Judging Freedom - Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: The Summit of the Future

Episode Date: July 9, 2024

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: The Summit of the FutureSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Tuesday, July 9th, 2024. Professor Jeffrey Sachs joins us now. Professor Sachs, I know you're in the midst of a lot of travel. Thank you very much for your time that you take out to join us every week. Always a pleasure. Last week, while the Western press was concentrating on the French elections and the apparent disintegration of the candidacy for re-election of Joe Biden, there was a meeting in Asia which comprised 80% of the countries of Eurasia and 40% and represented 40% of the world's population, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. How significant is this, and how the Asian countries, China, India, Russia,

and many others, Belarus joined in this current meeting. And more and more of the world is basically saying we want a different security arrangement from the one that the U.S. has been promulgating. We want a different way to achieve collective security. We want actually more economic interconnectivity. And these are countries that often the U.S. says are enemies. They're not really enemies, but in the mindset of the security state, they are enemies. And they're going about their business, making progress, making a larger interconnected world in which the U.S. has absented itself. So I think it is a very, very significant change that's underway.

The fact that the mainstream media ignores it shows that they're basically ignorant of what's happening and not informing us. As we speak, NATO leaders and foreign ministers are arriving in Washington, D.C. I don't know if this is Joe Biden's swan song or not, but it's a meeting of NATO. Somebody leaked a proposed conclusion of the meeting. And on that leaked document, I don't know if it's real or not, it says that NATO is of the belief that Ukraine's membership in NATO is inevitable. I mean, to make a statement like that is to be utterly, totally, completely ignorant of the past two years of world history, is it not? Well, I would say not only is it not inevitable, I would say it is impossible. It is impossible because it will be resisted in every way, including up to complete disaster for the world by Russia, which has said no to NATO enlargement to its border with Ukraine. and Russia will fight as necessary to prevent it. It will not happen. It is as realistic as saying that Joe Biden has it all together. These are just delusional, dangerous statements,

though, because they basically are a way of prolonging yet another perpetual war of the United States that has no end at this point other than killing more and more Ukrainians. It's just so incredibly incompetent of the American political and security leadership. But of course, we literally have a leader who is not competent mentally to do this job. And we don't really know who calls any of these shots, but they don't make sense. Well, whoever it is, has not been elected by the public. It is not transparent. As you say, we don't even know who it is. I mean, Joe Biden may be signing documents, but it's hard to believe that he can rationalize to the decisions that he needs to make. Back to NATO.

What do you think will come of this meeting? More bellicosity, more support for Ukraine, more dangers for Europe, more steps in the direction of World War III? Right now, we are adrift and we will be adrift for a while. Biden is not competent to be president. He's not competent to negotiate this resistance to what cries out for negotiations with Russia, with China, with the Arab leaders over the war in the Middle East. We don't have any of it happening.

But now we see, though I've been begging for it and calling for it for years, it probably could not happen with Biden in the state that he is in at this point. Of course, I do think he should not remain president, much less candidate for another four years in this state. So what's going to come out of this will have continued war and instability, lack of clarity. And yes, the rhetoric continues almost on autopilot because this has been a long-term project that doesn't yet end, even though it's causing disaster, that long-term project of expanding NATO whenever, wherever the U.S. deep state says it should go. One of the things that will be reemphasized at this NATO meeting is a decision taken last year, and absolutely disastrous as well, that NATO should be engaged with East Asia and with China as a threat to the West, supposedly, and thereby actually institutionalize

a link of NATO with Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand. It's mind-boggling. NATO means North Atlantic. It should have ended in 1990 or 1991 when the Soviet Union was ending and had disbanded the Soviet military alliance. Now they're talking about expanding to East Asia. Absolutely mind-bogglingly wrong. I think one thing that I'd like people to understand is that if you add all of the population of the United States and Canada, the population of the United Kingdom, of the European Union, of Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and the few NATO countries that one would add to that, you arrive at something around 12 to 15 percent of the world population. When you ask me about the Shanghai cooperation, that's the rest, not all the rest, because there are other parts of the world also that don't want to have anything to do with this NATO business. But we're talking

