End of unipolarity w/ Jeffrey Sachs, Alexander Mercouris and Glenn Diesen
Summary
TLDRIn this discussion, economist Jeffrey Sachs addresses the shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world, criticizing the U.S.'s approach to global dominance. He reflects on his advisory role post-Cold War Europe, advocating for cooperation over containment. Sachs challenges the U.S.'s adversarial stance towards Russia and China, emphasizing the importance of economic relations and mutual respect for a stable world order. He argues for a multipolar future where no single nation dominates, highlighting the futility of trying to contain countries like China due to their economic and technological advancements.
Takeaways
- 🌍 The conversation discusses the shift from a unipolar world dominated by the U.S. to a multipolar world with multiple centers of power.
- 🗣️ Jeffrey Sachs, an economist, emphasizes his role as an academic and volunteer advisor, not a representative of the U.S. government.
- 🏛️ Sachs was involved in advising Eastern European economies post-Cold War, particularly Poland, on transitioning from communism to capitalism.
- 💡 His economic advice is founded on peaceful cooperation and an open world, supporting countries in overcoming historical burdens and financial crises.
- 🚫 Sachs faced rejection from the U.S. government when proposing similar economic strategies to those he successfully implemented in Poland for the Soviet Union and Russia.
- 🛑 The U.S. pursued a policy of unipolarity, expanding NATO eastward and creating barriers, contrary to Sachs' vision of a common European home.
- 🔄 Sachs criticizes the U.S. for viewing China as an enemy and attempting to contain its growth, which he sees as immoral and unrealistic.
- 🌐 He argues for a multipolar world where the U.S. is not the sole hegemon, recognizing the rise of other economic powers like China and the BRICS countries.
- 📉 Sachs points out the U.S. is not acting in its own economic interest by pursuing a policy of dominance and containment, which is contrary to mutual gains from trade.
- ⏳ He expresses concern over the U.S.'s anachronistic approach to foreign policy, which is out of step with the current global realities and the interconnected world economy.
Q & A
What is Jeffrey Sachs' view on the shift from unipolarity to multipolarity in global politics?
-Jeffrey Sachs believes in a multipolar world where countries cooperate peacefully and openly, giving space for nations to overcome historical burdens and recover from financial crises.
How does Sachs describe his role during the economic transitions of Eastern European countries post-Cold War?
-Jeffrey Sachs acted as an academic and volunteer advisor, not representing the U.S. government, and helped countries like Poland transition from communism to capitalism.
What was Sachs' advice to Poland during its economic transition, and was it successful?
-Sachs recommended making the currency convertible, creating stability, and reducing debt burdens inherited from the Soviet period. These measures were adopted and proved successful in stabilizing Poland's economy.
Why did the U.S. reject Sachs' recommendations for the Soviet Union during its reforms?
-The U.S. rejected Sachs' recommendations due to a mindset of unipolarity and a belief that the Soviet Union was still an enemy, not supporting any measures that would aid its recovery.
What is Sachs' perspective on the current U.S. approach towards China?
-Sachs views the U.S. approach as creating an enemy out of China, which he finds bewildering and contrary to the open, cooperative world he advocates for. He believes in celebrating the success of others rather than viewing it as a threat.
How does Sachs feel about the U.S. policy of trying to 'contain' China?
-Sachs finds the idea of containing China to be bizarre and unachievable, given China's size, population, and economic success, and believes it's a relic of an outdated geopolitical strategy.
What does Sachs suggest as a more realistic approach to global relations?
-Sachs suggests a more realistic approach is to focus on sensible trade and economic relations with other countries, leading to a more stable and cooperative global system.
Why does Sachs argue that the U.S. should not view China's rise as a threat?
-Sachs argues that China's rise should be celebrated as it represents global prosperity spreading and economic growth, not feared or restricted.
What does Sachs think about the lack of direct communication between U.S. and Russian leaders?
-Sachs finds it tragic and unbelievable that there has been no direct communication between Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin, suggesting it's a sign of immature and dangerous international relations.
How does Sachs view the current U.S. foreign policy in comparison to his economic ideals?
