Judging Freedom - Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: US a Menace to World Peace

Episode Date: September 24, 2024

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: US a Menace to World PeaceSee 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, September 24th, 2024. Our dear friend, Professor Jeffrey Sachs joins us. Professor Sachs, always a pleasure. Thank you very much for your time. Of course. You're joining us from the United Nations, as usual throughout your career. You're at the intersection of great events. The president of the United States was there this morning. President Zelensky is in town. We don't know if Prime Minister Netanyahu will show or will not show

on Thursday or Friday. We keep getting different signals. Is the UN an effective means for peace in the world, or with American hegemony and intransigence and British subservience and the veto in the Security Council, is it ineffective? Well, the veto is the key point here, which is that it is the meeting place of the world. I'm here on the opening day of the high-level debate. So President Biden just spoke. President Erdogan just spoke. The King of Jordan just spoke.

President Lula just spoke. So world leaders are here. They are meeting. There have been some important resolutions in recent days. One was a resolution following the decision of the International Court of Justice that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian lands is illegal. And then the General Assembly voted to take steps concretely that Israel must withdraw from those lands. But of course, this is not enforceable if it's blocked by the United States or by other powers. So there's a lot of frustration in this place today, which is that the world leaders are here. Everyone calls for peace and peace does not occur. And diplomacy does not succeed to this point.

This is the reality. And the United States, unfortunately, has been a major obstacle to peace in the Middle East, for example, where everybody, including President Biden, again today, said there need to be two states, Israel and the state of Palestine. And yet when the state of Palestine was to be admitted to the UN as a member state, as the 194th member state, the United States alone vetoed it. The United States is the barrier to peace. So this is really the grim reality that we have right now. And it's a very frightening time. The war in the Middle East obviously expanded tremendously in the last two days with Israel's massive bombing of Lebanon, including Beirut, including the coastal areas which have not been bombed before,

including more bombing today, including thousands of people in Lebanon, civilians, of course, fleeing for their lives from Israeli bombs. The possibility of an imminent ground invasion, although that's not sure, and the war in Ukraine continues to lead to threats of further escalation. Zelensky is coming to the U.S. to try to drag the U.S. into World War III. I think it's nothing short of that. And that's what he's trying to do for whatever tragic or absurd reason, because it's not the reason in the normal sense. So this is really the the issue that we face. The leaders are here. Everyone talks about peace and peace does not does not occur. How was President Biden received when he either defended the Western and NATO war on Russia

or articulated the need for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians? When he said two-state solution, there was applause throughout the entire chamber. There's basically unanimity on that point, except practically Israel rejects it, which is not their right under international law. They have no veto over the right of Palestinians. And that's what the International Court of Justice also just said. So this was basically unanimously applauded. But the United States, in practice, has simply armed Israel and prevented the realization of the two-state solution. This is the most basic point. The Israeli government, which is an utterly extremist and violent government, doesn't want it.

And the United States politics says, whatever you want, we're with you. Just keep sending us the bills and we will also we'll we'll keep shipping the money and we'll keep shipping the bombs that's that's the truth when when he spoke about uh defending ukraine which he did uh basically in a useless language that just would mean ongoing war or escalation i'd say about half the chamber applauded there were applause but it was very different. It's a divided world on that. There's a completely divided viewpoint about what's going on. My own view, of course, is that this war would end today if Biden said what he did not say, which is that NATO will not enlarge and the United States respects Russia's security interests and Russia therefore has to respect the security interests of Ukraine. This war, in my view, in the view of John

Mearsheimer and many of your interlocutors and guests, is a war that the U.S. largely picked very unwisely, thinking it would just roll over Russia, which was not to be, because the U.S. wanted to keep expanding its military alliance across the world, including to Russia's border, and Russia said no. Were you surprised when President Biden was confronted with reality by the Defense Department and apparently changed his mind from the preconceived and hinted at decision to give permission to the Ukrainians to use British and American long-range missiles to strike deep into Russia. It appears that President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov's statements, which were clear and unambiguous, were taken seriously. It also appears that the Defense Department more or less big-footed the neocons in the State Department and said,

we're not ready for this, Mr. President. And the President reluctantly changed his mind even to the embarrassment of Prime Minister Stormer. Did any of that surprise you, Jeff? SECRETARY BLINKEN Well, it was a great relief because the statements by the Russians are very clear and should be taken very seriously, which is that we must avoid escalation to nuclear war. This is the single most important fact on the planet. We must listen and not disdain when Russia or China or others say that is a red line for us because that threatens our security. And then have people like our CIA director, shamefully, by the way, say, oh, don't worry about that. He knows better, by the way. He