about such a small part of the world that pretends it runs the show, whereas 85% of the world is saying, what are you doing? Why the wars? Why the militarization? Why all this incredibly provocative talk? Why the taunting of China? Why the continuation of war in Ukraine when neutrality for Ukraine and a buffer space between NATO and Russia would solve problems for every one of the countries. That's what the rest of the world is asking. That's what I hear every day when I speak to leaders outside of this, even call it a NATO bubble, because when you're basically no more than 15% of the world population, you're talking to yourself and you're not listening to the rest of the world. Very, very interesting observation. You're talking to yourself and you're not listening to the rest of the world. at this SCO meeting, even though the mainstream media totally and completely ignored them.

Let's go to Europe. But I think if I could just add a word about that, because there's something specific also that's happening. When we have, say, negotiations over the ceasefire, which doesn't ever happen, even though the UN Security Council has called for it in Gaza. Who are the US negotiators, the Israeli negotiators, and so forth? It's the CIA. It's Mossad. Assad. It is actually the secret intelligence agencies and the secret armies that are running the show. When we see them visibly at these certain moments, why are they negotiating? What happened to the diplomats? What happened to the State Department? What happened to the Ministries

of Foreign Affairs? They don't do the negotiations. It's the intelligence agencies. That's pretty telling, actually, for how the world is actually working right now. You have an American president who is incapable of the leadership necessary. You have an Israeli prime minister at odds with his military and intelligent establishment and at least half the public. I guess power abhors a vacuum. I do know of one negotiator for the United States who was born in Israel and fought for the IDF and has dual citizenship, Amos Ockstein. I wonder where his heart is in these negotiations. There's no sense picking on him at the moment. But before we get into it.

Well, except to say that every approach that he has championed has failed. Right. Because they have had a strategy that we're going to divide the Arab world once again. We can ignore the Palestinian right to self-determination that overwhelmingly is the call of the entire world. But the United States, Mr. Hochstein and others think it can be gamed. Again, they talk to themselves. They're not talking to the rest of the world. And so we're in a kind of bubble in the U.S. foreign policy world right now that is delusional, absolutely unrealistic, and getting us deeper and deeper into war and into crisis. One of the newcomers in D.C. is Sir Keir Starmer, the new British Prime Minister.

I wish it were Jeremy Corbyn, but it's not. It's Keir Starmer. And I don't think there's going to be any change whatsoever in British foreign policy with respect to Gaza and with respect to Ukraine? Well, he said so in the first minutes of his prime ministership. The UK basically has two characteristics. One, nostalgia for the British Empire, and so it's filled with its own delusions. And second, a decision taken decades ago, never, never do anything other than what the United States says, but cheerlead as much as you can for that. And so it doesn't matter whether it's conservative or labor. This guy didn't take five minutes even to think, what do I do? Now I have the burdens of state.

I'm engaged in a war. Do we have a look? Are there consultations? Are there opportunities for negotiation? No. From the first moment, it was we maintain exactly the same course as the government that just went down to defeat. It's shocking. But that's because we don't think we are just completely aligned with what the United States says we should do. This goes back to George W. Bush and Tony Blair, does it not? This idea of Britain as America's poodle. Well, it goes back before that, but that was an example of it, which is that

Blair was told by George W. Bush, Jr., we're going to invade Iraq on absolutely bizarre and phony premises. And Tony Blair said, good, we do the same. We join you. It didn't take a moment. They broke their own laws and their own processes. Later, the parliament investigated them for that. But that was not the start of this. That was the ongoing result of British foreign policy, which says just salute the United States.

