in a fight for what kind of civilization we're going to have. And there may be a global fracture, but if there is a global fracture between the 15% of the population that's U.S.-NATO and the 85% of all the rest of the world, the part of the world that is industrialized, the part of the world that has the natural resources, well then, the fight that we're seeing today, this new Cold War is really about what civilization's all about, in contrast to the U.S.-NATO's really anti-civilization.
RICHARD WOLFF: Let me add, if I could, because I think there's another dimension. You get a different insight if you ask yourself, what comes next? Israel presumably is concerned about its security. That's what it says all the time and I assume that that's part of the story. Okay.
If you're a nation worried about your security, here's what you're doing: You're making yourself the absolute enemy of all Arabs and most Muslims by what you are doing, which, in case Americans don't know, is widely advertised. The destruction in Palestine is front-page news in every Muslim country on this planet, every day. So, not like the United States, this is we, our people, our co-religionists, our brothers and sisters, being slaughtered.
Number one, Israel is going to have to deal with however this ends, whenever it ends, with a level of global isolation and enmity that is going to be expressed in a million big decisions, little decisions and medium decisions made by hundreds of millions, billions of people around the world, every chance they get. It's not just the Houthis who figured out how they can strike a blow. Everybody else.
Number two and probably more important. This effort is destroying the Israeli economy. They will be dependent on the United States, totally, utterly, for many, many years, if not indefinitely. They will have no independence from the United States. It won't just be a question of needing weapons all the time, but needing cash infusions, trade deals. You name it, they're going to need it.
And the United States with whatever regimes come to power in the United States will hold all the strings. In short, Israel is creating by its war a level of insecurity, dependence, uncertainty that will haunt that society indefinitely into the future. This is not a strategy that gets them either security or independence. It is a joke. It's not a funny joke. It's a joke on them, by telling themselves it's us or them, by refusing to try to find a way out. They are creating, they are painting themselves into an international, political, ideological corner. They're going to be desperate for a long, long time.
MICHAEL HUDSON: I think that Israel is only one of the first arenas in this large international fight. The United States hasn't said the Palestinians are an existential enemy. They noticed that the other Islamic countries are supporting Israel. Turkey is supporting Israel. Saudi Arabia is supporting Israel. Egypt is especially supporting Israel. They're not fighting against it because the leaders are essentially bought off and are making money by supporting Israel, and they're putting the benefit of their own leaders over their whole national destiny.
I'm more concerned about what other countries are going to do that will be able to mount a much stronger response than the Near Eastern countries are doing. Essentially, the response is going to be something that the Near Eastern oil countries haven't done. The BRICS are moving to decouple from the West in order to create their own multipolar world, mutual benefit and development. This is the same issue that was fought over in the Thirty Years' War.
The problem is that there seems little chance of the West accepting a Peace of Westphalia, permitting such a world, or at least a world that the United States, Europe, and Israel would want to be a part of. That's the difference. At least at the end of the Thirty Years' War, Europe did accept a common interest in ending war and establishing ‘We don't want more to tear our civilization – if you can call it that – apart.' That's not the case today.
The United States' policy is to tear other countries resisting American policy apart, saying they're not only a different civilization, they're actually different species. Each civilization is a species and, somehow, we're back into the ethnic racial stereotyping that underlay the settler colonialism and the American wars in Asia, Vietnam, Korea, everywhere else. The problem is that they're not interested in mutual gain. They're not interested in a world where everybody can live peacefully together. That's why there's not going to be a two-state solution to Israel. All the U.S. wants is the ability to use its brute power to control, grab whatever resources and revenue it wants. The aim is conquest without regard for the economic costs and benefits.
So you can't look at it and say, ‘Well, what's in the economic interest of the United States and Europe? Isn't their economic interest to join with Russia and China and all have a prosperous world for mutual gain?' Its leaders say, ‘No, we don't care.' The German leaders are willing to sacrifice the German economy, to destroy its industry, to shrink its GDP, quarter after quarter after quarter, to reduce its living standards, all because that's the price of preventing an alternative world order to what the United States – which supports us – is interested in.
