Connecting the Dots with Dr Wilmer Leon (audio)

The Incomparable Dr Cornell West

You can find me and the show on social media by searching the handle @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube.
Our Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd
All our episodes can be found at CTDpodcast.com.
 
TRANSCRIPT:
Dr Wilmer Leon (00:13):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which most events take place. During each episode of this podcast, my guests and I will have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between the current events and the broader historic context in which they occur. This will enable you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode, we explore the presidential candidacy of Dr. Cornell West. If you go to Cornell West 2020 four.com, it opens with this brother, Cornell West is a living embodiment of the power of an independent mind forever reminding us that greatness is born of the courage to stand apart and speak one's truth.
(01:13)To help me connect these dots, let's turn to my guest. He needs no introduction, but I'll say he is the Dietrich Bonhoeffer professor of philosophy and Christian practice at Union Theological Seminary. He's the former university professor at Harvard University and Professor Emeritus at Princeton University. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard in three years and obtained his master's and PhD in philosophy at Princeton. He's the first black person to receive a PhD In more detail, let me say, he's written 20 books, edited 13 and has written numerous forwards as we'll talk about in. He's one a sacramental zone and affectionately known to many as Brother West, Dr. Cornell West. Welcome, and let's connect some dots.
Dr Cornel West (01:59):
I'm with you though, man. We putting smiles on our precious mama's faces. I know mom was there right there in the living room and in the kitchen when you got home and your precious mother had passed. But just think how blessed we are. I think it's very providential as well as significant that we could start this year together.
Dr Wilmer Leon (02:20):
In fact, I'm glad you mentioned our parents because what would your folks be thinking of their son in these efforts today?
Dr Cornel West (02:30):
Well, it's hard to say Mom and dad were unpredictable in terms of their judgment and highly predictable in terms of their deep, deep love though, brother, so that they would be loving me to death as they always did up until their death and they loved me now after death on their life. But I think it's hard to say they were such independent thinkers, you know what I mean?
Dr Wilmer Leon (02:53):
I do. I do know. Lemme put you another way then. What are the two or three most salient points or lessons that you carry forward that your parents instilled in you?
Dr Cornel West (03:09):
Oh, one is that you want to be in the world but not of it. So that you always recognize as standards bigger than you. You will always fall short of those standards, but never forget what they are. And those standards are always hope. And the greatest of them is love, love of God, love of neighbor, love of especially the least of these love, especially of poor and working people love especially of those friends from on called The Wretched Up the Earth. That's what I learned. West Household, you can see it, my brother Cliff, my sister, Cynthia and Cheryl, and you certainly can see it, Shiloh Baptist Church right on Ninth Avenue at Old Park Brother with Reverend Willie P. Cook and others. So those were the crucial things, not just the values in the abstract sense, but the virtues in the lived concrete sense of ways of being in the world, modes of existing, trying to be forces for good in the language of the great John Coltrane.
(04:05)You see his various incarnation in terms of his faces on the albums here in the backdrop of my room. I think my dear wife Vanta for that and buying me this gift. It's a beautiful gift, but I think for them, the question becomes, are you being true to that calling? Are you being true to that vocation? Are you being true to that? Which tries to lure out of you the best who you are given the crack vessel that you are? And I take those insights and those lessons very, very seriously though, brother. So I wake up every morning, I say, Hey, crack vessel, that I am center, that I've always been. I'm going to be a force for good. I'm going to tell some truth. I'm going to bear some witness. I'm going to seek justice and I'm going to do it no matter what costs, no matter what burden, no matter what responsibility it entails, because that's what I'm here to do. And I'm going to do it with fun. Joy. I just finished the biography, brotherly Stone. Thank you. Wow. Letting me be myself. And he talks about Cynthia Robinson, you know, from Sacramento. Yes, beloved sister Anita Robinson. We went to high school together. He talked about Cynthia Robinson when he moved to Sacramento for a while, Sacramento inspirational choir. He had played Shiloh sometimes with Clarence Adams, Bobby Adams, and Brother Clarence.
Dr Wilmer Leon (05:33):
I didn't know that.
Dr Cornel West (05:34):
Oh yeah, yeah. I used to see Sylvester on the organ right there. Shiloh man.
Dr Wilmer Leon (05:40):
I did not. He's
Dr Cornel West (05:41):
From Vallejo.
Dr Wilmer Leon (05:42):
Yeah, I know he's from Vallejo, but I didn't know that he had spent time in Sacramento.
Dr Cornel West (05:47):
Oh Lord. Yes.
Dr Wilmer Leon (05:48):
It says on your site, even as a young child, you exhibited the remarkable qualities that would define your life's journey and path to the presidency. In the third grade, you fearlessly stood up to your teacher challenging her ideas and defining the conventional norms of your time. And that stands out to me because during the medal ceremony of the Olympics in 1968, Mexico City, as you recall, John Carlos and Tommy Smith raised their black glove fists during the playing of the national anthem. And on October 17th, the day after that, I went to school, raised my fist during the morning pledge of the allegiance, and I got kicked out of school. And I read that on your site and thought about the parallels of our lives. And here we sit today still challenging the dominant narrative and the ideas and defying the conventional norms of our time. And I think is a very good summary of your candidacy.
Dr Cornel West (06:59):
That's beautiful. But I think that's also an example though, brother, of how your precious mother and my precious mother and precious fathers as well tried to support into us examples of integrity, honesty, and decency. And when you have a flag that's waving, that's not signifying what it ought in terms of it's talking about liberty and justice for all, but you got lynching going on and you've got degradation, discrimination, segregation going on is just decent to have integrity, to have honesty is to call it into question. And when you do that, you're going to be in the world or not of it because you're going to be going against the grain. You're going to be going against what is popular in the name of what ought to have a certain kind of moral substance and spiritual content to it. And here that was how many years ago now? Man, that was 1968 is,
Dr Wilmer Leon (08:01):
Oh, that was
Dr Cornel West (08:02):
50, 52 years. Yeah, that's 56 years. You see, I refuse to salute the flag. My great uncle had been lynched in Texas and they wrapped the flag around his body. So that's what I associated as a young brother. Now that to me, I don't put other people down for salute the flag because some people see that flag and they think of their husband or their uncle or their wife who was killed in the war and they loved, they got right to support their loved ones, and they were fighting for that flag. But that's what goes in their mind. But my mind is the flag wrapped around the body s sw in the southern breeze, that strange fruit that Billie Holiday sing about. So everybody has their right to respond. Same was true with Brother Colin. When Colin saw that flag, he thought all of these young black brothers and sisters being killed, the police, yeah, he gets down. We can understand that somebody else see the flag and they think of their uncle, a great uncle in Hiroshima who's fighting against Japanese fascism. Sure. Everybody's got their lens through which they view the world. We have to be open to that. But most importantly, we got to be true to ourselves.
Dr Wilmer Leon (09:15):
In talking about your candidacy, you announced your candidacy in the People's Party switched to the Green Party, and now you're running as what you call a truly, truly a people's campaign that is a movement rooted in truth, justice, and love. Why the changes? And where are we with your candidacy today?
Dr Cornel West (09:39):
Yes, back in June, June 5th, it was the People's party that came forward. It met with myself and Brother Chris Hedges, my dear brother, I have great respect for, great love for. And they were kind enough to make the invitation. When I accepted the invitation, I realized very quickly that there were going to be some very deep challenges. There's going to be some very deep problems there. Chris Hedges and Jill Stein and Jammu Barack and others asked me to meet with the Green Party people and to see whether there's a possibility. We met, we made the shift to the Green Party. We worked very closely for a good while, and I realized that the Green Party had so many different requirements in terms of internal debates with presidential candidates going to different states and state conventions and so forth. And I wanted to go directly to the people because I've been going directly to the folk.
(10:33)And I realized that even though the Green Party had 17 states in regard to ballot access, that I could actually get 15 or 16 states rather quickly. And that's precisely what we're doing now. We already got Alaska, we're moving on to Utah by eyes of March 15th. We should have, we hope a good 15 states or so. I would've caught up with the Green Party. But I have a freedom to really not just be myself more fully, but also to go directly to the people rather than spending so much time on inter-party activities that the Green Party requires. And so a lot of people say, well, you got false starts. I say, no, no, I'm a jazz man. That's first take. That's the first take.
Dr Wilmer Leon (11:23):
Folks can go to your website, Cornell West 2020 four.com, click on the platform tab and they can see a list of general areas such as economic justice, worker justice, environmental justice, and a number of others. And then below each of those, there are the bullet points that articulate your positions on those issues. And I'd like to get to this point, this particular point, because I think it allows us to speak to a number of things that are impacting not only this country but the world, and that is the United States supporting funding and arming genocide in Gaza. How does an American administration, the Biden administration with the backing of Congress, and particularly the Congressional Blackhawk Caucus, which is supposed to be the conscious of the Congress, how can they back this play?
Dr Cornel West (12:27):
Yeah, that's a wonderful question though, brother. I think we have to first begin by situating my campaign as a moment in a movement that's rooted in a great tradition of Martin Luther King, Jr. Fannie Lou Haman, rabbi Heschel and Dorothy Day. And what they were about was first there's a moral starting point. You see that a precious Palestinian baby has exactly the same value as your baby and my baby, an Israeli baby, a Haitian baby, an Egyptian baby, a Guatemalan baby, but there's been almost 9,000 babies killed a 50 some days. We can see just the level of baity there. Now, every life, no matter what color agenda for me, has the same value. There's no doubt about that. But you start with on a moral premise, then you got to move to your social analysis. How could it be that the United States, the American Empire, enables not just this genocidal assault that's been going on, but how has it enabled the apartheid regime for so long of Israel vis-a-vis those occupied territories with precious Palestinians have been subjugated and degraded.
(13:47)How has it facilitated ethnic cleansing where you're seeing now almost 2 million fellow Palestinians who are pushed out of their land? Well, the same thing happened in 1948 with 750,000 Palestinians. They called Arabs at the time were pushed out. So you start on a moral note, and I begin on a spiritual note, just as a Christian, you know what I mean, that there's certain principles that I'm not going to give up. And there's oppressed peoples no matter where they are, no matter, it can be in cashmere, they can be in Chad, they can be in the south side of Chicago. They could be white brothers and sisters in Kentucky. They could be Latinos in South la. Their lives have exactly the same value as the lives of the rich and wealthy and famous. And when you proceed in that way, you have a set of lens that you're looking at the world that's very different from any of the parties because you see both parties, Republicans and Democratic parties have been so tied to Israel in a critical, Israel's been proceeding with impunity for decades, not just since October 7th for decades.
(14:57)They've been able to do and say anything they want. They've been able to get billions and billions of dollars from taxpayers' money to the United States with no accountability whatsoever. And when people try to impose some accountability, be it United Nations or be it progressive Jews, or be it Palestinians or Arabs or other people around the world, Israel acts as if they can still do what they want to do with no answerability and no responsibility. They just proceed and do what they want to do. You say, well, wait a minute. And we've reached the point now where, oh, my brother, you got the invoking of Amalek, the first Samuel 15, and the third verse, what does that say in the Old Testament for Christians and Hebrew scripture from Jewish brothers and sisters, he would to kill every man, every woman, every child, every ox, every sheep. Well, that's genocidal intent.
(15:52)And then you got genocidal execution when you got over 22,000. And that's just a modest count because you got so many in the rubble that are not counted, and the 9,000 children is just off the chart. I mean, it's just unimaginable that that could happen to so many precious children. You say, no, what is going on? Well, then you come back to United States and you say, wait a minute. Now we've got a politics where the lobby that is primarily responsible for the money that goes from the US government to Israel is one of the most powerful lobbies, not just in America, but in the history of the country, in the history of the country that owing to the high civic participation rate of Jewish Americans. And we talk about Jewish Americans, you're never talking about a monolith or a homogeneous group. You're talking about a variety of different kinds of Jews because we've seen the Jewish young people and Jewish progressives are as critical of Israel as I am,
Dr Wilmer Leon (16:57):
Jewish voices for peace,
Dr Cornel West (16:59):
That Jewish voices for peace. If not now, you've got a whole host of them that have been quite courageous in that regard. So it's not a matter and must never be a matter of anti-Jewish hatred, anti-Jewish sentiment. It's hating occupation, domination, subjugation. In this case, it's Israeli subjugation, Israeli domination, Israeli occupation. Now, the sad thing is,
Dr Wilmer Leon (17:27):
But wait a minute. It's also understanding the difference between Zionism and Judaism. And as much as the dominant narrative wants to try to equate those two, they are not the same. One is a religious practice, and the other for the most part is a political ideology.
Dr Cornel West (17:51):
That's exactly right. I mean, what makes it difficult really is that you see Jewish brothers and sisters have been terrorized and traumatized and hated over 2,500 years with different attacks, assaults, pogroms, culminating in the show and the Holocaust with the gangster Hitler and the gangster Nazis and so forth. And they jump out of the burning buildings of Europe and they're looking for a place to go. Zionism is a 19th century movement of nationalism that's looking for a home for Jews, a nation state for Jews, and they land on somebody else's land. It's like the pilgrims landing in the new world and saying, there's no people here. Yes, there are. Now of course, in America, what did they say? There's no human beings. There's just buffaloes and Indians. Hey, wait a minute, Indians are as human as you Europeans, we Africans, anybody else? Well, that's part of the deep white supremacy and racism that's happening.
(18:58)What else was happening with Zionism? But they told a lie and they said, we got land with no people. That's not true. You got 750, got almost 1000080% of the population don't act like they don't exist. Oh, in your mind, they might be non-entities, but in God's eyes, in our eyes, they're human just like you and just like me. And so you end up with this ideology that responds to this indescribably vicious treatment of Jews for 2,500 years in the middle of Europe. So-called civilized Europe. Now, of course, Belgium already killed 7,000 Africans in Bellevue, Congo in the
Dr Wilmer Leon (19:39):
Congo, right?
Dr Cornel West (19:40):
Not too many Europeans said a mumbling word. Turkey had already killed Armenians with genocidal attacks. Europeans didn't say a mumbling word. Italy had already invaded Ethiopia. Europe didn't say a mumbling word. So you can already see the hypocrisy there. But what makes it difficult in the United States is that our Jewish brothers and sisters who are thoroughgoing Zionists, they use the fact that Jews have been hated for so long as a fundamental foundation of what they do and that they think allows them to rationalize, hating Palestinians, terrorizing Palestinians, traumatizing Palestinians. I'm against traumatizing, hating, terrorizing anybody, anybody. If black folk were terrorizing white folk, I'm going to defend white folk. If Palestinians are terrorizing Jews, I'm going to defend Jews. If Jews are terrorizing Palestinians, I'm going to defend Palestinians. That's morality and spirituality. Now, we live in a moment
Dr Wilmer Leon (20:54):
And consistency
Dr Cornel West (20:55):
And a certain kind of moral consistency that you try to hold on now. And I know, man, we live in a moment of such overwhelming baity man, organized greed, institutionalized hatred, routinized, indifference toward the suffering of others, especially the weak. So it's just a matter of the strong just thinking and the rich thinking. They can act and do anything. They like to crush the weak. And what happens now in the Middle East, especially in this situation with Gaza, is that you have Nathan, Yahoo, and others who are using the most reactionary tradition in the history of Zionism, which comes out of Jabotinsky that says that there will be Jewish security only when there's either Jewish domination of Palestinians or Jewish annihilation of Palestinians. That's in the writings of Jabotinsky. Netanyahu's father was an assistant to Jabotinsky that is a deeply, deeply right wing of not outright fascist version of Zionism. Now, there's liberal versions of Zionism that's very different, but even those liberal versions still want to argue that Palestinians would never have equality in their state have equal status in their state. And so we have to be able to put that in historical context. We have the right kind of morality and spirituality for people to understand why people like myself will never ever, ever be silent when it comes to Israeli genocidal attacks on Palestinians when it comes to Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. And when it comes to Israeli apartheid regime, that's why South Africa's taking him to the international court.
Dr Wilmer Leon (22:45):
How does a president Cornell West intervene, interject and change the trajectory of this ongoing genocide?
Dr Cornel West (22:57):
It means that the policy is qualitatively different than you get into Biden. It's clear that Biden has no concern for the most part with Palestinian suffering. No,
Dr Wilmer Leon (23:07):
He has said numerous times that he is a Zionist.
Dr Cornel West (23:10):
He's a Zionist. He doesn't talk about the numbers, he doesn't talk about the suffering. He doesn't talk about the unbelievable pain of Palestinians, not just now, but during the 40 some years he's been in office. You see? So from the very beginning, he makes it very, very clear that these Palestinian brothers and sisters don't count for me. Their lives don't really matter. Now, of course, we got memories of white supremacists in the United States. These black people don't count. These indigenous peoples don't count. They're just farter for our projects. We step on them like cockroaches. We crush them like they're creatures below. And you say, now, oh no, that's not my tradition. So as presidents especially shoot under a West administration, shoot, I'd be calling for the end of occupation, the end of the siege, a cease fire to sit down and come up with a way in which Jews and Palestinians can live together under conditions of equality, with equality under the law and equality in terms of assets to resources. So it's a qualitatively different way of looking at the world and proceeding in that part of the world.
Dr Wilmer Leon (24:32):
What about the most recent action of circumventing Congress and sending more arms, weaponry, and military resources to the genocide? What about how does a President Cornell West cut off the spigot of the funding?
Dr Cornel West (24:55):
Oh one, it is not just for me, just a matter of withdrawing aid and cutting off the spigot, but it's a matter of trying to get the leadership, Israeli leadership, Palestinian leadership, to sit down and come up with ways in which they can create a society in which they live together. And whatever financial support I provide is a financial support that would sustain that kind of egalitarian arrangement. There would not be a penny from a West administration for any apartheid regime, for any ethnic cleansing, and certainly not for any genocidal attack and assault on Palestinians or anybody else.
Dr Wilmer Leon (25:40):
So how do you negotiate with a Netanyahu who you just so accurately stated, his father was an advisor to Jinky who has compromised his own principles to go further, right, to formulate his government. And so with the Troches and all of those other genocidal maniacs,
Dr Cornel West (26:11):
That's right.
Dr Wilmer Leon (26:13):
How can you negotiate with someone who is sworn to the annihilation of an entire group of human beings?
Dr Cornel West (26:24):
Well, one, in any diplomatic process, you end up sitting down with people you disagree with. But you're absolutely right. It would not so much be a negotiation with the Nathan Yahu. It would be a teasing out of Israeli leadership that was open to egalitarian arrangement with Palestinians and teasing out the Palestinian leadership that's open to an egalitarian arrangement among Jews. So you really talking about trying to lure and to appeal to voices and figures and movements. The combatants for veterans, for example, that has Palestinians and Israelis working together, the Baim de meanies who are part of the Martin Luther King Jr tradition of struggling together Palestinians and Jews together, and even try to tease out some of the best of their labor movements, the trade union movements, Palestinian trade union movement, Israeli trade union movements where you do have some, not enough, but you got some overlap of people recognizing that Jews and Israelis can work together for something bigger than them. So you're right, it's not so much a matter of just negotiation, but it's a matter of withdrawal of funds. It's a matter of a certain kind of rejection. We've got to have some wholesale rejection of fascists. And that's true, not just as it relates to Israel and Nathan Yahoo, but that would be true for fascism in all of its various forms. It could be in Iran, it could be in Chad, it could be in Haiti, it could be anywhere. Fascism raises its ugly face.
Dr Wilmer Leon (28:20):
Moving this out to a slightly broader context, you have the United States through the US UN ambassador, Linda Thomas Greenfield vetoing the calls for a peace agreement in Gaza. Then you have the Ansara LA or the Houthis reaching a peace agreement or working, coming very, very close to a peace agreement with the Saudis and the United States intervening and saying, we will not accept that. We will not accept a peace agreement that we're going to label the Houthis as a terrorist organization, therefore Saudis will not be able to engage with the Houthis without incurring sanctions. Then you've got the conflict between Venezuela and Guyana, and they agree, I think in St. Croix, they come to an agreement and say, we're going to work on this peaceably. And then the United States gets Britain to send a warship off the coast of God. Point being, these are three within the last 10 days. These are three examples of entities in conflict agreeing to work for peace in the United States, injecting militarism into the negotiation. How does a President Cornell West put a stop to that?
Dr Cornel West (29:53):
One is my brother. We need exactly what you just did, which means you have to respect the people enough to tell them the truth. So a president also has to play a role of a teacher. See the large numbers of our fellow citizens, they don't really know the truth about the Middle East. They don't really know about the truth of Latin America. They don't really know about the truth of the ways in which the American Empire has been reshaping the whole world in its interest in image, both in Latin America for so long, when Latin America was viewed as a kind of a playground for America and all the various cos and Democratic elections overthrown by