-Sachs sees a stark contrast between his economic ideals, which focus on mutual gain and open cooperation, and the current U.S. foreign policy, which he perceives as driven by a desire for dominance and hegemony.
Outlines
🌎 Global Shifts and Economic Transitions
In Paragraph 1, Glenn introduces the show with Alexander Mercuris and guest Jeffrey Sachs, an esteemed economist. They aim to discuss the US's conflict with China and Russia amidst a global shift from unipolarity to multi-polarity. Sachs clarifies he's an academic, not a government representative, and shares his belief in peaceful cooperation. He reflects on advising Eastern European economies post-Cold War, emphasizing Poland's transition to a market democracy and his recommendations for economic stability. He contrasts the US's receptiveness to his advice for Poland with its rejection for the Soviet Union, highlighting a strategic shift towards unipolarity and the creation of new barriers rather than a unified European vision.
🛑 US Unipolar Strategy and its Consequences
Paragraph 2 delves into the US's unipolar strategy, which Sachs criticizes for creating divisions rather than fostering a cooperative global environment. He recounts his experiences advising Poland and the Soviet Union, noting the US's refusal to support similar economic measures in Russia that had been successful in Poland. Sachs expresses his alignment with Gorbachev's and Yeltsin's visions of a common European home and their desire for Russia to be a 'normal' part of Europe. He contrasts this with the US's approach, which he views as driven by a desire for dominance rather than mutual benefit, leading to the current geopolitical tensions with China.
🌟 The Illusion of Unipolarity and the Rise of Multipolarity
Paragraph 3 discusses the inherent failure of the unipolar world order and the rise of a multipolar system. Sachs argues against the neoconservative belief in US dominance, citing the absurdity of a small percentage of the world's population attempting to control the rest. He points out the economic successes of China and the BRICS countries, which challenge the US's and G7's economic dominance. Sachs emphasizes the importance of sensible trade and economic relations over outdated power struggles, advocating for a more cooperative and realistic global system.
🌐 Multipolar World and the Future of Global Relations
In Paragraph 4, Sachs continues to elaborate on the transition to a multipolar world, driven by the development and innovation of nations like China. He criticizes the US's attempts to contain China's growth as immoral and unrealistic, given China's significant population and economic progress. Sachs argues that the world is moving towards a multipolar system where no single nation can dominate, and that this shift is a positive development as it reflects the global spread of prosperity and technological advancement.
📉 Economic Growth and the Path to Global Cooperation
Paragraph 5 focuses on the importance of economic growth and the need for global cooperation. Sachs criticizes the US's neoconservative approach to foreign policy, which he believes is outdated and detrimental to global stability. He emphasizes that the primary goal should be global well-being, not dominance, and that the US's attempts to restrict China's growth are both immoral and futile. Sachs advocates for a foreign policy based on mutual respect and cooperation, rather than power struggles, to avoid tragic conflicts in a world with nuclear capabilities.
🤝 The Need for Dialogue and Cooperation
Paragraph 6 concludes the discussion with a call for dialogue and cooperation between global leaders. Sachs expresses his disappointment in the lack of communication between US President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin, highlighting the importance of diplomatic engagement to resolve conflicts. He criticizes the US's approach to foreign policy as childish and dangerous, especially in the context of nuclear weapons, and reiterates the need for a more mature and cooperative mindset in global politics.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Unipolarity
💡Multipolarity
💡Economic Transition
💡Geopolitical Mindset
💡Environmental Degradation
💡Hegemony
💡Neoconservative
💡NATO Enlargement
💡BRICS
💡Economic Sanctions
💡Strategic Rivalry
Highlights
Discussion on the shift from unipolarity to multi-polarity in global power structures.
Jeffrey Sachs' role in advising Eastern European economies post-Cold War.
Sachs' clarification of never representing the U.S. government, but acting as an academic volunteer.
Support for President Gorbachev's vision of a common European home stretching from Rotterdam to Vladivostok.
Sachs' advice to Poland on reconnecting with Europe and overcoming financial crisis.
Rejection of Sachs' recommendations for Soviet Union's economic reforms by the White House.