Andrei Martyanov has suggested that the United States is fighting today the closing years of World War II, in the sense that it's fighting over the principles, what all of that was about, about what kind of international relations are going to be established, and it's a fight against all other peoples as if it were a struggle for survival between different species, a kind of Darwinian survival of the fittest.
And yet, the West is now the least economically fit, and the least militarily fit, except for its atomic weapons. And there it's a tie, because both the U.S. and Russia and China all have the power to blow up the whole world and start again with the Neo-Paleolithic age. So this fight treats populations that seek their own policy independence as a species to be exterminated.
That's the essence of Nazi ideology and it's being repeated today. So if there is a clash of civilization, where does all this leave the United Nations? All the countries except the U.S.-NATO and Israel want peace. But the United Nations is powerless to exclude the most genocidal violators of international law.
When Israel blocks humanitarian United Nations emergency food from being delivered to the starving victims of Gaza, the United Nations has no military power to just overcome Israel's blockage. It doesn't have its own tanks to just say, ‘You want to let their trucks in, we're going to send the trucks in behind the convoy of tanks and if your Israeli guards block us, we're just going to shoot you down.'
It doesn't have any power like that. Egypt has the power, but the Americans manipulated the Arab Spring to put in the chosen successor to Mubarak. The dictator was put in place by the entirely corrupt Egyptian ruling class. And the only question is whether the army somehow is going to have a memory of Abdul Nasser. It doesn't have to be this way. So far there is no sign that Egypt will not be an applauder of Israel and a backer of Israel, as it's been right now. It's not going to help deliver food aid. It has put up just the opposite. It puts up blocks saying, ‘We don't want any Palestinians here. We want them to be starved instead of coming into Egypt.' That is utterly contemptible.
I don't think that arenas further eastward around China, Russia, Central Asia, South Asia are going to be anywhere near as passive and corrupt as you've seen in the Islamic states. You can see that they are working very rapidly to create an alternative in which the Islamic countries basically have no interest at all in joining. They're trying to play it both ways, just as Turkey is trying to say, ‘Well, we're going to be part of NATO but at the same time going to be part of BRICS.' As the Chinese say, a man who tries to take two roads at once is going to have a broken hip joint. That's basically what we have there.
So, if the United States cannot even admit Palestine as a member, what will it do? It was the United Nations that created Israel and it itself bears the responsibility for recognizing Israel and endorsing its explicit aim of genocide against Palestinians from the new settler countries.
In 1948, the United Nations accepted the settler state, even as the Stern Gang was killing all the Palestinians to let its Zionist followers come in, and the United Nations was powerless to stop it. And the United Nations is powerless to act in the very way it's constructed, with a Security Council that can be blocked by the United States, and where you can have votes to condemn Israel by the only two countries opposing the United States, Israel and a few Pacific Island countries. The whole rest of the world is against them and cannot do anything.
It's obvious that if there is going to be any way of preventing what we're describing, this attack on civilization, there has to be a new alternative to the United Nations, and that alternative has to have a military enforcement arm of international law, and it has to realize that this is an existential issue that requires its own ideological doctrine to be spelled out, what the principles are and how these principles are going to be defended. I don't see any sign of that happening right now.
United Nations officials tend to paper over this problem by expressing the fantasy that somehow, ‘well, we really want a two-state solution but we're not going to recognize Palestine and we're not going to do anything at all about Israel's genocide. We're not going to order the arrest. We're not going to isolate Israel. We're going to let trade with Israel. We're going to accept Israel genocide because it has its own freedom to do whatever it wants.' So, the United Nations has essentially become an arm of the U.S. State Department and military, and that's an impossible way to survive if there's going to be an alternative to the U.S. kind of order that we've been talking about.
