杰弗里·萨克斯谈中国“历史性”推动多极世界结束美国的统治
https://www.democracynow.org/2023/4/25/jeffrey_sachs_china
Jeffrey Sachs on China's "Historic" Push for Multipolar World to End U.S. Domination
https://www.democracynow.org/2023/4/25/jeffrey_sachs_china
April 25, 2023 
Watch Full Show
2023 年 4 月 25 日观看完整演出GUESTS
客人
杰弗里·萨克斯（Jeffrey Sachs），经济学家、哥伦比亚大学可持续发展中心主任、联合国可持续发展解决方案网络主席。
中国在国际事务中发挥着越来越强硬的作用，帮助促成伊朗和沙特阿拉伯恢复关系，为乌克兰提供12点和平计划，并加强与欧洲和拉丁美洲大国的关系。 上周，中国继续开展外交活动，提议在以色列和巴勒斯坦之间举行会谈。 “中国不希望美国成为超级大国。 它希望与美国共存，”哥伦比亚大学可持续发展中心主任、联合国可持续发展解决方案网络主席、经济学家杰弗里·萨克斯说。 他还曾担任三位联合国秘书长的顾问，目前担任秘书长安东尼奥·古特雷斯领导下的可持续发展解决方案倡导者。 他最新文章的标题是“美国新外交政策的必要性”。
手稿
这是一份匆忙的记录, 可能不是最终形式。
艾米·古德曼：中国驻法国大使在电视采访中质疑前苏联国家根据国际法享有的主权后，中国在欧洲面临批评。 波罗的海国家立陶宛、拉脱维亚、爱沙尼亚谴责了这一言论，并召见中国特使解释北京的官方立场。 中国外交部反驳了大使的言论，称“中国尊重所有国家的主权、独立和领土完整”。
这场外交争端发生之际，中国因其外交努力而成为全球头条新闻，尽管在美国可能没有那么严重。 2月下旬，中国发布了结束乌克兰战争的12点和平计划。 3月10日，伊朗和沙特阿拉伯宣布，作为中国斡旋协议的一部分，他们将恢复关系。 几天后，三月中旬，中国国家主席习近平会见了巴西总统路易斯·伊纳西奥·卢拉·达席尔瓦，讨论乌克兰、贸易和摆脱美元等问题。 随后，习近平在北京会见法国总统马克龙。 马克龙访问期间，习近平谈到了中法在国际事务中的作用。
习近平主席：当今世界正在发生深刻历史性变革。 中法作为联合国安理会常任理事国和具有独立传统的大国，作为世界多极化和国际关系民主化的推动者，有能力、有责任超越分歧和束缚； 坚持稳定、互惠、发展、进步的中法全面战略合作伙伴关系； 践行真正的多边主义； 维护世界和平、稳定、繁荣。
艾米·古德曼：法国总统马克龙在北京期间建议法国和欧洲国家在台湾问题上不应成为美国的附庸。
马克龙总统：[翻译]法国支持单一的对华政策以及寻求和平解决该问题的方案。 这是欧洲的立场。 这是一个始终与盟友角色相适应的立场。 但这恰恰强调了战略自主的重要性。 盟友并不意味着成为附庸。 这并不是因为我们一起做事就不能单独思考，而是因为我们要跟随人民——这是与我们结盟的国家中最艰难的。 当我们审视事实时，无论是在乌克兰、萨赫勒还是台湾，法国都没有任何人可以吸取教训。
艾米·古德曼：中国上周提出在以色列和巴勒斯坦之间举行会谈，继续开展外交活动。
为了更多地了解中国最近的外交行动，哥伦比亚大学可持续发展中心主任兼联合国可持续发展解决方案网络主席杰弗里·萨克斯（Jeffrey Sachs）加入了我们的行列。 他还曾担任三位联合国秘书长的顾问，目前担任秘书长安东尼奥·古特雷斯领导下的可持续发展解决方案倡导者。 他最新发表的文章标题为“美国新外交政策的必要性”。
萨克斯教授，非常感谢您与我们在一起。 中国的所有外交姿态——你知道，在北京与马克龙会面，在北京与卢拉会面，促成伊朗和沙特阿拉伯之间达成这项协议，现在不仅提出在乌克兰和俄罗斯之间进行谈判，而且还提出在以色列和巴勒斯坦之间进行谈判——这几乎是不可能的。
杰弗里·萨克斯：这是一件大事。 事实上，美国正在退出——它不一定知道这一点，我们的政治家不明白这一点，但我们的政治家正在退出世界金融和货币舞台，并为一种完全不同的国际格局开辟了空间。 金融。
我给你举个例子。 美国是世界银行的创建者。 但现在美国国会不会向世界银行注入新资金。 正因为如此，世界银行实际上是一个相当小的机构。 它的名字很大，但在金融计划中它是一个相当小的机构。 美国不会投入更多资金。国会说：“不会。” 我们为什么要在国际上浪费钱呢？” 诸如此类，你会对此议论纷纷。 因此，中国和其他金砖国家说，“好吧，我们将建立自己的开发银行”，然后他们建立了新开发银行，有时也称为金砖国家银行，总部设在上海。
这只是真正改变这一现状的机构之一。 事实上，亚洲基础设施投资银行（AIIB）的总部设在北京。 正如卢拉总统所说，在乌克兰战争的背景下，人们正在放弃使用美元，而美国认为，“嗯，这是我们的王牌。 你知道，这是我们对事情的最终控制，因为我们可以使用制裁，我们可以使用我们的金融控制，让其他国家保持一致。” 但其他国家则表示：“呃，没那么多。 我们将以人民币进行交易。 我们将用卢布进行交易。 我们将用卢比进行交易。 我们将以我们自己的国家货币进行交易。” 他们正在迅速建立替代机构来做到这一点。
