Paul Roberts: The collapse of the Soviet Union has made the world more dangerous

Paul Craig Roberts is Professor at the Institute of Political Economy, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute, USA, and a famous writer. He is an author of regular column in “The Washington Post”, several books and numerous articles and manuals for professionals.

Professor P.C. Roberts is known to the world as an author of “Reaganomics”, he worked in responsible positions in the government of Ronald Reagan. P.C. Roberts is Knight of the Order of Legion of Honour and other awards.

In 2005, in the United States and around the world received a great response “six points” of P.C. Roberts, which representing the program criticism of internal and foreign policy of President George W. Bush and scientifically substantiated recommendations on elimination these shortcomings.

Professor P.C. Roberts has kindly agreed to give an exclusive interview the International Organization for Legal Research and answer a number of topical issues.

Dear Mr. Roberts! The world knows you as an expert on economics and politics. Your opinion is sought by governments, and the statements you make have potential impacts on exchange rates around the world. In recent years, however, the focus of your public appearances has changed, with more of your speeches being centered on geopolitics and political science.

Why such a shift to politics at this time? Being an expert in the field of economics and politics, what can you comment on the statement that politics is a concentrated version of economics, and how are these two (politics and economics) are interconnected?

Mr. P.C. Roberts: Care must be utilized in applying abstract models to the political composition of economics and the economic composition of politics. Sometimes actions are driven by naked economic interest; other times by naked political interests.

Sometimes the two interests converge and are mutually supportive; other times they diverge and are in opposition.

What is important to understand is that the world changed dramatically when the Soviet Union collapsed. The Soviet collapse not only dissolved the Soviet empire but also the Russian empire, leading to the emergence or re-emergence of many conflicts, such as the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh.

The Soviet collapse also unleashed a dangerous and aggressive ideology in the United States known as neoconservatism. Neoconservatives interpreted the Soviet collapse as a vindication of the economic and political system of the US.  Neoconservatives spun this vindication into a doctrine that America was “the indispensable nation” with the right and responsibility to impose its economic-political system on the world. The doctrine of US hegemony over the world was the product of the Soviet collapse.

The conflicts that were released or reignited by the Soviet collapse play into the hands of Washington. Washington used the conflicts to advance its hegemonic interests, as Washington has done in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, in “color revolutions” in former constituent parts of the Soviet empire, and as Washington is currently doing in Syria.

Those of us in the Reagan administration thought that the Soviet collapse would make the world safe. Instead, it has made the world a much more dangerous place.

In your recent works (e.g. “The Collapsing US Economy and The End of the World”) you write that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the conflict in Syria, the confrontation with Iran, the encirclement and surrounding of Russia and China with missile bases is actually harmful to the financial well-being of the United States.

What do you think then is a more pressing issue, the economics of the United States or the possibility of war? Or perhaps these two issues are interrelated?

Mr. P.C. Roberts: The deteriorating economic position of the US and Washington’s assertiveness and aggressiveness toward other countries, such as Syria, Iran, Russia, and China are great dangers to the world.  On the economic side of the problem, the US dollar is the world reserve currency used to settle international payments. The reserves of foreign central banks are in US dollars. The world’s reserve currency is threatened by the dramatic increase in US debt and by the monetization of this debt by the US central bank. The constant creation of new debt and new money are incompatible with the US dollar’s role as reserve currency. This means that the international financial system is threatened by US economic policy.

War is not a possibility; war is a reality. The US has overthrown or is conducting military operations against seven Muslim countries, taking advantage of the splits between the Muslims themselves. The US, in violation of the Reagan-Gorbachev understandings, has brought NATO to Russia’s borders and has missile bases on Russia’s frontiers.

Washington is now in the process of surrounding China with naval, air, and land forces, taking the side of Vietnam and the Philippines in their disputes with China, and declaring the South China Sea to be an area of US national interest. Washington’s pursuit of hegemony is leading to direct confrontation with Russia and China and, thus, to nuclear war and the likely destruction of life on earth.

Your specific comments on the media, terrorism, Israel and other issues make allegations about the existence of the so-called Bilderberg Club — the «world government». What is your point of view about the presence and functioning of such a community?

Mr. P.C. Roberts: I do not believe in a Bilderberg conspiracy or a New World Order conspiracy.  No doubt, Bilderbergers meet and plot to advance their economic interests by supporting political candidates around the world who are most likely to serve their interests. How much influence the Bilderbergers have is unclear. Possibly, it is merely a group of rich people who get together to enjoy their image of self-importance.

The New World Order is a way that Western corporations can maximize their profits by offshoring jobs from their domestic economies to lower cost labor countries and by organizing the agricultures of poor countries into monocultures that serve the profit interests of the Western corporations.

A more likely conspiratorial group might be the US Joint Special Operations Command, an unaccountable, if not shadowy, group that is believed to operate outside the constraints of the US military and CIA.  See: http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/02/14/jsoc-the-end-of-military-accountability/print/  and  http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/major-general-why-have-government-agencies-recently-purchased-enough-specialized-for-killing-ammunition-to-put-5-rounds-in-every-american.html 

A half century ago, President Dwight Eisenhower in his last public address warned Americans about the growth in power of the US military/security complex that threatened US democracy. Eisenhower pointed out that in its previous wars, the US had demobilized and closed the military/defense sector.  However, the continuing Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union had kept the military/security complex functioning, and the political and economic power of this interest group had grown with time and now posed a threat to the foreign and domestic policy of the US.  Because of the fear that the military/security complex was able to generate about the Soviet Threat, President Eisenhower’s warning went unheeded. The private interests and government bureaucracies that comprise the military/security complex have achieved long-lasting power that continues from one political administration to the next.

In an interview from August 27, 2008 on the Alex Jones Show you analyzed in some detail the components of the conflict between Georgia and Russia over South Ossetia.

What is your view on the long-standing conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia in connection with the occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and other Azerbaijani territories, the UN resolutions on this issue, and what you believe are the real reasons that prevent the peaceful regulation of the conflict?

Mr. P.C. Roberts: I do not presume to know enough about the historic conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh to offer a solution. What I can say is that Washington will figure out how to use the conflict to advance Washington’s hegemonic interests. If Washington decides that Armenia can best serve its interests, Washington will line up with Armenia.

If Washington decides Azerbaijan can best serve its interests, Washington will line up with Azerbaijan. If Washington thinks conflict bests serves its interest, Washington will find a way to reignite the war. Azerbaijan and Armenia would be well served by any agreement that ends the conflict before Washington turns the conflict into an advancement of Washington’s interest.

And finally, what «six points» would you suggest to a developing Azerbaijan?

Mr. P.C. Roberts: Azerbaijan should understand that development, as traditionally understood by economists, is no longer the way or even possible. The earth’s environmental resources are being exhausted. Azerbaijan should focus on creating a sustainable, steady-state economy in which income is reasonably distributed.

Azerbaijan should struggle to avoid an economy in which a very few become rich by serving the moneyed interests of international capitalism.

Mr. Roberts! On behalf of our organization and all your admirers in Azerbaijan sincerely thank you for the detailed answers and your spared time. We wish you good health, prosperity and success in all. We hope for our further cooperation.

P.C. Roberts: Thank you. I wish peace and further prosperity to all residents of Azerbaijan.

Interviewed by J.I. Suleymanov