U.S. policy of unipolarity and its impact on relations with Russia and Eastern Europe.
Sachs' view on the U.S. mindset of dominance versus his belief in peaceful cooperation.
The current U.S. approach towards China and its implications for global relations.
Sachs' argument against the U.S. strategy of containing China's growth and its futility.
The importance of economics in shaping power relations and the need for a cooperative world view.
Critique of the neoconservative belief in U.S. global dominance and its dangers.
The rise of BRICS economies and their significance in the new global economic order.
Sachs' prediction of the temporary nature of U.S. unipolarity due to resource exhaustion and adversary collaboration.
The need for the U.S. to adapt to a multi-polar world and the consequences of not doing so.
Sachs' call for the U.S. to engage in dialogue and cooperation rather than conflict and containment.
The importance of addressing global challenges like environmental degradation through cooperation.
Transcripts
uh welcome
um to Today's show my name is Glenn
diesen and with me is Alexander mercuris
and the guest of today is the renowned
an insightful Economist Jeffrey Sachs
welcome
thank you good to be with you
so uh yeah we we will try today to
discuss some of this U.S conflict with
both China and Russia as the world
shifts towards from unipolarity to
multi-polarity and as many of these
decisions uh taken in the 1990s from the
U.S security strategy based on global
Primacy to
the European security architecture that
left Russia out or at a large extent
based on unipolarity with one Center of
power so as we're now shifting to
multi-polarity uh this failure I guess
to adjust to this reality so we're
seeing huge security conflicts economic
financial crash and of course a failure
to address environmental degradation
which is one of your passions but I
thought we could start first with the
development of Europe after the Cold War
ended because as an economist also
representing the US government you had a
key role in advising many governments
also Eastern European economies to
transition from communism to capitalism
so this is now an important part of
world history that shaped also Europe so
it's also a great case study when
economics meet politics I guess so I
just wanted to know if you could share
some of your experiences
of course I'm going to shift out of the
bright Sunshine so I hope uh there we go
uh hold on
I yeah basically let me be clear uh I I
never represented the US government then
or now I've always acted as an academic
I've always volunteered my time I've
never been for a hire and I've never
operated for
uh the U.S government or the IMF or
others that were claimed I I'm an
academic uh and a uh an advisor on a
volunteer basis so just to be clear
about that yes
um you know I believed in president
Gorbachev's vision of a common European
home that would stretch from Rotterdam
actually to of Vladivostok as as he put
it uh I think that was the right Vision
then I continue to believe in open
Global cooperation of course including
China including Africa including Latin
America so all of my economic
advice has been based on the idea of
peaceful cooperation and an open uh an
open world that gives space for
countries uh either to overcome
historical burdens that they faced uh to
make up for lost time to uh recover from
Financial crises and so on in 1989 I
became advisor to the Polish government
and the solidarity movement as that
country was transitioning from the
Soviet system to a market and democratic
system and I advised on how Poland could
reconnect with Europe and indeed the the
slogan of the Polar solidarity movement
was the return to Europe so I
recommended how to make the currency
convertible how to create stability how
to reduce the debt burdens that were
inherited from the Soviet period and so
forth it was quite successful and on
that basis President Gorbachev asked me
to work with his economic team led by uh
uh Gregory yavlinski at the time uh and
uh I tried to help them uh and then
after the dissolution of the Soviet
Union president Yeltsin uh asked me to
work with the jagor gaidar his economic
uh advisor and acting prime minister in
fact to help now the big point that I
would make is that when I advise Poland
I made several recommendations to help
Poland overcome a deep financial crisis
uh cancel Poland's debts create a
special fund to stabilize the currency
and so forth these proved to be uh first
they were adopted by the White House
very quickly my ideas sometimes within a
few hours second they proved to be quite
successful
in stabilizing a collapsed economy but
when I made the same recommendations
for Gorbachev's reforms they were turned
down
completely without
any any iota of support the White House
said hell no we're not supporting the
Soviet Union and then when I made
similar recommendations on how to
stabilize the Russian situation in early
1992 which was also very very difficult
financially
a complete flat rejection and I said to
senior U.S officials but it worked in
Poland they told me it doesn't matter if