Dr Wilmer Leon (30:30):
Chile, Argentina,
Dr Cornel West (30:32):
Chile, Argentina, Dominican Republic, Panama, Grenada. We can go on and on and on. When you look at how the US government has overthrown democratically elected governments when it was not in the interest of the corporate elite to accept those democratic elected democratic elections. But you have to just tell people the truth. But that in and of itself was a major move. That's a major move to tell people the truth. And then beyond that, to intervene and to act and you say, oh, now as president, based on the legacy of Martin King and Fannie Lou Hamer and others, and looking at the world through the lens of the least of these poor and working people, I'm going to be putting forward policies that strike you as so outside of the realm that you are used to because these two parties, Democrats and Republicans have been tied to big militarism abroad. Military adventurism abroad have been tied to overthrowing. Democratic regimes abroad have been tied to 57 cents for every dollar going to them. And oftentimes they get more than they request. But then there's austerity when it comes to education, when it comes to housing, when it comes to jobs with a living wage, when it comes to the healthcare and so forth. That's a very different way of looking at the world. I mean, the very idea of there being a US president who would be an anti-imperialist, and you see, I am a gut bucket.
(32:19)And what I mean by that is that I want nations to be nations among nations. We do not need empires that try to get other nations to defer to their imperial dominance, to their imperial domination. The United States has 800 military units around the world over special operations in a hundred countries. China and Russia have hardly 35 or 40 combined. Why do we need 800 military units around the world? Why do we need a ship in every shore? Well, we got corporate interests, you got us geopolitical interests, and you've got elites in Washington who want to do what dominate the world. And that's precisely the thing that needs to be called into question. We can be a decent nation among nations. We can be a dignified nation among nations. We do not need to be an empire. Why? Because like the Roman Empire, like the British Empire, it's not only that they all dissolve, but they all have an arrogance and a hubris.
(33:31)And his brother, Martin Luther King used to say, I can hear the God of the universe saying, I'll break your power if you keep crushing these poor people and acting as if you're doing in the name of liberty and equality, and you're really doing it in the name of your own greed, your own wealth and your own power. That's a great tradition, and we need to keep that tradition alive any way we can. I'm just trying to do it because the movement spills over into electoral politics. I'm going to be doing it till the day I die, and I've been doing it prior to being a candidate.
Dr Wilmer Leon (34:06):
So as you look at the development of the bricks, the new international economic organization that's Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and then I think they've just admitted about another seven countries into the bricks as both President Xi in China as well as President Putin of Russia, have been talking about moving from the unipolar or the unilateral where the United States is in control of everything to a multilateral dynamic. How does a president Cornell West deal with the development of the bricks?
Dr Cornel West (34:45):
Well, one, you see, I look at the multilateralism through the same lens. I look at the unilateralism, us unilateralism on the one hand and the multi-country multilateralism because you see the multilateralism is still a combination of elite. And many of the countries that you talked about have high levels of repression and domination in their countries. I look at the world through the lens of the poor and the working classes in their respective countries, and I want United States to be in solidarity with the poor and working classes in India, for example, I'm not impressed by Modi. I know Modi is a Trump-like figure. I know Modi is not concerned about the poor. He's not concerned about the dollars, he's not concerned about the working class in India. So even when he, at those bricks meetings, I know he's not speaking on behalf of the masses of Indians.
(35:48)He's speaking on behalf of that very ugly Hindu nationalist movement that he's a part. And so even when I look at the bricks, I know that that is a sign that US empire and US power is waning, but it's not as if simply because they're outside of the United States, that they're not subject to the same criticism, the same standards as the United States itself is. They have their own elites. They have their own policies that do not speak to satisfying the needs of their own poor and their own working class or their own women, or those who are outside of the dominant religion. Look at the Muslims in India. I'm concerned about them. No Modi's a Hindu nationalist, very narrow one at that because there's many Hindus who oppose him as well. And the same would be true in the other countries as well, even South Africa, as you know, I have tremendous respect for the legacy of a Nelson Mandela or sister.
(36:57)I had a chance to meet both of them when I was in South Africa. But the South African government today, it doesn't speak to the needs of poor and working class South Africans. I'll say that the brother Cyril, I have great respect for Brother Cyril, and I'm so glad he's taking Israel to the court, the International Court of Justice, no doubt about that. And I believe all the nations need to be called into question if they commit war crimes, Hamas itself commits war crimes. But those war crimes are not crimes of genocide. There are war crimes. They're wrong, they're unjust, but there's not an attempt to act as if they're trying to wipe out a people war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide. Three different levels. And it's very important to always distinguish them so that when we talk about bricks, I still don't want us to in any way assume that just because you get an Indian face or a Brazilian face or an African face, that somehow they are concerned about the poor and working classes in their own respective nations. Most of them are not. Most of them are part of their own bourgeoisie. They're part of their own professional classes that look down and do not put the needs of poor and working people at the center of their government. And Nelson Mandela, for example, in some ways turning over in his grave, when you look at the situation of poor people in Soweto and what he was trying to do when he emerged out of that jail cell,
Dr Wilmer Leon (38:36):
Is there an attack on independent thought and a growing sense of anti-intellectualism in the United States? That we look at the rise of the attacks on social media sites. We look at the attacks on independent journalists, the recent resignation of former Harvard President, Claudine Gay, Harvard's first African-American president and a female, and particularly looking at the manner in which she was done away with accusing her of plagiarism. So not only removing her from her position as president, but doing it in a manner of attacking her very character as a scholar, which seems like they almost want to see to it that she never gets another job. And I in her life, is there an attack on intellectualism and you truly as an intellectual, speak to that, please?
Dr Cornel West (39:38):
Yeah. Well, one is that United States has always been a deeply anti-intellectual country. The business of America is business. America's always been highly suspicious of those voices. That's why they put a bounty on the head of Ida B. Wells. They put a bounty on the head of Frederick Douglass. That's why they murdered Martin Luther King and Malcolm. That's why they kept Paul Robeson under house arrest at 46 45 Walnut Street in Philadelphia. Why they put Du Bois under House of West A 31 grace place in Brooklyn. It's why Eugene Debbs had to run for president from the sale he ran on the Socialist Park. All he was doing was just giving speeches critical of the war. So America has always had a deep anti-intellectual impulse. It is certainly at work today and certainly is manifest today. And you're right. I'm glad you mentioned Sister Gay because I think it's a very sad situation. It shows what happens when you get a little small group of highly wealthy figures, billionaire figures in this case, primarily Jewish figures, who feel as if they can shape and reshape an institution by either withholding their monies or bringing power and pressure to bear to try to eliminate. Dear Sister Gay, they had these major buses with her picture on it right in front of Harvard Yard, national Disgrace.
(41:09)They're organized in front of her house, and she got what she calls racial animus and these threats that she received. It's a very ugly and a vicious thing. But you know, there's an irony there, which is that, as you know, just a few years ago, I was actually pushed out of Harvard.
Dr Wilmer Leon (41:30):
That's why I'm asking you this
Dr Cornel West (41:31):
Question. pro-Palestinian stances. I was a faculty advisor to the Palestinian student Group, and they made it very clear that they were not going to have tenured faculties who had strong pro-Palestinian sensibilities, strong pro-Palestinian convictions. Now, at that time, sister Gay was head of the faculty. She was dean of the faculty, which is third in charge after the provost Larry be Kyle, Alan Garber, Claudine gay. And at that time, it was hard for her to come forward and support of me. No, and I didn't want to put her in a position. I know she was new. I know that she's betw and between, but the irony is that her silence at that time about those forces now comes back, or those same forces come back at her.
Dr Wilmer Leon (42:34):
And what's that adage? When they came for the Jews, I didn't say anything because I wasn't a Jew. When they came for the Christians, I didn't say anything because I wasn't a Christian, blah, blah, blah. By the time they got to me, wasn't nobody left to defend.
Dr Cornel West (42:47):
Nobody left. Now see, many of us still supported her because it's a matter of principle. It's a deep, deep racism belief because what is happening right now, as you know, when you look at Ackerman, you look at Bloom, you look at Summers, the folk who are very much behind these things, what they're saying is, is that all of the black folk at Harvard, for the most part, do not belong because they didn't get there based on merit and excellence. They got there because of diversity, equity, and inclusion. And we're calling all of that into question. You just read the recent piece by Brett Stevens, the New York Times. He's the same brother who says, anybody who calls it genocide must be antisemitic. And yet the next moment Nathan Yahu can call Hamas attack on precious Israelis genocidal. But that's not anti Palestinian. Oh, no, no. See, the double standards, the hypocrisy is so overwhelming that it's hard to even sit still.
(43:47)And so now we are in a situation where it's not just the Harvards and University of Pennsylvanias and others, but you've got now these groups that say, we will dictate who your president is. We will dictate what the criteria is of who gangs, assets, and professorships. We will even dictate some of the content of your curriculum because we got all this money. We got our names on the buildings, we will withhold it. Now, it's not exclusively Jewish, but it is disproportionately Jewish because it has to do with the issue of antisemitism. And you and I, we fight antisemitism. We're not going to allow Jewish brothers and sisters to get degraded and demeaned, but we are not going to allow Palestinians to get degraded and demeaned, let alone black folk get degraded and demeaned. And it's very interesting. You see, when they come for us, you don't get a whole lot of defense and concern about free expression cancellation. The same groups that were against cancellation now, not just canceling a president, but forcing a president out.
Dr Wilmer Leon (44:57):
Where's the Congressional Black Caucus in defending her?
Dr Cornel West (44:59):
Oh, congressional Black Caucus is about as weak as pre-seed Kool-Aid. They ain't going to do nothing. So much of they money comes out of the big lobby, APEC and so forth. But also we could say naacp Sharpton n Urban League, so much of their money comes out of Jewish elites so that they got a noose around their neck. They can't say anything. They're not free. They're not free. Can you imagine John Coltrane showing up at the club and they got this scarf around his neck where he can't blow what he wants to blow. And they say, we want you to sound like you're playing Mozart. He said, yeah, I can play Mozart, but I feel like playing Love Supreme. I got to be free. We don't have enough free black folk. They locked in. They accommodated. They well adjusted the injustice
Dr Wilmer Leon (46:02):
On the domestic front as we move towards the 2024 election, and we see that Biden's numbers have, he's hustling backwards. He's around somewhere between 37 and 40% and on the wane, but one of the things that they're going to tout is omics. And what doesn't seem to get articulated in this discussion about omics is the financialized side of the economy is doing great. If you have a 401k, you are as happy as a clam. If you are invested in stock market, you are invested. You are just ecstatic at how well your portfolio has grown. But homelessness is up in America. Oh, yeah. Homelessness has reached a level in this country. The likes we have not seen in years.
Dr Cornel West (46:58):
That's right.
Dr Wilmer Leon (46:58):
So how, two things, one, how do the Democrats square that circle of omics doing so well, but I'll just say poverty as a overall blanket term is on the rise in America when in fact, the Democrats canceled the extra monies that were going into the Wix programs and the other child poverty programs during the Covid era, which I think came out of the Trump administration. And then what does a president Cornell West do?
Dr Cornel West (47:32):
Yes, again, you see, following the legacy of Brother Martin King, I'm an abolitionist when it comes to poverty. I want to abolish poverty. We could abolish poverty nearly overnight if we had a disinvestment from significant sums in the military and reinvestment in jobs with a living wage, basic income support, housing, and free healthcare for all. We could do that. We have spent $5.6 trillion for wars in 20 years. We could abolish poverty with a small percentage of that.
Dr Wilmer Leon (48:17):
And wait a minute,
Dr Cornel West (48:18):
And wait a minute.
Dr Wilmer Leon (48:18):
Wait a minute. Wars that we have started. Yes, we started a conflict in Afghanistan.
Dr Cornel West (48:25):
That's
Dr Wilmer Leon (48:26):
True. We started the Ukraine, Russian conflict.
Dr Cornel West (48:29):
Iraq, yes.
Dr Wilmer Leon (48:30):
We started, we went in and bombed Iraq.
Dr Cornel West (48:33):
That's right.
Dr Wilmer Leon (48:34):
We went in and assassinated Kaddafi.
Dr Cornel West (48:37):
That's
Dr Wilmer Leon (48:37):
True. And Kaddafi warned Barack Obama, don't mess with them. Folks in the West, you have no idea who you're dealing with, do not mess with them. And the United States, and we are right now trying our damnedest to start a fight with China. With
Dr Cornel West (48:54):
China,
Dr Wilmer Leon (48:55):
So the Lockheed Martins of the world and the Raytheons of the world. That's
Dr Cornel West (48:58):
Right.
Dr Wilmer Leon (49:01):
We are, it's a money laundering scheme. We're taking our hard earned tax dollars, starting fights around the world. And then Lockheed Martin comes in saying, oh, I got the solution. Let's sell 'em some more F 30 fives and let's sell 'em some more tomahawk cruise missiles at a million dollars a copy.
Dr Cornel West (49:20):
That's right.
Dr Wilmer Leon (49:22):
I interrupted you, sir.
Dr Cornel West (49:23):
No, but you are absolutely right. And you think about this though. You got 62% of our fellow citizens are living paycheck to paycheck. 50% of our fellow citizens have 2.6% of the wealth. 1% has 40% of the wealth, and of course, three individuals in the country have wealth equivalent to 50% of Americans. That's 160 million. 160 million has wealth equivalent to three individuals. Now, all the omics in the world, the world does not address that kind of grotesque wealth inequality. This is the kind of thing brother Bernie Sanders was rightly talking about. Now, Bernie hasn't been as strong as he ought on the Middle East, hasn't been as strong as ought on a number of different issues. But when it comes to Wall Street greed, when it comes to grotesque wealth inequality, he still hits the nail on the head. And if we're serious, I was just with my dear brother, pastor Q and others down at Skid Row here in la, because you got almost 40,000 precious brothers and sisters in Los Angeles had their own skid row, their own city, 40% of 'em black, 90% of the town is black.
Dr Wilmer Leon (50:39):
Sounds like Oakland to me.
Dr Cornel West (50:41):
Well, yeah, Oakland and I
Dr Wilmer Leon (50:44):
Sounds like Sacramento to me,
Dr Cornel West (50:45):
Sister. Sound like s though I live in Harlem, sound like
Dr Wilmer Leon (50:50):
Over there near Cal Expo in Sacramento, along the American River where all those encampments are.
Dr Cornel West (50:56):
That's exactly right. I mean, it is a crime and a shame that the richest nation in the history of the world and the history of the species still has that kind of poverty. And of course, it goes even beyond that because you've got fossil fuel companies with their greed leading toward ecological catastrophe and the calling and the question, the very possibility of life on the planet if we don't come to terms with the shift from fossil fuel to renewable and regenerative forms of energy. So that, I mean, part of this is the philosophical question, which is to say, how is it that we, human beings are just so downright wretched, what we used to talk about in Shiloh, the hounds of hell, greed, hatred, envy, resentment, fear all used and manipulate it to crush each other. That's so much the history of who we are as a species, but we're also wonderful. We have the capacity to be better, to think, to feel, to love, to organize, to be in solidarity, but those who are suffering to have empathy and compassion and those two sides, the wretchedness and the wonderfulness,
Dr Wilmer Leon (52:16):
The yin and the yang,
Dr Cornel West (52:17):
The yin and the yang, the ugliness and the beauty of a smile, a grin, the beauty of a friendship and a love, the beauty of a mama and a daddy. The beauty of people marching, fighting for something bigger than them. The beauty of being in solidarity with Palestinians and Gaza right now, given the indescribable realities that they have to deal with. But same is true with solidarity, with our brothers and sisters in Sudan, with brothers and sisters in India, brothers Jews in Russia, whoever it is who's catching hell, we ought to be open to our solidarity. Why? Because that fights against the greed and the hatred and the fear and the wretchedness manifest in who we are as a species.
Dr Wilmer Leon (53:08):
As I was trying to figure out how to close this conversation. Well, you know what, before I get to that, let me ask you this. As you are now not only talking to America, but talking to the world, what are the three salient very important things that you want, those that are listening to this podcast, watching this podcast, other than you being brilliant and being from Sacramento and Southland Park Drive like me, what is it that you want the audience to really understand about Dr. Cornell West?
Dr Cornel West (53:51):
I want them to understand that I come from a great people of black people who after being terrorized, traumatized, and hated for 400 years, have continually dished out love warriors, freedom fighters, joy shares, and wounded healers. And I'm just a small little wave in that grand ocean. And what sits at the center of that great tradition of black folk just like this, John Coltrane I got it could have been, could be Aretha, could be Luther Vandross, could be a whole host of others, could be a Phil Randolph early by Russian. Rusty is courage to think critically and quest for truth, the courage to act compassionately and in pursuing justice. And then also the courage to love and laugh. To laugh at yourself, to know that you a cracked vessel, to know that you try again, fell again and fell better. That nobody's a messiah, nobody's a savior. We're here to make the world just a little better than we found it. As Reverend Cook used to tell us, if the kingdom of God is within us, then everywhere we go, we ought to leave a little heaven behind.
Dr Wilmer Leon (55:09):
Amen, my brother. Amen. Let me, so I was trying to figure out how to end this conversation, and it dawned on me as I was going from idea to idea. I said, I've got a piece. This is from a book, knowledge, power, and Black Politics by Dr. Mack h Jones, who I think,
Dr Cornel West (55:38):
Oh, he's a giant. He's a giant,
Dr Wilmer Leon (55:40):
And I went to this. It's a collection of essays that he's written over the years and chapter 17, Cornell West, the insurgent black intellectual race matters. A critical comment, and this is part of what Mack writes. Cornell West has established himself as one of the leading political thinkers of our time, and it is fitting and appropriate that we pause and reflect on his ideas. When we engage in such an exchange of ideas, we continue a long enduring tradition within the black community that goes to the beginning of our sojourn on these shores in spite of what our detractors want to say. Principled dialogue and debate have always been a part of black cultural life in the United States, and it is alive and well even as we speak. I've been familiar with West Scholarship for quite some time. I've read and studied most of his published works and found them for the most part to be challenging, insightful, and often provocative.
(56:53)I've used some of his essays in my classes with good results. They address issues and problems essential to our survival and evolution as a people, and he makes us think more deeply about them. Professor West is a decided asset to us as a people and to the human family in general. And so to that, I ask the audience, or I want to leave the audience with this, I'm not going to be presumptuous enough to try to tell people how they should vote or who they should vote for. I merely ask them to consider this. Do you want a former President Trump, a man who Senator Lindsey Graham called a race baiting, xenophobic bigot, and a jackass? Now, that's not me. That's Lindsey Graham. Or do you want a President Biden, who is in a state of cognitive decline, started a war in Ukraine, trying to start a war with China, is a self-proclaimed Zionist who is backing funding and supporting genocide? Or do you want to consider a man who the brilliant Dr. Mack h Jones says makes us think more deeply about these issues? He is a decided asset to us as a people and to the human family in general. My brother, Dr. Cornell West with that, what you got, man, wow.
Dr Cornel West (58:33):
You moved me very deeply though. Mac Jones was one of the great giants that he invited me to come to Prairie Review, and he was teaching there, and he and I talked together, wrestled together. I learned so much from him. I really just sat at his feet. He was just so, so kind. Adolf Reed worked with him as well, with Mack Jones there at Atlanta University, but for you to read his words at the beginning of 2024, you don't know what that means to me though, man, because I had such deep love and respect for Mack Jones, and he has such a, it is like Brother Ron at Howard Walters, and he has, he's the
Dr Wilmer Leon (59:17):
Reason I have a PhD in political science is because of him.
Dr Cornel West (59:20):
Is that right?
Dr Wilmer Leon (59:21):
Yeah. I studied under him. I went to Howard and studied on him in Howard.
Dr Cornel West (59:24):
Oh, yeah, yeah. Oh my God. Because both of those brothers, they were at the peak of academic achievement, but they had such a deep love for the people, the love for black people, a love for oppressed people, a love for people catching hell everywhere in the world, and to see that in the flesh in him meant so much to me, and for you to read those words just fires me up, brother. It fortifies me. I think I'm going run on and see what the end going be.
Dr Wilmer Leon (59:59):
Well, Dr. Cornell West 2024 candidate for President of the United States, I want to thank you for joining me today. I want to thank you for connecting the dots
Dr Cornel West (01:00:11):
As a young brother for me. This is 35 years ago, and I'm talking about Mac Jones. You see, it just meant the world to me, and I'd seen it before in other examples, but to be able to see it. Thank you, my brother. Love you. Respect your man,
Dr Wilmer Leon (01:00:24):
Man, and you know I love you folks. Thank you so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wi Leon, and stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review. Please share the show. Follow us on social media. You can find all the links below because remember that this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge in the show description. Talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a good one. Peace and blessings. I'm out

