Jeffrey Sachs, an American economist, public policy analyst, and professor at Columbia University, became known to the global public for his “shock therapy,” which saved Bolivia’s economy from hyperinflation in 1985. Within just a year, the professor reduced inflation from 24,000 percent to nine percent.
He applied the same approach in Poland, the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia during the 1990s, when he served as an advisor to Ante Marković (the former Yugoslav Prime Minister). Unfortunately, his recommendation at the time that Yugoslavia needed external financial aid did not bear fruit, as, according to him, Europe did not want Yugoslavia to survive.
Today, Professor Sachs more frequently analyzes geopolitical events and America’s relations with the rest of the world. In a recent appearance with American journalist Tucker Carlson, Sachs noted that the breakup of Serbia, the creation of Kosovo, and the establishment of the Bondsteel military base were, in fact, the essence of NATO’s bombing of the FR Yugoslavia in 1999. According to him, the 78-day bombing was an outrageous and utterly wrong move, but it happened because the Balkans were strategically important to the U.S. during the 1990s, and they wanted to have their pawns in Southeast Europe at that time.
Due to his earlier views on the war in Ukraine, for which he blames the White House, Sachs has become a persona non grata in the American media, especially when he claimed that Americans were behind the attack on the Nord Stream gas pipeline.
In an interview for NIN weekly, Jeffrey Sachs talks about why he believes the U.S. is the greatest threat to world peace, whether an economic collapse is imminent, and how to avoid a global catastrophe, among other things.
In the past two years, geopolitics has occupied much of your attention. You claim that the U.S. is the greatest threat to world peace. Because of your views on the war in Ukraine, you have become a persona non grata in the American media, and they consider you to be “a Putin’s man”. Why did you take such a stance?
As more of history comes to light and becomes more widely understood, the things I present are also becoming increasingly clear. My point is that the U.S. provoked the war in Ukraine by aggressively expanding NATO according to an American plan dating back to the early 1990s. The U.S. government has lied about this history, including its role in several regime change operations. Ukraine, tragically, was caught in the middle.
There is now extensive documentation to support this. The war could have been entirely avoided if the U.S. had not pursued NATO expansion into Ukraine, if the U.S. had not joined the coup against Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, if the U.S. had upheld the Minsk II agreement, and if the U.S. had negotiated openly and wisely with Russia in December 2021 and January 2022. The war could have ended with a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia based on Ukraine’s neutrality in March or April 2022, had the U.S. not intervened to stop the agreement.
There is widespread fear that the shock the global economy is now facing is faster and stronger not only than the financial crisis of 2008 but also than the Great Depression of the late 1920s and early 1930s. We’ve also seen Germany enter a recession. Is there a risk of economic collapse?
An economic collapse is unlikely, but growing economic weakness is probable. It is very difficult to address growing global economic challenges in wartime conditions. The economic crisis is not as acute or severe as in 2008, while the global geopolitical crisis is the worst since the end of World War II. This includes not only the war in Ukraine but also the war in the Middle East and rising tensions between the U.S. and China in East Asia. Although it seems unlikely today, the whole world is exposed to the threat of nuclear war.
You say that the global economy has been destroyed due to geopolitical conflict. While the U.S. economy is recovering, Europe’s and China’s are not. What kind of therapy do they need, and how strong and long should it be?
Europe and China need to maintain open trade and good relations. The U.S. is trying to drag Europe into an open trade war with China. This would be a big mistake for Europe. Yes, China’s economy is facing challenges—mainly created by the United States. Nevertheless, China can and, I believe, will overcome the obstacles created by the U.S. and continue on its path of rapid economic development.
The basic fact is that China’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2023 grew by 5.2 percent compared to 2.5 percent in the United States. On a per capita basis, the growth gap is even greater: 5.4 percent in China compared to two percent in the United States. China will once again significantly outpace the U.S. in 2024. There is no major growth crisis despite the heated rhetoric in the American press. Yes, China is slowing down as it becomes wealthier, but it still grows significantly faster than the United States and Europe. There are certainly problems, but the main ones stem from the United States, not the Chinese economy.
Is the negotiating table and a peace agreement the only way to avoid a global catastrophe?
Yes, of course. The growing crises in the world—geopolitical, ecological, financial, economic, and social—can only be resolved through dialogue, negotiations, peace, and cooperation.
You are familiar with the Balkans. You were an advisor to Ante Marković in the 1990s, a critical period for Yugoslavia. How would you assess the current economic situation in the Balkans?
I was an advisor to Ante Marković during the 1990s and believed in saving the Federal Yugoslavia. However, it is clear that too many politicians within Yugoslavia and Europe wanted to end Yugoslavia rather than save it. The main thing I recommended in 1989 in the former Yugoslavia, Poland, the Soviet Union, and later Russia, was global cooperation with the region in crisis to emerge from the chaos. What I advised in each of these cases, including Yugoslavia, was external financial assistance to help stabilize finances in an unstable situation.
When I proposed this for Yugoslavia, Europe rejected it. Europe did not want Yugoslavia to survive; they wanted to see it broken apart. I believe the results have generally been harmful, even though, of course, many successor states are happy with their independence. Still, the situation in the Balkans remains difficult, partly due to the interference of the U.S. and the EU in the region (e.g., the bombing of Serbia in 1999, the division of Serbia and Kosovo without UN supervision or approval, and ongoing tensions in many parts of the Balkans without adequate mutual respect, dialogue, and cooperation between the region and the EU).
You once said that Serbia made a good decision by not imposing sanctions on Russia and that by seeking good relations with all three sides, it shows that it stands for peace. That’s why it is constantly exposed to pressure from the EU and the U.S. How do you see that decision, and will we lose or gain more in economic terms?
If there’s one thing the U.S. dislikes, it’s neutrality. “You’re either with us or against us” is their standard position, which is based on arrogance and almost never succeeds. Serbia is rightfully striving to maintain good diplomatic relations with all partners—the U.S., Russia, the EU, Gulf countries, China, and others.
Our foreign investments are increasing, but our domestic investments are declining. Public debt is rising, and there is frequent disbursal of financial aid to pensioners and young people of 100 euros or more from the state budget. Inflation is decreasing but not fast enough. What is a good and sustainable direction that Serbia should take?
Serbia and the Balkan region, in general, will progress with peace, the restoration of economic relations between the EU and Russia, maintaining open trade and cooperation with China, strong economic ties between the Balkans and the Middle East, peace in Palestine (implementation of the two-state solution for Israel and Palestine under UN supervision), and European partnership with China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
Artificial intelligence is advancing rapidly. The way of doing business and thinking is changing, new opportunities are being created, and old ones are disappearing. What should those who do not get on this technological bandwagon fear?
Be part of the technological revolution or be left far behind. That’s clear. Serbia and the rest of Europe should embrace new digital technologies, including artificial intelligence, 5G, advanced computing, and many related applications across the economy.
(NIN, 26.08.2024)
https://www.nin.rs/ekonomija/vesti/55492/dzefri-saks-za-nin-amerika-ne-voli-neutralnost-ali-za-srbiju-je-to-jedini-put
Source link : http://www.bing.com/news/apiclick.aspx?ref=FexRss&aid=&tid=66ccbd37e7c34c9387cb97306b90e941&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.serbianmonitor.com%2Fen%2Fjeffrey-sachsamerica-doesnt-like-neutrality-but-thats-the-only-way-for-serbia%2F&c=9756423932861186861&mkt=en-us
Author :
Publish date : 2024-08-26 06:16:00
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.