Conversation with prof. Kees van der Drijlem
We are talking at the beginning of October erstwhile your compatriot, Mark Rutte, the erstwhile Prime Minister of the Netherlands just became Secretary General of NATO. You are the author of a classical book on transatlantic elites of power. I'll start with one, possibly adequate provocative question. What can you do, being a citizen of a NATO associate State from east Europe, to become Secretary-General of NATO? Many Polish politicians had specified ambitions in the past as you know. erstwhile president Aleksander Kwasniewski, Radek Sikorski, who is now Minister of abroad Affairs – but they failed. What would they gotta do to become the next Secretary General of NATO after Mark Rutte?
– Should I give them professional advice?
Yes, specified free professional advice.
– Well, you know these people better than I do, but I think Kwasniewski is besides profoundly active in activities related to his individual interests to always get specified a job. Sikorski, on the another hand, published rather bold comments, specified as the 1 erstwhile Nord Stream was blown up, and he tweeted with the text, "Thank you USA". It's a kind of non-graduate motion that's not highly valued. In addition, but that is my speculation: I think east Europe is inactive considered, from the position of NATO's headquarters, which are in fact in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, to be comparatively late conquered. So east Europe cannot play any leading role. Although now, in these times, there is simply a concept of building a block from the Baltic States, which are very exposed, surely rather powerfully to their population. They landed with 2 European Commissioners – Kaja Kallas and the Lithuanian man, who is simply a defensive specialist. It is rather different to entrust specified positions to people from very tiny countries. So I truly cannot give any sensible advice here, but that east Europe should effort to find its own way in global relations. I must say that Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, in my opinion, deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, which is more honorable than the position of NATO Secretary General, for his bold journey to Kiev, Moscow and Beijing. This should be an example for another east European countries and for all European countries. Like Fico in Slovakia, who showed large independency of reasoning and individual courage, which we can truly admire. So there is an interesting possible in east Europe, at least from my humble point of view, through which politicians can stand out in a more crucial way than being a spokesperson for the most militaristic organization in the past of humanity, which is NATO. I'm not arrogant that Rutte became secretary general.
I read any information about his early life and biography from a class point of view. It's most likely from the advanced mediate class, right?
Well, in my nomenclature, I'd say he's a typical small-towner. So, like most of us – let's be honest. Certainly, it was not of the advanced mediate class. He was a tiny town boy, like quite a few him, looking for career opportunities. He was very keen on this career from the beginning. Finally, this led him after a long time as Prime Minister, to the position of Secretary-General of NATO. Let's not forget that in 1980. The Netherlands was inactive seen as a country suffering from the alleged Dutch disease. This Dutch illness was that we did not follow instructions coming from NATO. For example, erstwhile NATO decided in 1979 to deploy fresh rockets, atomic warheads in Western Europe, besides in the Netherlands, mass demonstrations took place. It is truly very characteristic that we, as well as Denmark at the time, resisted a dangerous movement, which was to yet destabilise the military leadership of the countries of the Warsaw Pact and clearly endanger the russian Union. Rutte, being Prime Minister, removed Holland from the function of a country suffering from Dutch illness and having a considerable possible for pacifism, in peculiar anti-nuclear pacifism. He brought her to the function of leader and state of NATO avant-garde. As a result, we have delivered – by the way, like Denmark – F-16 aircraft for the government in Kiev conducting a war against the rebel regions and now against Russia.
It's a very amazing transformation in a very short time. I think it's a very reprehensible change. Why? due to the fact that we have changed the nature and political profile of the country in this way, so radically and in the incorrect direction. Meanwhile, a character like Orbán, who represents more traditionally nationalist views, has the courage as a typical of a comparatively weak state to embark on the journey I mentioned. I think we can take him as an example. Rutte is not specified an example in any way. I will not even get into individual matters again, for example, because, as a young Liberal leader in the Netherlands at any point, he advocated the legalisation of sexual relations with animals, which would surely be "appropriately" adopted in east European countries, more socially conservative. I always thought it was terribly embarrassing. There are besides interviews with him in newspapers on very individual issues that I think he would not want to be publically reminded of. But they inactive exist. They can inactive be found online. It says something about a personality that does not have a strong anchor in the social order, so to speak; which is very variable in its individual choices, which in turn makes it susceptible to possible blackmail. I consider it a serious risk. But, of course, his combativeness, his pro-war attitude, and his absurd anti-Russian declarations brought him that position as a reward. Let us remember that he is not the first Dutchman to win in becoming Secretary General of NATO. We had Dirk Stikker in the early period of NATO's existence, who was previously a well-known manager of a large beer producer, Heineken, and a liberal politician.