Breaking the Covenant: Jewish Contempt for Gaza

Find me and the show on social media by searching the handle @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube.
Our Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd
All our episodes can be found at CTDpodcast.com.
 
This week's episode features Ray McGovern. Former CIA analyst and foreign policy advocate in Washington, DC. He join us to give some history and context on the Israeli/Hamas war.
 
TRANSCRIPT:
 
Speaker 1 (00:42):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:51):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I'm Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which most events take place. During each episode of this broadcast, my guests and I will have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between current events and the broader historic context in which they occur. This will enable you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live on today's episode. According to my guest self-proclaimed Zionist, Joe Biden, with no witts about him is assuring the destruction of Zionist apartheid Israel as corrupt US Intel leaders have unleashed the dogs of war. We cannot be bystanders, quote, indifference to evil is more insidious than evil itself. That's Rabbi Abraham Heschel for insight into this. Let's turn to my guest. He leads the speaking truth to power section of Tell the Word a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Savior in inner city Washington. He served as a CIA analyst for 27 years. His duties including chairing the National Intelligence Estimates and preparing the President's daily brief. And he also ran the Russia desk for the CIA. And in January of 2003, he co-created veteran intelligence professionals for sanity. He is Ray McGovern. Ray, welcome and let's connect some dots.
Ray McGovern (02:34):
Thanks, Dr. Leon
Dr. Wilmer Leon (02:36):
Ray, you recently published a piece at raymcgovern.com entitled, can You give a brief synopsis of what's happening in Israel? And it's based upon a response to a question from, I believe your youngest daughter. She asked you to explain to her what's happening in occupied Palestine and it opens as follows. I was nine years old, 1948 when there was huge celebration in the Bronx at the founding of the state of Israel. No one told me that Arabs had lived on that land for centuries and were displaced by force. Tens of thousands of them crammed into postage stamped Gaza and now host to millions of Palestinians. Ray, I'll throw it to you. Why was it so important for you to write this piece?
Ray McGovern (03:30):
Wilmer? Frankly, I was really encouraged that one of my children, and we have five, was interested in knowing what I thought about this.
(03:43)Prophets are without renown in their hometowns and sometimes in their own homes. So when Miriam asked me this question, I said, well, she wants a short, concise paragraph, so I'll try and I failed. I couldn't do it In one concise paragraph, I said, look, here's somebody who's genuinely interested. She has three young children. She's got a very busy life, but she knows that this is important. So let me explain some of the background to this. And so I started out first with the, so-called religious justification for what Israel did. Well in occupying lands already occupied by Palestinian people for centuries before I have been in the West Bank, I have been in Israel at one point, we went up a hill to a Jewish settlement. This is about eight years ago now. At the bottom of the hill, there was devastation. There was no running water, there was poverty of an extreme kind.
(05:03)When we went up to the top of the hill, whoa, you look like a golf course for God sake, green lawns being watered, okay? And a rabbi from Cleveland telling us why he's entitled to be there as a settler. So one of my colleagues, we were on a little delegation, said, well, a rabbi, how do you explain the conditions right down at the bottom of this hill in Palestinian territory, and you're beautiful settlement up here. And he said, without hesitation. Well, God promised us this land. Now, I had heard that before and I know not enough about the what's so called the Old Testament, the Hebrew scriptures, but I knew this. I knew that they depend on Deuteronomy 15 four for that. So I basically, rabbi, please cite the part of scripture that justifies your settling on this land. And he said, that's easy. He said, Yahweh said to the Jewish people, you shall have this land flowing with milk and honey.
(06:22)And I said, continue, rabbi, continue. And he said, what do you mean continue? I said, well, you're only giving us half of the deal, right? He said, well, what do you mean? I said, read the rest of the verse. So there shall be no poor among you. He said, oh, you forgot to. So it was a deal. It was, well, you might call it a covenant. All right. You shall have this land so that there shall be no poor among you. And I thought that Miriam should know this, that when she hears people say, oh, wait a second, I promised this stuff. It was a deal. And the Israelis, of course, have broken that deal in a scurrilous way. So that's the way I started out. I went into some of the more recent history. But go back to the Hebrew scriptures. It's very clear what God's promise was. Assuming you think this is important. And of course the settlers think it's important. That's why they always cited
Dr. Wilmer Leon (07:28):
Ray two things. One, it would be one thing if the scripture said, I will give you this land of milk and honey so that you will not be poor. But that's not what it says. It says so that there will not be poor among you. And there's also a reason why those individuals are called settlers. And there's also a reason why that region is called the occupied territories.
Ray McGovern (08:06):
That's right, Wilmer. And it's an embarrassing history we Americans have because we were settlers on the land, peopled by Native Americans, and we kind of pushed them aside just as Israel has pushed the Palestinians aside. So it's not a happy history. But when you're a settler, well, that's a nice way of putting that. You're coming from outside and you've displaced people who have a right to live on those lands. So as I said in the beginning of this piece, I came from the Bronx. I lived there for my first 22 years before I went in and served as an army officer. Now, when I was nine years old, 19 eight, oh man, it was sort of like the 4th of July, 10 times over Israel had a home, right? And as I noted at the beginning, well, nobody told me. Well, he told me that it was not a land for people, a land without any people in it.
(09:15)Well, there were people in it. And that's the basic part of all this. And if you go more recent in the history, I was serving as a CIA analyst in 1967 when the Israelis attacked Egypt and Syria decimated their Air Force and enlarged Israeli territory to include parts of Syria, to include the West Bank, to include the Sinai, to include Gaza, lots of places to include, right? Okay. Now we thought, or we were told that Egypt was about to attack Israel. Well, that was the legends put forward for many years after 1967. But finally, man, be a former Israeli prime minister, got up before an audience in Washington in 1982 and call it chutzpah, call it honesty. Call it a cleansing of his conscience. But this is what he said. It's not long. I want to read it so that I don't mess it up. All right, man. Bein former Israeli prime minister quote, in June, 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the side eye approaches do not prove that SSO is already really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.
(11:07)It was duly reported in the New York Times and people in New York and elsewhere where I was living. Oh, isn't that interesting? So the Israelis said, well, that's called aggression. That's calling creating Libens home. Okay? Not terribly dissimilar from what happened in the thirties at the hands of the Nazis in Germany. And so that's the truth behind all this. Now, how did the UN react then back in 67 when all this happened? There was the unanimous security council resolution, resolution two, four, two, that call for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. Was it a close vote? It was unanimous. Okay. Did the Israelis do that? No, they didn't do that. Why didn't they do that? Because of chutzpah? Because the Israelis can always depend on the United States to defend them no matter what they do. And so they have occupied all those territories. They gave back the Sinai to Egypt when there was an agreement under Jimmy Carter, but the Sinai is not worth keeping.
(12:17)Actually. Now the people in Gaza are bearing the brunch of this occupation, this oppression, and as I quoted Rabbi Heschel, one of my very favorite people who marched with Dr. King back in the late sixties, that we're not all guilty, but we are all responsible. How did I put it? How did he put it? Indifference to evil is worse than evil itself. That's what we have to measure up to this time. There's been evil in Gaza, and we have to make sure that we don't one sidedly accuse one side and give the other a free ride, so to speak. As has been the case since the US reacted to the UN resolution, it didn't do diddly, as we say in the Bronx to enforce it.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (13:23):
There's a lot of misinformation. There's a lot of disinformation and outright lies that are being used in support of the Zionist US narrative of this illegal occupation of Palestine, as well as the genocide of Palestinians. I want to read a brief statement and then show a map before I come back to you. Here's a statement. This is from the foreign office, the 2nd of November, 1917, and it reads, dear Lord Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of his Majesty's government. The following declaration of sympathy with Jewish scientist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the cabinet, his majesty's government view, with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object. It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done, which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
(14:36)I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation, yours, Arthur James Balfour. Now this is known as the Balfour Declaration. The British government decided in 1917 to endorse the establishment of a Jewish home in Palestine, not Israel, Palestine. After discussions within the cabinet and the consulting with the Jewish leaders, the decision was made public. And we have this letter to that point. Here's a map from National Geographic from 1947 where you can see Lebanon, Syria, trans Jordan, Egypt, and Palestine. Israel is not on this map. Why? Because contrary to the dominant Western narrative, Israel did not exist. That's why we know now Israel is actually the occupied territories. Ray people will have a tendency to try to categorize this conversation as anti-Semitic, which is why if we can put the map back up one more time, I want to be sure that people see this map. This is history. This is not narrative. This is not rhetoric. This is history. Ray McGovern.
Ray McGovern (16:14):
Well, history can be very antisemitic.
(16:22)I mean, it's hard to realize that most Americans are blissfully unaware of all this. The maps show the story. Now, the situation right now is different. How is it different? Well, the Soviets, I used to be a Soviet analyst analyst of Russians, foreign policy. The Soviets used to talk about a concept called the correlation of forces. Now, it's not rocket science, okay? It had to do with the balance of power in the world. Now, guess what folks? The balance of power in the world has shifted. People are now talking about a shift from a unipolar world, which is what the US was since World War ii, and particularly since the Soviet Union fell apart to a multipolar world where other countries are allowed to have a say in these things. Well, I look at it as a bipolar world, and I would refer more recently just to the yesterday's vote at the un, where the US was the only one to veto a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, calling for the Israelis, not to ethnically cleanse Gaza as they apparently still intend to do.
(17:53)So what's my point? My point is that everyone, not even the British voted with us this time, okay? 12 to one was there was two abstentions. So what am I saying? I'm saying that the Arab countries, well, here's an example. The Arab ambassadors in Beijing asked the Chinese, please get us all together. We would need to talk about what's going to happen in Gaza. And the Chinese did. The head of Iran calls up arch rival the head of Saudi Arabia and says, we got to do something about this. And they have a cordial conversation. Okay? Next thing you know, he is talking to the head of Hamas. He's talking to the head of Hezbollah, okay? So there are things that are happening here where it's where the deck is being stacked heavily against the United States, and it's sat traps like the UK and France and Germany. They're not very long for this world, those governments, okay? So what we have here is a condition where 20 years ago, the US could work its will. Okay? No longer can it. Hamas is well-equipped. I don't think that killing civilians is a good idea, nor do I. When you look at it or when you look at it, you say, well, was this unprovoked?
(19:31)Unprovoked seems to be the adjective of choice here. Just as PCIs decision to defend his compatriots in the DBAs was not unprovoked, neither was Hamas' reaction here without making any moral judgements, which is something that intelligence analysts are not called to do. Actually, we can say you can understand this given the recent history and the more distant history that we've referred to earlier.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (20:07):
I'm very glad that you put it that way because a lot of times people misconstrue, and I'll just put this on a personal level. I'm not a former, not an intelligence analyst, but I am a political scientist, not a political operative. And so people have a tendency to misconstrue my explanation of events with my agreeing with the events, my saying, I understand why President Putin and Russia went into Ukraine. I understand it because I understand the history. I understand why Hamas took the actions that it did. I don't condone the killing of civilians. I don't condone the killing of children, but I understand why Hamas did what they did. If you could quickly, Tony Blinken, you were just talking about the shift from the unipolar to the multipolar world. Talk a little bit about Tony Blinken and this whole concept of the rules based order, because Tony Blinken in the Biden administration, they love to talk about the rules based order, but when you try to find a definition of it, you can't because it only exists in the mind of Tony Blinken. They rarely talk about international law. They always want to talk about the rules based order.
Ray McGovern (21:46):
You put your finger on it, the rules based international order, well, it's a contrived expression. It's meant to substitute for international law and the United Nations. It was invented by Blinken and Sullivan and Nolan, and I mean poin and Laro, the foreign minister have made fun of it. Well, tell us about this. We try to Google it, but could you please give us, can you give us a piece of paper to describe what the rules based into law? And of course they can. And what it means is what we say goes, we make the rules, and that's it.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (22:30):
And you follow our orders.
Ray McGovern (22:33):
People are getting wise to that increasing number of people witness the vote at the UN yesterday, 12 to one, the one being the United States. The saving grace here, as I say it, is that the UN is still being respected by China, by Russia, and by some of the other countries that are insisting that we abide by UN regulations. First and foremost in this context, security council resolution 2, 4, 2 of November 22nd, 1967 ordering is to relinquish control of the occupied territories that they seized in 1967. So what's the hope here? Well, the hope was yesterday. The US talks about Russia being isolated. Look,
(23:34)And maybe just maybe these Zionists, and I'll use that word advisedly. I mean, Joe Biden has bragged about being a real dy in the world. Zionist, so has Blinken and Sullivan, the rest of them. Okay? What does that mean? That means the people that occupied the Palestinian Territories occupied by Palestinians for as just as Native Americans in our example, four centuries before, it doesn't make sense. And it's not going to make any headway no matter how much we invoke this rule space, international order. Thanks for raising that, because it's very telling how we thought that we could just invent a new phrase and substitute it for international law. And the UN
Dr. Wilmer Leon (24:29):
President Biden, when he went to the region on this, so-called Peacekeeping tour, wherever the heck he was supposed to be doing, he talked about peace. And to your point earlier on, not on this trip, but earlier on he was very clear, I am a Zionist. And then Tony Blinken goes and he says, I am here not only as the Secretary of State of the United States, but I'm here as a Jew. What message do you think that sends to the Arabs in the region who he allegedly is supposed to be trying to find some common ground with and bring about some type of peaceful resolution to this conflict?
Ray McGovern (25:18):
Well, I think the word is chutzpah and naivete. If blinken doesn't know how that goes over with the Arab leaders that he is talking to, he is hopelessly blind. Wait
Dr. Wilmer Leon (25:35):
A minute, wait a minute, Ray, does he care? Because what that I remember very clearly probably two years ago when Blinken went to Anchorage, Alaska to meet with the Chinese delegation, and the Chinese delegation got up and said, we're not going to sit here and let you lecture us. We're China. We don't have to sit here and listen to you. And they got up and walked out of the room. That to me, sounds eerily reminiscent or what just transpired with Tony Blinken in the Middle East sounds eerily reminiscent to what he tried to do with the Chinese.
Ray McGovern (26:17):
Well, Wilmer, you probably have seen President Biden reading from his little notes, even in a very short a session with Netanyahu. So who writes the notes?
Dr. Wilmer Leon (26:33):
Tony
Ray McGovern (26:33):
Blink. Well, Blinken writes the notes.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (26:36):
Victoria Newland.
Ray McGovern (26:37):
Victoria Newland. Now, what does Victoria Newland have in common? What Jacob Sullivan have in common? They're all of Jewish extraction. Now, should that ordinarily matter? No. Does it matter? Now? It happens to matter. Now we're talking about a Jewish home land created at the expense of the Palestinian people. We're talking about Zionism, which is a political movement, not a religion. So the three top people at the State Department have traditionally been Zionists, not only Jews, but Zionists. Now, this is not lost on the Middle East leaders or China or Russia. And you could see their hold on Biden from the very first part of his administration. The first thing he did, we got up and he said, now China, China's going to be, has aspirations to be the most powerful country in the world, not only economically, but strategically. That's not going to happen on my watch.
(27:51)Okay? Next thing he does is he lets himself be set up by Stephanopoulos George Stephanopoulos, who says, now, Mr. President, do you think Putin's a killer? And by, oh, he's a killer. Okay? And then they meet with the Chinese at Anchorage and read him the riot act about the rules. Basically, the Chinese say, we know all about this. We spent a century throwing off your predecessors, the British selling with the gun diplomas. That's all the folks. And as you say, they didn't put up with it. So you have at the very outset of his administration laying down the line, look, were all powerful, which is not the case anymore. We're Zionists, which happens to be the case anymore. Let me introduce one sort of comment that Biden made without reading from his little cards there, I think was on the plane coming home yesterday. He said, I made a note of it. He says, I can understand why people in the Middle East region would not believe the Israelis, or that maybe the bombing of that hospital was not intentional.
(29:17)Well, I can understand why the people of that region would not believe the Israeli. The question is why you believe him, Joe Biden, and whether now Jacob Sullivan, I have to tell you, people object to my saying Jacob Sullivan, but that's his first name. Okay? Just like remember Scooter Libby who worked for Janie. His first was Israel Libby. So why does he go by Scooter? Why does Jacob go by Jake? I don't know, but I can make a little guess here. Okay. Jacob Sullivan is Zionist as the Newlands and the Blinken of this world, and of course the president who styles himself as the supreme Zionist. What does that mean? Well, it means that it's over the US and Israel. It's just going to take a couple of months. Now for people to realize that, and the fear I have Wilmer, the fear I have is that there's too much at stake personally for President Biden and for Blinken and Nod and Sullivan and Nolan and Hunter Biden, there's too much at personal stake for them to go away quietly and acknowledge the new correlation of forces.
(30:37)If they lose the wars, if they lose the election, they could end up in jail. The evidence is there, and court documents in sworn testimony, bribery, impeachment proceedings may go forward. So I'm always saying, I don't give a rat's patooty about what happens in impeachment considerations. What I care about is how they are likely to react to save their own patootie. And that introduces an element of instability and personal stake that worries me greatly. And it doesn't matter what worries McGovern greatly, I'm sure it worries Russian and Chinese leaders greatly too, and has them on tenterhooks as to what will happen over the next year.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (31:29):
When you look at the surveys right now, when you look at the polling data, the race for 2024 between President Biden and former President Trump, by most polls, is a dead heat, one or two points. It's within the margin of error. History tells us that countries tend not to shift leadership or change leadership in the midst of conflict slash war. You mentioned if they lose the election, I'm sorry, you mentioned if they lose the war, if they lose the election, does Joe Biden need this conflict in his mind in order to save his administration?
Ray McGovern (32:19):
I don't think Joe Biden is Compass Menis. I think that Blinken and Sullivan, Nolan, they are extremely Compass mentors. They have a lot to fear. Let's say that Trump wins election, as I said before, the evidence is out there, not only of bribery and those kinds of things, and Hunter Biden's laptop and the inclusion of corrupt former intelligence officials and all that kind of stuff. But Blinken was personally involved in arranging for Biden to win via a subterfuge. What do I mean? Well, when Hunter Biden's laptop was revealed and the scarless repeat stuff on, and his dealings with calling his father's brand name into, well, how did they decide to handle that was three weeks before the election. Oh, what happened? Well, by testimony to Congress, by a former acting director of the CIA, his name is Mikey Morell. He said, I got a call from Tony Blinken, and he said, the best way to handle the Hunter Biden laptop is could you get former intelligence directors to say that it has all the earmarks of a Russian intelligence disinformation operation?
(33:56)And Mikey Mell said, sure, I can do that. Three days later, Mikey Morell has rounded up 50 count 'em, 50 former intelligence directors and very high officials, speaks pretty poorly of them, doesn't it? 50 plus Mikey Morrell, and he says 51 former intelligence directors, including four or five former directors of the CIA, as if that enhances their credibility. Say, this has all the earmarks, Russian intelligence, disinformation operation. Now, was that consequential? Well, all I know is that two days later, Joe Biden had his last debate with Trump, and Trump raised this. Biden said, oh, don't you know that this is in all the earmarks of a Russian intelligence operation? Now, why do I go into that detail? I mean, that should not have happened. Okay? I don't know whether that won the election for Biden or not, but you don't do these things. They have to be illegal, in my view.
(35:09)So Blinken himself is on 10 hooks. He could be prosecuted, he could be put in jail, and Jacob Sullivan, just the word about him, he invented Russiagate, the non-existent Russian hacking of the DNC computer for Hillary Clinton's emails and all that stuff that showed that she had stolen the nomination for Bernie Sanders. That was Sullivan. He was a big campaign manager for Hillary Clinton. So that's all out there. Now, I don't know if Trump came in, and I will not comment on what I think of Trump. If he came in, he's not loath to hold these people accountable, and on this case, he's got the law behind him. So again, there's great incentive on the part of all these people preparing their notes for Joe Biden to keep the war going in Ukraine and not lose before the election, and to help the Israelis to the degree the US can still not lose in Gaza. The last one is not possible anymore. Neither is the first one. So what am I afraid of? I'm afraid that they will react according to this personal stick they have, and it's to happen before when you have this kind of personal stake and you have advisors like these guys who are saying, Joe, look, if we lose this, look what happens then. You don't have to write notes to Joe. He understands this. He's a politician, and that's what worries me. Sorry to carry on at that point.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (36:52):
I
Ray McGovern (36:52):
Think this is an important aspect. It's not really covered elsewhere.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (36:58):
You are former intelligence official, and you understand the subtleties of diplomacy. And one of the things that I find very interesting is when you listen to President Putin, when you listen to President Xi, when you listen to Raisi in Iran, they speak in very subtle undertones. So when Donald Trump assassinated, general
Ray McGovern (37:29):
Soleimani,
Dr. Wilmer Leon (37:31):
Soleimani, Iran said, we're going to retaliate, and a lot of people expected the retaliation to be coming shortly thereafter. It did not come well, as Tony Blinken was traversing the Middle East recently, the Iranian foreign minister was doing the same thing with his allies and released a statement saying, Israel, the time is up. Did that convey to you a not so subtle message that people need to be paying attention to?
Ray McGovern (38:17):
Well, it does, and that's really one outstanding aspect of what happened over the last week. The notion that the president of Iran would call up the leader of Saudi Arabia to coordinate on what they're going to do. I mean, that's a tectonic shift in the relationship between those two countries. And raci, the president of Iran has been traveling all around, and he's got, he talks to this area and he talks to the Egyptians, and actually the Egyptians and the Jordanians wouldn't even receive Joe Biden when he wanted to see them. So what we need to do is recognize,
Dr. Wilmer Leon (39:13):
And Mohammad bin Salman made Tony Blinken wait an entire day, actually overnight, because I guess he had gone fishing in somewhere in Saudi Arabia, and he was on a fishing trip in Saudi Arabia and couldn't be bothered. So he thinked Tony, again, from a diplomatic perspective, that's one of those not so subtle messages that says, I really don't feel I'd being bothered with you.
Ray McGovern (39:43):
And Saudi Arabia is very, very, very important, not only because of the oil, but because of the raro schmo that was going on with China and with others. So maybe the Saudi foreign minister was supervising some beheadings in the public square. You get pretty busy in Saudi Arabia when head start rolling, and I understand he did give Blinken access to a men's room there as he waited. So there's some niceties that were observed, but he gave away overnight. You don't do that with, at least you didn't use to do that with the Secretary of State of the United States of America, least of all. Would the Saudi Arabia's have done that? So that's just one little symptom of the tectonic shift in relations where us is no longer the unipolar power, but rather a bipolar with them with the United States. And I am an American citizen. I really mourn the fact that because they're own ineptitude and chutzpah that would put ourselves in this situation. And I dare say that the Israelis do what everyone thinks they're going to do. Now, it's going to be all hell to pay because the Iranians has Pua, Hamas, the Egyptians, the Hezbollah, the others, even the Saudis for are not going to sit around and tolerate the of 2 million people in Gaza.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (41:39):
Yemen isn't going to be too happy with this either.
Ray McGovern (41:44):
Yemen as well. Yeah.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (41:46):
So people watching this, people listening to this, they may be saying, wow, Wilmer, you and Ray are spending an awful lot of time talking about foreign policy, talking about the Middle East. We have homelessness in the United States. We have abject poverty. We have all these declines in the standard of living in the United States. Why spend so much time talking about this instead of talking about that?
Ray McGovern (42:19):
Well, because they're connected. As you well know, every billion you send to Ukraine, every billion you send to Israel is at the expense of these people. The poor people in our country that need all that kind of help, there shall be no poor among you. Well, that's a universal. That's a universal, in my view. It doesn't have to be a Hebrew scripture. I mean, the Christian, the Christian, and I say Judeo-Christian attitude toward justice Wiler. We have this American concept of justice where you have this blind lady of all people holding these scales and the images impartiality image, no favoritism to one or the other. Now, lemme tell you something, and your listeners, the Judeo-Christian, the biblical concept of justice is unbalanced and biased to the core in favor of the poor. The hated poor as the Old Testament called the very word in pre Aramaic for justice, denotes not connotes, denotes showing mercy to the poor.
(43:46)Now, that used to be kind of observed, FDR, my father's favorite president, he cried when FDR died. He knew in his heart what he needed to do, poor people. He brought us out of that depression. There used to be a Democratic party that cared mostly about the poor. When I asked my father, I said, dad, what's the difference between a Democrat and a Republican? He said, all Democrats care about people. Okay, care about poor people. Well, that ain't the case anymore. They're all joined at the hip. And what do they care about? Stuffing their own pockets. What was really a revelation to me was when Pope Francis came to Congress 2015, I think it was, and there was a joint section, and he stands up there, and to his credit, Pope Francis says, and I quote, the main problem today is the blood soaked arms trade. Okay? The main problem today is the blood soaked arms trade.
(45:04)Now what do those congressmen, what do the senators do? Oh, they go, they, oh, yeah, right? And he stood up, and then they looked in their pocket ship envelope from Raytheon was still there, and it went from Lockheed over here. I mean, it was giving hypocrisy a bad name, okay? These guys know what the message was, but they're so soaked in this money and this power that it's going to take a lot of us, a lot of us who care about the poor, and a lot of us who can show opportunity costs is what the economists use.
(45:45)For every 150 million you spend on creating an F 35, what could be done in your school district to pay the teachers a decent way? What could be do? What could be done in Iowa or Nebraska or any of these places which are being downtrodden? Okay? People need to make this very specific. This money is going to these high people that are making 20, $30 million a year as salaries, as CEOs or Raytheon and Lockheed general dynamics. That ain't sustainable. We need to get up and find out where these people live. Shame them into relenting a little bit and saying, look, maybe 10 million is enough for your salary, and maybe we'll give the balance to the poor. So round this thing up, I happen to be out of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and this reinforces my, what's the word, my imperative to honor the concept of justice, which is not balanced in favor of everybody because it's, it's not a level playing field. It's a unbalanced, it's biased and prejudice to the core in favor of the poor. Now, that's what I come out of as a faith perspective. I'll just add one other thing. I had a Jesuit teacher who was a real good friend of mine. I said, well, how would you describe your theology? I said, that's very simple. I can put it in one sentence. I said, what's that? He says, well, it all depends on what kind of God you believe in and how God feels when little people are pushed around.
(47:47)And, okay, I'll say that again, and how God feels when little people are pushed around. Now, you don't have to believe in God. You can just believe in justice. I had agnostics and atheists tell me, look, Ray, you don't have to go into the Bible here. Human beings know that we're supposed to be fair, and that's true. Human beings used to know that we need to get back on the track here and do everything we can to make sure they realize that. Now, the more so since things are getting very, very perilous for us, not only in Ukraine, but in Western Asia as it's called now,
Dr. Wilmer Leon (48:29):
In mentioning Ukraine, you also have a piece at your website, Ray mcgovern.com entitled, fact Checking Putin on Ukraine. President Putin gave an interview right before he went to China for the Belt and Road Initiative Conference, and you say, media consumers should be permitted to learn what Putin said, particularly about Ukraine and Russia's problems dealing with various US administrations over the years. Readers who rely on the paper of record, however, will be shielded from his remarks, and thus, any temptation to ask if they might be true. And you went through a lot of what Russian President Putin had to say. You did your own fact checking. And what were some of the conclusions that you came to regarding President Putin's the veracity of his comments?
Ray McGovern (49:35):
Well, I checked them all, and there were two that I needed to consult others on because I wasn't a hundred percent sure. One had to do with when Soviet Russian forces went up there near Kiev and were abruptly withdrawn very early in the war in Ukraine, I always wondered about that. Putin claims that that was part of a deal, not a covenant, but at least a deal. Now, what was the deal? The deal was reached with Ukrainian officials in Glarus and in Turkey. There was a deal to stop the war, to have a ceasefire, to commit Ukraine, not to join NATO, and to bring Russian troops down from where they were threatening Kiev. That's what Putin claims. Now, I checked around because my memory is just one person, but I found out, yeah, that's probably why the Russian troops went down from that area. It's not because they couldn't have taken Kiev, although they didn't really have all that many troops there.
(50:54)But the Russians, from the very outset of their special military operation, appeal to the Ukrainians, look, we'd like to have a deal here. All we want is some respect for our own security. We don't want NATO coming in as a bulwark against us. Now, what happened? Well, the Ukrainians talked and they reached an agreement in Ankara on the 31st of March, 2022, and it said these things that I just spelled out what happened? Well, the US in the person of Boris Johnson from the uk, he visited Kiev right away and said, no, no, no deal. You may be willing to deal with Russia, but we're not. We want to continue this thing. The object here is to give the Russians a bloody nose, a strategic defeat. Okay? And so what does Zelensky do? Oh, okay. Sorry. Sorry. I won't do that anymore. Okay. That's how that thing went down.
(51:58)Now, I remember reading this in S, the official organ in Ukraine. I mean, that's pretty good. But when I had confirmation about this from some of the people that know the military situation a little better than I did, I said, yeah, well, that was correct too. Now, Wilmer, without belaboring this, I have to tell you that after fact checking all this and trying to offer this as an alternative view by somebody who had fact checked it, I couldn't get it published. I couldn't get it published on a very, well, what we shall say, a very anti-war website.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (52:46):
But Ray Ray, that's got to be impossible because Joe Biden has told us that we stand for democracy, that Putin is a dictator and that he's an autocrat, and we stand for the freedom of press in America. Ray, how could you not get something like that published?
Ray McGovern (53:07):
Well, I guess my point Wilmer here is that I've long since stopped trying to get something in The Times or the Washington Post. I used to be able to do that 10 years ago, like twice a year. But the alternative media, for God sake, the progressive media is now saying, oh, that sounds a little bit too. So here, I check these things. I double check with the people who know about things they're not quite sure about. I put it out there and say, well, that sounds a little bit too, we can't run that. So that's the alternative media. That's the binder where nobody wants to feel like they could be susceptible to criticism of being pro Putin, that my friend, is how bad it has become.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (54:02):
I was at dinner with some friends, and one of them asked kind of a generic question about this media and whose interests are being served, and this can't be some invisible cabal that is behind the scenes, being sure that a particular narrative is only being articulated. And I said, no, it doesn't really have to be a cabal, because when you look at Jeff Bezos, for example, and he owns the Washington Post, and he owns Amazon, and look at where Jeff Bezos has received most of his money from Amazon Data Systems, which is a defense contractor. I said, look at, what's his name, knowns Tesla, and he controls X, and where does he get most of his money from? SpaceX and starlink defense contractors. So it doesn't necessarily have to be a cabal as much as it is the confluence of interests that understand which side their bread is buttered on. Is that fair to say?
Ray McGovern (55:29):
Well, Wilmer, I have an expression or an acronym called the Mickey Mat, the military industrial Congressional Intelligence Media, academia think tank complex. It's in some dictionaries now. Okay, why do I say media? Because the media is controlled by the rest of the Mickey Mat. That's the situation we're in now. Now you mentioned Jeff Bezos, and you correctly pointed out he gets lots of money from the federal government, CIA, and others. Okay, but the people he picks, well, there was a fellow named Fred Hyatt who ran the editorial section of the Washington Post, like the op-ed section. Okay? And before the war in Iraq, about 90% of the op-eds were, oh, yeah, they're weapons of mass, weapons of, okay, so what happens after the war when there are no weapons of mass destruction? He goes up to the Columbia School of Journalism, and when a naive student says, Mr. Hyatt, you kept saying that there were weapons of mass destruction as flat fact, and it turned out not to be any. How do you explain that? And Hyatt famously said, well, if there weren't weapons of mass destruction, we probably should not have said that. There were,
(56:58)My patron, Robert Perry of recent memory turned to me at that, and he said, Ray, that used to be sort of like a cardinal principle or journalism. If something's not true, you're not supposed to say it's okay. What happened to Fred Hyatt? He stayed in place for 20 more years running the op-ed section. So what's my point? No one, no one is held accountable for these things. That's up to us. We have to find ways to hold people accountable, and what that involves, I leave to people, but we have to start getting off to our rear ends. We have to put our bodies into it as I have in the past. They're not going to kill you. They'll beat you up, all put you in prison, but it's worth it because so much is at stake right now, and I've never seen, never seen a more tentative, a more dangerous time to include the prospect of the use of many nuclear weapons, which eventually would do us all in.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (58:01):
We have just about a minute and a half or so left, and I want to read, this is from M-S-N-B-C, and this is from the April 6th, 2022. In a break with the past US is using Intel to fight an info war with Russia, even when the intel isn't rock solid. What that means, boys and girls, is M-S-N-B-C is admitting that they are lying to the American people under the pretext of the noble line. They're lying to you. Boy, Ray McGovern American people, first of all, Ray, thank you so much for your time today, and where can folks find your work?
Ray McGovern (58:51):
Well, I'm sure that Plato and his noble liar kind of turning around in the grave right now.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (59:01):
Where can people find your work?
Ray McGovern (59:03):
Oh, where? Okay. Well, I am Twittering. That's @RayMcGovern. Okay. My website is raymcgovern.com. I'm also on Facebook and on Instagram, so I hope that you'll tune in. My son who runs my website always says, Ray, always say, always add. If you don't get it, you won't get it. You don't get it. But I'm too humble to say that.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (59:31):
Ray McGovern, thanks for joining me. Big shout out to my producer, melody McKinley. Thank you all so much for joining the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wilmer Leon. Folks, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history, converge talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. Stay tuned for the new podcasts every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share the show, follow me on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. I'll see you all next time, and until then, please treat each day like it's your last, because one day you'll be right. I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Peace and Blessings. I'm out.

US Intervention Undermines Haitian Stability

Joining us to delve into the details on Haiti and so much more, our guest this week is Dr Jemima Pierre, professor at the Institute for the Study of Gender, race, sexuality and Social Justice at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.
You can find me and the show on social media by searching the handle @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube.
Our Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd
All our episodes can be found at CTDpodcast.com.
 
