Transcription
Welcome back to the program, everyone. As you can see, I have with me Professor Jeffrey Sachs. It's great to be back with you, Professor Sachs. Welcome back to the show.
>> Happy New Year. Wonderful to be with you. Thank you.
There have been more details that have emerged from the Venezuela operation, the military operation that saw the kidnapping of Venezuela's President Nicholas Maduro by the US military, as well as, uh, airstrikes that now have been reported to have killed upwards of 80 people, 32 Cubans who were part of President Maduro's security detail. I wanted your comments first on this operation and what it says about the Trump administration and the foreign policy that he is wielding.
>> Well, this is a, a brazen, illegal, dangerous, uh, operation, and we're only at the early stages of its implications. But this kind of regime change operation, which is part of the American, uh, security state toolkit, has really become completely unleashed by Trump, especially in recent months. Uh, so the United States is at war or threatening war all over the place right now. Uh, and, um, what has happened is extremely dangerous. To my mind, it is a grotesque violation of the US Constitution. But I think, in general, we are in an extra-constitutional state. In other words, we are not anymore a constitutional republic. We are in the hands of the military-industrial complex. Uh, and, uh, Trump has unleashed this, uh, in Venezuela, and he is making threats, uh, to do the same, uh, all over the place right now. Uh, of course, in the past year, the United States has also bombed many countries recently: Nigeria, uh, also Yemen, Syria, uh, uh, and, uh, uh, the list is up to seven countries that the United States has recently bombed. And of course, Trump and Netanyahu are threatening a renewed war on Iran. So, what we're seeing is something that is dangerous, unconstitutional, brazenly illegal by international law, uh, meaning in grotesque violation of the UN Charter, and, um, unlikely to be the last of such episodes in the near future. Uh, but, uh, one of many potential episodes. I think the United States is basically going rogue on any international standards or domestic law.
>> And, uh, President Trump has continued the threats. I want to play for you what he told The Atlantic regarding the new Venezuelan president, now the sworn-in president, former Vice President Deli Rodriguez. This is what he had to say to her when Deli Rodriguez, uh, told the Venezuelan people that she was not going to bow, or Venezuela was not going to bow to his ongoing threats.
>> That's right. I called him this morning a little after 9:30 a.m. He had just arrived at his golf club in West Palm Beach. Uh, and I asked him to respond to what Deli Rodriguez said yesterday, [clears throat] um, in her televised address, which was not consistent with what the president had said in his press conference. And his answer to me was, "If she doesn't do what's right, she's going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro."
>> That is what Donald Trump had to say to now the current, uh, president of Venezuela, Deli Rodriguez, although Deli Rodriguez says Nicholas Maduro remains the president. We have a thug as president of the United States, and, um, threatening the lives of other world leaders, kidnapping them, threatening the worst, uh, threatening, uh, other leaders like, uh, President Petro of Colombia. This is thuggery. Uh, we have international law to prevent human annihilation, uh, to prevent the tragedy of international anarchy, replacing it with international law. Trump, uh, is ripping up the UN Charter, [snorts] obviously not paying an iota of attention to it. And, uh, my view is this is extraordinarily dangerous.
>> Professor Sachs, what are the possible implications in the medium and long term of this operation? Because, as you know, as we're speaking, uh, Nicholas Maduro is in New York, uh, going to be arraigned. He is being charged under supposedly domestic law in the United States. Uh, yet this was an operation that where Trump says that he is going to control and run Venezuela. His administration is going to run Venezuela from now on, and that's why there is a massive military presence still surrounding the country. What are the possible, you said that this is dangerous. What are the possible implications moving forward?
>> Well, I think there are specific dangers in Venezuela, and then there are more, uh, more general dangers of complete international lawlessness by the United States and by contagion, other countries as well. When it comes to Venezuela, we're in the first days of a purported regime change operation. I would estimate that there have been a hundred such regime change attempts by the United States since the end of World War II. Uh, and most of them lead to prolonged disasters of one kind or another. Uh, we've had regime change operations. For example, people will remember Iraq, or know about it. Everyone, uh, in the White House was crowing about the great success and the great triumph, and we saw pictures on the street of, uh, the, the waving people and so forth. And we know that it plunged Iraq into years of chaos and violence and economic crisis and social crisis that has not, uh, by any means, come to an end, uh, to this point. Uh, and that history is, uh, repeated, uh, dozens of times. Uh, Libya, the United States, uh, brought down Moammar Gaddafi in the fall of 2011. Libya is in a civil war today, 15 years later, or a little more than 14 years later, to be precise. So, we're in the first days of this, uh, American adventure, uh, this illegal, brazen adventure. The government of Venezuela has not changed. There has been a kidnapping of the president, but the government of, uh, uh, Venezuela is intact. Trump says the United States runs Venezuela. That remains to be seen. Uh, Trump is full of, uh, bluster and bravado and, uh, megalomania, maniacal, uh, sentiments, but these don't translate to reality quite as simply as the president boasts.