President Netanyahu claims that the essence of Judaism itself is to exterminate the non-Jewish population there and he says it to protest against genocide. To claim that the Palestinians are people and should not be killed is anti-Semitic because Israel is a Jewish state and its settlers may suffer retaliation if, as they kill the indigenous population, and because they've killed so many Palestinians, it's only natural that the Palestinians and Arabs would want to fight back.
And it's that reality that they want to defend themselves that, as you've just said, is an existential threat to Israel. And so, any country that fights back against the attacks by the bombs of the United States (they're the United States' bombs that Israel is dropping) is anti-Semitic. Germany and the United States then pass laws that any support of the Palestinians, any claim that they are human beings, any demonstrations on campus, any political demonstrations are legally breaking the law.
That's what's so contemptible, certainly about Germany, but also about the United States and the other NATO nations. We're talking about an ideology that is anti-civilizational in principle. We don't have to reinvent the wheel because the wheel was basically already invented, in many ways, after the Thirty Years' War. That became, I think, the basis for German philosophy and the whole European philosophy of law. They're trying to reinvent it, but international law needs a means of enforcement. As long as you have the United Nations subject to veto power, you can't do anything.
So, the principles of the United Nations are pretty clear. The principles, the aims should be similar to those of 1648, aiming to end the opportunities by America's neo-liberal inquisition to interfere with the policies of other nations. The nation of Georgia has recently made a positive start in all of this. They've closed down the NGOs that are being financed by the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy. That is fascism to promote regime change, and to meddle in the internal politics of countries in the hope of creating a local Boris Yeltsin or Zelensky or a Shah. The National Endowment for Democracy wants to make Georgia into another Ukraine fighting to the last Georgian, if they can put in some U.S. puppet to go to war with Russia.
So, here's the problem that has to be addressed. The West has to go beyond the idea of a clash of civilizations. It's going beyond this idea of a clash of civilization, it wants to be the only civilization left, in fact. But it's uncivilized. So its ideology of destroying countries moving to resist its political and economic conquest is the opposition of civilization. It's barbarism.
So, instead of having a clash of civilization for nations, as in Europe's Thirty Years' War, we're experiencing a war against civilization itself, and the great question is whether the global majority of civilization is going to realize how truly existential America's fight to reverse the principles of civilization is for these other countries. And the most immediate short-term test is going to be America's sponsorship of Israel's fight against Iran, I think.
What appeared in the 1990s to be the end of civilization is a war of survival for countries seeking to withdraw from the U.S.-NATO orbit and this U.S.-Israeli-Ukrainian policy of dehumanizing the enemy is a military tactic going way back to biblical times, as we've discussed – what Israel calls Amalek and U.S. diplomacy calls Autocracy or Socialism.
Russia's President Putin regrets now how gullible he was in believing that the West would somehow act in a way to avoid war in Ukraine because that was in the West's interest. It was in Europe's interest to import Russian oil because that was the basis of its industry and yet it didn't do that. U.S. officials never had any intention of keeping their promise not to expand NATO eastward.
Likewise, Iran's newly elected president regrets how gullible he was in believing that if Iran refrained from defending its country against Israel bombing and assassinating its officials, the West would remove, or at least lighten, the trade and financial sanctions against Iran. That didn't happen so now he's hardened his position. So, the big question is, where does this leave Chinese foreign policy – since America says China is America's existential enemy – based on offering a win-win agreement that would benefit both countries for international gain?
But the U.S. leaders have no intention in that kind of policy because it doesn't want anyone else to have the gains that are to be made from technological and economic progress. They have only one goal: unipolar control of the entire planet and its governments, its economies, its natural resources, its land, and its water. As in a religious war, they're willing to die for the ideal and to bring all the world down in an atomic war if they fail. That's what's being threatened in Ukraine today, and in Israel and Iran this week.
RICHARD WOLFF: One of the questions that a lot of people have about all of this is why governments, particularly in Europe, but also governments elsewhere, remain – most of them – unwilling to challenge what the United States is doing. You have the Houthis – they do – but they're not even a government. They are a part of Yemen.