TRANSCRIPT:
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.
Dr Wilmer Leon (00:48):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I'm Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which most events take place. During each episode of this podcast, my guests and I will have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between current events and the broader historical context in which the events occur. This will enable you to better understand and analyze the events that are impacting the global village in which we live on today's episode. The question before us is why is the United States working to reinve and colonize Haiti? My guest is a professor at the Institute for the Study of Gender, race, sexuality and Social Justice at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. She's a member of the Black Alliance for Peace and an editor of the Black Agenda Review segment of the Black Agenda Report. And she's the author of a very, very substantive piece, Haiti as Empire's Laboratory, Dr. Jamima Pierre. Dr. Pierre, welcome to the show and let's connect some dots.
Dr Jemima Pierre (02:12):
Thank you so much for having me. It's a pleasure to be here.
Dr Wilmer Leon (02:15):
You write in your piece that the Global Fragility Act presents new strategies for deploying us hard and soft power in a changing world. It focuses US foreign policy on the idea that there are so-called fragile states, countries prone to instability, extremism, conflict, and extreme poverty, which are presumably threats to US security. Explain first, what is the Global Fragility Act and why should Americans, not to mention its victims, be so concerned about it?
Dr Jemima Pierre (02:52):
Yes, so the Global Fragilities Act was actually presented in 2019, I think under Donald Trump, and then was ratified under the Biden administration. And it really is a way to be brand new as foreign policy. And I don't know if your listeners know about the Monroe Doctrine, which the US passed about a hundred years ago, which basically said that the US had access that no one can encroach in US' influence in the Western Hemisphere. And through the Monroe Doctrine, the US was able to assert its influence, occupy invade nations whenever it deemed necessary, and got away with it for a hundred years. And so the upheaval that we've seen throughout Latin America, the regime changes, the support for support for military dictatorships and so on and so forth has occurred through the Monroe Doctrine. But the Global Fragility Act was really brought by the conservative think tank, the US Peace Institute, which is actually misnamed as far as I'm concerned.
(04:10)But it was really a way to look at US foreign policy in a different light or to rebrand it. And what I mean by rebrand is that to basically come together to make it seem like the US was not doing what it was doing, and it was basically bringing together the work of the Department of Defense, the Department of the State, and the U-S-A-I-D. So linking together aid defense as well as political state department moves. And the idea was basically an opportunity to change the way that the US did business to using local partners by not necessarily doing the dirty work of putting boots on the ground if it needed to invade a place. But it was really trying to figure out how to actually change the internal politics of a place to really prevent adversary. And they say in the ACT adversaries such as China and Russia from expanding their influence in this way, they use civil society, they use military, and then they use, so-called diplomacy bringing together.
(05:19)But what's key to this, they also use local regional partners such as other states, other formations such as the Caribbean community and so on and so forth to actually assert US power. And so what's interesting about the Global Fragilities Act is that it was passed by Trump, but ratified under Biden and then was implemented. And at first they said they were going to focus on a set of countries, which Haiti being the very first. So what it is, so it's Haiti first and then Libya, Mozambique, Papua New Guinea, along with they call the coastal countries of West Africa. What's fascinating about this order is that Haiti and Libya are the states, two of the states besides Iraq that are probably most destroyed by the US and its allies. And it is going under the guise that these people are, that these states are so fragile, they're a mess, they're full of corruption and so on and so forth without really talking about the underlying problem, which is these states are fragile because of us constant interventions and us creating instability in this state. So I'll stop there to just give as a short background,
Dr Wilmer Leon (06:42):
One of the things that popped in my mind when you said Haiti and then you said Libya, one of the common threads between the two are the Clintons, because if I remember my history correctly, it was then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton that convinced then President Obama, then President Barack Obama to invade Libya and assassinate more Mark dfi. And we know that Hillary Clinton, again, was very much involved in the destabilization, the most recent destabilization of Haiti.
Dr Jemima Pierre (07:21):
Oh, definitely. Well, the Clintons, they've got dirt all over them. I mean, when it comes to Haiti, the Clintons, I have a piece that I wrote a long time ago, about 11 years ago. I say the Clintons are omnipotent, omni, the present, they're everywhere. And so we have to think about what Bill Clinton did by killing Haiti's rice production facility by dumping the rise of his Arkansas farmers into Haiti and destroying Haiti's rise economy. So we have to think about what he did when he was president, but they've been dealing with Haiti for a long time. And we have to think also about after the earthquake where Obama put Clinton and Georgia re bush in charge of Haiti eight. And the people that benefited the most from the earthquake that killed 300,000 Haitians was the Clinton Foundation, which raised tons of money. And Haiti saw nothing except for these fancy hotels that they're making profits off.
(08:17)So there's that. But what's most important is in 2011 during the So-called Arab Spring, Hillary Clinton flew to Haiti and changed the election results that actually put in power, the current political, so-called political party that's there now, Michelle Marli, who actually was just named in the UN report as one of the biggest funders for gangs in Haiti, who's also the president, the former president, right? And so they forced Haiti to have elections, right, eight months after an earthquake that destabilized the whole country where about a million people were still living in tents outside, but they forced these elections because this is how they could control Haiti. And when their favorite candidate, Martin Lee did not make the first round, they decided that they're going to force that. So Hillary Clinton flew into Haiti and threatened the sitting president would exile if he did not allow the change to the ballots to make this guy who did not make the first round president. And everything has been bad since then.
Dr Wilmer Leon (09:24):
You mentioned Bill Clinton decimating the domestic Haitian rice production in his book, the Choice Sam yet talks about the tie of rice to the start of the Vietnam War and how many people don't discuss one of the major motivating factors for the United States to go into Indo-China had to do with protecting American rice interest because they didn't want Asian rice flooding the market. And then that also made me think about nafta. And what NAFTA did to the domestic corn production in Mexico decimated the production of Mexican corn, which then decimated the livelihoods for Mexican farmers, which has contributed to immigration of Mexicans into the United States. So again, the show is called Connecting the Dots. And so any thoughts on that?
Dr Jemima Pierre (10:25):
Well, definitely I think, I don't even remember where I saw that recently that rice farmers, is it Rice? Rice producers were looking forward to having access back again to Haiti's market once this military invasion happened. And so there's a lot of things to think about under Reagan. Haiti, the Haitian government was forced to kill its local pigs, the black pigs, I don't know if people have heard about this, but you can look up Haiti black pigs. Black pigs are indigenous to that region. And Haiti was told that the pigs had some disease and they had to basically kill the entire population of black pigs on the island in order. And then they were replaced by the white pigs from the south of the US and pigs who are from the US not are not used to the climate in the Caribbean. So then they required very specific kinds of feeding food to eat.
(11:30)And so those had to be imported. So that decimated the Haitian economy. So there's a way that you can see all these connected. The other thing is I don't think people always ask, well, you're making a big deal about Haiti. Haiti's not that important. Why would the US spend so much time and energy trying to destabilize Haiti? And then you realize then you have to ask these people, well, why is the fourth largest US embassy in the world in Haiti? If Haiti was not so important, why did the US feel that they have to do it? And why? Despite everything going on this week, despite the fact that you have the genocidal Zionist state killing thousands of Palestinians, they forced the UN to have a meeting about this intervention in Haiti over gangs, right? Supposedly over gangs. So that tells you there's something in there because Haiti actually becomes a big manufacturing hub for the us. And so I think a lot of us have been saying as the us, as the US moves towards a war with China, they will need a replacement of their manufacturing hubs. And Haiti already within 11 million strong population Haiti already provides is a space for a large manufacturing hub already. So as they lose Asia, they're going to rely more on Haiti. And so we have to think about that in terms of the economics of that as well as the politics, which we can get into later on as we speak more.
Dr Wilmer Leon (13:01):
You write in your piece in April of 22, the Biden Harris administration affirmed its commitment to the Global Fragilities Act by outlining a strategy for its implementation as detailed in the strategies prologue, the US government's new foreign policy approach depends on willing partners to address common challenges and share costs. Ultimately, the document continues. No US or international intervention will be successful without the buy-in and mutual ownership of trusted regional, national and local partners. And you touched on that in your open, but I think it's very important for people to really understand. That's really nice flowerly language, but it's not innocuous. That is a very nice way of saying that the United States is going to use organizations, indigenous organizations in order to promote American interests.
Dr Jemima Pierre (14:15):
Oh, definitely. Not just indigenous organizations, local states. I mean the recent upcoming invasion, military invasion of Haiti supposedly over gangs is actually being led supposedly by Kenya. And so all of a sudden you're asking yourself, Kenya's, all the way across the world on the east side of the African continent, what does Kenya have to do with Haiti? Well, before Kenya, the US tried to use Racom, which is a community of Caribbean states and nations. And that didn't work as well before them. They tried to get clac, which is the central and Latin American communities to lead in the invasion. Before them, they tried to get Brazil. So before them, they tried to get Canada to lead the invasion. And before that they tried to get Brazil to lead the invasion. The thing is to not have boots on the ground, as we've seen in the US in Ukraine, for example.
(15:14)The point is to use other, so-called stakeholders, get other people to do the dirty work of US intervention and foreign policy and to get buy-in. And the reason I say Haiti's a laboratory, this is not the first time this is happening. And in the piece I outlined the Canada, France and US back Kuta that happened in Haiti in 2004, where the US and France, who our membership in the security council, they were behind the Kuta in 2004, immediately after the US Marines landed, took our president, put him on a plane and flew him to Africa. You had French Canadian and US soldiers there, but these two UN security council members were able to use their position to call an emergency security council meeting to push for a multinational. So-called stabilization force in Haiti. So to me, the UN is bankrupt with this security council in this particular sense.
(16:23)So these people were able to use that, and then they convinced the UN that Haiti needed a chapter seven deployment. And chapter seven deployment is only for countries that are at war with other, there's a civil war. There was no civil war in Haiti, but they managed to convince the un. So then what they ended up doing was sending, getting a un, so-called peacekeeping mission to Haiti in a country that was not at civil war. But what it meant that was that you can have up to 50 to 60 nations participate in an occupation of Haiti. And that's what ended up happening. Brazil led that meeting and you had people from all over the world, police and military from all over the world occupying Haiti on behalf of the US under the guise of providing civility. That group stayed there from 2004 to 2017 when they drew down and brought back a smaller force.
(17:15)But so Haiti is still under un occupation. And this is what this amazing law scholar, and I'm forgetting her name, I think it's China Mayville calls multilateralism as terror because the new, and this is what the Global Fragility Act, and that's why Haiti's always a laboratory is because you use Haiti. They tried it on Haiti and it worked. In fact, the WikiLeaks paper said the Minister peacekeeping mission in Haiti the cheapest was a foreign policy bonanza for the US because it was so cheap they can use the UN and then they can use all the local Latin America countries to do the dirty work. And so it's just really important to think about that and to think about how they're going to move forward from that on. And now the other thing to talk about aid is that they've already established a second phase of the Global Fragilities Act in the summer, and they're saying they're going fund, they're going to fund 260, so-called civil society NGOs on the ground in order to basically shape policy in Haiti as they leave for elections. So the plan is to actually take over the political structure of Haiti using the guise of civil society and Haitian solutions.
Dr Wilmer Leon (18:32):
So to that point, what this results in and what the Global Fragilities Act does is it takes the Department of State and it combines the Department of State and the Pentagon. And it's using, as you said in your piece, the hard power is the Pentagon. The soft power is the Department of State and under the pretext or pretense of bringing stability to the country, that enables the United States to go in with the military and engage in regime change and engage in control of the domestic space, but leaving out the fact that the reason the country is unstable in the first place is because of American policy in the country.
Dr Jemima Pierre (19:34):
Oh, definitely. And that's one of the key things we have to remember is this 2004 coup deta is a coup deta where Canada Friends and the US got together in Ottawa and Canada in 2003 and decided they needed to get rid of our elected democratically elected president. And then they follow through with this coup deta. And then it was given a go ahead by the UN because they run the security council and the other states on the permanent council also need to be held accountable because they sat quietly and let the US and France run this right the same way they did with Libya allowing a no fly zone of Libya. And so Haiti has been under occupation since 2004. And so at the beginning of the coup DTA in 2004, Haiti had about 7,000 elected officials. As of today, Haiti has zero elected officials, the US and the UN through the core group, which is a group of unelected non Haitian officials from the European Union, the organization of American states that meet that.
(20:40)So-called court that meet to make plans for Haiti. They're the ones that have been running Haiti since 2004. So if there's a problem in Haiti, if there hasn't been any elections where we have no regional elections, no local elections, no presidential elections, it's because they have allowed that if there are guns in the country, because Haiti does not manufacture guns, it's because, and the guns are coming from the us, it's because they control what comes in and out of Haiti. They know who it is. In fact, the UN put out a report just last week stating explicitly that the former president that Hillary Clinton installed actually was funding two major gangs in Haiti to go after his enemies and to wreak havoc in the neighborhoods. And so all this tells me that everything that's happened in the last 19 years has been why Haiti is under occupation. And what they want to do is wreak havoc. And I don't know if people know this, the US has been trying to get an intervention force in Haiti for two years since the assassination of the president. And I have to say, as an aside, the
Dr Wilmer Leon (21:46):
Assassination was that Ju Moiz the
Dr Jemima Pierre (21:47):
Assassination, Jon Moiz, right? I have to put that an aside, that assassination happened about a month after Moiz came back from Russia trying to establish relationships with Russia. And I have to, this is an important piece that I think matters. And that was the first time Haiti was trying to establish relations with Russia. So part of that is because Haitians were protesting against intervention from the very beginning. They were always in the streets. And people forget that Haitians have been protesting against us, meddling for the longest times from 2018 19, in 2020, there were millions of Haitians on the street protesting to get rid of this public government that the US had installed and so on. People were protesting over and over again, and the US could not get this passed. And I don't know if you realize it. And then so all of a sudden, this gang problem emerges and it seems out of hand because the amount of guns entering the country the past two years has been unprecedented. And they're dumping guns and ammunition into the country. The guns are coming directly from Haiti. So they're fomenting this idea that there's this gun
Dr Wilmer Leon (22:58):
Coming directly to Haiti,
Dr Jemima Pierre (22:59):
To Haiti through the ports that are owned by the elite, the ports that are owned by the elite, the Haitian oligarchy that a couple of 'em have been named in the UN report just last week, that they need to be sanctioned. The US hasn't sanctioned any of them. They have not followed through the embargo that the Chinese government said that they should put. So they basically created, exacerbated the gang problem. That's what I should say. They exacerbated the gang problem. So then every news media you see about Haiti the past year has been about gangs, not about the fact that Haitians were protesting the fact that this illegitimate government signed this deal with the IMF to remove fuel subsidies and made life extremely expensive for Haiti, or the fact that the people were protesting this prime minister that was installed by the US in the core group. And so we forget that people are protesting against US Empire protesting against a defacto government that they didn't elect, and now we're only focusing on gangs. And it's easy to do that because they can manufacture that consent because they can control everything that's going on Haiti. So then they create the basket case, and then they come in and they say, well, we have to fix this problem because they need help.
Dr Wilmer Leon (24:10):
What is the average daily income for a Haitian?
Dr Jemima Pierre (24:15):
Oh, I haven't checked that in a while, but it's under three us. I think it's under five US dollars per day.
Dr Wilmer Leon (24:21):
Okay. Okay. $5 a day under.
(24:24)Well, let's just for simple math, $5 a day, seven days a week, $35 a week, okay. A Beretta 40 caliber handgun costs about $600, a heckler and cock, 40 caliber handgun. It's about $800. An AR 15 style rifle is about $1,200. How does a person making $35 a week and that's on the high side afford a $600 handgun, a $1,200 assault rifle, assault style rifle, unless they're being supplemented, supplemented in quotes by some external force. So I wanted to make that point so that people could understand when you say that they're being imported by the elite, that you're not just spewing a just random foolishness. There's a logic to this and talk about the gangs because we've been hearing about the gang problem, but it's not just simply not all gangs are gangs. How about that?
Dr Jemima Pierre (25:54):
Yes, definitely. Well, in addition to the guns, you have to think about ammunition. You can have a gun if you don't have ammunition, what can you do with it?
Dr Wilmer Leon (26:03):
Throw it at somebody.
Dr Jemima Pierre (26:06):
And so I have to say, so in the past three years, a number of high powered military grade guns in the country has gone up to almost a million. And so you're trying to figure out these, and then when you see the pictures, you see pictures of young men in flip-flops and mismatched shorts and rioty shirts,
Dr Wilmer Leon (26:30):
Raggedy t-shirts and shorts,
Dr Jemima Pierre (26:31):
Raggedy T-shirts where they dump us youth clothes in Haiti. That's what they're wearing,
Dr Wilmer Leon (26:38):
That a lot of that clothing is made in Haiti, right,
Dr Jemima Pierre (26:44):
Right. Am I right? Exactly. And then set back as charity right after people stopped wearing them. Right. But yeah, so you have to ask yourself and you're like, well, is this really what is this problem? It's not like militaries are fighting against people. It's not like there's a civil war in Haiti. It's like these young men who are being paid to wreak havoc. And because the unemployment is so high in Haiti, it's really easy to find some young men and give 'em some guns and make them think that they're doing something or you send them annual ammunition. And just recently the Haitian police stopped a van that was full of ammunition coming from the Dominican border into Haiti. So we have to think about that. And this is the other part is Haiti has had a problem paramilitary since the US occupied Haiti in the 1915, changed our constitution and set up the Haitian police when they left 19 years later, which became the bane of our existence, but also led to the coming to power of Papa Doc and his really horrible military force, paramilitary force, Tonto Maku.
(27:57)So we've had this long history of us sponsored terror through police, and then what ends up happening is with the end of the Risid government through ata, you have a lot of former police, former military disbanded the military because he said the military was always the bane of Hades existence. So he abandoned the military, and a lot of them actually became part of these paramilitary troops that would come back and be paid by the CIA to try and overthrow him. And so what you talk about gangs is this ragtag the news media likes to show these pictures of burning tires, rack tack, guys holding AK 47, whatever they're holding as if Haiti is engulfed. And the reality is, a lot of this is in the Capitol city with these groups. Some of them are right near the US Embassy, so they know who they are.
(28:51)But the other thing is you have the police, the former police who also have formed what we call paramilitary groups. You have the local elite who fund armed groups to do what they needed to do. So you have a combination of things, but to me, there's also racialized part of this because it's easy to say, well, Hades filled with gangs, and these black people look at them, look at the pictures, but look at this. There's a mass shooting in Maine with this guy holding a gun. They still can't find him. Many mass shootings in the US are with white guys holding guns, but you don't see the breathless report. Imagine if we report about US mass shooting the way they report about hate
Dr Wilmer Leon (29:35):
537 mass shootings in the United States the 1st of January, 2023. And
Dr Jemima Pierre (29:44):
That's right. And we only have 360 days, 365 days in the year. The reality is in places like Jamaica, they've been under state of emergency because of gang violence. And so why is Haiti and you have to think there's something else going on. It can't be just about the gangs. The other thing is the biggest gangsters in Haiti, as I always say, is the us, the core group and the UN mission there, because how gangster can you get meet in a different country, France, Canada and the us, they meet and they decide they're going to remove an elected president, or how gangster can you get any more gangster than Hillary Clinton flying in and changing the election results of a supposedly sovereign country? So we have to redefine how we're thinking about this gang thing and really think about, well, who's funding these young men and who are the real gangsters of the world that can allow this to happen or that make this happen and then turn around and present themselves just because they're wearing suits, they present themselves as the real people that can bring solutions.
Dr Wilmer Leon (30:52):
The name of this podcast is connecting the dots. Who did the United States follow into Vietnam, France? Who is the United States following t, Niger, France? Who is the United States following into Haiti, France? Should we be connecting these dots? Dr. Pierre? Are these relevant dots to connect?
Dr Jemima Pierre (31:20):
I think on some level, I think for West Africa, it's very interesting in terms of seeing the fall of French influence and empire. And I think the US is coming in to clean up to make sure that West Africa doesn't fall in the hands of supposed Russia. And so as France wanes, they're jumping in to do that. And I think with Haiti, it was the same thing. It was like the US came in, especially in the early 19 hundreds and through its Monroe doctrine, was basically to get rid of the European presence. And because there were a group of Germans actually that were trying, that owned a lot of stuff in Haiti that were doing business in Haiti, and the US did not want to have anyone outside of themselves to control the political and economic situation in the region. And so that's exactly what's happening. The US took over from France way early in the early 19 hundreds, and it's been doing that, and then France then just turns around and becomes a junior partner and continues the work of the White West Elite.
Dr Wilmer Leon (32:25):
Well, and not to get too deep into the weeds, but wasn't the basic premise of the Monroe Doctrine. It was an agreement between the United States and Europe. The United States committed to staying out of the affairs of Europe if Europe agreed to stay out of the affairs of the Americas, leaving the Americas to the United States.
Dr Jemima Pierre (32:48):
Exactly. Exactly. Except that now the Global Fragility Act, the US is viewing Europe as junior partners, as intensifies its control of the region,
Dr Wilmer Leon (33:03):
Who was the face of US policy going into Haiti and ushering out Jean Beron aee. Was it Colin Powell? Was he the face? The story that I understand is he was the messenger that went in to Haiti and told President Risid, you got to go. There's a plane on the tarmac if you don't get on it.
Dr Jemima Pierre (33:36):
Yeah, it wasn't Colin Powell, it was the US Ambassador to Haiti. I forgot his name at the time that actually the Marines had, but it was Colin Powell that was with Georgia re bush threatening. And if you go back to the media, you'll see it's always a black face. I mean, there's always a black face to do that work,
Dr Wilmer Leon (33:56):
Right? That's the point I want. That's the dot. I want to connect because it's now Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin that went to Kenya with the bag of cash to establish what a five year defense agreement with Kenya in order to entice them. So another black face on American imperialism. I call that minstrel diplomacy. Your thoughts.
Dr Jemima Pierre (34:27):
Definitely. And that's the most disappointing part, is that this has been going on. It
Dr Wilmer Leon (34:35):
Doesn't always Wait, wait minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. And it was, when we want to talk about the Racom and the Global Fragilities Act, it was a, not Gregory Meeks, it was the minority leader in the house from New York,
Dr Jemima Pierre (34:55):
Hakeem Jeffries.
Dr Wilmer Leon (34:56):
Hakeem Jeffries, and it was Hakeem Jeffries. It was Vice President Kamala Harris,
Dr Jemima Pierre (35:02):
Kamala Harris
Dr Wilmer Leon (35:03):
That went to Caricom. And when you mentioned Global Fragilities Act, I think that was Co-sponsored by Karen Bass.
Dr Jemima Pierre (35:13):
Karen Bass, and I forgot the name of the other person. Yes. It was two black
Dr Wilmer Leon (35:19):
Faces on two
Dr Jemima Pierre (35:20):
Black faces of the Empire. And if
Dr Wilmer Leon (35:22):
We go to the un, Linda Thomas Greenfield,
Dr Jemima Pierre (35:27):
And the State Department representative for the region is Brian Nichols. And this is the most disturbing part to me is because it wasn't always this way. So for Frederick Douglas, the great abolitionist, Frederick Douglas was sent to Haiti as a US representative in the late 18 hundreds, wasn't he? Ambassador? Yes. To sent to Haiti, and they really went, they sent him to actually negotiate to get this Bay Molson Nicola, which they still want actually to basically set up a base there, a US military base there. The Haitians have always gone against that, which is why they ended up setting up the base in Guantanamo Bay. So if you look at the map, it's a perfect way place for, it's between Cuba and Haiti, and this bay is there. And so it is perfect for the US ships to go through, get through the Panama Canal, wherever they need to get through to get to the Pacific.
(36:20)And so Frederick Douglass came back and advocated against that on behalf of Haitians. He felt a responsibility. And he also have the NAACP wrote writing on behalf of Haiti during the occupation from 1915 to 1934, saying that this is talking about how Citibank was behind the occupation and how badly the US is treating Haitians and so on and so forth. It wasn't always this way. Now you have Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and then you have Barack Obama because it was under Barack Obama that this latest political party was put in power. This neo Deval political party was put into power. And so you have this, and then you have them sending Brian Nichols who's trying to, who's behind pushing this intervention. So meeting with all of these people, getting the Caribbean, getting these, I call neo-colonial coons, whatever you want to call them, the head of Jamaica, the head of Barbados, the head neo motley, right?
(37:38)Who's the UN's darling? Because apparently the word on the street is that she's up for the UN Security Council secretary general job. And so she's doing whatever needs to be done to get there. So the US has managed to get all these black people. Now, Kenya, who knows nothing about Haiti get this, Kenya did not even have diplomatic relations to Haiti with Haiti until last month right before the un vote. So Kenya knows nothing about Haiti. They're talking about training their police to speak French when the majority of Haitian people don't speak French, they speak Creole, right? And so part of that is to think about how easy it is to use black people to use black faces to do empires bidding. And I actually think China and Russia had been pushing against this intervention for the past two years. And I think this last time, after two years of pushing back, they abstained. And I think part of the reason they abstained is because you had all these black countries pressuring them. And I think one of the things is I also think they're looking out for themselves and their relationship with these countries in Africa and the Caribbean. So they stepped back and allowed this intervention to go forward. But I think they stepped back because it was the onslaught of pressure from the black countries on
Dr Wilmer Leon (38:56):
Them. But why abstain? Why not vote no and kill the deal?
Dr Jemima Pierre (39:03):
Right? Because that's what I'm saying. I think they're looking out for their own best interests. I think they don't want to ruin their relationships with these black countries who are pushing. I think that's part of that, right? So they voted no all along and this time, so if you have Nia Motley, you have Ruto, you have all these people saying, this is Pan-Africanism. We're going to go help our brothers and sisters in Haiti by sending a military intervention. That's what Ruto is using. They're using the language of Pan-Africanism Racom is using the language of helping our brothers, even though Caricom has some of the most draconian anti Haiti immigration policies, deportation rules, but they're all using this language. And I do think that actually applied the pressure that the US got them to apply on China. Russia actually worked to get them to abstain. At least they didn't vote yes. But the abstention, I think, is a result of the pressure.
Dr Wilmer Leon (39:55):
You mentioned the training of Haitian police through these Kenyan interlocutors or these Kenyan invaders, and these Kenyan forces have been labeled as Kenyan police. But from what I've read, they're not Kenyan police. They're Kenyan paramilitary forces that have a reputation of being incredibly, incredibly brutal against their own countrymen.
Dr Jemima Pierre (40:29):
Yeah, definitely. And what's most distressing about this situation is that the only solution that these people think that they can have for Haiti and Haitian is a violent military. One is the one that has to do with force. They never tried. They never tried diplomacy. They never tried actually sanctioning these elites that they know run guns into the country. So yeah, the thousand police is not police. It's pe, military force, but also Kenya has a terrible reputation in Somalia in the proxy war there going in there and devastating Somalis. And so for me, just because they're black, in fact, if anything, I think these police officers will treat Haitians worse because they're black in a way that they wouldn't, can you imagine sending a Kenyan police force to Europe? Or why not send a Kenyan police force to Ukraine to help? And so part of that to me is it is telling, and I want to quickly just say
Dr Wilmer Leon (41:36):
Briefly, oh, well, the reason you won't send those black Kenyan forces to Ukraine is because the Nazis, the racist Nazis in Ukraine would chop off their heads. That's why.
Dr Jemima Pierre (41:47):
Well, definitely. But this idea that it's easier to watch one black group kill another. Oh, no, no,
Dr Wilmer Leon (41:52):
No. I truly understand the basis of the
Dr Jemima Pierre (41:54):
Question. No, I know.
Dr Wilmer Leon (41:56):
Go ahead.
Dr Jemima Pierre (41:58):
Yes, yes, we know. We know. It's really distressing to think about that because look at what's happening right now in the Occupy territories where you have Zionist state destroying killing. And right now, as we know, more than 7,000 people, 3000 children, and we have an internal, so-called gang problem, but we're getting a chapter seven military deployment to invade Haiti. But Zionist state Z, its entity can get away with killing how many people, and nobody's thinking about sending a military force to stop this bombing. So just think about that. No, the
Dr Wilmer Leon (42:38):
Military force that's being sent is facilitating the bombing
Dr Jemima Pierre (42:41):
Is to facilitate it. And so I want people to make those connections because you have to think, well, why isn't it absurd to send an armed military force to deal with gangs? So-called gangs in Haiti, but you're not doing it for Jamaica, which has been under state of emergency for two years over gangs. You're not doing it in the Middle East. And so we have to think about, well, this makes no sense. This idea of a military invasion of Haiti makes no sense in light what's going on in light of Ukraine and in light of what's going on in the occupied territories.
Dr Wilmer Leon (43:13):
You mentioned China a little bit earlier, and I always say to folks, when you engage in these type of conversations, it's usually a good idea to have a map in front of you so that you can understand the geopolitics. So we know that China has been establishing relationships with Nicaragua. We know that China is establishing relationships with Guatemala, and those are in Central America. And we know that there's been discussions about China building a canal to rival a Panama Canal through Nicaragua. And we know that the United States does not want that to happen. And we'd also know that the United States has been anxious to build a naval base in Haiti. So if you could connect those dots. Am I wrong to, again, the show is connecting the dots. Am I wrong to connect those dots?
Dr Jemima Pierre (44:19):
No, you're not wrong at all. The Global Fragilities Act specifically names China and Russia. So let's get that clear. And so one of the things is the waning power of the empire, right? Because they know that what their military used to be able to do, they can't do anymore. Look, they got beat by the Taliban 20 years later. How many trillions of dollars they destroyed Iraq, when was the last time the US won a war? I mean, let's be real, except maybe World War ii. And even that,
Dr Wilmer Leon (44:51):
They
Dr Jemima Pierre (44:51):
Had a lot of help from the Red Army. Let's be real
Dr Wilmer Leon (44:54):
Panama,
Dr Jemima Pierre (44:55):
Right? Panama or
Dr Wilmer Leon (44:58):
A big, huge military power called Panama,
Dr Jemima Pierre (45:01):
Right? Grenada, we just celebrated the 40th anniversary of the invasion of Grenada. Or you land in Haiti and you send special forces and you remove the sitting president. So they know that they're losing militarily. They know that they cannot sustain the multiple fronts, but they also know the rise of China and Russia is inevitable. Not even. They're already there. And so they know that they can't compete. And so they have to figure out how to mitigate that. And I do think so. That connection is good. Do you know that Haiti is only one of 11 countries that recognizes Taiwan, right? So what does that tell you? And they were forced to recognize Taiwan. And I think, I don't remember if it was under Duvalier who was a staunch anti-communist and really terrorized
Dr Wilmer Leon (45:57):
Who forced Haiti to recognize Taiwan.
Dr Jemima Pierre (46:00):
It was the US government to right,
Dr Wilmer Leon (46:02):
But wait a bit, Dr. Pierre, that can't be because we have a one China policy. So how could that be?
Dr Jemima Pierre (46:09):
No, it's just really fascinating. The more I think about it, the more I come to know this history, and you realize, well, why is Haiti only one of 11 countries to recognize Taiwan? And why was Taiwan coming to Haiti to sign bilateral deals and so on and so forth? And so part of that is they've been able to keep Haiti as one of the few in the region as one of the few people to recognize Taiwan as opposed to China, even though the US itself, as you say, has a one China policy. So I do think this is all connected. I think the US is trying to entrench itself. It wants to be near Haiti, closer to Haiti because it's worried about Venezuela. It is still mad about Cuba. It's worried about this. You're right, this canal that Nicaragua wants to get with the help of China and war with China is inevitable.
(47:01)They all know that because they know that that's the only way they can try to hold on to this flailing empire. And so they're going to need to do as much as they can, but because they don't have the strength from military numbers to the capacity, you have 800 bases. That's a vulnerability. So they're going to get other, look what's happening right now in the Middle East. Your bases are being attacked. They're sitting ducks. And so if you have all of these things there, if you can talk, some people still into the dirty work for you, which is why they have military exercises with the Caribbean operation Tradewinds, they have military exercises with West Africa, and so they want to use these as proxies the way that they use Ukraine as a proxy against Russia. So they're going to use these as proxies against China. And that's the connection, right? The connection is all about trying to maintain global dominance, but not having enough firepower, not having enough political power to do so. So then using these others while you still can to do the dirty work for you,
Dr Wilmer Leon (47:59):
Talk if you would please, about the Dominican Republic, the Dominican Republic's role as it relates to Haiti and Columbia as well. Because I think that I read a number of reports that some of the assassins that went into Haiti and assassinated President Maise were Columbia or were out of Columbia, and we know that Columbia is one of the training bases for the CIA as the CIA projects this power in Central and South America.
Dr Jemima Pierre (48:37):
Yeah. Well, so Columbia also outsources mercenaries, and so it's very easy to use trained
Dr Wilmer Leon (48:47):
By the
Dr Jemima Pierre (48:47):
United States, right? 23 out of the 26 mercenaries come out of Columbia. Columbia's interesting. And I'm not a Columbia expert. What's interesting is the fact that they elected this leftist president, but Columbia has a long history of, right-wing governments also would fey to the us. And so we have to ask Columbia, well, why are there still US military bases in Columbia, right? So why did they sign an agreement to be with NATO to be like a NATO ally, NATO ally? And so Columbia is definitely part of that. I think I forgot your question, but No,
Dr Wilmer Leon (49:25):
I was asking about the relationship between the Dominican Republic and Columbia as it relates to being proxies basically for the United States.
Dr Jemima Pierre (49:37):
Well, definitely, and I don't know. I know the relationship with Dominican Republic, with Haiti, and one of the things, Haiti during the Haitian Revolution took over the entire island to get rid of the Spanish and to end slavery. And it's a very complicated history. And after Haitians beat the French, they had to take over the entire island in order to stop the constant attacks that were coming around, but also they got rid of slavery. And so then the Spanish help the elites get back. That part of the island and the relationship has always been fraught. The Dominican Republic has a deep anti-Asian, which is very much deep in racism. And so then that you have is our legacy with the Dominican Republic is in 19 seven massacre, parsley massacre, where they chop down about 30,000 Haitians and dumped them in the river, which is why that river, if you've heard that, and it uses called Massacre River, is the Dominican Republic massacre.
(50:41)And Haitians, they've always, with the 2004 Kuta, a lot of the paramilitaries were trained in the military in the Dominican Republic. A lot of the arms are going into from the Dominican Republic and this ab, who's one of the most racist, right-wing presidents of Dominican Republic has had been going after Haitians forever. So for example, in 2013, the Dominican Republic nationalized 240,000 people, Dominicans of Haitian descent going back eight generations. So these people were Dominicans and basically removed citizenship from them. And Ab Nair has been rounding up the Haitian workers that have been in the Dominican Republic for generations cutting cane and so on and so forth. And that itself is a result of policies in the region that impoverish people and force them to go out and provide cheap labor. So the Dominican Republic and Haiti have had a really acrimonious history, but then the US Border Patrol is helping the Dominican Republic build a wall to separate Haiti in the dr.
(51:45)So the US' hand is always in there, and we always have to, it is not to take away agency from the Dominicans or from the Haitians, but the truth is the reason that Haiti becomes significance because one of the few places that's still fight back, and I don't think people realize it. And that's one thing you have to think about, HAES, not that it's a mess. The reason they're still going after is because it's still fighting back places like Jamaica, for example. I don't know if people saw, there's a report recently that Jamaicans have no regular, Jamaicans no longer have access to their beaches. They have all been privatized and owned by foreigners. And so what they've become is a captive labor force to provide labor for these resorts. Well, Haiti, we don't have that yet. I mean, we have it in the northern part where in La Bai, which the Duval sold to, I think Royal Caribbean cruises. But this is what they want for Haiti. They want to remove the people from the land where people still own a lot of their land, where the country's still predominantly agriculture. They want to remove them from the land, privatize everything, steal the land, and turn it into a captive labor force for capital. And so,
Dr Wilmer Leon (53:00):
Wait a minute. To that point, I read and that the Clintons have purchased an inordinate amount of land in Haiti to build a private resort. Basically the model, what's been done in Jamaica.
Dr Jemima Pierre (53:16):
Jamaica, definitely Jamaica, Barbados, all those places that the other thing we have to talk about, the mineral wealth in Haiti. Wait,
Dr Wilmer Leon (53:24):
And one more point real quick is that you talked about resistance. I believe if those Kenyan forces make land on Haiti,
Dr Jemima Pierre (53:38):
They won't know what's coming.
Dr Wilmer Leon (53:39):
They got to fight on their hands that be prepared to manage.
Dr Jemima Pierre (53:45):
Yeah, I don't think it is going to be as easy as they think. And
Dr Wilmer Leon (53:50):
You wanted to hit on the mineral.
Dr Jemima Pierre (53:52):
On the mineral. And people also don't remember, don't know that Haiti, you can look this up. There are all these reports that Haiti has millions minerals and that people want, in fact, when they decided to start mining for gold, the first person that got a mining permit was Hillary Clinton's brother,
Dr Wilmer Leon (54:14):
Brother out of Canada, right?
Dr Jemima Pierre (54:18):
And so we have to think about Canada too, because Canada's people think of Canada as like Little Brother and Peter, but Canada has been front and center. In fact, Canada still has big manufacturing hubs. Gildan still produces T-shirts and stuff like that in Haiti. So it's just really interesting to think about how I wanted to end by saying, this is not a victimization. I think people like to say, oh, poor Haitians. Oh, look at this. People suffer so much they can't get a break. And I'm like, well, the truth is they've been fighting back, which is why they can't get a break, and they're going to continue to fight back. And you can't only see them as perpetual victims. What you need to see is do analysis and connect the ways that all the, the ways that Empire has tried to keep the people down, despite the fact that they're standing up to fight back.
Dr Wilmer Leon (55:03):
You've got a hard stop. I greatly appreciate you giving me the time today. You talked about minerals. There are geological reports that show there may be more oil off the coast of Haiti than there is in Venezuela. Venezuela, and Venezuela has the largest reserv of oil in the world. Dr. Jamima Pierre, how can people find you, connect with you if they need to?
Dr Jemima Pierre (55:30):
Yeah. Well, you can find me on YouTube through all these various interviews and my publications all over just a basically
Dr Wilmer Leon (55:37):
Black agenda report
Dr Jemima Pierre (55:38):
And black agenda report, as well as the Black Alliance for Peace. We have a whole Haiti resource page.
Dr Wilmer Leon (55:43):
Dr. Jamima Pierre, thank you so much for your time. Really, really appreciate it.
Dr Jemima Pierre (55:48):
Thanks so much for having me.
Dr Wilmer Leon (55:50):
Thank you folks. I got to thank my guest, Dr. Jamima Pierre for joining me today. And thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wilmer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe, leave a review, and please, please, please, please, baby. Please baby. Please share my show. Follow us on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. Remember, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge because talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Woman Leon. Have a great one. Peace and blessings. I'm out
Speaker 1 (56:47):
Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

The Truth about Authoritarian Labels

This week our guest is the incomparable Mark Sleboda!
You can find me and the show on social media by searching the handle @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube.
Our Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd
All our episodes can be found at CTDpodcast.com.
 