We had Joseph Luns, an ultraconservative Catholic, who was besides the Secretary-General of NATO. Then our next Prime Minister, Ruud Lubbers, besides wanted to become Secretary General of NATO, but was interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in The Hague in the presence of people who wanted to hear what his views were. Turns out he wasn't militant adequate to become Secretary General of NATO. He was a man of besides much compromise. They told him, "Well, you're not fit for that role." Meanwhile, Rutte qualified. And now we're stuck with him. But let me conclude by saying that we should not overestimate the importance of NATO Secretary-General. actual decisions are, of course, made in Washington and London. And the Secretary-General of NATO is only to take care of certain aspects of public relations and its responsibilities include public speaking on their behalf.
Kees van der Pijl
Exactly. I just wanted to realize the model biography and the model social background of specified people. For me, it was very interesting to learn that Rutte worked for 1 of the global corporations, Unilever.
Yes, but not in the highest position.
Yeah, as a middle-level manager. But anyway, I think this is any kind of career model. Moving from corporations, from corporate work, from mentality created by corporate kind to government positions. Don't you think that specified a résumé, with work in global structures, global corporations, can someway affect these people?
– I think having this experience is beautiful apparent to the kind of personality Rutte has. I think it is more crucial to remind you that at any point there was a chance, that a female with right-wing views could lead the People's organization for Freedom and Democracy. Dutch liberals are a typically right-wing liberal party. Rutte was rapidly promoted and pushed to the front to halt her from taking her place. Her name was Rita Verdonk. She was, say, a right-wing populist. Rutte was promoted to guarantee that a more fuzzy, neutral formula, fundamentally avoiding controversy would prevent her from becoming organization leader. It was actually the beginning of his career. I think that this is simply a more crucial determinant of his function than his experience in the corporation, due to the fact that at the level on which he worked in it, there is no more concrete worldview. His views were not full shaped, for he is simply a man with a career-oriented focus, for whom it is most crucial in itself to conflict at its levels. In fact, he is inclined to say everything, as long as he considers that it is essential to overcome further levels of his own career.
As I recall, he has made respective statements in the past criticizing Donald Trump. Do you think Trump's eventual election triumph in the upcoming elections could spark interior disputes between him and the fresh American administration?
Trump is specified an outsider. So it can be characterized as a populist in many ways, but besides as individual who has no ability to separate from the strategy function of the United States. The United States is their military-industrial complex, their large oil companies, and Trump besides represents Christian Zionists and a block of judaic Zionists in the American power structure. It was clear at the time that Trump had no way to look at the Assange case, for example. erstwhile he became president, he was asked what he was going to do with Assange, and he replied that he did not know specified a man. That's Trump. Rutte would not be isolated in Trump's criticism, as Trump repeatedly said that NATO was an obsolete structure for him. I totally agree with him here. This drive for enlargement is simply a direct origin of the conflict with Russia.
I hope that the actions of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine will aid to instill any fear, any rational fear among NATO countries, simply to halt NATO from causing fresh scandals. Therefore, I find it shocking that we do not have unchangeable and experienced politicians in key positions now. We have Kallas, who sees planet politics at the level of a 10-year-old, and this man from Lithuania, who has already stated that we will be at war with Russia in six to 8 years. What worries me is that these are the people who are now leading us in these delicate areas. Rutte's no better. But he's not stupid adequate to always make specified statements.
I think that specified statements are in a sense part of the function played by east European politicians. The Lithuanian associate of the European Commission, of course, is not the only example here. We have many Polish politicians who talk in a akin way. But back to the elections in the United States and the American power structure – you wrote a lot about it in your works. What do you think of people like J.D. Vance? Recently, it has been promoted by any anti-system media as a possible actual alternative, a actual Trumpist. any say Trump himself is not a Trumpist, but J.D. Vance is simply a Trumpist.
– Firstly, before we decision on to the personalities of these leading American politicians, we request to realise that political figures in a country that is so diverse and so focused on pursuing different interests as the United States are no longer of specified importance. The American ruling class at 1 point decided – at least the key segments of the ruling class made specified a decision – that politicians like John F should never be allowed again. Kennedy, or on the another hand – Richard Nixon, to be in the White home and to follow his own assessment of the situation. Kennedy came out as a cold-war candidate, but rapidly recovered from the Cuban crisis. He then began to analyse the situation on his own.
Today, we are surviving in a reality where the presidents are no longer expected to be able to reflect on and think about anything. They're just expected to sit in a position, take pictures, and sign papers that are handed to them by others. This is the first most crucial issue. The interesting thing about Trump's run is, of course, that he managed to attract people like Robert Kennedy Jr. who would truly air the United States wellness policy, but besides Tulsi Gabbard, a female who is erstwhile military and has very reasonable views on planet politics. I do not know what function it can play in the Trump administration due to the fact that it has obsessive hatred for Iran and all another enemies of Israel. Trump is funded by ultra-Zionist environments in the American power structure, for example, the Las Vegas betting king. These are the people who support Trump, and that means that no substance what he personally thinks, he will never be able to abandon the commitments he has made to sponsors. These are amounts of $100 million for his campaign. J.D. Vance is indeed, as you say, a Trumpist, even more than Trump himself. So yes – this is an crucial issue, even though there have already been 2 attacks on Trump. Who's the vice president candidate becomes highly crucial in this situation. But politically, it would not make much difference. Kennedy, yes. Although Kennedy is besides highly pro-Israeli for any reason. In another things, he is simply a truly interesting figure in my opinion.