absolutely knows better. So the fact that the United States, at least for the moment, has apparently said that it will not agree to the use of essentially U.S. technologies, tracking systems, and so forth to enable Ukraine to strike with missiles deep into Russia. We should all breathe a sigh of relief and just pray that Biden or whoever's around him or whoever's really making these decisions understands we're not playing a game of poker with bluffing. We're talking about the survival of the world. And when a nuclear superpower on the other side, for reasons that are perfectly understandable, say, do not strike us deep into our territory, because that would be a dramatic escalation and a war directly between the U.S. and Russia, because that could only be done with the U.S. We should take that seriously, very seriously. thank you. At the same time, Professor Sachs, the United States is sending military equipment

to the Philippines and Taiwan. Let's start with the Philippines. Why on earth are we sending missile deployment to the Philippines other than to provoke the Chinese? to the Philippines other than to provoke the Chinese. Let us understand how serious this war machine of the United States is in revving up for war with China. There was just a document from the Navy for war with China by 2027. The talk like this is absolutely unbelievable, unbelievably dangerous. We should be exercising diplomacy. We should be solving problems of the South China Sea. China does not want the U.S. to impose choke points on its sea lanes in which China brings its food and energy. And we parade the fact that here are the choke lines and the U.S. Navy can choke off China and that we are preparing for war by 2027. This is a kind of madness. You know, yes, I would expect generals and admirals to have their war games because that's their business. But I would not expect the U.S. government to be allowing this kind of talk because our business is peace and

safety for the American people and for the world and to avoid a nuclear war. And we're not doing that right now. Of course, we have an administration that has been weak all along on this point, that doesn't know how to restrain the war machine. The president himself is, you know, he's at the end of his political career. He's at the end of his administration. We don't hear from him except once in a while. Today we heard a speech that he read from the teleprompter on the podium. But other than that, we hear a lot of talk about war, and it's absolutely reckless and dangerous. And whenever you hear, don't worry about it, we're not going to be bluffed and so forth, please understand how absolutely irresponsible such talk is. We're not in a poker game. We're not in a game of risk. We're in a game where

we need to stay out of each other's direct neighborhoods so that we do not provoke an accidental or deliberate or preemptive nuclear war. Why do we have a fleet in the South China Sea? Could you imagine if the Chinese had a fleet in the Caribbean or off the coast of New Jersey? Well, look, we went through this once in a very vivid way when Russia, or not Russia, let me be clear, was the Soviet Union, in 1962 decided to create such a base in Cuba. These were the tensest days in the history of the world because the United States said that it would never accept this and prepared for world war to prevent it. I don't know what it is in the psyches of these American leaders now that they cannot think through, even it seems for 10 seconds, how we would react if things were put in our way, just like you've explained. What if China or Russia said, we'll have a military base on the Rio Grande with Mexico, or we'll revive the idea of such a base in Cuba? Would the Americans

say, okay, that's fine? Or if we said, we don't like that, and the Chinese said, it's an open world. It's none of your business. We would say, you know what? It is fundamentally our business. Well, Judge, when Russia says, we don't want your missiles and your military base on our 2,100 kilometer border with Ukraine, you know what we say? We literally tell them, it's none of your business. It's just between us and Ukraine. And we say that with a straight face. And either we're completely, I mean, these people are either so profoundly cynical that they're ready to risk nuclear war on us, or they're profoundly incapable of thinking for a moment about what it feels like on the other side, but they are failing to keep us safe. This is the most basic point. And the most important point in the world

is a little space between the nuclear superpowers. So the United States is filled with all its excitement about defending Taiwan and arming Taiwan. There's a new several hundred million dollar package for Taiwan and billions and billions going in right now. And this is all taken as normal, as if we can't imagine what it would be like if China started to arm Mexico, as I said. And I'll tell you, you know, an absolutely absurd illustration of this. A country in the Caribbean, senior diplomat said to me that they were very upset and concerned because China wanted, you know what they wanted to do? They wanted to help build a hospital in this island.