TRANSCRIPT:
Dr Wilmer Leon (00:48):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I'm Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which most events take place. During each episode of this podcast, my guests and I will have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between current events and the broader historic context in which they occur. This will enable you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode, we will discuss the recent belt and road form for international cooperation. Recently, over 500 people were killed as a result of an Al Ali Arab Hospital bombing in Gaza. And the US has provided Ukraine long range attack s missiles for insight into this. Let's turn to my guest. He's a Moscow based international relations and security analyst, mark Sloboda. Mark, let's connect some dots.
Mark Sleboda (01:58):
Pleasure to on connecting the dots.
Dr Wilmer Leon (02:02):
So Russian President Putin recently went to Beijing to participate in the third Belt and Road forum for international cooperation. Mark, how significant was this meeting?
Mark Sleboda (02:17):
Yeah, so I think that this meeting was significant for a number of reasons. First, for President Putin on a personal situation, it is the first time that he has left Russia since the Wess pushed international criminal court charged Vladimir Putin with the crime of helping families and caretakers in East Ukraine move their own children out of the range of Kiev regime artillery that had been bombing them for the last 10 years, also known as abducting children, which evidently is a crime when Russia does it in a time of conflict, but is not a crime when the US does it, when they move thousands of children out of Afghanistan and many thousands of children out of Vietnam in a previous generation of conflict. But besides that, the Russian Chinese relationship bilaterally, I think is probably the most important bilateral relationship for both countries. And both presidents seem to have a good working relationship, often described as a friendship and a deep understanding with each other.
(03:47)And each time one of the others has been reelected to their positions. The first country that they go to is each other's, and I think that is a symbolic sign of the relationship, how important it is with each other's countries. But in a wider perspective, this Belt and Road Forum summit, it is actually the 10th anniversary of China's launching of the Belt and Road Project with the goal of which is to build deep infrastructure all along certain geographic pathways along a lot of what could have been considered the old Silk Road to facilitate trade and connections between the countries of this part of the world. And this is something that China does wherever it goes and does business is build infrastructure because it considers that as a long-term investment, not only in the process of conducting trade, but of helping their trade partner develop to a level where they can better trade with each other.
(05:09)So physical infrastructure, but also schools, hospitals, things like this. Now a lot of Russian and Chinese and many other countries, leaders have done a lot about talking about the construction of a new, more multipolar, fairer and more equitable world order. And this would stand, I think, in contradiction and an obvious opposition to the current rules based orders. We make the rules, we give the orders of US led Western global hegemony, but in this emerging, shall we say, nascent being born multipolar world order, there are several countries that come to the fore as the first among equals, but certainly China and Russia, our foremost political drivers amongst that. And China stands of course head above the rest if only in terms of their population and their economic strength, which by many measures already exceeds that of the United States. And if there is a meeting and a display of this alternate world order of which China is playing such an important part, a China centric world order, if you want to call it, that was on display in this Belt and road summit.
(07:00)It was a bringing together of all the countries participating in this physical implementation of a more multipolar world order. The only Western leader in attendance, very interestingly is the right wing prime minister of Hungary, the foreign policy black sheep, victor or Bond who has refused to participate in the West's proxy war in Ukraine. And its existential economic war of sanctions weaponizing its control of the global financial and economic architecture against Russia, primarily from a Hungarian national interest perspective rather than any great love of Russia or the Russian president, which is I think a position that most people would agree is something that should be something that every world leader should aspire to, that they put their own nation's interest and people above all others. Although in the current world that's not even specific. It's not, we know that it's not the case.
Dr Wilmer Leon (08:25):
Just asked Olaf Schultz in Germany that question you mentioned each time gee and Putin get elected, we keep hearing from Western narrative, particularly from Biden authoritarians, authoritarians G is an authoritarian, Putin is an authoritarian, can just briefly explain the fact that they're elected, they don't control their elections. They have different electoral processes than we do. They have different democratic constructs than we have, but that doesn't mean that they're authoritarian.
Mark Sleboda (09:14):
Yeah, I mean this is a label that is tapped on essentially to any country now that lies outside of US-led western global hegemony that does not align itself and does not meet the West's self-reflective standard of what democracy looks like. And it really, it is a way of exerting moral superiority. The idea that we are both morally and systemically superior than those people over there who are our adversaries in a different time. It was communists of course, and there have been other labels in history and certainly labels are applied to the Western countries. They are imperialists. They are hegemons. This is a standard othering device. I live in Russia, I immigrated to Russia from the United States, and I have lived here for most of two decades. And I have to be honest, after having some experience as a volunteer for the US Democratic Party, I find that politics in Russia on a whole is no more or less substantive than the democratic nature beneath the sheets of politics in the United States. I don't want to go out of the way to make it seem like it's a democratic utopia or anything like that far from it. But on a whole, knowing the warts inside and out of political systems in US and Europe and now Russia, I think that over in a general context that they're expressed themselves roughly equally. There is
Dr Wilmer Leon (11:18):
Politics plus they also reflect the intricacies of their cultures. And so I was having a conversation with some folks a couple of days ago and I said they were, oh, well G is an authoritarian. And I said, well, I've seen polls from Harvard and Princeton and some other western universities that show like 96% of Chinese people like their government. And I think it was 87% of Russians polled like their government support government. So if it's working for them, then who in the world am I to say that it's not good, it's not right, or what we have is better. I know Joe Biden would love to see 60% approval rating, let alone 96% approval rating.
Mark Sleboda (12:15):
Yeah, I think not only approval of the current government, but I've seen similar polls that asking peoples of different countries whether they think they live in a democracy and quite overwhelmingly, certainly over the 50% margin, the people of Russia feel they live in a democracy and certainly the people in China do as well to an even greater degree. Again, it doesn't look like western liberal democracy, but perhaps you could consider it of a more technocratic bureaucratic nature. But as you point out, there is a thousand multi-thousand year history of Chinese bureaucratic constructs that they are laying their future and their choices on top of. Meanwhile, in the United States, people generally feel that they don't live in a democratic system, that their government is not responsive to their needs and interests. And you could say that that is, oh, I mean all the people in Russia and China are ignorant.
(13:35)They don't know the real situation of what they live and what we live in. And I got to tell you, Russian people, even Chinese people, despite the great Chinese firewall, their coordinate of the internet generally have a far higher degree of reading and understanding western media than the other way around. That is they hear our perspective and thoughts, but as Westerners, you quite often don't hear at least on your own media unless you go actively looking for it, the opinions and perspectives of other countries. So I think that assumption that all the people over in that other part of the world, they don't live in a real democracy and that they think they do is only a sign of how brainwashed and ignorant they are compared to us enlightened people on the shining city on the hill. That is a hallmark of the supremacist ideology of exceptionalism that unfortunately has come to dominate not American political culture, but I think far more important, the American political elite, the ruling class. And that has disastrous consequences for us foreign policy and the world.
Dr Wilmer Leon (15:05):
You are absolutely right. I've been to Iran twice and was very blessed to lecture at probably somewhere between 10 and 15 universities throughout the country. And as I traveled throughout Iran, I was amazed at how well informed the questions that these students asked me. They were right on it, man, in terms of an understanding of the politics of the moment. And again, the questions that they asked me were spot on. It indicated that they were going beyond the rhetoric, they were going beyond the talking points. And it was shocking to me how well-informed in spite of the wall that you talk about in terms of the internet, they were on point, man.
Mark Sleboda (16:11):
Yeah, I think it's interesting that this label is applied to adversaries like Russia and China, Russia, which has opposition parties and elections. They don't do very good right now because since the economic catastrophe of the nineties, I think the Russian population has been more united in their political vision of a path out of that and forward and retaking what they see as their place in the world after the self dissolution of the Soviet Union. That will not last forever. And a lot of people question whether it will last after Putin at all. But there is opposition political structures. The biggest opposition political party in Russia is the communist party of the Russian Federation, which polls generally somewhere around 15% of the population. And in foreign policy, it must be said, they largely agree with the current government of Vladimir Putin, but in domestic issues, they constantly fight for the Duma for things that leftist parties always fight for, more social benefits, more spending on education and medicine and other things. And if anything, I think probably the communists would probably, if they were leading the country, would probably take a more hard line foreign policy position than the current government. I think that when the US
Dr Wilmer Leon (18:02):
Speak to that, because a lot of people listening this will say, wait a minute, a harder line than Vladimir Putin. Oh my God. You can't get a harder line than that when the people making those observations have never listened to the man, have never read any of the speeches that he's given. And so they, again, he's evil, he's insane, all of these, he's a dictator, all of these kinds of things.
Mark Sleboda (18:36):
Yeah. Again, the fact that they don't hear what Vladimir Putin has to say for himself because the western media specifically does not reproduce it for them. And I have to say that Russian media does this. I mean, there are still government funded projects in Somi that translate word for word western articles in print media and televised and put it out there for Russians to listen to, not only from the United States and Europe, but from all over the world. That tradition doesn't exist on the west. It's not that it is banned, although in some cases in Europe, Artie and Sputnik are banned, aren't they? Or everything is done to take them off the airwaves as is done in the United States, and of course not just with RT and Sputnik, but now with press TV from Iran. And there are calls of course to do the same to the Chinese CCTV and now even Al Jazeera in the current climate because as the state media arm of Qatar, they are now seen as being anti-Israeli.
(19:55)So a very similar phenomenon is now taking place. And in a previous conflict, there was very much the same argument being made about Al Jazeera over the situation in Iraq. So this rears its head regularly, but why is the authoritarian label not linked to actual authoritarian countries? That is dictatorships, that are politically geopolitically allied with the United States, right? Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, these are states that are starting to diversify their foreign policy. Saudi joining Brix and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is a dialogue partner and identifying China as their most important trade partner, but still they are very much linked to the United States, and certainly they have been for decades. Qatar has a giant US army base, similarly in Kuwait, the UAE. Why are the actual monarchic oligarchic dictators of these countries not referred to as authoritarian? Because the label is more about oppositional geopolitical alignment than it is in domestic,
Dr Wilmer Leon (21:27):
Domestic government leadership,
Mark Sleboda (21:29):
Any real assessment of their domestic political system. And I have to
Dr Wilmer Leon (21:34):
Say mbss is chopping heads. I mean
Mark Sleboda (21:38):
Literally as a chopping more than heads, these bones aren't sorry. Right. As a veteran, well, I'm both a military, a US military veteran and shall we say a veteran of the US political system with all the warts that the US political system has with its systemic suppression of third party movements. And I'm talking, I mean Americans don't even know this for the most part, but their own two parties of power, the Republicans and Democrats regularly sue third parties to keep them off the ballot, right? I mean, they regularly go to court every election cycle to keep them off the ballot and the whole structure of 50 separate elections and the intricacies run by the party in power, either the Republicans or the Democrats in the state does everything possible to prevent the emergence of any other voice than those two and the electoral college and the eternal problems with campaign finance and lobbying. But Americans somehow feel their political systemic superiority so strongly that they don't even think when their political and media elites judge the political system of another country. And as far as most Americans reflexively are concerned, they think they are the only democratic country on earth and the only good people, which is really kind of another iteration of we are the chosen people of God, political meme throughout history.
Dr Wilmer Leon (23:35):
What is more authoritarian than not having a presidential primary in a system that is based on primaries? What is more of a dictatorship than imposing Joe Biden upon Democrats instead of holding a primary look at what the Democrats did to Bernie Sanders during the Hillary Clinton campaign, hence Julian Assange's email leaks, which demonstrated all the machinations that the Clinton campaign went through to see to it that Bernie Sanders could not become the Democrat nominee. What is more authoritarian than that?
Mark Sleboda (24:28):
I got to tell you.
Dr Wilmer Leon (24:31):
Am I right?
Mark Sleboda (24:32):
Yeah, you're absolutely right. And I don't want to go too much myself into US domestic politics because
Dr Wilmer Leon (24:40):
I just raised that
Mark Sleboda (24:40):
As examples myself from that. I don't want to cast stones. I don't necessarily feel that it's my place to, but I'm actually a confession. I'm originally from Scranton, Wilkesboro, Pennsylvania. That's where I was born. Anyway, that's also Joe Biden's hometown, where he was born. And I distinctly remember the video. I mean, I was too young at the time to remember it politically, of course, but I've seen the videos of Joe Biden running for Congress admitting open, right, that the system is corrupt, that corrupt people are elected to office, and that at the time, the only reason he wasn't corrupt is because he wasn't given the money by the oligarchs, by the rich of the country that he had asked for because he was too untested of yet, but that if he was, he would've taken, I mean, I think there is no greater condemnation of the US political system than admissions like that coming from the very seat of the president, or I mean, shall we take the words of prior presidents Jimmy Carter coming right out and saying, America is no longer a democracy. It is an oligarchy.
Dr Wilmer Leon (26:11):
You mentioned that President Putin went to China for the conference and that this was the first time that he had left the country in quite a while. That to me speaks volumes in how comfortable he must be in the midst of the Russia, Ukraine conflict. His country is at war, and he feels comfortable enough to leave his go to China for a couple of days. That to me says that he's comfortable not only in his position domestically, but he's also comfortable in his country's position internationally.
Mark Sleboda (26:59):
Yeah, I don't think Putin does. He perfectly understands, I think as a leader what he knows and what he doesn't know. And he has made it quite clear that he does not micromanage his generals in the conflict and in the intervention, the special military operation as they call it in Ukraine, the intervention in the Ukrainian civil conflict that has been going on for a decade. Also, of course, neither Russia nor China, nor it must be said, or the United States or India, are signatories to the Rome statute of the international criminal court. So that is not an issue on the trip. In fact, when the international criminal court tried to bring charges against the US, US leaders and military leaders for crimes, alleged crimes, yeah, committed in Afghanistan, in Iraq, they sanctioned the court, they sanctioned the judges, they sanctioned the prosecutor, they threatened to remove funding from the United Nations. They put arrest warrants out for the judges and the prosecutor until the issue was withdrawn. From my understanding is there were even threats made against the families and lives of
Dr Wilmer Leon (28:44):
SDA was the judge. Yes. I don't remember her first name, but her last name is sda, and her family was sanctioned and threatened.
Mark Sleboda (28:54):
Yes. So I don't place any credits to that. And one of the reasons I don't place any credits on these charges is anything more than an instance of geopolitical capture of a un institution, which unfortunately happens far more often than it should. But my full disclosure, my wife is from Crimea, which is considered, at least according to the us, to still be part of Ukraine. And we have family all over East Ukraine, and there are some 5 million Ukrainians living and working in Russia. And that is a side of that conflict. The fact that there has been a civil conflict in that country since the openly US backed overthrow of the government there in 2014 is the internal divide in that country. And again, I know Americans think that through their propaganda bubble of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the ancient three networks and Fox and CNN, that they have a better idea what is going on in Ukraine than most Russians do. No, they don't because there are 5 million Ukrainians living in Russia who tell them all the time on tv, in media and in person because of how much families are interrelated on both sides of the border, they know far, far more about what is happening and has been happening politically in that country, not only for the last year or two, but of course going back decades. And it is the height of hubris, I think, to think otherwise.
Dr Wilmer Leon (30:48):
Switching gears a bit, recently, over 500 people were killed as a result of the Al Ali Arab Hospital bombing in Gaza. And we are seeing this escalation of the conflict in occupied Palestine. As I've been listening to President Xi, as I've been listening to President Putin, they have been trying to find a way to first of all bring about a ceasefire and second of all, negotiate a settlement. I listened to Joe Biden talk about peace, but all he really seems to say is we back Israel a hundred percent. We'll provide more weapons into the region, but we need to have peace. So
Mark Sleboda (31:44):
Go ahead. Joe Biden has also said, you don't need to be Jewish to be a Zionist. And I think
Dr Wilmer Leon (31:49):
And has said very clearly that he is a Zionist
Mark Sleboda (31:52):
And has said that if Israel did not exist, then the United States would have to create it to pursue its interests in the Middle East because it serves such as a convenient platform for the US projection of power into the Middle East.
Dr Wilmer Leon (32:11):
Wait a minute, lemme throw one more in there. Tony Blinken said the last time that he was in the region, he said, I am not only here as a Secretary of state, I am here as a Jew. So forget independent thinking. Forget being a neutral arbiter here in a Jewish state. That sounds more like imperialism and
Mark Sleboda (32:38):
Neocolonialism than anything. Mark Sabota. Yeah. Tony Blinken also by the way, mentioned that his family were originally from Russia and that they left the country, his grandfather because of pilgrims in Russia. And I'm really interested in the timing of pilgrims and his grandfather because certainly in the distant past there were pilgrims against Jews in Russia as there were many countries, but within the lifespan of his grandfather, it would make me really seriously question that characterization and feel he's inflating his family's political disagreements within the country. But that certainly also says in the current tensions with Russia in Ukraine and the proxy war there, that he also has a personal ax to grind as do so many people driving US foreign policy on the region like Victoria Newland, whose own family is originally from Ukraine, so there is that as well. But Putin, the Russia has already put forward at the UN Security Council a resolution calling for immediate ceasefire, and this was shot down by the US and Western countries with the US saying that the resolution could not, they couldn't vote for it because it did not criticize Hamas enough, which is obviously the most important thing when you're trying to craft a ceasefire to stop people from actively killing each other.
(34:24)Russia and China have been in lockstep on their calls from this. They to a certain extent have been trying to be neutral in the sense that they are refraining from, I think overt criticism of one side or the other in the interest of attaining that ceasefire. Brazil, by the way, also put forward a UN security council resolution calling at least then for humanitarian ceasefires. And that was actually vetoed by the United States as well as France and the UK in lockstep there. Russia and China have been clear, while they don't support the tactics of Hamas, they feel that this is just the latest consequence of a long-term policy of a pretense of a peace process while backed by to the hilt by the us. Israel goes about its process of what it calls settlers, which is a policy of ethnic cleansing and colonization of Palestine, of the Palestine.
(35:41)America, of course, does not recognize the state of Palestine, Russia and China both do, and they think they've made it clear that this is a result of the West, the world, but most importantly the West because they're not do it, not recognizing the Palestinian state, not granting its sovereignty and its own borders, and its right, of course, to defend its own country and borders and people a right that they extend to Israelis, but not to Palestinians. Because you'll hear from multiple US politicians and political elite that they don't believe that the Palestinians are a people to, which I would say you really, really need to go visit Gaza or the West Bank then. And Americans also seem to not understand, and I'm not so sure it would make a difference, maybe it would that a third of the Palestinians are actually Christians. I mean, would that help their perception, help them get past the inherent Islamophobia involved in the issue?
(36:54)I don't know, but maybe people should point that out to them that it might help the situation some. But yeah, Russia and China have been quite clear net. Putin has talked to Netanyahu. He has also of course talked to the Palestinian leader, ABAs in the West Bank, and his government has been in contact with Hamas and the other political factions in Gaza. He's also been nonstop on the phone with every major Arab and other world leader that has interests in this conflict, Iran, Hezbollah the like. And he has been trying to do his best towards trying to come to some kind of sane cessation of hostilities. But instead, what we get obviously from the Biden administration, from the eu, the Western countries in general, is they have obviously given a green light to Israel to do a ground operation in Gaza. And Israel has demanded of the, it's a city of some more than 2 million people that has been rightly called the world's largest concentration camp or an open air prison with walls built around it. The real solution is the recognition of the Palestinian state, and that's the only way to relieve the pressure of the people in Gaza.
Dr Wilmer Leon (38:59):
One of the things that I found incredibly telling and quite a contrast was as Tony Blinken was on his Middle Eastern tour talking to US allies, the foreign minister of Iran was on his tour of the region talking to Iranian allies. In fact, lemme take a step back. When Trump assassinated Qem soleimani, the revered Iran in general, Iran said, we will retaliate. And a lot of people thought that that meant, oh my goodness, well, over the next few days, Iran's going to do something and Iran didn't do anything. Now we've got Tony Blinken, he was on his trip. Joe Biden was there on his trip, and at the same time, the Iranian foreign minister was talking to Iranian allies, and now the Iranian foreign minister has come out and said, Israel, your time is up. Talk about what an even height, another escalation of this conflict could mean in the region and what it could mean in the world.
Mark Sleboda (40:21):
Yeah, there was an interesting article out yesterday in the Financial Times where an anonymous US official acknowledged that as a result of the US and the rest of the West, so wholeheartedly backing Israel in this to the degree that they have, and this obvious green light for the ground operation, which is a ethnic cleansing of Gaza, of the Palestinian population, ordering 1 million people to get out of the way. Of course it's an impossibility, where would they go is the most obvious question, even if you were able to order a million people at a time to leave their houses. But there is an alignment of global sentiment and forces, political forces going on the financial Times. This US official and the Financial Times laments that as a result of this, that this is incredibly damaging to us influence in what the US usually likes to call the global south, where if you think of the West, you think of the rest and he says they will never listen to us again. I mean, if they were already, then we've lost them, not just the Islamic world, but more broadly. And because of the recent reproach month between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the normalization of diplomatic relations, thank
Dr Wilmer Leon (42:18):
You, China.
Mark Sleboda (42:19):
Yeah. It's brokered by China and not all peaches and cream. But the last week saw the first direct phone call between the president of Iran and the Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, and they both agreed, they expressed a common position on what is happening in Palestine, in Gaza, and is what Israel is doing and how unacceptable it is. And that is already an amazing geopolitical change. Like the world has shifted, and I have to constantly ask myself, is this real right that the world has changed so much? And there's a saying attributed to Lenin that decades pass and nothing changes. And then at other times in weeks, decades pass decades of change ensue. And we're I think, living in one of those periods, one of those latter periods now where things are changing so fast and we
Dr Wilmer Leon (43:37):
Minute, wait a minute, a minute. Because to that point again, China helped to broker the reproach mon between the Saudis and the Iranians and the United States was in the process of brokering a reproach mon between the Saudis and Israel, and then Hamas attacks Israel and the Saudis say out Israel, that conversation we were about to have, let's put that on hold because that decade of change has taken place in the matter of a day.
Mark Sleboda (44:17):
Yeah, Saudi Arabia was really looking for under, shall we say, a newly foreign policy mature Moham bin Salman, who has obviously changed himself a lot in recent years from what he was when he first came into power as the heir to the ailing king who has really been running the country. He is looking for a multi-vector foreign policy with a minimal amount of conflict. So he wanted to have the foreign policy options with bricks, with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, but it doesn't mean that he wanted a complete severance of relations with the United States either. And since the Trump administration, the US has been pushing very, very hard on their policy of trying to get Arab countries to recognize in Israel and to normalize relations, diplomatic relations, and others, which would also be tantamount to accepting Israeli occupation of large parts of Palestine and ever increasingly more so, you can see where the Palestinians probably regarded a normalization deal being pushed by the US between Saudi Arabia and Israel as an existential issue for them.
(45:55)Because as by many standards, the most important Sunni Islamic country, because of its holding not only of world's energy reserves with oil, but also the two holy mosques, the way Saudi Arabia goes, the rest of the SUNY Arab world would inevitably follow, and that would end any hope of Arab support for them if this deal went through. It. Also, by the way, the sweetener is a security guaranteed deal with Saudi Arabia, which would effectively elevate Saudi Arabia in security technical terms to the status of the relationship between the US and Israel, IE preferential deals on weapons systems, access to more advanced military technology, full access to intelligence training. Everything that the US provides now to Israel would also be provided at the same level, the same prices and so forth, more or less to Saudi Arabia. That was the sweetener of the deal, and I believe that Hamas' motivation in the, they killed civilians. I mean, there's been a lot of, I think, obvious beheading of babies. That's Kuwaiti incubator, baby type disinformation ized to, but that's not to excuse that they use terrorist tactics. They killed civilians. On the
Dr Wilmer Leon (47:36):
Other hand, wait a minute, and don't forget the Russian killing of babies in the Ukraine, the women's hospital that wasn't a women's hospital.
Mark Sleboda (47:48):
That is I think, a case for the point, again, for the way the US wages information war mostly against its own people, which is another fascinating at a rabbit hole to go down. But I mean, it's not to say that Israel doesn't routinely kill, I mean, on an essentially daily basis, Palestinian civilians through its process of settling, ethnic cleansing, political
Dr Wilmer Leon (48:18):
Oppression, it bulldozers, villages, indiscriminately arrests, detains people without charge, and basically
Mark Sleboda (48:29):
Regularly summarily executes people who resist that,
Dr Wilmer Leon (48:34):
Right?
Mark Sleboda (48:35):
So anyway, I believe that Hamas' primary motivation in launching this attack, a wasting military resources that they had spent years building in secret plans that they had. The timing of this tells me that it was to prevent that Saudi Israeli reproach month deal being pushed by the US from going through, because they saw it as existential for them. And if that was the goal, then it has been successful because as a result of Saudi's disproportionate response to, if Israel had said, we are going to do a targeted anti-terrorist operation in Gaza against the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad leadership who were responsible for this, and the people who carried it out, I think there would've been a very different global reaction to this. If instead we didn't have Israeli leaders saying that we're going to destroy Gaza, that we're going to wipe Gaza off the face of turn it to
Dr Wilmer Leon (49:54):
Dust,
Mark Sleboda (49:54):
Dust, and that all Palestinians civilians are the enemy. We heard that from Naftali Bennett. That would've been a very different situation. And there is, I think a much more substantial reaction, not only from the usual suspects, we've heard that from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, the Sufi, sorry, the Shia organization there. That is demonized wrongly in this particular case because it doesn't use terrorist tactics by the US and Israel, and no country in the world really outside the West as a terrorist organization that if Israel goes a ground operation and begins cleansing Gaza, then Hezbollah will open up a second front war on the Israeli north, and then there will be a two. Iran has voiced very similar that prospects that if the Israeli government's atrocities against the Palestinian people, which as a result right now are approaching 4,000 dead, which by the way is almost four times the number of people that the Hamas' operational s of flood attacks killed four times.
(51:35)So obviously proportionality is not an issue when it comes to Israel, but that Iran would feel the need to intervene. We've heard even further, surprisingly, from the government of Jordan and the king of Jordan, right? Not called authoritarian by the way, but because he was educated in Oxford, I mean, he's largely regarded across the Arab world as a western puppet, as a western aligned Arab leader with a very large Palestinian refugee population, and a people who feel very close to that situation. Jordan has come out and said that if Israel looks set to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza as they appear to be planning to do, then Jordan would consider it an act of war. Which I mean, that totally surprised me coming from the modern. Now, a lot of it is probably motivated out of self-interest of the Jordanian king. If I don't react the way my people want me to, they will overthrow me in order to be able to do something.
(52:53)But regardless of his personal motivations for it, it is certainly something I did not expect. And if Jordan does, so other countries around will become involved, and then there's the prospect of other countries or say Hezbollah as an organization becomes involved, that the US becomes involved. The US has two aircraft carriers. Well, the second one's steaming on its way to the Israeli coast right now, as well as a marine amphibious expedition ships with some at least 2000 Marines. And Joe Biden has kind of, I don't know on some type of idiotic loop reel, been saying about Hezbollah and Iran don't even, as it shovels tens of billions of dollars of emergency military support of crucial military supplies into Israel. And Biden is calling for 10 billion in military emergency, military or financial aid, sorry to be transferred as well. Russia is sitting there. Russia has military bases in Syria, naval base, several other military bases where it helped prevent a US backed jihadi overthrow of the Syrian government there with the us it must be said, still illegally occupying eastern Syria, east of the river, Syria's oil fields and wheat fields, and Turkey still sitting in northern Syria with a hundred thousand Jihadists still on its payroll.
(54:46)But Russia has these military bases in Syria, and it sees the US just down the coast a little bit with two aircraft carriers. And Putin has asked the question, what are you going to do with those two aircraft carriers? And they're resulting fleets, Hezbollah seriously. And Putin was obviously expressing that he doesn't believe that. So Putin ordered that Russian jet fighters, they're most modern variants, fifth gen fighters will now be patrolling the Black Sea, the extent of it with al hypersonic long range missiles that have a range of a thousand kilometers. And he very directly pointed out that fired from the Black Sea that those missiles can hit US aircraft carriers where they're sitting in the Eastern Mediterranean and again, hypersonic. Hypersonic, yeah. So very, very hard to shoot down, if not impossible. And he said, this is not a threat. This is a response.
(56:03)And basically he is saying, if you attack Syria, and it has to be said that Israel has already bombed Damascus airport very heavily again, and they've been shelling Southern Lebanon, if you attack our military bases in Syria, then will take out your aircraft carriers, right? I mean, you see where this spiral of escalation is leading, right? Israel goes into Gaza, Hezbollah, maybe Iran go in, Israel conducts cleansing operations in Gaza and Jordan and probably half of the rest of the Arab world join in. They join in, and the US joins in the US attacks Syria as part of this, because Iran power projects through Syria, Russia has bases in Syria. Russia bases get attacked. Russia attacks the US boom. We're in World War III in another conflict, right, that is going on simultaneously with ripple effects from the geopolitical tension and the conflict going on in Ukraine. So all of this has me feeling very much as my used to say, as a long tailed cat in a room full of
Dr Wilmer Leon (57:22):
Rocks, rocking chairs, and I want to reiterate hypersonic missiles. That means that Joe Biden has basically sent two targets for Russia to attack.
Mark Sleboda (57:40):
Now, Russia is not going to just attack American aircraft carriers
Dr Wilmer Leon (57:45):
World
Mark Sleboda (57:46):
War ii realize. No, I realize that it's meant as a deterrent,
Dr Wilmer Leon (57:50):
Which, so what is a deterrent that does not deter?
Mark Sleboda (57:55):
That's a good question. Unfortunately, I think Russia has seen several red lines be crossed in the recent years with the US escalation in Ukraine and hasn't responded, which has led numerous White House officials to say outright, we don't believe in Russian red lines. That means that we can keep poking the bear. And no matter what they do, they won't respond because they fear a nuclear conflict more than we do. That is, well, it's more than madness. It is the death of mad. It is the death of mutually assured destruction, which takes us back to a very early Cold War era that we should all be afraid of.
Dr Wilmer Leon (58:44):
Just really quickly, we have just about two minutes left, and I'm glad you made that point, because whether it's Ukraine, whether it's Syria, whether it is the Black Sea, the United States seems to continue to believe a, when Vladimir Putin or when Xi Jinping says something, they don't mean it. And when they make a commitment, they will not honor it. And what I have come to see over the years is they don't bluff. They don't play, they don't joke. We got a minute.
Mark Sleboda (59:22):
Yeah. So how to mesh that difference between, I think demonstrable reality and what the US ruling administration as seeing as their politicized reading of their opponents, that does not match up with reality. That's a recipe for disaster,
Dr Wilmer Leon (59:46):
Really. Wow. Well, I want to thank my guest, mark Sloboda. Mark, thank you for joining me today.
Mark Sleboda (59:54):
Thanks for having me, Dr. Leon. It's been an honor and a pleasure to be on the show.
Dr Wilmer Leon (59:58):
Thank you, mark. Big shout out to my producer, melody McKinley. Thank you so much for joining the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wimer Leon. This is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history, converge talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share my show, follow me on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. I'll see you next time. Until then, treat each day like it's your last, because one day you'll be right. I'm Dr. Wier Leon. Peace and Blessings. I'm out.