美国加倍下注：“我们将没收你们的储备。 如果你不跟的话，我们会的。” 其他国家则表示：“你知道，如果你想通过联合国并获得真正的多边规则，我们会支持你。 但如果你只是想强加规则，我们就不会遵守。” 因此，我们有一个非常有趣的表达方式，称为“基于规则的国际秩序”。 美国政府每天都在使用它。 但是这是什么意思？ 谁制定规则？ 事实上，世界上大多数国家想要的是多极或多边环境下制定的规则，而不是美国和少数朋友和盟友制定的规则。
胡安·冈萨雷斯：我想问你——你经常担任联合国顾问。 安理会常任理事国的数目还能维持多久？ 因为，巴西和全球南方其他国家显然一直在表示联合国需要改革，拉丁美洲国家，特别是巴西和非洲国家应该在联合国安理会和常任理事国中拥有代表权。
杰弗里·萨克斯：是的，你知道，常任五国，即美国、中国、俄罗斯、法国和英国，是 1945 年二战的战胜国。他们写入了联合国规则， 顺便说一句，他们将成为安理会常任理事国，并对《联合国宪章》的任何修改拥有否决权。 所以，它确实是一个赋予自己权力的团体，世界上其他 188 个国家都会看着并说：“这是什么？ 我们需要改变。”
我想说，对此最感到惊讶和沮丧的国家实际上是印度。 印度现在是世界上人口最多的国家。 美国大约有 3.35 亿人口； 英国、法国，大约6000万； 印度，14亿人口——不是安理会成员，一个核国家，一个世界超级大国，今年的G20主席，对此真的很不高兴。 巴西是南美洲最大的经济体，同样没有进入安理会。 所以，这个问题已经存在了20多年了。 五常以各种方式封锁了特定国家，但总的来说，五常说：“你知道吗？ 这是我们的俱乐部。 我们希望保持常任五强的地位。”
但我认为，当我们真正面对现实时，这不仅仅是一个后美国主导的世界，而且实际上是一个后西方主导的世界，因为美国是所谓西方的主导力量， 指的是美国、英国、欧盟以及西方荣誉会员国，比如说日本。 但我们是后西方国家，也是后美国国家。 处于统治地位。 这些国际机构需要改变，否则它们将无法在 21 世纪发挥作用。 如果它们不起作用，对我们来说实际上是一场灾难。 如果它们不存在，我们就必须制造它们，因为我们需要它们发挥作用，所以我们还需要翻新它们。
艾米·古德曼：我想谈谈中国正在谈判这些不同的协议。 让我们来看看巴西总统路易斯·伊纳西奥·卢拉·达席尔瓦在会见中国国家主席习近平之前的讲话。
路易斯·伊纳西奥·卢拉·达席尔瓦总统：[翻译]普京想要什么？ 普京无法保住乌克兰的领土。 也许我们甚至不讨论克里米亚，但他将不得不重新考虑他所入侵的地区。 而且，泽连斯基不可能得到他想要的一切。 北约将无法在边境驻扎。 所以这是我们必须摆在桌面上的事情。 ……我认为这场战争已经拖得太久了。 巴西已经批评了它该批评的事情。 巴西捍卫每个国家的领土完整，因此我们不同意俄罗斯入侵乌克兰。
艾米·古德曼：因为看起来乌克兰正处于对俄罗斯进行大规模反攻的边缘，为了做到这一点，需要西方国家的大量支持，即军事武器，你能谈谈中国在这里扮演的角色吗？ 它提出的计划，还有中国正在帮助谈判的其他协议，例如沙特阿拉伯和伊朗之间的成功和解，以及他们对以色列和巴勒斯坦有何建议？
杰弗里·萨克斯：卢拉总统用几句话说出了这个问题的核心，我们——我们大多数媒体都不敢向美国人民解释，那就是北约的扩张。 这场战争从根本上来说是关于美国试图将美国军事联盟扩大到乌克兰和格鲁吉亚的战争。 格鲁吉亚是高加索地区的一个国家，也濒临黑海。 几十年前，美国的战略一直是在黑海包围俄罗斯，乌克兰、罗马尼亚、保加利亚、土耳其和格鲁吉亚这些北约成员国都在黑海包围俄罗斯及其海军舰队，其海军舰队 自1783年以来一直是俄罗斯黑海海军舰队。俄罗斯曾说过，“这是我们的红线”。 这句话已经说了几十年了。 2007 年，在小布什 (George W. Bush Jr.) 于 2008 年宣布并迫使北约宣布乌克兰将成为北约成员之前，我将其称为轻率的想法，它就明确表达了这一点。
这就是卢拉总统所说的话，也是中国国家主席习近平所说的话：我们不能爆发一场本质上是俄罗斯和美国之间因美国军事同盟扩张而进行的代理人战争。 与俄罗斯的边界长达 1,200 公里甚至更长，俄罗斯将其视为——我可以理解地认为——对俄罗斯构成根本性的国家安全威胁。 保留一些空间。 保持一定的距离。 这就是卢拉总统的意思。 这就是中国在其和平计划中所说的意思：“我们希望制定一个尊重各方安全利益的和平计划。” 那是“缔造和平”的暗号。 结束战争。 但不要将北约扩大到边境。”
美国民众一直没有听到对此的解释。 这让我感到震惊，因为作为 30 年来的密切观察者，这一直是战争的理由。 然而我们的报纸甚至不会报道这件事的背景。 但这就是为什么中国、南非、印度、巴西都在说：“我们想要和平，但我们不希望北约东扩成为所谓和平的意义。 我们希望超级大国之间能够给彼此一些空间和距离，这样世界就不会处于刀刃上。” 这正是卢拉总统所说的，也正是中国和平倡议的意义所在，就是说，“是的，绝对要实现和平。 保护乌克兰的主权和安全。 但对北约扩张不行。”
但拜登政府甚至不会讨论这个问题。 在我看来，这是我们的重大失败，也是我们无法坐到谈判桌前的原因，即使泽连斯基在 2022 年 3 月表示，“也许不是北约，也许是其他国家。” 俄罗斯和乌克兰接近达成协议，美国介入乌克兰并表示，“我们认为这不是一个好的协议”，因为所谓的美国新保守派一直在推动以北约东扩为核心。 这个问题。
但这又回到了我们更普遍的观点，即从中国、俄罗斯或其他国家（包括巴西、现在的沙特阿拉伯、伊朗）的角度来看，乌克兰、台湾和许多其他问题的利害关系 以及其他问题，是美国是否做了它想做的事，或者美国是否尊重其他国家所说的一些限制，“好吧，这就是我们的想法，所以我们需要真正的多极化，而不是美国单独的主导地位，制定的规则” 我们所有人制定的规则，而不是美国独自制定的规则。”