How unstable is the government in France as we speak? President Macron had recklessly talked about, of course, putting French troops into Ukraine, and he brushed aside risks of nuclear war and made remarkably strange statements in recent weeks. All sorts of bravado. And the French people were absolutely shocked, I think. And so both in the European Parliament elections of a few weeks ago, and then in the snap elections that Macron called in the face of his party's defeat, we have had a large part of the French electorate say, no, I don't want this, whether they voted for the right or the left. By the way, these terms barely mean anything anymore. These are kind of catcalls rather than real descriptions

of these parties, because it turns out what we call the right doesn't want war. It used to be more deeply engaged and at risk over the Ukraine war. In two weeks, Prime Minister Netanyahu, regrettably, will be greeted as a hero on the floor of the House of Representatives by nearly everyone there. They've already determined that they're going to give him more than 55 standing ovations so as to beat the record of 55 standing ovations the last time he was there. What do you think his goal is? Does he want to scare Congress, saber rattle about Iran? Look, the basic goal of his party, Likud, going back to its founding, is what is called Greater Israel, which means never have a Palestinian state, dominate the Palestinian people, control all of the lands of Palestine, ethnically cleanse those lands if possible,

do what is being done in Gaza, make life completely unlivable, as well as killing vast numbers of people in basic slaughter. So this has been the goal. This continues to be the goal. Of course, on the personal side, he wants the continuation of power and all the rest. But the basic political goal is that there should never be a state of Palestine. It is a goal that can only be pursued with the extraordinary violence, a violence that is tantamount to genocide by what looks to be a decision that will come from the International Court of Justice. It's a disaster, but to continue with that line means continued war and likely escalation of war, because now in addition to Gaza there's every possibility that there will be a full-fledged war on Israel's northern border with Lebanon, with Hezbollah. That would quite possibly trigger a war with Iran.

Netanyahu, as you said, would love to pull the U.S. into a war with Iran. You know, like extremists in Ukraine, extremists in Israel want to use the U.S., the U.S. military power for their extremist ideologies and their extremist purposes. And if we had a functional president, the president would say, no, we're the United States, you don't use us, period. But we don't have a functioning presidency right now. Since you and I were last together, two rather startling reports came out about Gaza. One in the well-respected British medical journal, The Lancet, saying that it is likely that 186,000 human beings are dead in the Gaza Strip. That's about 8% of the total population. The other report is from Haaretz demonstrating conclusively by revealing emails and text messages that Israel did do what it calls the Hannibal option. And in

fact, half the people who died on October 7th were murdered by the Israeli military. Let's start with the Lancet. Those numbers are almost incomprehensible, Professor Sachs. Are they not? 186,000 dead by the hands of the IDF? Well, we don't know yet until there's a full demographic assessment after this horrific war ends, but they're not shocking because we quote the number of 40,000, but that's the bodies pulled from the rubble. First there are bodies under the rubble and that has been frequently estimated to be another 10,000 to 15,000 who were not recovered from the Israeli mass bombing. Then there are the people who have been deprived of the basics to survive, the basics of shelter, the basics of water, the basics of food, and the basics of healthcare. So I've been saying when we have been discussing this, that the numbers are vastly

higher. And I've thought, again, on very general principles and experience that it was not implausible to talk about well over 100,000 people that have died already. The fact that the Lancet says it can be up to 186,000 and so forth, therefore, is not really a huge surprise. It's a shock. It's a disaster. It is a reflection of a genocidal campaign, in my opinion. But it's not a shock from an analytical point of view. Here's how flippant the American State Department is when confronted at a Q&A yesterday, cut number 14. I wanted to ask you first, if you read or heard about the Haaretz report on Israel employing the Hannibal directive on October 7th? So I did see that report that moved over the weekend, and that's the limit of my knowledge

of seeing that report from Haaretz. Does that make you change your position or your perspective on what really happened that day that the Israelis may be responsible for killing a majority of the people that died on that day? Boy, it certainly does not, Saeed. I don't think there's any question.

I don't think there's any question that it was Hamas. Just let me finish. I don't think it's any question it it was Hamas. Just let me finish. I don't think it's any question it's Hamas that is responsible for the overwhelming number of deaths on October 7th. Look, this is an administration that has a president that can't even utter a sentence, and they fake that. They have a fake spokesman of Admiral Kirby at the White House. They have this Miller guy at the State Department. There's all smirks. There's no seriousness. It's all lies. It's all narrative. It's just a disgrace that this is the United States of America and that we have people of such shallowness and utter irresponsibility in positions of responsibility. There's no excuse for it.