Is the US Operating from a Position of Weakness on the Global Stage?

This week's episode features the incomparable Alexander Mercouris, the editor of TheDuran.com and host of The Duran show on YouTube.
You can find me and the show on social media by searching the handle @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube.
Our Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd
All our episodes can be found at CTDpodcast.com.
 
Transcript
Wilmer Leon (00:15):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon and I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which most of these events take place. During each episode, my guests and I will have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between current events and the broader historical context in which they occur. This will enable you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode, we explore the relationships between some of the major conflicts impacting the geopolitical landscape. We'll connect some of the dots between what's happening in Ukraine and Europe, what's happening in Gaza and the Middle East, and what's happening with the relationship between the United States and China. To help me connect these dots is the editor in chief@theduran.com and host of the Duran on YouTube, Alexander MEUs. Alexander, welcome to the show.
Alexander Mercouris (01:29):
Delighted to be with you again, will Mur, and it's a great pleasure to be on the show.
Wilmer Leon (01:33):
Thank you so much. And Alexander, let's connect some dots. First, does it make sense to connect the dots between, again, what's happening in Ukraine and Europe, Gaza in the Middle East and the US and China? Because many people see these issues as unrelated, and of course we can add conflicts from other regions as well. But for the sake of time, let's just start with these. Does it make sense? Are these events related? Alexander Urs,
Alexander Mercouris (02:02):
They are absolutely related. If you see that there is a single connecting thread, that thread is there. It is US policy. The United States is intimately involved in every one of these conflicts. It is the major arm supplier and financial provider to Ukraine and its major diplomatic backer. It is the arm supplier and funder of Israel and its major diplomatic backer. And the same applies to Taiwan, which is of course in the early stages of what is looking like an increasingly dangerous conflict with China. And yesterday there was an article in the Financial Times by a man called Gideon Rackman, who is a very, very well connected journalist, not just in London, but in Washington. And he said that he had discussions with various US officials including members of the Democratic Party and also people within the administration. And they also agreed that these conflicts are all connected with each other.
(03:14)The administration believes that they are connected with each other. They are apparently, or so they told Gideon Ratman very gloomy about the way in which these various conflicts are all going. There is in fact, one sense is a sense of controlled panic about this. And as very typically happens when somebody has pulled the strings and made things, pulled the strings in various places and they all start to go wrong. Apparently there are now some people in the administration who believe that they are themselves. Now the target of a plot that the Chinese, the Russians, the Muslim states, the North Koreans, the Iranians, that they're all working together.
Wilmer Leon (04:01):
When you discussed Ukraine, you mentioned finance and arm supplying. When you mentioned Israel, you mentioned finance and arm supplying. And when it comes to Taiwan, we know for example that Taiwan is now pointing high Mars missiles at China. We know the United States has sent a lot and continues to send a lot of weapons into Taiwan. So many times people hear the military industrial complex and they put that in some kind of grand conspiratorial context. But it sounds like weapons is, and the sale of weapons is the primary motivation here behind these conflicts.
Alexander Mercouris (04:52):
Absolutely. That is what is driving them in every single case. What has been pushing these conflicts is that the United States, the administration, the political backers of the administration, the various lobbyists in Washington, and you can trace all the lobbyists, all the funding ultimately comes back to a certain limited sources. And the military industrial complex is overwhelmingly the biggest. So the military industrial complex that funds the NGOs, the lobbying groups, all of those people, the think tanks that proliferate in Washington, they are all intimately involved in all three of these crises. And they have all made sure in every case that they're pushed in the same direction. So Ukraine was being pushed towards NATO into an alliance with the United States against Russia in the Middle East. Israel was being encouraged to advance relentlessly within the Palestinian Territories and to forge separate peace agreements with Arab countries, which disregarded the interests of the Palestinians in the former British mandate territory of Palestine and in Taiwan. Now, there is apparently arms packages being prepared for Taiwan, which apparently are intended to completely reequip the Taiwanese army. Its ground forces to the tune of $10 billion. And I got that by the way, from the B, b, C. So we are seeing major funding and military buildups in all of these places. And of course, when lots of weapons are supplied into conflict zones where an area in crisis is flooded with weapons in this kind of way, war follows.
Wilmer Leon (06:54):
Let me read quickly, let's start with the Ukraine. And there's a piece in the Washington Post entitled Miscalculations Divisions marked Offensive Planning by US and Ukraine. They describe, the Washington Post describes the conflict as a stalemate, but when Secretary of Defense, Austin asked the Ukrainian defense Minister Resnikoff what was going on, this is what Resnikoff said. Ukraine's armored vehicles were being destroyed by Russian helicopters, drones, and artillery. With every attempt to advance without air support. The only option was to use artillery to shell Russian lines, dismount from the targeted vehicles and then proceed on foot. We can't maneuver because of the landmine density and tank ambushes. This is according to Resnikoff. And the Washington Post then says, as winter approaches and the frontline freezes into place, Ukraine's, most senior military officials acknowledge that the war has reached a stalemate. Alexander, that doesn't sound like a stalemate to me. That sounds like an ass whipping.
Alexander Mercouris (08:15):
Well, absolutely. It's not a stalemate. It is a disaster. In fact, that article in the Washington Post, which is enormous, it is in two parts. If you actually read it carefully. It's an attempt to defend US policy. It's attempt to throw all the blame on the Ukrainians or most of the blame on the Ukrainians for what went wrong in this summer offensive, which has taken place this year and for the coming debacle, which is now shaping in Ukraine. Now let's me just deal quickly first with the stalemate situation. It seems that the US Defense Minister Secretary Lloyd Austin has just recently had a meeting with Ukraine's overall military commander, general Valeri illusion in Kiev. Lloyd Austin was recently in Kiev and Lloyd Austin was told by illusionary that for Ukraine to win this war, it needs 17 million shells and 400 billion worth of equipment. This is all over the Ukrainian media.
(09:32)Now UK apparently Austin was shocked. He said, there aren't 17 million shells in the world. We don't have that number of shells in the world to supply you. And in terms of the $400 billion, I understand that is twice the annual Pentagon budget. We're talking about the Pentagon budget for weapons procurement in any one year. These are impossible, impossible demands. Now, they are not the kind of demands that you would get from the general of an army who finds himself in a stalemate situation. What illusion is telling Austin is we are losing the war. We are losing the war at every point. We are outgunned, we've been been out fought, we are on the defensive. The Russians are advancing. There's lots of information coming from the battlefronts which are not being reported in the media in the West, but we can see that in all kinds of places.
(10:42)In a marinca in the north, in the south, in the center of the Battlefronts, the Russians are now incrementally and remorselessly advancing and the Ukrainians are being smashed. There is no stalemate. And the story of a stalemate that is being conjured up is one which I don't believe anybody with any true knowledge of the situation in Washington beliefs, it has just been created in order to buy the administration some time so that they can come up with a political strategy and a financial strategy in Congress to try to escape responsibility for the disaster that they have authored. And if you read the Washington Post article, you'll see how their fingerprints are all over this disaster.
Wilmer Leon (11:39):
When I talked to Brian Tic, when I talked to Mark Sloboda, when I talked to Scott Ritter, they all say Russia hasn't even started the fight yet yet. And that if Russia decided to go all in full bore, it would be a massacre. And so getting back to the Washington Post piece and what Ulu is telling Lloyd Austin that he needs, again, they haven't even started fighting yet. Your thoughts?
Alexander Mercouris (12:19):
No, this is absolutely correct. What all of those gentlemen have told you is absolutely true. And you can see this when you actually look at the military units that are conducting most of the fighting at the moment on the Russian side. And it's a very remarkable fact, which again, no part of the western media or western governments ever acknowledge, but most of the fighting in Ukraine is not for the moment being conducted by the regular Russian line army. They haven't yet deployed their heavy divisions. They're tank divisions, they're armor divisions, they're heavy infantry. The people with the infantry fighting vehicles, they're
Wilmer Leon (13:07):
Air force,
Alexander Mercouris (13:08):
They're air force to any great extent, they're holding back their missiles. Most of the fighting, most of the forces that are currently advancing are a very interesting collection of forces. They're the Don Bass militia who have been retrained and re-equipped. And you are carrying out the biggest offensive, it's ongoing at the moment, which is successful by the way, in a fortified place called elsewhere. It tends to be paratroopers, light infantry, in other words, from the regular Russian military. But these are elite infantry, but there's not relative, many of them. It's chechen fighters, it's various volunteer groups. There are lots of volunteer groups now fighting alongside the Russians in Ukraine. The Russians so far are holding their main army back and it's growing in size. It's growing in size at the rate of 1600 men a day, and apparently around 450,000 have joined up in the Russian military just this year. And the Russian arms production is worrying and increasing all the time. So it's absolutely correct. They haven't actually properly speaking started yet.
Wilmer Leon (14:31):
And here's something that I don't hear anybody in the West really, and this is very, very fundamental. The United States with Ukraine as its proxy has engaged Russia in the very type of conflict that Russia has been preparing to fight for the last 20 years. And they're fighting it in Russia's backyard. And Scott Ritter, Scott Ritter was on this 0.2 years ago that NATO just doesn't have it. The United States just doesn't have it. I don't remember the number of artillery shells that Russia is sending out all day, all night, but a war of attrition and an artillery type of battle is exactly what Russia has been preparing to fight. So basically the United States stepped into the trap without enough equipment, without enough soldiers, without enough logistics. It was a fiasco from the outset.
Alexander Mercouris (15:47):
Absolutely. Now, this is where I'm going to come back to that Washington Post article because it's actually extremely interesting because what you can see if you read that Washington Post article carefully, is that the people who really wanted this offensive that we've just been through in the summer were the Americans, the Ukrainian general, the same Ukrainian general that I mentioned before. Valeri, illusionary told the Americans last year, look, this is what I need in order to carry out an offensive. And he pitched the number. He thought so high that the Americans would find it impossible to fair it, and apparently the Americans gasp, this is what this article said. But then they went ahead and provided it and they started training all these men and they went through all the various war games and simulations and all of these kinds of things. And you could see immediately that they were feeding into all of this, their own presumptions about the Russians.
(16:49)They thought the Russians were chaotic, disorganized, corrupt, inefficient, incompetent. They didn't know what they were doing. They weren't properly led. Their army was a Potemkin army, as I've seen it called that their equipment was lousy. They weren't remotely up to the standard and quality of the United States. And you could see that some Ukrainian commanders would bear you exactly what the reality was, but they were being brushed aside and they didn't want to launch this offensive. And the Americans were pushing them to launch this offensive, and they did launch this offensive and they crashed into the reality of a Russian army, which exactly as you said was incredibly well prepared. And this is exactly what's happened, that it's been the case right through this entire conflict. The United States has completely underestimated Russia. That is the truth of it. They underestimated its technological and industrial capacities which were multiples greater than they imagined. They underestimated its political will. They underestimated the morale and resilience of its population and Russia's understanding of the existential nature of this conflict. And they grope tely underestimated the Russian military, which they don't really understand and which has been preparing for this war exactly as you said, for at least the last 20 years.
Wilmer Leon (18:30):
You mentioned morale, and we heard early on in the conflict people saying that the Russian people were turning on Putin and all of these kinds of things. And what seems to have been missed is the Russian people are behind his government a hundred percent. And their ire was not directed at the fact that he intervened in Ukraine. Their ire was directed at him for not doing this sooner and not going in more forcefully. There are many who I understand to be saying, why are you nickel and dimming this? Why don't you just go in, kick butt, take names and move on. But he has a different strategy and his generals have a different strategy in terms of their response. Is that accurate?
Alexander Mercouris (19:29):
That's absolutely correct. And this has been a longstanding thing, and I've been saying this for years, and all of the people that you've been mentioning at that, Brian Tic, mark Vota, Scott Ritter, would tell you exactly the same thing. But then of course we spend time talking to Russians, not just the kind of Russians, Westerners, talk to other Russians, the kind of Russians that you will find in the streets, the people who drive you, the taxes, who you meet in hotels, those sorts of people. And the important thing to understand about Russia is this is an extremely educated society. This is a very educated society indeed. And it's a politically very educated society. Also, it has to be because Russia's history has been such over the last hundred plus years where you cannot not be educated or well-informed about political and geostrategic matters, and you've had constantly people telling you why is Putin pulley his punches?
(20:33)Why does he continue to give to the West so much? Why does he call them partners all the time? Why is he constantly looking to make compromises with them? These people are profoundly hostile to us. They want to break up our country. When we opened up to them in the 1980s, they came here and they basically seized everything that they could and they triggered the biggest economic recession we've ever suffered in our history since the Russian Revolution in 1917. And why is Putin playing it so careful and so slow? And the answer was that he understood as his military people did, that his economic people did, that you can't just rush into a confrontation with the West. You have to prepare for it. You have to prepare for it financially, economically, industrially, technologically, militarily and above and diplomatically as well. And he moved to its step by step and well, here we are,
Wilmer Leon (21:43):
In fact, I'm glad you mentioned diplomatically because what gets missed, again through lack of context in reporting from the Western media is Putin is playing to the world. What we see now is he, whereas Joe Biden told us he was going to turn the rubble into rubble and he was going to bring about regime change in Russia and he was going to make Russia a pariah and all of that kind of stuff. When you look at President Xi, when you look at President Putin, when you look at President Raisi, when you look at Maduro in Venezuela, these guys are now on the international stage as statesmen, and it's Joe Biden who is looking and as well as Netanyahu as the odd men out.
Alexander Mercouris (22:35):
This is absolutely correct. Now, this is by the way, something which the Russians themselves are not used to at all. For most of the 20th century, they've been accustomed to a reality where the United States and the West essentially represented the world, and Russia itself felt itself a fortress, an encircled fortress. And this is very much if you spent time in Russia, this is still very much the instinct that a lot of Russians have, which explains why, by the way, they weren't say, we've got to wait and see, try and argue things with the Chinese, explain things to the Indians, make deals with the Venezuelans and all the others. They didn't really see it in those terms. Of course, Putin did, and this is where he's completely different from any other Russian leader that has come before because Putin understood that there are fundamental changes in the world that provided Russia behaved with self-control and discipline far from being isolated globally. It would be supported globally because most of the world could see what was really going on, and it would be the United States that would be isolated globally instead. And that is exactly what has happened, and that is something new. And the Russians themselves, I'm talking about the Russian people are astonished by it. And from everything I'm hearing rather exhilarated intoxicated by it, they did not expect things to turn out this way.
Wilmer Leon (24:25):
And of course, you cannot in this conversation really have this conversation with also talking about the power of Sergei Lavrov, the foreign minister Wang y in China. Those foreign ministers, again, unlike Secretary of State Blanken, they're true statesmen. They are men that have a much broader understanding of context. They have a much broader understanding of diplomacy. They have a much broader understanding of history, and they bring a whole, well, basically Blinken is playing checkers while these guys are playing three dimensional chess. Let me quickly, let's move because we could spend hours on this part of the conversation. The broader, let's connect the dots between what's happening with this Ukraine, Russian conflict and the broader context of Europe. Because there are reports now for example, that the Bavarian mayor, Marcus Soder, the prime minister in Bavaria, is saying that the increased energy costs, and there are a number of factors now that this whole conflict is having on Europe. The United States blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline, cutting off cheap natural gas to Germany is having an incredible industrial impact. I think Goodyear and Michelin are closing tire plants in Germany because manufacturing costs are too high. This has become an incredibly treacherous, has had a treacherous economic impact on European countries. You're in London, you know this better than I do.
Alexander Mercouris (26:25):
Oh, absolutely. Now the great success, the great achievement of the United States in the post Cold War period has been the Americanization of Europe's political elite. And it has been an astonishing thing to see, explain
Wilmer Leon (26:39):
What that means.
Alexander Mercouris (26:40):
Well, what has happened, and this is not easy to explain exactly how it's happened, and I suspect that there's a lot of this story that we don't quite know, but over the last 30 plus years, Europe, which had its own, each country in Europe had its own political leaders, its own politics, its own history of diplomacy. Remember modern diplomacy as we understand it today, the kind of diplomacy that Avro and Wangee and John Shankar of India and other countries conduct. The rules of that game were created in Europe, and they were being practiced in Europe until very recently, until well within our lifetimes, if I can say. So, all of that somehow seems to have ended. And what happened was that at some point, the Europeans, the European leadership class, its political class, came to identify itself very much with what's called the Euro-Atlantic Project.
(27:49)The rules-based international order. You can use all kinds of terms with it, but they came to see themselves as part of a single team with the leadership of that team in Washington. So that instead of practicing traditional diplomacy as it used to be, and instead of focusing on their own national interests, they began to see themselves as part of a team with the United States and focused on the successful failure of that team, that collective team. I believe it was the Chinese who were the first to come up with the expression, the collective west. But that is essentially what you've got, what you've got now, you've got this collective west, which works to an extent, which you didn't even do during the Cold War as a block. And that means that Europeans have been willing, European leaders have been willing to an extent that would once upon a time have been considered inconceivable to sacrifice European vital economic interests. So Germany of all countries, for example, should have known that because of the historic connections between Ukraine and Russia and because of Russian concerns about the security of their western borders and because of the affinities between Ukraine and Russia, Ukraine was a place where the west tread carefully, but they didn't. They went full on board for the entire project, bring Ukraine into nato, pushed the Russians out.
(29:40)When that became clear that it was going to result in a war, they went full out for the sanctions. No disagreement, no discussion allowed. To this day, it's very difficult to conduct a coherent discussion about this in Germany, same in France, same in Italy, same all across Europe, same to an even greater extent in Britain. And the result has been the economic catastrophe that you're talking about. Germany cut off from its natural economic hinterland, which by the way is Russia. The energy relationship which had been developing during the Cold War now destroyed the economic linkages, the industrial linkages destroyed as well. And the Germans are finding that their country now is deemed industrializing. And I can say this actually with confidence, because we were the first people on the Duran to say this. We said this on the very day when Schultz announced that he was going to suspend the operation of Nord Stream two. We said then that it was going to happen, but you could see how it has been working out ever since then. And it was completely predictable and completely understandable. And any political leadership which had German interests first and foremost at heart would've seen it.
Wilmer Leon (31:13):
And I think it's also important to understand that the de-industrialization of Europe, particularly the de-industrialization of Germany, was one of the objectives of this ridiculous mission in Ukraine, that this was a broader water intention to de-industrialized Germany and to sell Germany American liquified natural gas.
Alexander Mercouris (31:44):
Absolutely. But here again, you see how things have changed in a way because what the United States is now effectively doing is it's cannibalizing its own alliance. It is instead of supporting its allies, it is now predating upon them.
Wilmer Leon (32:02):
In fact, wait a minute, wait a minute. Because to that point, it's important for people to understand that when the US blew up the Nord Stream pipelines, the United States was attacking another NATO ally Germany. So under Article five, other NATO allies very well could have decided to come to the defense of Germany in the manner that they deemed fit. But of course, the United States is the head of nato. So that didn't happen. But it's just an important point I think for people to understand that the United States engaged in an act of war against a NATO ally.
Alexander Mercouris (32:45):
Absolutely. Of course, that is unequivocal. I mean, if you attack the vital energy infrastructure of a country and use explosives against it by any historic law of war, that is an act of war, no question. But this is what the United States increasingly has been doing, and you're quite right to say how they've pushed a very, very hard bargain on liquified natural gas. They're tempting European businesses to relocate to the United States. They're trying to exploit the de-industrialization of Germany, in other words, to their own advantage. But of course, this is the diametric opposite of what the United States once did in the 1950s and 1960s. The United States sought to build up European economies because he wanted a strong Europe strong allies so that he could withstand the Soviet Union and its allies. Now, when the United States itself feels diminished, its trying to supplement its own power by predating, by feeding on its allies. And yes, that will work for a time. It will make the United States stronger relatively than it might've been, but at the cost of weakening its overall alliance weakening the collective west, in other words. And in the long term, this is a bad policy as any policy that involves cannibalization ultimately is.
Wilmer Leon (34:25):
So let's switch gears now from talking about the conflict in Ukraine and its impacts on Europe to what's going on in the occupied territories in occupied Palestine. There was a piece again in the Washington Post who will run Gaza after the war. And the piece says, US searches for the best of bad options. And they're trying to figure out, of course, they want to totally get rid of Hamas. They're talking about could the Palestine authority be the solution? But the interesting thing is nobody seems to be talking to the Palestinians about who they want to run the area. And all of this conversation, in my opinion, is sheer evidence of what the grand plan has been from the very beginning, which is the Zionist government in Israel is a settler colonial state, and as a settler colonial state, you remove the indigenous people so that you can expand the space for your own. This is basically a humongous land grab on the Mediterranean Sea.