And the United States said, no way. And this country was just asking my opinion, mentioning to me, is it safe to take a hospital? Would it be prudent? We're talking about military bases all over China's rimlands, all over China's sea lanes. And we say, why are they upset? We're talking about sending vast armaments to Taiwan. And we're wondering, oh, why are they upset about that? It's unbelievable how much danger our country, our government is putting us into for no reason whatsoever. Why does the Biden administration believe that China is the most significant challenge in U.S.

history when all China wants to do is be a commercial partner with us. Well, because this is a kind of mania of the United States that we need to be the undisputed number one. That's the point of all of this. Everywhere, even in China's own backyard, we must have hegemony? Everywhere. It's the literal doctrine of the United States that we must have primacy. We must have full spectrum dominance, to use the Defense Department's terminology, in every region of the world, in East Asia, in South Asia, in Central Asia, in Eastern Europe, in Latin America, in the Caribbean, everywhere. That's the American doctrine, as if we can't be safe without being the undisputed and indisputable powerhouse of the world. And somehow every other country in the world lives without having to

dominate everyone else. But for the United States, we can't even be safe unless we're doing that. But obviously, that's the paradox. If we say we're dominant everywhere, what we're doing is threatening countries everywhere. We're threatening any country that is large enough for the United States to say, hmm, you're too large. You are our threat. You are an enemy. And this is how we behave.

We can't take peace for an answer, actually. We can only take subservience for an answer if the goal is to be number one and unchallenged and recognized as number one. And by the way, at a microcosm, this is exactly the Israel situation. Israel's not trying to live in peace with its neighbors. Israel is trying to pound into its neighborhood, We are the regional power. We have nuclear weapons. We can defeat you. We can bomb you.

We can assassinate your leaders. We can act with impunity. You need to fear us. And what is so provoking Israel is the other side doesn't fear them. The other side's fighting them. And what Israel wants is not peace. It wants dominance, and it wants to be feared. And that's how the U.S. is on the global scale. Look at our military network. What kind of country in the world has overseas military bases in 80

countries? Hundreds of billions of dollars we're spending, and as if we don't have better things to do with that. What other country in the world? I mean, the only one that even remotely comes close to it is our teacher and mentor and predecessor in global hegemonic aspirations, which was the British Empire. Look what it got them. It's not a great way to safety. The Defense Department ordered the movement of another 4,000 troops to the Middle East. What do you see coming in Hezbollah and Israel with respect to American involvement, Professor Sachs? The main job of a U.S. president is to stop the war machine. If you ask any general, the answer always is escalate. We can win, Mr. President. We can win. We can dominate.

That's their job. But we're supposed to have diplomats who have a very different job. Unfortunately, we have an extremely weak diplomatic side right now, almost non-existent. The war machine dominates. The president of the United States has not been strong enough to keep this in control. That's why we have raging wars in two zones and likely, or I won't say likely, quite possibly a third where we're revving up. So yes, we're sending more troops. The war is expanding. Israel has us around its finger. We can't seem to say no to Netanyahu, especially before an election. Everyone is afraid or courting the money or afraid of being seen to be not a thousand percent in favor of whatever depredation Israel is committing at the moment. So this is the weakness of this administration. Before we go to a clip of President Biden expressing what I think you

will agree, and you heard him say it, is an absurd opinion on the state of affairs between Ukraine and Russia. In your comings and goings at the UN, have you picked up any hint or scuttlebutt or reliable information about whether or not Prime Minister Netanyahu will be formally charged and indicted for war crimes? Not a word. But I have picked up a lot of movement towards the state of Palestine really becoming the path to peace, because there is a lot of diplomatic movement, despite the United States now, that we need a path to peace. The United States, everyone is hoping or surmising that when the whole world is so clear on the solution, that the United States eventually is going to come along and stop promoting war and actually get on the side of peace.

Did the Mossad commit war crimes by the use of explosive material in the walkie-talkies, cell phones, and pagers of people in Lebanon that resulted in 3,000 injuries and hundreds of deaths? Undoubtedly. There is a convention of the United Nations against booby-trapped devices, precisely this kind of occurrence. This was a terrorist attack. Apparently, it was an attack mainly against the civilian workers of Hezbollah who use these pagers, not against the military forces, as has been discussed. I'm not sure if that's the case but that is what I hear people should understand by the way what are these injuries the pager beat people looked into the pager and then their eyes were blown out this is one of the major injuries that came from this. The loss of eyes from these exploding devices as people looked down at their

pagers that then exploded. And it's women, it's children, it's people in the marketplace, it's health workers, it's people going about their business. This was a terrorist attack, which shows, by the way, also because one should have a pretty high confidence that the CIA was either directly involved or knew all about it. This was not only against international law, very explicit international law on booby-trap devices, and absolutely a terrorist attack, but it shows how our supply chains absolutely are becoming suborned by Western intelligence agencies.