胡安·冈萨雷斯：杰夫·萨克斯，我们只剩下一些时间了——大约还剩一分钟，但我想知道你是否可以评论一下北约在欧洲进一步扩张和向东扩张之间的相似之处——今年是北约成立 200 周年。 门罗主义，门罗总统向所有欧洲列强宣布西半球是他们的禁区，试图将他们的军队和军队转移到拉丁美洲。
近200年来，拉美地区实质上一直是美国的主要势力范围。 然而，我们在这里说，俄罗斯无权宣布其直接边界国家不欢迎北约部队加入。
杰弗里·萨克斯：嗯，是的，一点同理心会有很大帮助，实际上，我们可以避免很多战争。 但对于美国人来说，这样想会很有用：假设墨西哥与中国结成军事联盟。 美国会说：“好吧，这是墨西哥的权利。 我们该怎么办呢？ 或者可能会在短时间内发生入侵或类似的事情？ 我强烈建议中国和墨西哥，不要在国内尝试。 不要尝试这个。 但美国政府拒绝这种同理心，因为——换句话说，拒绝将自己置于对方的立场上。 这是认为世界规则由你决定的根本傲慢。 傲慢的问题不仅在于它的报应，而且你不能——你陷入你甚至不理解的可怕危机，因为美国不被允许——公众甚至不被允许思考 另一方的视角。 所以这个比喻其实是一个非常非常清楚的比喻。 中国、俄罗斯和其他国家一直在说，“为什么要实行双重标准？ 为什么我们不真正以相互尊重的方式来对待彼此，而不是按照你制定的规则呢？”
艾米·古德曼：我们要感谢杰弗里·萨克斯加入我们，他是哥伦比亚大学可持续发展中心主任、联合国可持续发展解决方案网络主席。 我们将链接到您的新文章“美国新外交政策的必要性”。 萨克斯教授在西班牙科尔多瓦向我们发表讲话。
接下来，我们来看看福克斯新闻解雇塔克·卡尔森。 和我们在一起。
本程序的原始内容根据 Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License 获得许可。 请将本作品的合法副本归属于democracynow.org。 但是，该程序包含的某些作品可能需要单独许可。 如需进一步信息或其他权限，请联系我们。
Jeffrey Sachs on China's "Historic" Push for Multipolar World to End U.S. Domination
https://www.democracynow.org/2023/4/25/jeffrey_sachs_china
April 25, 2023 Watch Full Show
GUESTS
China is taking an increasingly assertive role in world affairs, helping to broker a restoration of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, offering a 12-point peace plan for Ukraine, and strengthening its relationships with European and Latin American powers. Last week, China continued its diplomatic outreach by offering to hold talks between Israel and Palestine. “China doesn’t want the United States to be the preeminent power. It wants to live alongside the United States,” says economist Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and president of the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has also served as adviser to three U.N. secretaries-general and currently serves as a sustainable development solutions advocate under Secretary-General António Guterres. His latest article is headlined “The Need for a New US Foreign Policy.”
Transcript
AMY GOODMAN: China is facing criticism in Europe after China’s ambassador to France questioned the sovereignty of former Soviet states under international law during a television interview. The Baltic countries Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia condemned the remarks and summoned Chinese envoys to explain Beijing’s official position. The Chinese Foreign Ministry walked back the ambassador’s comments, saying, quote, “China respects all countries’ sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity.”