Alexander Mercouris (35:50):
Oh, absolutely. I mean, there are people in Israel who are making talking straightforwardly about this now to an extent that we've never seen before. Some of the language coming out of officials in Prime Minister Netanyahu's government is absolutely at that kind. And this is where I'm going to say what my own personal view about US policy throughout this crisis has been, or how it started, which is when the crisis began in October, there was unequivocally an Israeli plan to force the entire population of Gaza out of Gaza, relocate them in Sinai in each Egypt. Qatar was supposed to provide a tent city to house them there. And of course, once Gaza had had its population expelled, Israel would've quickly finished off Hamas occupied Gaza, Israeli settle settlers would've moved in, and then sooner or later they'd have finished off what is left of the West Bank where there's been increasing amounts of violence and aggression as well.
(36:59)And there are even some people in the actual Israeli government, the cabinet who have been talking about rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem, resuming the rituals in the temple and that kind of thing. So that was the agenda. And the United States initially went along with it. Now, this is the thing that people don't understand, but that is exactly what happened. Blinken went along to the Middle East, he met with the Jordanians, the Egyptians, and he was trying to persuade them to agree to allow those people from Gaza to go into Sinai eye in the way that the Israelis wanted. And what then happened, and this is where we come back to the American propensity to underestimate opposition now and a failure to realize or recognize the extent to which the world has changed. What they found was that they came, they came up against a wall of opposition from the Arab states.
(38:09)Egypt said, no, the Egyptian president, president, lsi, ridiculed, blink into his face and had it all televised and said, we got the video of it. Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown prince and prime minister of Saudi Arabia kept blinking waiting a whole night before he actually agreed to meet with him. The King of Georgia said, this is completely unacceptable and refused to meet President Biden. When President Biden also came to the Middle East, the Arab states close ranks. And they said, absolutely no. Under no circumstances will we agree to this thing. And they've been pushing back relentlessly. And you've had a whole series of telephone conversations between the president and Arab leaders. And increasingly now the president, president Biden is having to reassure the Arab leaders that there will be no displacement of the people from by Gaza, no relocations, no redrawing of the map of Gaza.
(39:20)And instead, they're now coming to this new plan, which is a terrible plan, that we're going to set up some kind of neo-colonial administration in Kaza run by the Palestinians that we choose. This is plan B, because to be very clear plan A has been a complete failure. Now, I think that that is going to be intensely resisted. The Palestinian people, as you absolutely correctly say, are not being consulted about who is going to govern them. Trying to set up a political structure of this kind in Gaza is going to be a sort of further instability and tension. I don't personally think it's even going to happen. Actually, I think that the United States, Israel are finding the going in guards are much tougher than they imagined it would be. And I also think that the Arab states, as I said, the closing ranks, and of course behind the Arab states are the brick states. China and Russia, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, of course are joining the bricks in January. Iran made up with Saudi Arabia and is also joining the bricks. The Iranians have just agreed a major arms deal with the Russians. The Iranian president is in Moscow, even as we speak and this broadcast, and we've just had confirmation from the Saudi government that in a few short time, we don't quite know when President Putin,
Wilmer Leon (41:06):
Putin is on his way to the Saudis.
Alexander Mercouris (41:09):
The Saudis.
Wilmer Leon (41:11):
Do
Alexander Mercouris (41:12):
You see how the pieces are all coming together
Wilmer Leon (41:15):
And connect the dots there because you mentioned the Saudis and the Iranians have found reproach mon and have come back together. That was due to the diplomacy of President Xi and the Chinese. We know the relationship between China and Russia, and now Putin is on his way to Saudi Arabia. There are a whole lot of dots that are being connected here, and it's not to the advantage of the United States.
Alexander Mercouris (41:46):
No, not at all. Now, I think the first thing to understand, and we have to say this base point, we're going to come to China in more detail in a moment, but the biggest single change that has happened in the world over the last 30 years is the emergence of China as an economic, political, and military superpower that is at least the equal in all of these things, economics, politics, military affairs, as the United States itself is. And that has completely changed the global geometry. It means that even during the Cold War when the Soviet Union was a significant alternative poll and rival to the United States, it could not match the United States at every spectrum of power China can. And that has changed the situation globally. And we see how it's playing out in the Middle East because as is so often the case in the Middle East, what the Chinese do, and they do this very intelligently, is that they set out their positions.
(43:03)They've talked about the need, for example, for an international peace conference to be convened, to settle the situation in the Middle East. This longstanding conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis, they want, in other words, to take away control of Middle East diplomacy from the Americans, which is what the Chinese want to do. The Chinese, however, as they always do like to work in the background, they bring the Saudis and the Iranians together. They're working very closely with the Russians. They're letting the Russians supply the arms to Iran. They're letting the Russians do the oil deals with the Saudis, but ultimately it's China that is the key player behind the scenes. And it's such a contrast with the Americans who always wants to be seen doing something. So you have Blinken running around the Middle East as he has been, again, by the way, quite recently, they're incredibly active, going from one capital to another, having doors slammed in his face and giving fresh conferences and doing something.
(44:20)But in fact, if actually look at who's really making the big moves, it's and the Chinese, but he's able to do it from Beijing because eventually he will go. Obviously Xi Jinping has been to Saudi Arabia. He was there recently. But it's an extraordinary study in contrast. And again, it comes back to the point that you were making before about the way that the Chinese do diplomacy, the Russians, all of these countries do diplomacy and the Americans don't. The Americans go, they come up with their plans, they come up with their ideas, they give their lectures, they tell people, this is how it must be done. Chinese, much more patient, much more careful, much more willing to let things play out and to take advantage of them as they play out as well.
Wilmer Leon (45:16):
Two things on Gaza before we move to China. One is the Hamas strategy. I believe that the Hama strategy is a much longer term strategy than the Americans give them credit for. I don't think that their strategy is to win militarily. I think that their longer term strategy is to win psychologically, to make the settlers, the Zionist settlers in Israel so uncomfortable with their reality because they've been sold this bill of goods by Netanyahu and others. We will protect you, we will defend you against those evil Arabs. And now all of a sudden that sense of security has been broken, and I don't know that they'll ever be able to regain it, especially with Hezbollah in the north waiting. You've got Syria in the waiting to take over the Golan Heights. This thing could become an incredible conflagration in the region, the likes of which neither Israel nor the United States can manage your thoughts on that point?
Alexander Mercouris (46:41):
Absolutely. Now, first of all, let's just say something about Hamas. I mean, a lot of people have been talking about Hamas and some of the things they say are true, but one of the things they consistently do is that they underestimate Hamas itself. It is a highly intelligent organization. It it's politically extremely sophisticated. This is something people consistently underestimate. And what you are describing, actually, the psychological nature of the struggle is that the classic struggle of a insurgency, a revolutionary, a national liberation movement, you can't win on the battlefield against an army. You win politically hearts and minds. Well, Dr. Kissinger, who's now hopefully in another more fiery place actually for it rather, well actually when he was talking about Vietnam, the insurgency, the revolutionary, the National Liberation Movement, all it has to do in order to win is survive. If it survives, it wins.
(48:03)And this is absolutely true of Hamas. The Americans have gradually come to understand this. I think the Israelis still are chasing this mirage that they can destroy Hamas completely. What they're actually doing is that they're making it stronger because Hamas is able now to say to the Palestinians, look, we are the resistance. We are the people who are fighting. So for every Hamas official, you kill 10 will come and take their place, which is what, as I said, movements like this do. Didn't we see this very same thing in Afghanistan? Afghanistan in Vietnam, inconceivable place? Absolutely. Hamas is perhaps the best organized resistance movement of this nature in the world at the moment. And everything that they've done, every step that they have taken has been consistent with that strategy. And by the way, I've been in contact with people in Israel and they all tell me the same thing.
(49:12)And it goes exactly to what you said. People are afraid. Israelis are afraid. There has been, people are leaving Israel now because they are afraid. And if Hamas comes out of this intact, however bruised and bantered, it will be those people are going to remain afraid and they're get to become more afraid. And that, of course, is what this whole thing is for. Hamas has acted with calculation and intelligence. Israel and the Israeli government walked into a trap, which is fair for everyone to see. They walked into that trap, and the United States opened the gate for them to enable them to walk into it. And has now followed itself because of course, across the Middle East, there was this extraordinary comment that Lloyd Austin made just a few days ago, which he said that Israel is now facing strategic defeat. He's right. But of course, it's a strategic defeat, not just for Israel, but for the United States as well, because right across the Middle East, right across the world, the United States and Israel are seen as joined to the hip if the one loses, so does the other.
Wilmer Leon (50:46):
And in the interests that I mentioned such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria as it relates to the Golan, I didn't mention Iran, I didn't mention Yemen. There are a whole bunch of factions that will join this resistance. And I hadn't thought to ask you this, but this just comes to mind when we look at the conflict as it's existing right now. And those other factions that I've mentioned are still standing on the sideline that tells me they're standing on the sideline because contrary to Western reporting, Hamas is doing a much, much better job than the West wants to admit. And those other factions are standing on the sideline saying, this is not the time for us to get involved because this business is being handled by Hamas. Is that a fair assessment?
Alexander Mercouris (51:49):
Absolutely. I come back to this. I mean, Hamas doesn't need to defeat the Israeli army in Gaza. It knows that if you're trying to do that, it would destroy itself. And that's not what it's doing. What's doing is it's resisting. And so long as it is able to keep resisting, it is winning. Now, this is something again, people don't understand. Israel talks about conducting this operation for a year that already tells you how much resistance there is, and that resistance will grow because more
Wilmer Leon (52:19):
People enjoy. And that goes to Nala's statement a couple of weeks ago when he asked the question very clearly, how long do y'all want to do this? Because we're in it till the end. And he said, said, I don't think you all have the stomach for what you're about to get into.
Alexander Mercouris (52:42):
Well, that is absolutely correct. And of course, Israel, it's a small country. Its economy is now coming under increasing strain. Casualties are growing. There is going to be increasing problems within Israel itself the longer this goes on. And that isn't even to consider the bigger political diplomatic backlash that there is going to be if there is a year of war. So you could see that this is playing out in exactly the way that Hermas wanted, and it was predictable. It was entirely predictable. They're going to just talk about the general picture, the Hezbollah and all the rest, because I actually, now, this is my own view, and I've consistently taken the view view that these huge American military deployments to the Middle East, two aircraft carriers, one in the Persian Gulf and a higher class submarine equipped with 150 tornado, not tornado missiles, aircraft, all of these things.
(53:42)I am absolutely certain that what was the original plan back in October was to use the conflict in Gaza as an excuse to launch that long desired strike at Iran. Again, some people in America believe Iran is a much weaker, more fragile state than it actually is, and strike it, Toran and perhaps a strike it. Hezbollah. Look where the two carriers are. One is in the Eastern Mediterranean position to strike it. Hezbollah, the other is in the Persian Gulf, perfectly located to launch the strike at Iran. Again, what became obvious over the course of October, November was that the Arab and Muslim states were united in their complete opposition to this. So once again, that opposition has prevented that strike happening. And if we talk about Hezbollah and about Nasrallah, people continuously ask, why aren't they attacking Israel in a more sustained way than they are at the moment?
(55:03)Why aren't the Houthis? Why isn't Iran unleashing all its forces? The thing to understand is that that is exactly what those people who back in October in Washington decided to deploy all those huge forces to the Middle East, wanted the Israelis, sorry, the Iranians and Hezbollah and all of these places, people to do so. What has happened is that all these forces have now been moved to the Middle East. Hezbollah is still there. It's still very strong. The Houthis are still there. They're still very strong. They're able to carry out all these pinprick attacks on American basis and on American shipping. These vast fleets are located there, but because of the strength of regional opposition, they can't actually move. They're beginning to look rather eff effectual. And going back to that article by Gideon Rackman that I was talking about the start of this program, he said that there are American officials who are now stressing about the fact that two carrier task forces and large numbers of destroyers and other warships are floating around the Middle East doing nothing of any practical value and are pinned down there even as the situation in the Asia Pacific region where these warships are needed.
(56:34)If you want the conflict with China, even as the situation of the Asia Pacific region is continuing to shift in China's favor, and it's there, it's actually written out in black and white in Gideon Rahman's article, and he said all of this after speaking to US officials, so you could see yet again how a diplomatic and political strategy of playing a long game, which is what Putin did in Ukraine as we discussed earlier, how that works to your advantage, rushing in attacking Israel in this case, launching strikes against American positions, starting a regional war right away would've played into the hands of the hardliners in Washington and in Israel. Taking time on the contrary slowly shifts the balance in your favor,
Wilmer Leon (57:34):
And you mentioned time in what's important I think for Americans to understand is whether you're talking about Russia, whether you're talking about Arab states, whether you're talking about China, they have a different concept of time because their cultures are much older than the United States has been in existence. We're talking thousands of years of history that they understand, hence the adage, you have the watches, but we have the time. And President Putin, when Biden announced that the Gerald Ford aircraft carrier group was on its way to the Mediterranean, Putin said, why are you doing that? He said, you're not scaring anybody. These people don't scare. So let's move because we have just a few minutes left. Let's move to the discussion of China because I'm trying to figure out who in Taiwan hasn't been paying attention to what's happened in Ukraine and why would the Taiwanese government want to become Ukraine part two?
Alexander Mercouris (58:47):
Right. Well, I think the first thing to understand is that there are elections in Taiwan, and there've been elections in Ukraine and both in Ukraine. There were lots and lots of people who were very worried about the situation and didn't really want to see a certain political leadership aligned with the West take power. And I'm sure the same is true in Taiwan. We must be much more skeptical. I mean, I'm sorry to say this, but it's a fact about the outcome of elections. Elections in these kind of countries don't necessarily reflect the feelings and ideas and thoughts and motives and intentions of the people in these countries. They are much more attuned to what people in Washington want to see the outcome that people in Washington want to see. If we're talking about Taiwan, I'm not saying that the elections there are be straightforwardly rigged, but you're going to have the media in Taiwan promoting a certain view. You're going to see splits within the opposition parties, and that apparently has happened. You're going to see all kinds of problems like that start to build up. And of course, that opens the way for a party like the one that we're seeing in Taiwan win the
Wilmer Leon (01:00:03):
Election. We're now seeing opposition parties in Taiwan being investigated, lawsuits being filed against them as they are trying to coalesce in order to go against Drawn a blank on her name, the current prime minister, president of Taiwan, but Joe Biden met with President Xi in San Francisco, and during the press conference, president Biden talks about, oh, we had a great conversation and blah, blah, and then he turns around and calls GA dictator. This makes absolute, why do you want to try to pick a fight with China in China's front yard? I was saying that Ukraine is Russia's backyard, Taiwan and the South China Sea, that's China's front yard and just like Russia, China, hypersonic missiles, those aircraft carriers groups that the United States wants to send to the region, those are nothing but targets.
Alexander Mercouris (01:01:12):
Absolutely. This is entirely correct. I mean, it is at fundamental levels irrational. I think this is something we need to say. I mean, American policy in Ukraine is misconceived. American policy in the Middle East is misconceived also, but American policy towards China, towards Taiwan
Wilmer Leon (01:01:31):
Is
Alexander Mercouris (01:01:32):
Insane's insane. It's completely rational. Unfortunately, there also seems to be an enormous bipartisan support for it. Now, I'm just going to just, if I may just speak briefly about the San Francisco Sam, because the Chinese were very reluctant to go, Xi Jinping didn't want to go. Xi Jinping had basically lost all trust and confidence in Biden at the start of this year over the balloon incident. The relationship between the two was rocky. We have a Chinese readout from one of their earlier meetings in which Xi Jinping all but called Biden a liar to his face. That readout really ought to be better known than it is, but eventually the Americans persuaded si shing to come. So why did he do it? I think it's extremely straightforward. The Chinese use the San Francisco Summit as a device to demonstrate their power. They got the Americans to agree to all of the conditions they set for the summit meeting.
(01:02:44)They wanted the streets of San Francisco cleaned up. They wanted people to come up with the red flags, not protestors. And of course, straight after the meeting with Biden, which achieved nothing, by the way, that's an important thing to say. And nothing of substance was agreed over the course of it straight after. What does Xi Jinping do? He goes to a hotel in San Francisco and all the leaders of the American business community there, Tim Cook of Apple, Elon Musk, all of them, they're all there, bill Gates, and they give Si Jinping a standing ovation
Wilmer Leon (01:03:22):
Because they're doing business in China. Your iPhone, the batteries for your Tesla, they're doing business with China.
Alexander Mercouris (01:03:33):
China, exactly. And that was what the Chinese, in their subtle way were wanting to demonstrate. They were trying to show to the Americans, to the American political leadership, to the people in Washington. Look, we are far more strong, far more powerful than you seem to understand even in your own country. When our leader comes, he's able to change the landscape around him, and that was what the Chinese were trying to do. I have to say this. I think that there is this very sane demonstration of power that the Chinese made in San Francisco is going to inflame some people in Washington even more for them. The very concept of a country that is equal and equivalent to the United States in power and which is exceeding the United States in some form of power is against nature. It is so abhorrent that they have to find some way of reversing it.
(01:04:55)They've tried to reverse it by imposing economic blockades and technology blockades on China. The Chinese are finding work rounds in terms of the economic pressures. They've demonstrated their economic prowess by developing a super chip in just a few weeks, which the Americans thought it would take them 10 or 20 years to do. Unfortunately, what that means is that in this condition of anger and fear that the United States is losing, its supposedly ordained place that is going to make more people reach for the military auction, which is all that they realistically have. In other words, if you feel you're going down, you become more desperate,
Wilmer Leon (01:05:46):
Which they realistically don't have because Washington is about, what, 7,000 miles from Beijing? What makes the United States, just from a sheer logistical perspective, I understand the United States has bases all over the world. Japan, I got all that, but you're still basically fighting a 7,000 mile war in China's backyard. And it's not, if this breaks out, it's not just China. It's China and Russia, it's China and North Korea, it's Russia and North Korea. You can bring South Korea into the fight if you want to. I think North Korea will handle that. You can bring Japan into the conflict if you want to. I think North Korea, as I say on the street, we'll let North Korea handle the light work, and it makes absolutely no sense. Connect these three dots and we'll get out.
Alexander Mercouris (01:06:51):
Well, this is absolutely correct, but it comes back to this extraordinary degree of overconfidence that Americans have, which we've seen in Ukraine. I mean, this idea that this offensive that the Americans were planning in Ukraine last summer would succeed this utter underestimation of Russian military capabilities.
Wilmer Leon (01:07:12):
Wait, let me just quickly jump in, and I think you know this better than I do. When the United States engages in war game simulations against Russia, it loses when the United States engages in war game simulation against China. It loses every single time. Their systems are telling them. The systems are telling the Pentagon you can't win the fight.
Alexander Mercouris (01:07:48):
Absolutely true, but they ignore those stipulations. That's the trouble, because this is exactly,
Wilmer Leon (01:07:55):
Don't confuse me with the facts. Please confuse me with the facts.
Alexander Mercouris (01:08:00):
This is exactly what happened with the Ukrainian offensive, the Washington Post article goes all kinds of detail because of course, they then change the war games. They factor in all kinds of assumptions that they make about the other side, and that enables them eventually to come out with the answer that they will win, and they do this send of the Chinese, I've been reading article after article in the American media, now the American military media, which is a strange place by the way, but about how actually the Chinese militaries of paper tiger, the Chinese weapons systems don't really work. The Chinese soldiers are inexperienced. They've never really known war until now that Chinese generals are incompetent and corrupt. So all we have to do is just go in and fight them, and we will show to the Chinese what's what, and we will win. And that's exactly what they did in Ukraine this year, and that's what they think they're going to do with China.
(01:09:07)Now, anybody with any knowledge of Chinese history, including Chinese military history, we'll know what an absurd view that is. And of course, the last time, in fact, the only time the United States has actually fought China, which is in Korea, the outcome was very different. The United States managed to escape disaster by the skin of its teeth, but don't let facts get in the way of all kinds of confident assumptions. And as for history, well Americans just don't do that to my, at least political leaders don't do that. No. If you go around in Washington today and say to them, well, what lessons do you think the United States should take from the Korean War and from frightening the Chinese? And by the way, the North Koreans there, well, most of them don't even know about it. So I mean, that's the fundamental problem.
Wilmer Leon (01:10:08):
Americans need to read Sun Zu, the Art of War if they want to play the Chinese cheap, because a lot of those strategies are still applicable and making an incredible amount of sense. Alexander Mercurius from the Duran, thank you so much for joining me today. I greatly, greatly appreciate it.
Alexander Mercouris (01:10:30):
My great pleasure. Let's do this again,
Wilmer Leon (01:10:32):
Folks. Thank you so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Wilmer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share my show, follow me on social media. You'll find all the links below in the show description. And remember, this is where analysis of politics, culture, and history converge because talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a great one. Peace and blessings. I'm out