Israel does it. The United States does it. We put our finger at China, but we're the ones doing these abuses. And Israel should be held account for this. Do we fund, I know we're funding the IDF, do we fund Mossad also? Is there an argument that the American CIA or whoever dispenses these funds was involved in this genocidal act of blinding innocent civilians? Look, we're involved with everything Israel does.

And whether we're directly involved in every step, we're involved in funding the whole operation, we're involved in enabling the whole operation every single day. These are our weapons, it's our money, it's shared intelligence, It's close relations between the CIA and Mossad. Very close. And in the past, because of that closeness, when there has been an effective American president, they've sometimes said, no, stop. You can't do that when israel britain and france decided to militarily take over the suez canal in 1956 eisenhower told them no way you stop and there have been other occasions where a strong president says to israel you stop that. That's actually the job of the American president because when you, as I always keep repeating, and sorry to repeat myself, but when you have a trillion dollars invested in the war machine, believe me, it's always revving and generals always have a great idea and American allies, oh, like allies, so-called, they don't do me any good and you any good in security. But Ukraine and Israel and others want to use that trillion dollar war machine and then tell us, don't worry about World War III. It's just absolutely unbelievable.

Which do you think will explode first, Russia, Ukraine, or Israel versus its neighbors? By explode first, I mean dragging the U.S. in. Of course, either of them would be completely devastating. Israel wants us to be in a war with Iran. Iran has, of course, a very close security arrangement with Russia. That's a path to World War III. Zelensky makes no bones about it. He wants NATO to be directly involved in the war. That's World War III.

Take your choice. And both of these countries are equally irresponsible because they both think that they have their hand on the U.S. war machine. And again, the president of the United States has the job to say, sorry, no, you don't. We have our security interests. We don't want to get dragged into World War III. One gets a sense, by the way, that in a weak way, Biden is trying to say this. So yes, maybe he is saying don't use our missile systems and technology to strike deep into Russia. Don't attack nuclear power plants. Maybe saying to Israel, as has been reported in the press in the last couple of days,

don't get into a war with Hezbollah. But is it working? No. That's the question of the efficacy of the American presidency versus the lobbies, versus the endlessly stupid and ignorant war talk of members of Congress who are on the take from the military industrial complex or from the Israel lobby or from whatever other lobby is pushing to use America's war machine for their narrow advantages. But this is, believe me, the time for grownups in this. And God help us, we better have them somewhere here. Here's the clip of what I think you probably heard earlier this morning from President Biden at the General Assembly of the United Nations. So, my direction, America stepped into the

breach, providing massive security and economic and humanitarian assistance. Our NATO allies and partners in 50-plus nations stood up as well. But most importantly, the Ukrainian people stood up. I asked the people of this chamber to stand up for them. The good news is Putin's war has failed at his core aim. He set out to destroy Ukraine, but Ukraine is still free. A bit absurd, isn't it, that he's still making the argument that Putin failed? It's just a pack of lies, misstatements, misrepresentations of history.

President Biden was involved when he was vice president in the overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014. That's the start of the war. Of course, they don't want to talk about that. of the Ukrainian government in 2014. That's the start of the war. Of course, they don't want to talk about that. The idea that Putin's war has failed or that Putin wanted to take over Ukraine is absolutely absurd for anyone that follows more than the propaganda of the U.S. government. What Putin has wanted is that NATO not enlarge to Ukraine

and that Ukraine honor the Minsk II agreement, which was negotiated between Ukraine and the regions of Eastern Ukraine for autonomy for those ethnically Russian regions. Those were Putin's two demands. Those were agreed in March 2022, and then the United States stopped the agreement. So what President Biden said there is not true, period. It's a misrepresentation that has enabled a war that is bringing us closer to nuclear war. We need the truth. We need the truth. We need to understand the history. We need to

understand how this war needs to end in order to be safe. Will you be there when President Zelensky speaks? I'm around. I'm, you know, in the chamber meeting delegation. So if and when he speaks, I expect to hear him. Professor Sachs, very much appreciated. I know what your life is very busy, but this is an exceptionally busy week for you. The only saving grace is you get to go home at night, but thank you very much. Well, it's great to be with you every week, and this is a very timely day to be together to be discussing these things, so I'm grateful to you. Thank you for all your thoughts. We'll see you again next week. All the best. Wonderful. Thanks a lot. Sure. Bye-bye. Bye. Coming up later today at 2 o'clock this afternoon, Matt Ho. At 3 o'clock this afternoon, Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thanks for watching!