>> Yeah, Professor Sachs, I don't know if you, uh, heard him on Air Force One. He said that before and after the operation, he consulted not with Congress, but the oil companies.
>> You speak to them before the operation took place?
>> Yes. You maybe took them off now?
>> Before and after. And they want to go in, and they're going to do a great job for the people of Venezuela, and they're going to represent us well. And I'm curious if you have thoughts about this, because many are saying that, uh, the Donald Trump administration, especially this time around, is really pulling the mask off of, uh, the US's empire.
>> Well, I, I don't think there's much of a mask if you take the time to look. Uh, interestingly, uh, of the many dozens of documented regime change operations by the United States, the US typically denies most of these. So, the US government lies for a living, and it's our job to understand, uh, beyond the lies. It's not so hard because what the US does is rather brazen, the US government, that is. And in the case of Venezuela, the United States has been at regime change at least for 23 years. In 2002, there was a coup attempt in which the CIA had foreknowledge, gave approval. The United States wanted it to go ahead. Uh, Hugo Chavez succeeded in keeping power despite the coup. But the US was already engaged in regime change in Venezuela in 2002. In the, uh, late 2000s, the late naughts, around 2007 onward, the government of Venezuela took increasing control over its vast oil reserves. And, uh, this, of course, uh, uh, caused a rupture with ExxonMobil, a very powerful actor in US politics, a major funder, uh, of US politics. And, um, from that point on, there was an intensification of, uh, the US government's war with, uh, with Venezuela. Uh, my guess is that the US made several attempts to bring down the regime through a kind of color revolution operations in 2014. Much disputed, but you can look at how things work. And then from 2017 onward, in Trump's first term, through absolutely, uh, direct and brazen attempts to break the Venezuelan economy, which, in fact, the US sanctions did. Between, uh, 2016 and 2020, oil production in Venezuela, because of the sanctions on the state company, fell by around, uh, 75%. The, uh, GDP per capita fell by around 60%. This is a catastrophic decline. The US sanctions played a huge role in that. It did not bring down the regime, but that was the intent. So, Trump has been after the oil and after regime change since the early days of his first term. In, uh, the fall of 2017, interestingly, at a dinner that Trump hosted with several Latin American leaders on the margins of the UN General Assembly, Trump spoke openly about his thought of the US invading Venezuela. And other Latin American leaders at that dinner told him, "That's not a, not a good idea, Mr. President." Uh, but he was already thinking about this invasion back in 2017. So, this is a long-term effort. I think it's important when people try to understand, uh, work to understand US foreign policy. These are projects that often, uh, take place over a 20-year period. The project to bring down the government of Venezuela is a, a two-decade-long project. It gained special force by the recognition by the United States in, uh, around 2007, actually by the US Geological Survey, that Venezuela's oil reserves are the largest holdings of any country in the world, larger even than Saudi Arabia's. So, this has been a long effort. If, if we talked about other topics, Ukraine or Syria or Palestine and Israel, these are all long, deep state efforts. What's distinctive about Trump is that he unleashes the most violent impulses of the US security state. He has no foot on the brake, only on the accelerator. He tells us what he's doing pretty brazenly. Um, and it is unconstitutional and in violation of international law. But when that is raised, he'd say, "Constitution? What are you whining about? International law? That doesn't exist. We're America First." So, this is very crude, very dangerous, uh, and, uh, there's a lot more to come, I'm sorry to say.
>> What does, uh, the Trump administration, uh, the US as a whole, as an empire, what does it want from Venezuela? From Latin America? This is a, a major, you know, some are seeing this as a major shift in US foreign policy. I see it as more of a, you know, maybe a reorientation. But what, what is it? Just is it the oil? I mean, Trump is not necessarily, uh, hiding that fact. But is there something more to why the Trump administration and the United States right now are waging this, uh, you know, heavy policy of aggression?
>> Well, I, I think it's an unleashing of the deep state impulses. The US has continuing hegemonic aspirations. Of course, uh, it understands better that it faces other real superpowers: China, Russia. I think, by the way, India is one as well. Uh, the US hasn't really come to grips with this reality, but it has raised anxiety. And so Trump is, uh, yes, pulling off the mask or pulling off the gloves, and, uh, right now using American power to bully and bluster and attack, uh, at least, uh, these smaller and more vulnerable states. And, um, this, uh, is part of the basic deep state approach of US hegemony, crasser, uh, than we would see in other administrations. But frankly, we haven't had really a peace-oriented president for a very long time. Uh, and, uh, Trump says it out loud. Uh, others do it, uh, more covertly, but it's been pretty ugly for a long time. It's getting uglier. There's a lot of anxiety in the United States to keep its supposed number one poll position, whatever that really means. But Trump is after, as he said, complete domination of the Americas. He doesn't even hide that fact. He doesn't see these neighbors as sovereign. He doesn't see Canada as sovereign. He doesn't see Mexico as sovereign. He doesn't see Greenland as part of Denmark. He doesn't see Venezuela as sovereign. Uh, he doesn't see Panama as sovereign. He doesn't see the Americas as anything other than an extension of American US power. Uh, and it's not limited to the Americas. Uh, he views the Middle East, certainly the same way. And I think the ultimate aspiration of the American deep state is somehow, though it's impossible, but somehow to hold on to, uh, the global hegemonic aspirations.