The diplomatic spat comes as China is making headlines across the globe, though maybe not so much in the United States, for its diplomatic efforts. In late February, China released a 12-point peace plan to end the war in Ukraine. On March 10th, Iran and Saudi Arabia announced they would restore ties as part of an agreement brokered by China. Days later, in mid-March, Chinese President Xi Jinping hosted the Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to talk about Ukraine, trade and moving away from the U.S. dollar. Xi Jinping then met with French President Emmanuel Macron in Beijing. During Macron’s visit, Xi spoke about the roles of China and France in world affairs.
PRESIDENT XI JINPING: [translated] The world today is undergoing profound historic changes. As permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and major countries with a tradition of independence, China and France, as promoters of the multipolarization of the world and the democratization of international relations, have the ability and responsibility to transcend difference and restraints; adhere to the comprehensive strategic cooperative partnerships between China and France with stability, reciprocity, development and progress; practice true multilateralism; and maintain world peace, stability and prosperity.
AMY GOODMAN: While in Beijing, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, suggested France and European nations should not become a vassal of the United States when it comes to Taiwan.
PRESIDENT EMMANUEL MACRON: [translated] France supports the single China policy and the search for a peaceful solution to the situation for that matter. It’s Europe’s position. It’s a position that has always been compatible with the role of an ally. But it’s precisely one stressing the importance of strategic autonomy. Ally doesn’t mean being a vassal. It’s not because we do things together that we can’t think alone, that we’re going to follow the people in — that are the toughest in a country that’s allied with us. When we look at the facts, France has lessons to be received from no one, be either in Ukraine, in Sahel or in Taiwan.