Misunderstanding History, from WW2 to Ukraine and Russia

Find me and the show on social media by searching the handle @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube.
Our Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd
All our episodes can be found at CTDpodcast.com.
TRANSCRIPT:
Dr. Wilmer Leon (00:14):
Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I am Wilmer Leon. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historical context in which most events take place. During each episode, my guests and I will have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between current events and the broader historical context in which these events occur. This will enable you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live on today's episode. The question before us is what has happened to academic freedom and free speech? For example, there's an article in the Manitoban, the student newspaper of the University of Manitoba Canada, and it's entitled you of Manitoba, professor Soft on Putin, an Alumnus, thoughts on a Professor's Interactions with President Putin. My guest is a professor in the Department of Political Studies and Director of the Geopolitical Economy Research Group at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg Canada. She's an author of numerous books, and she's the subject of this article. She's Dr. Rodika Desai. Dr. Desai, welcome to the show, and let's connect some dots.
Dr. Radhika Desai (01:44):
Absolutely. Wilma, let's get going.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (01:46):
So you and your husband attended the Valdi Discussion Club and all expenses paid trip to Sochi Russia. You went earlier this month and this forum, the Valdi Forum, is billed as a wide ranging conference about international issues. Russian President Putin speaks at the conference every year. Now, as a result of your attending this revered and respected international conference, you and your husband have come under attack. So if you would please, first let's explain to the audience what is the VALDI Conference?
Dr. Radhika Desai (02:25):
So the Valdi Club is called the Valdi Discussion Club, and as its name indicates, every year, well, first of all, it holds discussions of course, throughout the year. It has a very good website with some leading commentators from around the world posting analysis of what's going on in the world, in the world economy, in world politics, et cetera. And then every year it has an annual conference to which it's an invitation only event. And of course the press is there as well. And every year they essentially analyze the world context in which the fast changing world context, shall we say, it's been going for 20 years. Indeed, the last conference we went to was the 20th Anniversary conference. A couple of other things about it that are important is that firstly, because Russia has been, if you think about the last 20 years from 2004 onwards, Russia has really been sort of in the eye of the storm that is changing the world so quickly and so rapidly, particularly over the last few years.
(03:28)So that conference is actually a very fascinating conference to be at because people from, as I say all over the world, experts and academics, and even people, former diplomats, et cetera, all these sorts of people who really know what's going on attend the Wildlife Conference. So these conversations are absolutely fascinating. And second, the second thing I wanted to say is that of course the organization was set up by a few academics. As you say, president Putin always speaks at it. And in a certain sense, it will be interesting to think of it as the Russian equivalent of, for example, the Council of Foreign Relations in the United States or the Royal Institute of International Affairs, otherwise known as Chatham House in the United Kingdom.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (04:17):
And so you and your husband attended the conference and you even were able to submit a, well, you and your husband were able to submit a question to President Putin. And one of the things that for me is utterly amazing is he takes all comers, the questions aren't really screened. You're able to ask him anything that's relevant to world events, and he will at times speak for two and three hours just openly engaging with the press. Absolutely. I can't imagine Joe Biden, I can't imagine Barack Obama, bill Clinton. I could see doing it, but because it's so, it's structured but unstructured.
Dr. Radhika Desai (05:12):
Yeah, I mean, you are absolutely right about that. And I think the fact that we have political leaders who can barely read a teleprompter, let alone talk for four hours to essentially unscripted questions. This is really quite interesting. But anyway, to get to the point, president Putin, I've asked questions before. So I remember earlier in a 2014 Valdi Club conference when I had a previous possibility of asking a question, it was completely unscripted. And I had asked him about his economic policies for Russia and why he wasn't being, shall we say, more developmental in his policies. In one of my criticisms of President Putin would be that his economic policies remain a bit too neoliberal even today. I mean, of course they've become much more developmental than they were in 2014, but that's a small point. But anyway, this time around
Dr. Wilmer Leon (06:05):
Minute, it's important I think for people to realize that not only is Vladimir Putin and attorney, he has a PhD in economics.
Dr. Radhika Desai (06:17):
Yes.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (06:18):
A lot of people don't know that.
Dr. Radhika Desai (06:21):
True. Exactly. And as I say, I mean, in fact, I have a very good friend of mine pointed this out to me years ago that Putin is one of the few people who can simply give speeches that are really interesting, historically informed as he did this time around, and then engage with the audience on unscripted questions, giving a wealth of information and detail about what his government is doing. So it is really quite interesting. But anyway, this time around in more recent years, we have been asked to submit questions. So I submitted a question last year, but I wasn't called upon to ask my question, but this year I was called upon, and the question, I actually hadn't submitted a question when we set off, but then the Canadian Parliament engaged in the most astonishing act, essentially the Canadian Parliament on the occasion of President Vome Zelinsky visit to Canada, invited to Parliament, a man, a very old man, a 98-year-old man who was billed as a great hero veteran who had fought against the Russians. And the entire Parliament stood up and clapped. And by the next day, however, essentially the, you know what had hit the fan and the entire country was a Russian news stories about how this man was a Nazi. Now, how could such a thing happen? The fact of the matter is we have a deputy prime minister who is of Ukrainian heritage, who has a PhD in Russian and Ukrainian studies. There's absolutely no way that the Canadian government did not know that it was bringing a Nazi to Parliament. There were
Dr. Wilmer Leon (08:08):
Hoka is his name.
Dr. Radhika Desai (08:11):
Exactly. So Mr. Hunka, the Parliament, not even a single person in the hundreds of people in Parliament actually thought to ask, wait a minute, if he was fighting the Russians in the Second World War, who was he fighting with? And then it emerged that he was a member of a certain Kian division in the Waff ss. And this was actually totally a collaborationist Nazi unit which had participated in the genocide of Jews, Russians polls, and of course, Roma President Putin, in response to my question, also reminded us that an uncounted number of Roma people had also been attacked by these people and eliminated by these people. So anyway, no one in parliament had the guts to ask this question. And to me, and the whole country, of course, was shocked and really, and I felt it was really important to give President Putin a chance to have his say on this matter, because which is the country that is most wronged by this, it is Russia. Because of course, the direct target of this action was of course Russia. We were applauding Mr. Hunker because he had fought the Russias. So what better thing to do than to ask the president of that country, who by the way, is also the target of a demonization campaign in the Western media.
(09:43)It's as though Putin is some kind of a macabre, omnipotent person who runs everything in Russia. Everything that happens in Russia, and quite frankly, everything that happens abroad, which is not good, is usually attributed to Russia, which is so the point.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (09:59):
Russia, I even wonder, was he responsible for the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, and did he murder Jimmy Hoffa? I mean, he gets accused of everything.
Dr. Radhika Desai (10:11):
Of everything, exactly. And the fact is, we have to remember that if it had not been for the Russian contribution to the Second World War, if it had not been for the Russian effort, which cost Russia anywhere between 25 and 30 million lives, I mean, this is,
Dr. Wilmer Leon (10:27):
We'd all be speaking German now.
Dr. Radhika Desai (10:30):
Well, exactly. I mean, it was the critical contribution to the defeat. I mean, think about it this way. The Soviet Union rescued the capitalist west from its own, shall we say, from the very monster that it had created, namely fascism and Nazim. So in that sense, in this current war, which is essentially a proxy war, that the US is waging against Russia using Ukraine as proxies, fighting Russians, as John Muir Heimer likes to say, to the last Ukrainian in this war, all we hear in the West about Russia is of course the wall to wall propaganda that is everywhere. It's anti Putin and it's even anti-Russia. We are de platforming Dostoevsky and Tchaikovsky. I mean, this is ridiculous. And so it has gone to such an extent. And so one of our purposes in attending the conference was that we want to remain in touch.
(11:32)We have many friends in Russia. We have had long collaboration with a whole variety of Russian scholars and academics, so why shouldn't we go? And in fact, just a few days before we were to arrive in Russia, the Canadian government imposed sanctions on Russia, and we immediately got down, Valdi wrote to us saying, we have have been sanctioned by your government. If you do not come, we would understand. Please make up your mind and let us know whether you'll be coming or not. We sat down and read the sanctions law. We realized that it does not apply to attending a conference. It applies essentially to doing business with providing buying and selling goods, providing finance, et cetera, et cetera. So these were the sorts of activities to which it applies. Anyway, so we decided to go and we went. And so essentially, I am being pilloried, we are being pilled foregoing at all.
(12:29)And for asking this question, which according to the media gave, it was a sort of softball question to Putin, which allowed him to essentially talk about how ridiculous Canada had been. This was called by some people who are, of course, we can talk about who these people are as well, but they're highly politically motivated, and this was called morally reprehensible. I ask you, what is morally reprehensible for 400 plus people who are the elected representatives of the nation who have the, shall we say, the honor and dignity of the nation to maintain, to indulge in and act like this, and to applaud Mr. Somebody like Mr. Hunker, or is it reprehensible to ask the president of the country, which is already the target of so much attack, giving him a chance to say something meaningful about how bad Canada Canada's leaders have been? Essentially the entire political class in Canada, in a single act discredited itself. I mean, this is how bad things have got.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (13:36):
And as a result of this, your prime minister, Justin Trudeau, apologized profusely called the honoring of Mr. Hunka in your parliament, a joint session of Parliament as an accident. But here's what I find to be really, really confusing, is Zelensky was there, and Hunka was brought in as a kind of a tangential honoring of Zelensky. And what we know very clearly, even though many in Western mainstream media don't want to discuss this, is that with organizations like the Wright sector and the as Ofv Battalion in Ukraine, that there are Nazis many call, but they ain't nothing neo about 'em. They are Nazis who honor the late Stefan Bandera, who was a just brutal, horrific war criminal. And so all of this was orchestrated as a way to pay homage to Zelensky and then pay homage to the Nazis that the United States is paying training and organizing with in Ukraine. Now, is that rhetoric on my part or is that supported by the data?
Dr. Radhika Desai (15:09):
Absolutely supported by the data. I mean, and by the way, it's not just the United States, the Canada, and the Oh yeah, absolutely are also contributing to the training and equipping of this army, of which Nazis are such an important and big part. In fact, I would say they're the kind of cutting edge of the army. So absolutely this is the point. But the other thing that occurs to me when you were sort of reeling out all these facts is that we are often told when we point out that there are Nazis, Ukraine has a Nazi problem, we are told, oh, well, of course Ukraine has no Nazi problem because President Zelensky is Jewish,
Dr. Wilmer Leon (15:47):
A Jewish. So here
Dr. Radhika Desai (15:47):
You are, you want to respect this Jewish gentleman who is, and you bring a Nazi and applaud him in front of this guy. What kind of a ridiculous thing it is. Wilma, I think many people, of course, prime Minister Trudeau said, oh, it was a regrettable mistake. It was a tragic accident, et cetera. There was nothing accidental about it. The fact of the matter is that nobody gets into Parliament without being vetted. The people would've known there's an entire process of vetting, and even if there was no process of vetting, the fact of the matter is that our Deputy Prime Minister, Christia Freeland, is not only of Ukrainian origin in Canada, her ancestors have been the beneficiaries of laws that explicitly encouraged Nazis to immigrate to Canada in the post-second World War period at a time when it was difficult for Jews to immigrate to Canada.
(16:50)Jews who had been fleeing what remained of the Jews in Europe who were fleeing Europe at the time, even they were not welcome in Canada, but the Nazis were welcome. And what's more Christia Freeland, she is the granddaughter of one of these people. Now, nobody can help who our parents and grandparents are. I mean, that's not her fault. But what she has done is she has consistently maintained that she's very proud of her grandfather. She believes he's a great hero, even though it has been revealed that he too was a close follower of Bandera, was working very closely with them. All this stuff has come out in the newspapers, and it has simply the mainstream press after one or two stories are published, they completely sort of forget about it. And Christia Freeland also has a PhD in Russian and Slavic studies. She speaks Russian, she speaks Ukrainian. She speaks many other European languages, absolutely no way. She did not know that Mr. Hunker was, this person was essentially a Nazi. So the idea that it was a mistake that only the speaker has to resign, and then everything is fine. This is completely ridiculous.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (18:12):
What, if anything, does this say to you about the broader issue or context of white supremacy? And what I mean by that is when I was in high school and learning history, oh, the Nazis were evil, Hitler was evil. All of that is true, and Hitler was vilified. The Nazis are vilified, and oh, the one thing you don't want to be called other than anti-Semitic, you don't want to be called a Nazi. But what we find out now is the United States worked with them in World War ii, the United States insured Safe Passage, and I say United States, and also in that is United States allies insured safe passage of a lot of Nazis to the United States, to Canada, to South America. So one, then I think this only begs the question was or was the conflict, or is the conflict not so much ideological, but procedural? Oh, because does that make sense? I think you got my question.
Dr. Radhika Desai (19:32):
Yeah. I mean, I think that of course, during the, first of all, in order to understand the second World War, you have to see in a certain sense, the first World War and the second World War as a single conflict, it was a single inter imperialist conflict. So in that sense, the First World War, everybody recognizes that it was an inter imperialist conflict in which although Western countries, the Anglo-American part of the west continues to maintain the silly idea of German guilt. In reality, all the imperialist powers, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, everybody included, were all equally complicit in the outbreak of the First World War. So there was this conflict, and then after it ended the versa, so-called Versailles settlement actually settled very little. It simply laid the foundations of the causes that would lead to the Second World War, because as I say, it settled very little.
(20:35)So in that sense, the second World War also has to be seen as an inter imperialist conflict with one big difference. And that is that the Soviet Union and also Chinese forces, communists, but also nationalists, but mostly communists, these forces were the ones who were able to turn the tide and save the liberal west. I put this in quotes because, but in name, at least these were the liberal west as against the fascist west, and they were able to save the liberal west from the fascist west. But of course, contrary to the notion that somehow fascism and communism are closely connected, in fact, fascism is the progeny of capitalism. Many would say that once you get to the monopoly stage of capitalism, which we were at basically in the early 20th century, already fascism is inherent in the system. It is a permanent temptation, a permanent possibility. And it is not surprising by the way, that today we are seeing the resurgence of fascist forces. And this resurgence is also facilitated by something else you alluded to, which is that, so we fought the Nazis in the Second World War, but you know that before the onset of the Second World War, many major world leaders were sympathetic to the Nazis. Many major western leaders were sympathetic to the Nazis, to the fascists in Italy and so on. George
Dr. Wilmer Leon (22:06):
Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazis in World War ii.
Dr. Radhika Desai (22:11):
Very interesting, very interesting. I didn't know that. But yes, or people like Churchill and so on, they were secretly or openly the royal family for that matter, everything. So I mean this already then of course, there was this terrible war and the discovery of the Holocaust and all of these things, but even thereafter, in order to preserve capitalism, in order to ensure that the enormous sympathy that communism in general and the Soviet Union in particular had among the masses of Europe, would be pushed back essentially the West Connived in keeping many fascists in power in countries like Germany, Italy, and elsewhere. So in that sense, there was already this collaboration. And since that time, I mean, the fact of the matter is that, take for instance, something very recent, the Bernie Sanders Trump thing, Sanders campaign as a left-wing politician, he was absolutely not allowed to come anywhere near power. I mean, not within sniffing distance of power, but the election of Trump could be tolerated.
(23:27)And so we see that fascist temptation is always there, and it is, the bias of the system is so much to the right. And today we are in this absolutely awful situation in which we have completely useless leadership, but the only opposition to this completely useless leadership that western countries have comes from the right because the left over the last so many decades has been completely beaten down. You began this conversation by asking about academic freedom and freedom of speech and what is happening. I should say, by the way, for the record, that my university has maintained the academic freedom stance, and I'm glad that is so that's very good. However, the fact that you can be pilled on Twitter and by personal emails that I'm sent on Facebook, et cetera, for essentially doing something very simple like putting a question in a conference, this kind of behavior, this kind of cancel culture that exists, this is essentially, you can say it is the verbal version of the sort of vigilante action which is associated with fascism. There's absolutely no doubt about it.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (24:47):
In this article that I referenced in the Open an Alumnus thoughts on professors' interactions with Russian President, I'm going to read a bit of it. I'm an alumnus of the Department of Political Studies, and I am a former student of Professor Desai. I cannot say that I aligned with all of her positions at the time, but after finding out that she had spent part of last week shilling for War Mongerer Putin, I found her actions to be particularly disgusting. The student continues, former student continues, A discussion club may seem like a noble endeavor in a free and democratic society. However, in Putin's Russia, public discourse is manipulated and dissenters are repressed and punished. I would be shocked if this Valdi forum was anything more than premeditated theater for Putin to stoke his own ego. Couple of things. One, if this was a former student of yours, this individual obviously didn't spend a lot of time paying attention in class.
(25:52)That's the first point. And this idea that in Putin's Russia public discourse is manipulated, I would ask the individual that wrote this, if they know anything about Julian Assange and what the United States is doing, what Joe Biden is trying to do to Julian Assange, then this idea that public discourse is manipulated. This individual obviously knows nothing about what Tony Blinken did before he became Secretary of State trying to kill the story of Joe Biden's son Hunter and the Hunter Biden laptop story. So all of this is subterfuge and rhetoric, but this is just one example. There are what, five or six articles that have been written against you. Speak to that, please.
Dr. Radhika Desai (26:48):
Yeah, I mean, first of all, let me just say that this idea that there is no freedom of speech in Russia, and for that matter in China, I often encounter this because as it happens, I have a very big range of academic connections, both in Russia and China. And I visit these countries regularly for conferences and so on. And what I found is very ironic, but the actual spectrum of opinion in both of these countries in Russia and China is actually much broader. In all of these countries, you have sort of open expression of neoliberal positions on the one hand on the right, and then socialist positions on the other. And everything in between is at least expressed. Whereas what we find here is that there is a systematic suppression by the mainstream media of anything but a set of views within a fairly narrow spectrum of opinion.
(27:47)And people like the author of this article, some of the authors of the reporters and others who have written other articles who have been participating in an attempt to create a Twitter storm against me, which hasn't been very successful. But nevertheless, the attempt is made. What these people do is they're sort of what I call the ankle biting little yappy dogs of the authorities who kind of try to do some of the little work for the authorities. So that's what they're trying to do. Now, I do want to say one or two other things about it. There is no doubt that there is a certain amount of censorship in Russia. For example, my very good friend Boris Kaki, who is one of the contacts, he's a very fine scholar, a very prominent historian, sociologist of Russia. He's also a political activist. He has run for parliament.
(28:37)He works actively for essentially trying to promote some sort of socialism in Russia. Now, as it happens, he is deeply opposed to this war. I mean, I'm opposed to any war as well. I don't think it's a very good way of settling things. But by not entirely agreeing with Boris, I think that I understand his position. Anyway, Boris has essentially been jailed by some part of the state apparatus for essentially allegedly AB betting terrorism. I can't believe that. And few people who have been pillaring me for asking Putin this question about what happened in the Canadian parliament mentioned the fact that I had actually two things to ask President Putin. The first was about this matter that we've already discussed about the Canadian Parliament, and the second was a personal appeal that he himself look into the matter of Boris Kaki, along with some friends.
(29:37)We delivered a letter to him, in which we also pointed out that there was absolutely nothing to be gained by doing this in any case. So my point is that there is a certain amount of censorship in these countries, but as you rightly point out, such censorship also exists in our country. Look at what we are doing to Julian Assange or Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning or a whole range of other academics who've actually lost their positions for the views they've expressed and so on. So I mean, this sort of persecution is going on all the time, but in the West, we don't just have this censorship of what I call the censorship of sticks. We also have the censorship of carrots. And what do I mean by that? Essentially, the entire media world and the academic world is manipulated by essentially giving out everybody, making it known that if you repeat what we want you to repeat, you will get a good job.
(30:36)You will get promotion, you will get grants, you will get preferment, you'll get tenure, tenure. You'll get to hold the, that is the media. So all of these things are available provided you do certain things. And a lot of people, too many people, I would say most people in academia tend to fall for some version of this. I don't say all because there are still independent voices in academia and more power to them and more power to us. But nevertheless, too many people fall for this because it's just so easy and it's so convenient. So anyway, the point is that both of these forms of censorship exists, and what they have done is they have narrowed the spectrum of opinion.
(31:21)And this is a very serious problem because the West is now part of the reason why nobody said anything in Parliament is because also in parliament where our leaders, our elected representatives are supposed to speak their mind, to represent the ordinary people. They are essentially not doing their job. So our political systems are broken. As a result, we desperately need to widen the spectrum of opinion to have more voices speaking out. This is key. Now, I think if we continue, because it's also fueling the wars that our countries are promoting around the world. Now we have, until recently we had Ukraine. Now we also have Israel Gaza, which is getting to be exceedingly dangerous. And tomorrow, by the way, we might have one with China.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (32:10):
And to your point about censorship and what's going on in Gaza, and to your student that talks about suppression in Russia, university of California, Berkeley law professor Stephen Davidoff Solomon called out some of his students for supporting anti-Semitic conduct on campus. What this law professor did was wrote a open letter to the law firms that he is in touch with telling them not to hire certain of his students who have proven to be pro-Palestinian. Quote, my students are largely engaged and well-prepared, and I regularly recommend them to legal employers. But if you don't want to hire people who advocate hate and practice discrimination, don't hire some of my students. anti-Semitic conduct is nothing new on university campuses, including here at Berkeley. That's just one example of the stifling pressure that academics are imposing upon their own students. We know what happened at Harvard, thank God the president of Harvard, I think her last name is professor President Gay, did not succumb to the requests and the pressure to turn over the names of Harvard students that were protesting in support of Palestine. I believe the same thing has happened at Columbia University. So these are just examples, real clear examples of how stifling the pressure can be in the United States.
Dr. Radhika Desai (33:59):
Absolutely. And when you do that with students, it's a bit like get them young, so that sort of slap them into shape before they get into bad habits sort of thing, according to the authorities. But this sort of thing is going on around the world in the uk. They're trying to ban the Palestinian flag and trying to essentially, they're persecuting people for going to pro-Palestinian demonstrations. But you know what? Wilmuth around the world, what we are seeing, especially in the Western world, is that the Western world's leaderships, which are all repeating the same mantra of Israel, has the right to defend itself completely ignoring the context, et cetera, the historical context and everything. They are completely out of touch with the vast majority of the people.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (34:51):
And they're ignoring international law.
Dr. Radhika Desai (34:55):
Indeed. And they, in fact, absolutely, they keep saying that they should abide by international law. But the fact of the matter is Israel is not abiding by international law. It has already declared that it is at war, but at the same time, it is essentially by corralling all the people of Gaza into Gaza, not allowing them to leave, depriving them of water, electricity, sanitation, bombing hospitals killing children over 2000 of them already. This is completely against international law and
Dr. Wilmer Leon (35:33):
It, it's called collective punishment. And collective punishment is a war crime. Now, I don't think you're making that up. I know I'm not making that up. If you pay any attention to the International criminal court, if you know anything about, and this conversation is not anti-Semitic Pro, international law and collective punishment is a war crime.
Dr. Radhika Desai (36:06):
Absolutely. And it is. It is also pro justice. I mean, at the end of the day, what these people
Dr. Wilmer Leon (36:11):
And pro morality
Dr. Radhika Desai (36:14):
And promo, they decontextualize, everything Hamas, everything begins in this discussion of the West today. Everything begins from the 7th of October when Hamas attacked Israelis and killed many of them and so on. But the fact that Palestinians have been living, Palestinians have had their land occupied since 1948 and before 1948, this is completely forgotten the fact that Palestinians have been displaced, that the Palestinians have the right to resist, and they have the right to self-determination. All of these things are completely swept under the carpet. It's really shocking. And this is entirely a result of the fact that the spectrum of opinion has been narrowed. The forms of censorship that I pointed out earlier operate both in media and in scholarship, so that more and more we are hearing either completely irrelevant things or things that are only repeating what the authorities want repeated.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (37:17):
And let me give an example of that. President Obama published an op-ed thoughts on Israel and Gaza, and I'm going to read the three opening paragraphs. It's been 17 days since Hamas launched its horrific attack against Israel, killing over 1400 Israeli citizens, including defenseless women, children, and the elderly. In the aftermath of such unspeakable brutality, the US government and the American people have shared in the grief of families, prayed for the return of loved ones and rightly declared solidarity with the Israeli people. As I stated in an earlier post, Israel has a right to defend its citizens against such wanton violence. And I fully support President Biden's call for the US to support our longtime ally in going after Hamas, dismantling its military capabilities and facilitating the safe return of hundreds of hostages. But even as we support Israel, we should also be clear how Israel prosecutes this fight against Hamas matters. In particular, it matters as President Biden has repeatedly emphasized that Israel's military strategy abides by international law, including those laws that seek to avoid to every extent possible, the death or suffering of civilian populations. I just wanted to read the opening here because this is really where I formulated the earlier question to you about white supremacy. And this being not a matter of ideology, but a matter of strategy. Because what I take away, there are a number of fallacies in what Obama wrote, but what I take away in that last paragraph is Obama saying this slaughter, slaughter Hamas, as you want to just be a little nicer in how you go about doing it,
Dr. Radhika Desai (39:13):
But it gets worse than that Wilma, because the very next paragraph. So it says all of these things that we should try to avoid as much as possible, not try to avoid, only try to avoid as much as possible, which is already a big qualifier. But then, or
Dr. Wilmer Leon (39:29):
Don't do it because you're violating international law.
Dr. Radhika Desai (39:33):
That's right. Yeah. How about that? He already is giving Israel a free pass there, but then he says, this is an enormously difficult task, so trying to minimize the suffering of the civilian population is already too difficult, so it may not be possible to minimize it anyway. And then he says, the United States has fallen short of this high values when we are engaged in war. And then he says, it is understandable that Israelis have demanded that their governments do whatever it takes to root out Hamas. And then he repeats the, oh my God, if I hear it one more time, my head will explode. They are using civilians as human shields. So he repeats this old trope that the Israeli government sources never fail to repeat. And so the thing is that this whole thing is really a gift. He's doing nothing. He seems to be calling for sympathy for Palestinians and so on, but Israel has rights.
(40:39)Palestinians only have our sympathies. And there is a big difference. Sympathies is, at the end of the day, an empty sentiment, especially if it is not backed up with action, of real support, of real solidarity, of a real, even-handed attempt to try to, I mean, the whole thing is, I talked about the earlier history, the fact that Palestinians have, have had that land occupy for decades. So all of these things are true. And throughout this time, the United States has always intervened in this situation in a way that is heavily loaded in favor of Israel while trying as best as possible to make a show of even handedness. The fact of the matter is that this article by Obama, which completely supports the Biden administration, essentially is just repeating what the Biden administration is doing, and it is simply showing the pronounced US bias in favor of Israel. And he says at one point he says that we should try to minimize civilian casualties because it'll otherwise alienate the people of the world. The fact of the matter, it's
Dr. Wilmer Leon (41:58):
Bad for business
Dr. Radhika Desai (42:01):
And it's bad for business. But also the fact is that at this rate, there will, and he says that there will not be enough actors in the region who support Israel's right to exist and also support the Palestinians will not be able to broker a deal. But at the rate at which Israel is going and the way in which the United States is completely behind Israel, there will be very few actors in the region who will continue to recognize Israel's right to exist because the street will not allow them, the ordinary people. I already read in today's newspaper a report that the Tunisian parliament is going to outlaw any kind of normalization of relations with Israel, and also essentially prevented citizens from engaging in any kind of contact with Israelis. So this is already one of the reactions. And I would say that if as the collective punishment of Gaza continues, as children continue to be killed in Gaza, the whole world is going to turn against Israel. It's not good for Israel, actually, for the way in which this is unfolding.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (43:14):
Libya, I believe, has taken a similar action as Tunisia is taking. And we know that based upon the Abraham Accords that the United States was trying to broker reproach monk between Saudi Arabia and the Zionist colony of Israel, and that as a result of Hamas' action, the Saudis have put that whole thing on hold because to your point, they see what's happening in the street and they don't want to be overthrown following the United States down this rabbit hole. And they see what's happened in Ukraine. They see what the United States is doing relative to Taiwan, and they see that's a formula for World War iii.
Dr. Radhika Desai (44:10):
Absolutely. And I just like to add one other thing. I mentioned street. You mentioned street. The fact what we know is that you, many, many of the governments of the Middle East, including Arab countries, would have been happy to compromise with Israel. But what has held them back, what has kept the Palestinian cause on the front burner throughout all this time is popular protest and P, we talk about how the Arab Street has been essentially the defender of the Palestinian cause, the people who have essentially not allowed it to be snuffed out. But today, I would say that people in the West are also fed up with this one sided support. I mean, I'm reading in the papers not only about big demonstrations in the capitals and big cities of Middle Eastern countries, but throughout Europe as well, and also in North America. I mean, you folks, you've had huge demonstrations in your big cities in the United States. We've had big demonstrations. London apparently had a demonstration that was 300,000 strong, which is the biggest demonstration of its sort since the 2003 February, 2003 demonstrations against the Iraq War, which were historic, as you will remember.
(45:30)And already, it's such an irony because Kier has become the leader of the Labor Party precisely on the antisemitism bandwagon where anybody who supports Palestine is essentially branded as Antisemite. Kier and his gang have essentially participated in a process of pushing out Jeremy Cobin as the leader of the Labor Party on these completely flimsy grounds. But today, STAMA is facing a revolt from within his own party because he, like all the other Western leaders, is essentially backing the US position and the Israel position. Without question. I mean, people are saying, look, folks, there's got to be a ceasefire. There's got to be a negotiated settlement. Anybody with a small amount of knowledge of the Palestinian Israeli situation can easily see that, but the leaders cannot, and they are really getting say, completely unstuck from the people who support they will need come the next election.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (46:40):
The title of the show is Connecting the Dots. Is it hyperbolic for me to look at, again, Ukraine, look at what the United States is trying to do with Taiwan, and look at how now the United States is involved in this conflict in Palestine and see similar traits. And I'm just using the three most recent events. I don't have to go too far back in history. I can talk about Afghanistan, I can talk about Iraq, but just looking at where we are right now, again, Ukraine, Taiwan, Juan, and Palestine. Am I wrong to connect those dots?
Dr. Radhika Desai (47:24):
Absolutely. No. And you know what? All three of them are interesting proxy wars. And by the way, the United States has developed the idea or developed the practice of proxy wars into a fine art because the United States used Islamic fundamentalists to fight Russia in Afghanistan, for example, and other such. There have been many such ways in which they have done so in the present context. Yes. So the United States,
Dr. Wilmer Leon (47:53):
The United States is doing that in Congo right now.
Dr. Radhika Desai (47:56):
Yes, exactly.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (47:57):
Doing the same thing in
Dr. Radhika Desai (47:57):
Congo. The United States is fighting Russia via using Ukrainians. The United States hopes one day to fight China using the Taiwanese. And today, think about this, what is probably given the possibility that if Israel stages a land invasion of Gaza today, it may be very difficult for Iran to stay uninvolved. And Iran has been the consistent defender of Palestinian rights throughout this period. Really an important and interesting point now in this context, then what will happen, the United States will use Israelis to fight Iran. And so again, as I like to say, everyone who's in our countries in the US and Canada who's saying we are standing up for Ukraine, et cetera, et cetera, they are the ones contributing to the destruction of Ukraine. And it may ironically be the case that everyone who will say we stand up for Israel's rights to exist, et cetera, et cetera, and to defend itself, will essentially be contributing to the destruction of Israel. So there may be one of the biggest ironies of all,
Dr. Wilmer Leon (49:08):
You mentioned people standing up and saying that they're trying to prevent the destruction of Ukraine, but what they are also supporting in that is a destruction of the United States. Because when you look at the budget, when you, I think very recently, or Joe Biden's now trying to get another 125 billion to be sent to Ukraine, and people need to understand what this money is doing. The United States is paying the salaries of Ukrainian civil servants. The United States is paying for the pensions of Ukrainian civil servants when the UAW is on strike in the United States trying to get pensions restored in the United States. All of this under the pretext of democracy and defending democracy, when it was the United States in 2014 with the Maidan coup that went in and overthrew the democratically elected jankovich government in Ukraine, which was the precipitant to where we are today, the hypocrisy in all of this is nauseating.
Dr. Radhika Desai (50:28):
And also when they say, I mean anybody knows when the United States says that it's defending human rights and democracy, what it's really doing is first of all, it's using usually some sections of the middle class as essentially the protesters who will protest against the government that the United States does not like, et cetera. So they're again using them as instruments and appealing to their liberal principles, et cetera. But more to the point that the kinds of rights and freedoms the United States wants to see realized in all the other countries of the world are those rights and those freedoms of US corporations to go there and do as they please engage in whatever economic activity that they want to, and all sorts of exploitative activities that they want to get into. So that's what the defense of human freedom and human rights actually amounts to. Anyway. And then on top of that, the irony is that the United States requires all its partner countries. Whoever wants anything from the United States must enact neoliberal policies. What are neoliberal policies? They're precisely the policies that make democracy impossible, because in a capitalist society, you cannot have anything like a functioning democracy without making some substantial material concessions in the form of good wages, good welfare states, et cetera, to the ordinary people. But this is precisely what is made impossible. So what is there for ordinary people to vote for?
Dr. Wilmer Leon (52:05):
And that's a great, great point. And there's something else I think from a societal and a cultural perspective that needs to be taken into account here. And that is the United States, and this has been a stated objective since this whole Ukraine conflict started. The United States wants to engage in regime change in Russia. They want to get rid of Vladimir Putin. But I've seen independent polls, and what I mean independent, I mean from Princeton University and other US Ivy League institutions that say over 86% of Russian people support their government. I've seen independent polls from, again, American institutions, 96% of the Chinese people support President Xi and the Chinese government, we tried to overthrow Ade in Syria. He won the last election with 86% of the vote. And I have friends of mine that were election observers in Syria who said, free and fair election. Same thing with Maduro in Venezuela, free and fair elections. So my point is there forms of democracy because of their histories and their cultures are different than our form of democracy. But that doesn't mean they're not valid. That doesn't mean they're not supported by the people, and that means that does not mean that they should not be supported by us.
Dr. Radhika Desai (53:44):
Absolutely. I mean, I remember I used to teach a course on democracy and capitalism, and my students had to read this particular text written in the seventies by CB McPherson, a very important Canadian Marxist philosopher, but also very widely respected. And you read there in the seventies, it was completely natural for people to say, you know what? We may have our form of democracy, but it is a liberal democracy. But in the communist countries, which existed at that time, they also have their own form of democracy, and that's a different one. And third world countries are trying to realize their own forms of democracy. So this type of pluralism had to be accepted because the fact that the Soviet Union existed was an important restraint, constituted an important restraint on the West and on the United States. The moment the Soviet Union has ceased to exist, the United States has gone full fledged into this completely delusional quest for supremacy around the world, which is an impossible quest.
(54:48)The United States can never enjoy that form of supremacy, but the problem with the United States is failing that it has no plan B. So US leaders keep trying to achieve that supremacy, as you rightly put it, destroying the United States itself in that process. But also I would say, of course, causing mayhem around the world, causing economic crises, wars, financial crises across the board, essentially making people's lives a misery. I mean, it's no wonder that China is today welcomed with open arms in so many countries where the United States and the West more generally have historically visited very little but abuse on these countries.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (55:34):
We have just about probably four minutes left and you saying that just made me think. When you listen to President Putin, he talks about the shift away from the unipolar dynamic to a multipolar dynamic. When you listen to President Xi, he talks about the shifting away from a unipolar dynamic to a multipolar dynamic. And I just heard Joe Biden say recently, we're getting the sense that the world is shifting and we need to consider a new world order. I've heard that before. And then he says, and the new world order needs to be led by the United States. I said, Joe Biden, man, you are, if not senile, you are at least out of your mind.
Dr. Radhika Desai (56:28):
Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, as I said, there is a certain level of delusion. I mean recently, I can't remember the exact words, but President Joe Biden was asked whether the United States could fight a two front war, and he said, of course we are. Of course we can. Of course we can. We're the United States. I mean, the fact of the matter is Wilma, if you think about it, and you are the historian, I'm not. But if you think about it, the United States has never won a single war, which it has fought on its own. I mean, not counting it later,
Dr. Wilmer Leon (57:01):
Ii, since World War ii, the United States, maybe we could say Grenada, and maybe we could say Panama, other than those two, the United States hasn't won a thing where didn't win Vietnam. I could tick off the didn't win. Afghanistan didn't win. Iraq we're like, oh, for five.
Dr. Radhika Desai (57:26):
And so the question arises. We are told in the same breath that the United States, we are told that the United States spends almost a trillion dollars a year on its military. What good does that do if the United States can't win wars?
Dr. Wilmer Leon (57:44):
What if the United States spent a trillion dollars on its infrastructure? Dr. Radika Desai, how can people reach you and connect and read your work?
Dr. Radhika Desai (57:54):
Well, my email is very easy to find. So if you just Google ika dea, university of Manitoba, you'll find my email and my website is ika dea.com.
Dr. Wilmer Leon (58:05):
I want to thank my guest, Dr. Rika Desai for joining me today, and thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wilmer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share my show, follow us on social media. You'll find all the links below in the show description. And remember, folks, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge because talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wier Leon. Have a good one. Peace