But no substance who is elected and who is the future president of the United States, the structure of power will stay the same. How would you specify the main parts, the main elements of this structure of power?
– Well, the first thing we gotta consider – I hope I am not besides theoretical here – is that the power of the United States is not based on American society. The state of this society is tragic. You've most likely seen pictures from the centers of American cities, the completely degraded infrastructure of this country. So we have a paradox here that what many present consider to be the most powerful country in the planet is actually a country that is on the verge of falling. This means that the real driving force, the real social force that is able to act on behalf of the United States, is not the American political system, but the American capital. So these are oil companies, a military-industrial complex and a number of another sectors. Let us besides not forget the IT complex, the information technology block from Silicon Valley and another companies. So this tension between the real American society and the forces ruling the planet market, specified as BlackRock, the large financial capital structures is truly very crucial due to the fact that it may be that while global capital and American capital inactive govern the global marketplace and dictate politics in many parts of the world, their own society, behind their backs, is falling apart. This besides makes what will consequence from the BRICS Summit so important. It is Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, most late with a number of countries joining them, and possibly even ready to engage in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which could reduce their safety concerns within another block. It's not an automatic alternative. I think we are – fortunately, although I don't think it is simply a happy coincidence – in the process of changing the balance of power in the world. Although of course Russia, China and India are not automatically allies. There are many tensions, hidden disputes inside this block. But the aggression of the West forces these countries to cooperate.
It's very interesting about BRICS. any see BRICS as a kind of tactical alliance that is alternatively temporary to reduce the level of U.S. hegemony. Others say that in the future it will be a fresh structure of the planet order. For example, John Mearsheimer acknowledges that the most unchangeable and safe planet is 1 in which we have bipolar order. And of course he gives an example of the Cold War, which was a period more or little safe, from his point of view. What do you think? Will this multipolar world, which is just forming, besides in the form of BRICS, be more unchangeable or fragile than the planet of the Cold War, a planet dominated by the United States and the russian Union?
– It's always hard to judge. But it is actual – you rightly said that BRICS is alternatively a tactical alliance. However, we should not forget that this tactical alliance is now a peaceful alternate to the aggressive West, which is facing a fall. It is evidently more integrated than BRICS due to the fact that the West was built around transnational capital – capital from the erstwhile British Empire, which moved to the United States and North America; North American capital returning to Europe, etc. This gave emergence to what I call the Atlantic ruling class in my book. Something like this isn't in the BRICS block. There are no specified organic relationships developed to that extent. There is no specified cultural relation between different countries. But if you realize that the most economically powerful state, in this case China, has a thousand-year past of peaceful relations with neighbours and philosophy, which goes even further, which is based on the thought that if you behave decently and show respect towards the remainder of the world, this remainder of the planet will see you as a origin of stability... I think it besides attracted to the Chinese offer, primarily Russia, but besides many another countries specified as Indonesia, which is frequently forgotten, and which is the world's 4th country in terms of population. They are besides starting to decision clearly towards the BRICS block.
Another example is Iran. These are countries that have different types of disadvantages and problems, but are not aggressive. They don't have an army ready to fight. They don't have, like the United States, 800 military bases worldwide. They don't do anything like that. Let's look at what's happening in Africa. For example, the African countries are now engaged in a kind of second wave of the decolonization process, in which the French are forced to retreat from West Africa and where the Russians are invited. Russia is very popular there. You've most likely seen pictures of Traoré, the fresh leader of Burkina Faso, specified a handsome military man in a red beret, visiting Moscow. Putin truly enjoyed the situation he was in. And these are the phenomena from which we, too, should be pleased, in the sense that Russia or China do not come to Africa as colonial powers, but they appear there to aid in this fresh process of decolonization that is taking place before our eyes. In this sense it can be said that at the minute most of the planet has already turned its back on the West, although it is hard to presume that this is something that can happen in 1 day. This retreat from the West is simply a long-term process of reorientation in a direction that I consider more peaceful; a bloc that focuses on the real problems we face, namely food security, the fight against contamination of oceans and lands. Well, I don't gotta list a full catalog of these cases here due to the fact that you know him as well as I do. But in general, I think BRICS is simply a block that represents a certain tactic, as you rightly say, and at the same time is besides an component of hope in the highly unstable planet we live in today.
Thank you for talking to me. I hope we meet again in Poland.
– Thank you, and I'm counting on it.
Matthew Piskorski spoke
Photo by Marc Rutte (wikipedia)
Think Poland, No. 45-46 (3-10.11.2024)