AMY GOODMAN: China has continued its diplomatic outreach by offering last week to hold talks between Israel and Palestine.
To look more at China’s recent diplomatic actions, we’re joined by Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and president of the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has also served as adviser to three U.N. secretaries-general and currently serves as a sustainable development solutions advocate under Secretary-General António Guterres. His latest article published is headlined “The Need for a New US Foreign Policy.”
Professor Sachs, thanks so much for being with us. All of the diplomatic gestures of China — you know, the meeting with Macron in Beijing, with Lula in Beijing, brokering this deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia, now offering not only to negotiate between Ukraine and Russia, but Israel and Palestine — this hardly gets attention in the United States media. But around the world, the headlines are far more — there are far more headlines about this. Talk about the significance of this, and if you see a direct parallel between all the headway that China is making and increasing U.S. hostility towards China.
JEFFREY SACHS: Thanks, Amy. Very good to be with you.
And indeed, this is a crucial topic. And as President Xi Jinping said in that meeting with Macron, this is a — it is a historic watershed that the world is living through right now. What China is after, if we view it from China’s perspective, is what was also said: true multilateralism. And what that means, or true multipolarity, another term that they use, and that means they don’t want a U.S.-led world, they want a multipolar world. And the basis of that is that the United States is 4.1% of the world population, China is 17.5% of the world population. China’s economy is comparable to the U.S. economy, and indeed China is the lead trade partner for much of the world. So China is saying, “We’re there, too, alongside you. We want a multipolar world. We don’t want a U.S.-led world.”
And while the United States sometimes talks about a rule-based order, the fact of the matter is that the U.S. grand strategy, if we can use that term of the grand strategists of the U.S. state — see our grand strategy in the United States as being dominance. And I often refer to an article that I think is very clear, succinct and revealing by a former colleague of mine at Harvard University, Robert Blackwill, an esteemed ambassador of the United States, who wrote in 2015 — and I’ll quote from the article — “Since its founding, the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals, first on the North American continent, then in the Western Hemisphere, and finally globally.”
Well, China doesn’t want the United States to be the preeminent power. It wants to live alongside the United States. Blackwill, writing in 2015, said China’s rise is a threat to U.S. preeminence. And he laid out a series of steps that the Biden administration actually is following almost step by step. What Blackwill laid out already back in 2015 is that the United States should create, quote, “new preferential trading arrangements among U.S. friends and allies to increase their mutual gains through instruments that consciously exclude China.” There should be “a technology-control regime” to block China’s strategic capabilities, a build-up of, quote, “power-political capacities of U.S. friends and allies on China’s periphery” and strengthened U.S. military forces along the Asian rimland despite any Chinese opposition. This has become the Biden foreign policy. China knows it. China really is pushing back.
But what’s very important and interesting to understand, and we’ve seen it clearly in the dynamics involving the Ukraine war, most of the world also does not want the U.S. as the global preeminent power. Most of the world wants a multipolar world, and is, therefore, not lined up behind the United States’ sanctions on Russia and so forth. And this was also the message of President Lula visiting China, saying to President Xi Jinping, “We, as Brazil, also want multipolarity, true multipolarity, and we want peace, for example, in the Russian-Ukraine war, that is based on not a U.S. perception of dominance — say, NATO enlargement — but rather a peace that reflects a multipolar world.”
This is real. It’s happening all over the world. And the fact of the matter is, the reason why this is a historic watershed is that the underlying economics and technological change have made it so. The U.S. is no longer the dominant world economy, and the G7, which is the U.S., Canada, Britain, France, Italy, Germany and Japan, is actually smaller than the BRICS countries in economic size, which is Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. So we really are, in fact, in a multipolar world, but in ideology, we’re in a conflict.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Jeffrey Sachs, I wanted to ask about that. You mentioned the BRICS. The BRICS bank, that is now in China — and President Lula has named Dilma Rousseff as the head of the BRICS bank — its importance in terms of this multipolarity in the world economies, the potential for even the creation of alternative major currencies to the dollar as a result of the BRICS alliance, the impact of that on world affairs?
JEFFREY SACHS: This is a big deal. And in fact, the United States is withdrawing — it doesn’t know it necessarily, our politicians don’t understand this, but our politicians are withdrawing from the world financial and monetary scene and opening up the space for a completely different kind of international finance.