Yemen is one thing and the Houthis are a community within Yemen. But you have to look long and far, where else you get people willing to do stuff. I understand, much is done – hidden – that we don't know about, or we can't measure, or we can't see. So, I want to address if I can, in the time we have, why it would be that Olaf Scholz in Germany, or Emmanuel Macron in France, or the E.U. leadership, and on and on and on and on, are willing – as Michael correctly says, and as many have pointed out – to go along with the United States in Ukraine.
And I mean go along: condemn Russia as the total evil here, supply weapons, supply money, all the rest of it, to the Ukrainians; why they basically go along with Israel in the Middle East, some more, some less, I understand, but why are they doing it? And then people ask, well, why would Sweden and Finland join NATO? Why is that happening? Why, even when Germany is in recession? I believe last quarter, and this quarter they came in below zero in GDP growth, so that qualifies (two quarters in a row below zero, you're in an official recession, at least by the usual standard of that measure).
So here's my answer. For the last 75 years of United States dominance coming out of World War II, any government that the United States found in power anywhere in the world, but particularly in Europe, that wasn't aligned with American objectives was considered unacceptable. In the beginning, for example, coming out of World War II – just to remind people since the history of this is so poorly known – the first post-World War II government in France had several members of the French Communist Party in the cabinet of Charles de Gaulle. Okay.
That meant that the United States had to deal with a government of France, a member of the Security Council of the United Nations, which had a Communist Party (which at that time was very pro-Soviet), sitting in the cabinet. The second largest political party for 20 years after World War II was over in Italy, the Italian Communist Party, the largest Communist Party outside of Russia anywhere in the world. So, you developed in Europe, in places like Germany, France, Italy, everywhere, even Britain, you had a version of what in the United States was called McCarthyism. It wasn't as bad as the United States. You couldn't do to the Communist and Socialist Parties there what you were able to do in the United States.
That's because of particular historical cultural differences between them. But you were able to shut them down. What you were able to do was to create a situation in which the heights of political power, the dominant role in the major political parties, was people who were acceptable to the United States. And this became so routine and so normal that you didn't have to impose it anymore from the outside. It was understood inside. People who sided with the United States saw their careers much more smoothly upward bound than people who had the temerity not to go in that direction. And there's one after another in every one of these countries that learned that. So now we get to the present.
What you have are dominant political structures overwhelmingly populated by people who have decided, from their own experience, that going with the United States is the way to go, and going against the United States is a recipe for defeat and for decline, for disaster. They're not unaware of what the Russians and the Chinese are doing, but they're not yet convinced that the United States won't be able to impose on those others what they have so successfully imposed on the Europeans. Olaf Scholz can't think outside that box, neither can Mr. Macron, neither can Jens Stoltenberg, or Josep Borrell, or any of the other leading figures in European politics. And that's true from Scandinavia to Greece, and from England to the Central European countries. That's how they see the world.
The effort of the Soviet Union, let's remember, was shown not to be up to the task by the reversals of 1989, 1990, 1991, and the place where that hasn't happened – the far east – is far away from Europe. So, here's what's going on. The European leadership has decided to go with the United States – that's the horse they're betting on to win the race because it always has – but they are very worried, more now than ever, that they may have bet on the wrong horse. Right below the surface in European politics is a movement, partly on the right – that's the rise of all the quasi-fascists, you know, the government in Italy, Alternativ für Deutschland in Germany, Marine Le Pen in France – but also on the left with the arrival of Sarah Wagenknecht in Germany, very clear on her position against the war in Ukraine; Jean-Luc Mélanchon in France, who now is the head of the largest political party in the French Assemblée Nationale, is a Marxist. So is Sarah Wagenknecht on the left, they have been Marxists all of their political lives, and they're known as such in their countries, very clearly.
Okay. I think you're going to see, very disturbing to the United States in the months and years ahead, you're going to see eruptions of difference. You're going to see emergence of more governments like those of Mr. Orbán on the right in Hungary, the Czech government, and others, that are going to be even less and less sure.