it worked in Poland this is different
basically the U.S was already on the
course of unipolarity which is not my
cup of tea at all they said why should
we help these guys they're our enemies
and they drew a line
first pushing the U.S led Alliance to
the eastern border of Poland
and that was going to be their new
expanded range and that's why they
supported Poland I thought they were
supporting Poland out of the idea that
we're going to create a better
integrated world
but they drew the line basically at
wherever NATO could go so if NATO went
East okay support that country but they
were making new barriers not a common
European home I didn't get it at the
beginning because you know I was very
much in favor of both uh gorbachevs and
yeltsin's vision Yeltsin put it a
different way he said we just want to be
normal we want to be normal we don't
want to be on the outskirts we just want
to be normal and I completely agree with
that approach and it works economically
but you have to have a geopolitical
mindset to it and the U.S mindset was no
that still is the enemy on the other
side and we're going to expand NATO
we're going to create a larger U.S
Imperium we're going to help those on
our side not those on the other side and
then of course to to jump ahead to the
current uh moment
to my huge dismay of course this has
become exactly the same game plan
vis-a-vis China and this is also very
strange for me because I've been going
to China for
40 years
very frequently for the last 30 years I
have many former students who are senior
officials many colleagues many friends I
never for one moment view China as an
enemy or anything like an enemy and yet
the US is making it into an enemy by a
daily drum beat that China is the great
threat to the world and again it's the
same mentality if you believe that the
key is you have to be number one then
you look at any other success story as a
threat if you believe in an open
Cooperative world then you celebrate the
success of others I'm in I'm in the
latter camp but that's not the dominant
foreign policy of the United States
Professor sax I find this so bewildering
and difficult to understand from an
American point of view because the
United States
in the 1990s in the 2000s today still is
at the very center of the economic
system I mean it is it's still you know
the pivotal country
I would have thought that the United
States benefits most from having it open
economic trade relations with countries
like Russia China wherever and in fact
it's in its interests to have them as
friends so I mean has this never been
understood or grasped in the United
States or you know am I seeing something
completely wrong I mean it's
dividing the world into blocks in this
way which is what is happening coming
about is contrary to U.S interests it's
actually accelerating the end of U.S
Primacy well you know the question is
what what are interests here uh if you
think uh like we do as a
economists so you say interests are
better well-being uh higher living
standards uh Mutual gains from trade
that's how I think so I agree with you
that none of what the US is doing is in
the U.S interest if you think of U.S
interest as a realist
strategist or maybe not even a realist
strategist I'd say a neoconservative
strategist who truly believes that the
only security for the United States is
to be the number one the hegemon uh the
one with the full spectrum Primacy then
uh you don't you your interest in uh
absolute terms of rising living
standards and so forth you view your
interest as the difference between your
status and the other status so even if
you hurt both sides if you hurt the
other side even more that seems to be
beneficial in the mindset of
neoconservatives and it's been explained
to me by a lot of international
relations
strategists yeah we think differently
from economists economists believe in
mutual gain they believe in an open
world whereas strategists believe in
power relations so what counts is
dominance I've never believed that idea
you know one of our great realists in
the United States and a very smart and a
very nice man is John muirsheimer at
University of Chicago and his famous
book is called the tragedy of great
power politics and I put the emphasis on
tragedy he says yes there's a struggle
for power it's inevitable everyone's
fighting to be hegemon but his
conclusion is it's a tragedy my
conclusion is could we stop the damn
tragedy before it occurs you know why do
we need to go to World War over this
stupidity and when I look at what the
neocons think and say I find it
completely bewildering when I read
Robert kagan's book The Jungle grows
back I'm horrified his true belief his
true belief is that unless the United
States runs the world The World Won't
function well almost no one else
believes this by the way and for real
reason why should four percent of the
world
population presume to run the rest of
the world it makes absolutely no sense
and when you think about it the whole
Viewpoint is intrinsically
dangerous because of one place with four
percent of the world population says we
must lead what is the other 96 of the