I know there's no excuse. There's just no excuse for it. This is not even adult behavior. Right, right. You see this guy's face, by the way. It's all smirks. It's disgusting. They're unwilling to confront painful truths, and it is their job to do so.

Let's go over to Ukraine before we finish. Prime Minister Orbán of Hungary, who showed up in Kyiv in his capacity as the Prime Minister of Hungary, but also as the chair of the EU, I guess of their executive committee, you can correct me. It's the presidency that rotates on a six-month basis. And this six months, it's the Hungarians as the presidency of the European Union. And Brussels went apoplectic when he went to Kiev to try and talk them into negotiating. And then when he went to Russia and Brussels said, he doesn't have a mandate.

And he said, go take a hike. I don't need a mandate. I can go talk to whoever I want. While he was there, he said the EU, I don't know if he was in Kiev or Russia at the time. The EU bureaucrats want war with Russia.

Do you think he's right? Well, first, I know Prime Minister Orban very well. He's extraordinarily intelligent. And, by the way, I spent several hours with him recently discussing the situation in Ukraine. He's extraordinarily knowledgeable and experienced, not surprisingly, and has a very clear understanding about the history of this conflict, the sources of the conflict, the behavior of his fellow politicians, who tells the truth, who lies, who says one thing in public and another thing in private. It's extremely interesting. His visit to Moscow, first to Kiev, then to Beijing is extremely meritorious. He's trying to find a way forward because he knows that is being enunciated by a failed administration that no longer has a functioning president. We're going to play two clips. One is Let me find it. Ah, yeah, President Putin talking about his meeting with Prime Minister Orban.

And the other is Prime Minister Orban talking about how rational President Putin is. So, Chris, cut number three, and then you can follow it with cut number five. Ladies and gentlemen, considering the fact that since July 1st, Hungary is the chair of the European Union, Mr. Orban and I exchanged opinions regarding the current situation between Russia and the European Union, which are at the all-time low right now. We spoke about possible principles of future possible security architecture in Europe. In general, our negotiations have been very timely and useful for both parties.

Of course, Mr. Prime Minister offered the Western point of view, from the point of view of Ukraine's interest, among other things. We are very grateful to Mr. Prime Minister for visiting Moscow. We see this as an attempt to restore dialogue and to give an impetus to the dialogue. Thank you. He is 100, more than 100% rational person. When he negotiates, when he starts to explain a point, when he makes a proposal, saying yes or no, he's super rational.

How to say in Hungarian? Cool-blooded, you know? Cool-blooded. Low-profile cool-blooded, you know? Very cautious, punctually formation, you know, discipline. So it's a real challenge to have a negotiation and to be prepared if you would like to keep the intellectual and political level of film. In other words, he's the opposite of Joe Biden. Well, but yeah, this is absolutely the case. It's, first of all, negotiation is what keeps us from blowing listen, to respond. We don't have that right now. It's extremely serious. I remember decades ago how we just mocked the Soviet Union

when Brezhnev was really not functional anymore and we just wondered what kind of decrepit political system would keep someone like that in power. We have a president that is not functional right now on a consistent basis. And what's amazing about it is how many people scurry to hide this most obvious and basic fact. So it not only is a direct disservice in a very dangerous situation to our own situation, but it exposes the whole pattern of lying and the routineness of the lying that goes on by our government. Professor Sachs, always a pleasure. My dear friend, thank you for your time. I'll be off for two weeks, but I hope you can come back and join us at the end of the month. We'll do that. Very good. Thanks a lot. Travel safely. All the best. Thank

you. Bye-bye. Bye. Coming up at 10.15 this morning, Ambassador Charles Freeman. At two o'clock this afternoon, Matt Ho. At three o'clock this afternoon, Karen Kwiatkowski. And at 4.30 this afternoon, always worth waiting for, Scott Ritter. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.