That's why the United States is desperate. That's part of why Israel is desperate. They are now convinced that time is not on their side. They're frightened. They won't say so, and they're right to be frightened, because their allies in Europe – the ones they still count on even though they're disrespectful of them, but they're convinced they need them – and they do.
It's very important people understand: Europe is in a terrible, terrible situation and the Europeans kind of know it. They're caught between the United States and China. It's not clear what place for Europe will emerge in this new BRICS versus G7. In the G7, Europe is a footnote. In the G7 versus China, Europe is even more of a footnote.
Europe is not used to being a footnote.
Europe is used to being in charge. They have a hard row to hoe, how to manage all of this. It's going to be tumult, it's going to be turmoil inside Europe now for a long time, and it's going to be rough and difficult. And one of the things that may emerge is an attempt, either to make a real third player in the world out of Europe – with its own army, its own nuclear, its own ‘all that' – or to join with BRICS and China and go after a multipolarity in which the Europeans, by getting in on it, have a place they won't have if they don't get in on it.
These are real existential conditions that are going to be fought out over the next period, and the horror of much of it is that – and here I want to take off my hat to you, Nima, for making these conversations happen – this is what has to be talked about. If you believe, à la Aristotle and Plato, that the unexamined life is not worth living; if you think it's better to understand what's happening to you than not to; to want to know the good, the bad, the risks, the hopes; then these are the conversations that have to happen, and the mainstream media keeps as far away from them as it is possible to be.
People like you, and these programs, are therefore crucial. It's not a question about agreeing with what I say, or with what Michael says, it's not. It's important to have these questions opened up, to have to contend with the history that Michael reviewed with us and for us today; to have to contend with what that points to, rather than living in a make-believe world in which a clash of civilizations is going on, so you don't have to face the real issues that are going to shape what happens to us all.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, President Putin said a few months ago that someday Russia and Germany and Europe will trade again, but it may take 30 years.
RICHARD WOLFF: It might. Here's my guess: From the little I know (and it isn't much) but I speak German, I read German, you know, so I'm able to access what goes on in that country. I can assure you, whatever else, it will be less than 30 years. Inside Germany is an enormous conversation and debate going on about these issues, with much more blunt honesty than we imagine here in the United States. Just like you have to say inside Israel, there's more opposition to what Netanyahu is doing than we have allowed here in the United States.
The irony: they have a newspaper, they had access, they can actually have (I'm not saying it's adequate and I'm not denying what Israel is basically doing not for a minute), but there is an opposition that the Israelis have mounted to the policy of their government. We shouldn't forget that, and that these political winds can change. Israel is not (let me say this to my American audience) winning in Gaza, is not winning in Lebanon. It may win.
I'm open, I understand, but not yet. And, wow, you know, a year into Hamas, and there's still a Hamas? After what you've done? That's amazing! I ask my fellow Americans if, in this country, one of our 50 states was subjected to the kind of destruction that Israel has done in Gaza, would there be a strong resistance? Don't answer so quickly because the truth is we don't know.
In Israel, we do know. There is a Hamas; they're still fighting back. That's amazing, and in the long run, that's going to be just as important as it turned out after the end of World War II, when we all learned about the Norwegian resistance and the French resistance and the Italian partisans, turned out that there were opponents to the Nazis in every country, including Germany.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, I do write a monthly column for the German financial press auf deutsch. So you're right, there is a resistance.
NIMA ALKHORSHID: I don't know if you've learned that CNN reported that Joe Biden is going to be in Germany to receive Germany's highest award.
RICHARD WOLFF: Yes, we see that's Mr. Scholz trying to play ‘We are on your side, don't worry, we are loyal, you help me get here, so I'm going to help you get there'. Absolutely. By the way, same relationship between Biden and Netanyahu.
NIMA ALKHORSHID: Yeah. Thank you so much for being with us today, Richard and Michael. See you soon.