world say and we we know what they say
no we don't want you to lead if you
would just behave and cooperate maybe we
could all get along together that's
that's my view
isn't a realistic one it's a fantastic
one
it's it the more realistic Vision by far
is you sensible trade and economic
relations with other countries that's
way forward to a much more stable and
realistic system the other one is a is a
sort of nightmare fantastic system it is
it's also yeah it's also you know it's a
terrible anachronism it's a throwback to
the 1950s uh it's and the the problem is
of course with the dissolution of the
Soviet Union
which
that that's a whole big issue it was not
Ronald Reagan defeating the Soviet Union
it it it was a an evolutionary change
because certain things weren't working
so there was an attempt at reform and
creating uh a uh a more common Global
space which then was taken by the
neoconservatives going all the way back
30 years of course to Cheney especially
to Rumsfeld to wolfowitz but then on the
Democratic party side to Biden to
Newland to Kagan and to others as okay
now we really are in the unipolar world
it was a fantasy then but it after 30
years of China's rapid development after
the stability and the recovery of Russia
after the financial crises of the 80s
and the 90s it's
it is absolutely a bizarre illusion it's
not an accident that it's being Guided
by an octogenarian U.S president this is
a throwback to the past it is not a
reflection of current realities if you
actually look at the world as it is if
you look at data as I do morning till
night you find interesting factoids like
the fact that the brics countries now uh
that is Brazil Russia India China and
South Africa are larger in economic
output measured at International prices
then the G7 countries
so how can we have a a world run by the
U.S or even by the G7 when the bricks
are larger than the G7 it it makes no
sense but you actually see I see it in
my former colleagues at the Harvard
University Kennedy School where I taught
for a long time I see it all over East
Coast America
still the this idea
that the U.S is the unipolar power we
can have our way and they're slowly
facing some grim
findings which are so obvious but come
as great revelations in the east coast
of the United States that the world
isn't going along with it I mean they're
puzzling even after a year of this why
isn't everyone on our side uh in uh this
uh proxy war in Ukraine why hasn't
everyone fallen into line they don't get
it because they don't get out enough
frankly they live in uh in in a
washington-centric
world not in the world as it is today
I remember our key criticism of unit
polarity in the early 90s was that it
would be temporary because the U.S would
exhaust its resources and it would
incentivize adversaries to come together
and I'm thinking now that you have this
financial economic crisis and you have
uh all the key adversaries you know
through brics Shanghai Corporation
organization even friends and neutral
countries of the US are you know
diversifying a bit away from the US is
as this prediction seemed to all come
true isn't there that you mentioned the
strategist and the well the the neocons
wouldn't even they start to think after
a while that this this is uh not a good
proposition where we're going to lose if
Percy hegemony should we maybe shift to
a
multiple multipolar system where we may
be the first among equals or is it
because it does it doesn't seem
sustainable uh continuing on this path
is to know do you see any movements at
all in the because you mentioned some
people are looking at the number numbers
now and it doesn't seem to work out yeah
I think it's important to say that the
failure of unipolarity is intrinsic in
the idea not in exhaustion per se but
simply in the fact that the rest of the
world doesn't just sit there the rest of
the world adopts new technologies
develops China is one of the most
productive Innovative Dynamic places in
the world it's got a population more
than four times the United States it's
had the greatest economic success over
the last 40 years through a massive
investment in modernization and
infrastructure and quality education in
very hard work by the way and it has
built a
a very large successful and dynamic
economy and there's no way that China
would remain a smaller economy than the
United States given that it has four
times more the population except if it's
somehow got stuck at less than
one-fourth of the per capita income of
the United States but why should it get
stuck it's doing the right things it's
investing in its people it's investing
in education it's investing in modern
infrastructure so it's not getting stuck
now the U.S has the lame brain idea what
will make it stuck you know we'll dust
off the Playbook of 1950 and we'll quote
contain China That's really an amazingly
bizarre idea first of all how is 330
million people going to contain 1.4
billion people where the 1.4 billion
population is the main trading partner
for most of the rest of the world how's
that supposed to work well the U.S says
we're going to cut them off from