I’ll give you an example. The U.S. was the creator of the World Bank. But now the U.S. Congress won’t put new money into the World Bank. And because of that, the World Bank is actually a quite small institution. It’s got a big name, but it’s a quite small institution in the financial scheme of things. The U.S. won’t put more money in. The Congress says, “No. Why should we waste our money internationally?” and so forth, and you get a lot of hubbub about that. So, China and the rest of the BRICS say, “OK, we’ll make our own development bank,” and they established the New Development Bank, or sometimes called the BRICS bank, based in Shanghai.
And that’s just one of the institutions that is really changing the scene. There’s the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, AIIB, based in Beijing, in fact. There is, as President Lula said, and it’s happening also in the context of the Ukraine war, a move away from the use of the dollar, which the United States has thought, “Well, that’s our ace in the hole. You know, that is our ultimate hold on things, because we can use sanctions, we can use our financial control, to keep other countries in line.” But other countries are saying, “Eh, not so much. We’ll trade in renminbi. We’ll trade in rubles. We’ll trade in rupees. We’ll trade in our own national currencies.” And they’re quickly setting up alternative institutions to do this.
The United States doubles down: “We will confiscate your reserves. We will, if you don’t follow.” And the other countries are saying, “You know, if you want to go through the U.N. and get really multilateral rules, we’re with you. But if you want to just impose the rules, we won’t follow along.” And so, we have this very funny expression called a “rule-based international order.” The United States government uses it every day. But what does it mean? Who writes the rules? And what most of the world wants, in fact, is rules written in a multipolar or multilateral setting, not rules written by the United States and a few friends and allies.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask you — you’ve been an adviser to the United Nations for quite often. The issue of how much longer the permanent members of the Security Council can keep the number to five? Because, clearly, Brazil and other countries of the Global South have been saying the U.N. needs to be reformed, and countries from Latin America, specifically Brazil, and Africa should have representation on the U.N. Security Council, permanent members.
JEFFREY SACHS: Yes, you know, the P5, the permanent five, which is the United States, China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom, was the World War II victor group in 1945. They wrote into the rules of the U.N., incidentally, that they would be the permanent Security Council members and have a veto over any change in the U.N. Charter. So it’s really a group that gave itself power that the other 188 countries of the world look on and say, “What is this? We need change.”
I would say the country that is most amazed and frustrated by this, in fact, is India. India is now the most populous country in the world. The United States has 335 million, roughly, in the population; Britain, France, roughly 60 million; India, 1.4 billion — not on the Security Council, a nuclear power, a world superpower, the president of the G20 this year, really not happy about that. Brazil, the large — largest economy of South America, similarly not on the Security Council. So, this has been an issue for more than 20 years. The P5, in various ways, have blocked particular countries, but, added up, the P5 have said, “You know what? This is our club. We want to stay as the permanent five.”
But I think as we really face the reality of a — it’s not just a post-U.S.-dominated world, but actually a post-Western-dominated world, because it was the U.S. as the dominant power among the so-called West, which means the U.S., Britain, European Union, and honorary Western membership, Japan, let’s say. But we’re post-Western, as well as post-U.S. in dominance. And these international institutions need to change, or they won’t function in the 21st century. And if they don’t function, it’s actually a disaster for us. If they didn’t exist, we’d have to make them, because we need them to function, so we also need to renovate them.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to talk about China negotiating these various agreements. Let’s turn to Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva speaking before his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
PRESIDENT LUIZ INÁCIO LULA DA SILVA: [translated] What does Putin want? Putin can’t keep Ukraine’s territory. Maybe we don’t even discuss Crimea, but he will have to rethink what he has invaded. Also, Zelensky can’t have everything he wants to demand. NATO will not be able to set itself up at the border. So this is something we have to put on the table. … I think this war has dragged on for too long. Brazil has already criticized what it had to criticize. Brazil defends each nation’s territorial integrity, so we disagree with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
AMY GOODMAN: Because it looks like Ukraine is on the verge of a major counteroffensive against Russia, and, in order to do this, needs massive support from Western countries, meaning military weapons, can you talk about what China’s role is here, the peace plan it has put forward, but also these other deals that China is helping to negotiate, like the successful rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and then what they’re suggesting about Israel and Palestine?