>> I wanted to show you, Professor Sachs, um, something that hasn't been talked about a lot, and that is the media's role, the mainstream media's role in fueling, uh, this war on Venezuela. Semaphore, the, uh, intelligence community is one of their mouthpieces of the deep state. Uh, they released, uh, this. Semaphore said that the New York Times and the Washington Post learned of a secret US raid on Venezuela soon before it was scheduled to begin Friday night, but held off publishing what they knew to avoid endangering US troops, to people familiar with the communications between the administration and the news organizations said. What's your assessment of this, uh, in terms of the media's role with the deep state? Uh, it seems like they knew what was going on and decided not to publish.
>> I wouldn't go after this so much because the media generally don't publish operational details in the, in the midst of an operation, whether the operation is illegal or not illegal. But what I would say about the New York Times is that it did not editorialize about this coming war, uh, as far as I know, at all before the attack. I was, uh, I would say pleasantly a bit surprised that it made an editorial afterwards that said that this attack was illegal. Uh, but beforehand, quiet. I think it ran maybe two op-eds, one in favor, one against. Nothing from the editorial board. No warnings or explanations to the public of what would be a brazen and unconstitutional and dangerous and illegal attack. So, anyway, the mainstream media, it's pathetic. So it's no surprise here, almost unreadable. Uh, the Washington Post is a megaphone for the CIA. The, uh, New York Times is almost useless and, uh, really trying to understand anything. Uh, but no surprise, this is not anything new.
>> Yes, I think the Washington Post, uh, there were two op-eds. One in the New York Times that was against, uh, what had happened in Venezuela. Then there was one in the Washington Post that said something to the effect of, "We should be happy that Maduro is gone. Of course, this is great for Venezuela, Venezuela, people of the world." And also, "Maduro is in a lot better shape. He's going to be in a humane prison," I think they said. So, um, this is, this is the extent of the kind of coverage we get. But, Professor Sachs, you know, in the, uh, last few minutes that I have with you, I wanted to ask you about, uh, the, the larger world picture now with regard to Venezuela, because, you know, Venezuela now is under fire from the United States. Uh, Trump is threatening a possible second strike should things not go his way. There's also protests in Iran, which Donald Trump has said, "We're locked and loaded," uh, the United States is, should Iran, uh, go too far and supposedly suppressing them. Israel is clamoring for war with Iran with the help of the United States. And of course, we still have the Ukraine conflict with, which is raging, and the Trump administration doesn't appear to be too interested in coming to a settlement that Russia will actually agree upon. How do you make sense of this overall global picture now that the US has expanded its theater to an even greater extent into Latin America, BCV, Venezuela, now maybe Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, I mean, the list goes on and on?
>> Yes, I, I think we will have an expanding war. Um, I don't think the story in Venezuela is over. And, um, Venezuela itself could become very complicated and hot and conflictual, uh, in the coming days. So that is one immediate point. But, uh, when Trump threatens war in a half a dozen countries, and especially when he meets with, uh, a war criminal Netanyahu and says that the United States understands and supports Netanyahu's position vis-à-vis Iran, I think you can unfortunately have a, a pretty, uh, high sense, high likelihood that there will be war, uh, with Iran soon. That will be, if it happens, vastly more dangerous even than, uh, what's happening now in the Americas, because, uh, that is in the most explosive zone in the world, and it is an area where, uh, the great powers can easily clash, and where escalation, even to nuclear war, becomes, uh, uh, possible. Possible. So, without making forecasts, I would say that the belligerency of Trump's words in recent days, uh, is not subtle. Um, and, uh, it is likely to reflect, uh, what is an ongoing CIA, uh, and military preparation for further war. Uh, Trump told us the war with, uh, Venezuela is coming. Uh, we saw it. It was pretty clear that something was going to happen. Something's happened. It's pretty clear, I think, uh, that this is not the end of the story there. And Trump is basically, uh, telling us there's more to come.
>> To what consequence then for the Trump administration, for the United States? Uh, to what consequence will all this bring?
>> Well, I think, uh, this makes the world, uh, vastly more dangerous. Uh, the lawlessness, the attempt to destroy the United Nations, uh, and international law as a functioning part of global society, and global geopolitics, is, uh, very, very dangerous. And, um, we don't really see a cessation, uh, of that. And, uh, Trump's rhetoric is, um, uh, the crudest we've ever had of an American president. I would guess I can't vouch for every word that James Polk said. He was an expansionist, and we had other imperialists. But Trump's vulgarity in this regard is absolutely brazen, and, um, his impulsivity is extremely high. And the point is not Trump's impulsivity. The point for me is that the, uh, military state of the United States is always revved for war. It's the job of a president to keep a foot on the brake. There is no foot on the brake right now. Uh, and that, to my mind, is, uh, extremely worrisome.