Advanced semiconductors you know China
is very clever they will make these
semiconductors very soon this is the
whole history of attempts to cut off the
other side from one thing or another and
it's just at this stage illusion
basically four percent of the world
population cannot be the hegemon for the
world that's the bottom line by the way
nor can 18 of the world population China
is not going to be the new hegemon we're
not going to have a hegemon we're going
to have a multi-polar world unless we
blow it up
so we're moving to multi-polarity
because we're now in a world of
independent Sovereign nations with very
clever people all over the world with
the flow of knowledge and technology and
science which enables all parts of the
world to make progress and so the idea
of unipolarity or full spectrum
dominance or whatever one wants to call
it which by the way the U.S learned from
its Mentor Britain and we see where that
is uh has gone I it's just an
anachronism it doesn't work and it it
therefore should be
recognized for what it is a strange idea
that came from yes 200 years of relative
Anglo-Saxon uh hegemony but it's over
and it's fine that it's over it's over
for the good reason that Prosperity is
spreading around the world
I completely agree I mean one would have
thought that you know economic growth
prosperity in China is something to be
celebrated about something to be it's
not something to be feared trying to
restrict Chinese economic growth trying
to freeze China's per capita GDP at a
quarter of that of the United States is
immoral
what does China have to do
so you know to to be allowed to increase
its GDP to U.S levels and as you
absolutely rightly say it's unachievable
one of the things I mean I read a lot of
these neocon pieces and I think that one
of the things that really troubles me is
economics never features in it and yet
economics in their thinking and yet
economics
ought to be at the base of everything in
the modern world I mean power relations
depends on economics and you know
economics points you today away from
19th century power relations it should
not be difficult
sorry well you know it it it it is
true if you think about our aims as
being well-being
material uh security and so forth then
it's pretty obvious that the question of
who's number one is not the most
interesting question in the world it's
actually a pretty bizarre question again
if you are I suppose this kind of uh
geopolitical strategist which I'm not
I'm an economist hoping for well-being
around the world then maybe you ask
different questions but I must say the
track record of asking those different
questions is exactly what John mershimer
says it's tragic so we should learn to
ask different questions the main
question should not be who's number one
but the main question should be how can
we get along
this is actually
so evident
and you know you've discussed it I've
discussed it many times I find it
unbelievable
and tragic that Joe Biden and Vladimir
Putin have not spoken in the past year
unbelievable the world has consequences
of this are we in a playground or are we
serious people adults trying to solve
problems you know what is it that
prevents the two from getting on the
phone I think Biden should be the one to
do it because President Putin put
forward already in December 2021
reasonable ways to avoid conflict
absolutely sensible ways stop the NATO
enlargement then we can actually have
the mutual respect and security for
everybody but no didn't want to talk
about it and so
it is a completely different mindset
everything is uh if it's all about the
power relations you end up with tragedy
you end up with conflict in which nobody
wins and with China it's even more
bizarre and I've watched it
as a as a creation of this ideology
starting in 2015 there was a conscious
change well China's rise is no longer in
America's interest even grown-ups wrote
that are you kidding it's not in your
interest that China rise anymore now
we're going to have a different foreign
policy to stop China's rise but they
actually believe that and behave that
way and it's to my mind worse than a
schoolyard playground this kind of
behavior except it's in a world of
nuclear weapons so it's no joke at all
it's absolutely tragic
but for sex uh well we don't have a time
so I just want to thank you again for
yeah for taking the time to come and uh
yeah we hope to see you again absolutely
pleasure to be with both of you thanks
so much thank you thanks
foreign
[Music]
تصفح المزيد من مقاطع الفيديو ذات الصلة
Zhang Weiwei: China's Rise is SHOCKING the U.S. Military into War it Can't Win (EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW)
Why JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon Is Skeptical of an Economic Soft Landing | WSJ
🌍 GEOPOLÍTICA MUNDIAL - PARTE 1 | Quer Que Desenhe
Is India collaborating with China-Russia to counter US hegemony? Know in Detail | UPSC
Interview: Israel caught between the US and China
International system of states transformation, Peter W. Schulze, Co-Founder, DOC Research Institute
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)