JEFFREY SACHS: President Lula uttered, in a few words, the core of this issue, that our — most of our media dare not explain to the American people, and that is the expansion of NATO. This is a war fundamentally about the U.S. attempt to expand a U.S. military alliance to Ukraine and to Georgia. Georgia is a country in the Caucasus, also on the Black Sea. The U.S. strategy, going back decades, has been to surround Russia in the Black Sea, with Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Georgia, all NATO members, surrounding Russia and its naval fleet in the Black Sea, with a naval fleet that has been the Black Sea naval fleet of Russia since 1783. Russia has said, “This is our red line.” And it has said that for decades. And it said this clearly in 2007, before George W. Bush Jr. had the — I’ll call it the harebrained idea to announce in 2008, and force NATO to announce, that Ukraine will be a member of NATO.
And this is what President Lula was saying and what President Xi Jinping of China has been saying: We can’t have a war that is essentially a proxy war between Russia and the United States over the expansion of the U.S. military alliance right up to a 1,200-kilometer and more border with Russia, which Russia views — and I would say understandably views — as a fundamental national security threat to Russia. Keep some space. Keep some distance. That’s President Lula’s meaning. That’s what China means when it says in its peace plan, “We want a peace plan that respects the security interests of all parties.” What that is is code word for saying, “Make peace. End the war. But don’t expand NATO right up to the border.”
The American people have not heard an explanation of this all along. It’s shocking to me, because as a close observer of this for 30 years, this has been the casus belli. And yet our newspapers won’t even report the background to this. But this is why China, South Africa, India, Brazil are saying, “We want peace, but we don’t want NATO expansion as the meaning of so-called peace. We want the big superpowers to give each other some space and some distance, so that the world isn’t on a knife edge.” That’s exactly what President Lula was saying, and it’s exactly what the meaning of the Chinese peace initiative is, is to say, “Yes, absolutely make peace. Protect Ukraine’s sovereignty and its security. But no to NATO expansion.”
But the Biden administration won’t even discuss this issue. That has been the major failing and the reason why we have not been able to get to the negotiating table, in my opinion, even when Zelensky said in March 2022, “Maybe not NATO, maybe something else.” Russia and Ukraine were close to an agreement, and the United States intervened with Ukraine and said, “We don’t think that’s a good agreement,” because the U.S. neocons, so-called, have been pushing for NATO enlargement as the core of this issue.
But this goes back to the more general point for us, which is that what is at stake in Ukraine and over Taiwan and many other issues, from the point of view of China or Russia or other countries, including Brazil, now Saudi Arabia, Iran and others, is whether the U.S. does what it wants to do or whether the U.S. respects some limits based on what other countries say, “Well, this is what we think, so that we need true multipolarity, not U.S. dominance alone, rules written by all of us, not rules written just by the United States.”
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jeff Sachs, we only have a few — about a minute left, but I was wondering if you could comment on the parallels between this expansion of NATO further and further east in Europe — this year marks the 200th anniversary of the Monroe Doctrine, of President Monroe declaring to all the European powers that the Western Hemisphere was off-limits to them coming, attempting to move their forces and their militaries into Latin America. And for these past 200 years, Latin America has essentially been the major sphere of influence of the United States. And yet, here we are, saying that Russia has no right to declare that its immediate — the countries on immediately its borders cannot welcome in NATO troops.
JEFFREY SACHS: Well, yes, a little empathy would go a long way, would have spared us, actually, a lot of wars. But for Americans, it would be useful to think: Suppose Mexico made a military alliance with China. Would the United States say, “Well, that’s Mexico’s right. What are we going to do about it?” Or might there be actually an invasion in short order or something like that? I would strongly advise to China and Mexico, don’t try it at home. Don’t experiment with this. But the United States government refuses that empathy, because — in other words, refuses to put itself in the position of the other side. That’s the fundamental arrogance of thinking that you determine the rules of the world. The problem with arrogance is not only the comeuppance from it, but you can’t — you stumble into terrible crises that you don’t even understand, because the United States has not been allowed — the public has not been allowed to even think from the perspective of the other side. So, the analogy is actually a very, very clear analogy. It is what China and Russia and others say all the time, is, “Why have those double standards? Why don’t we actually deal with each other with mutual respect, not with the rules that you write?”
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you, Jeffrey Sachs, for joining us, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, president of the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. We’ll link to your new article, “The Need for a New US Foreign Policy.” Professor Sachs was speaking to us from Córdoba, Spain.
Next up, we look at the firing of Tucker Carlson at Fox News. Stay with us.
