Conversation with Dan Kovalik
At first I wanted to ask you about your fresh book. I gotta admit, I haven't read it yet. It's about Nicaragua's work. A past of US Intervention & Resistance. What's the contents? How could you urge it to Polish and not only Polish readers?
– Yes, the book is dedicated to American interventions in Nicaragua from the 1850s to our modern times. The United States has been very heavy active in the past 150 years. As Noam Chomsky pointed out, this is most likely the second country in terms of the number of interventions in the Western hemisphere. Haiti comes first. For a long time Nicaragua was a possible site for Americans to build a canal, due to the fact that it lies between the oceans, and it besides has a immense lake on its territory that could pass through specified a canal. The largest American intervention began in 1910. 1 of its causes was the fear that Nicaragua would start working with Japan on the construction of the canal. As you may recall, during the same period the United States has already intervened in Colombia with a view to creating the Panama Canal. So they had already had this trail, but they wanted to control the Western hemisphere completely. It is their pursuit that dates back to 1823 and Monroe's doctrine. president Monroe declared unilaterally that only the United States has the right to intervene and actual dominance in this hemisphere. It was actually a message to Europe: we do not want you here, we control all resources, the workforce, etc. From 1850 to the early 20th century, Britain was the main competitor for them in the sphere of the thought of building a canal in Nicaragua. They managed to get free of it in the early 20th century and take control of the possible construction of the canal. Then there were rumors of nipponese interest and in 1910 the Americans sent their marines there. Her soldiers overturned the president and actually forced him to emigrate. Another president was shortly murdered and later the United States placed in power their man. US troops remained in Nicaragua until 1933. Only the partisan Augusto Sandino, consisting mainly of villagers, led to their withdrawal. Her successes have frustrated the Americans so much that they have made carpet raids into civilian areas, specified as the city of Ocotal. Sandino was so able to get free of the U.S. Marines, but before they withdrew, they were able to make and train safety forces in the form of the National Guard. It was headed by Anastasio Somoza and was to defend the interests of the United States. She shortly succeeded in murdering Sandino, and the president of Nicaragua announced Somoza. It was him and his sons who ruled with an iron hand until 1979, erstwhile the Sandinists succeeded in defeating the National defender and overthrowing them. This happened as a consequence of a folk revolution that was fascinated by people around the world, including me. The United States couldn't leave it like that. They rapidly organized erstwhile members of the National defender into a partisan known as a contras who terrorized the full country for another 10 years, murdered 30,000 people, ruined the economy, destroyed the infrastructure. It never took over any territory due to the fact that it had no public support, but it did a lot to offset the achievements of the Sandinist Revolution, which did a lot in the fight against illiteracy, in the field of wellness care. The Nicaraguan people suffered dense losses again. In 1990, the Sandinists were dismissed. For the next seventeen years, neoliberal governments ruled, which reversed many reforms of their predecessors, doing nothing to make the country grow. Finally, in 2006 the election was won by Sandinist leader Daniel Ortega, who has held his office since then. The book besides tells of the latest attempts by Americans to overthrow it. This is simply a brief summary and a description of this book.
One more question. You know well Latin American political systems, movements and ideologies. You wrote a lot about Venezuela. Could you compare the Nicaraguan strategy to the Bolivian concept of Venezuela's development? What are the differences between them?
– There are quite a few similarities. We have a focus on social policy programmes, combating poverty, introducing social equality, combating illiteracy, building wellness care. They have similar, socialist or social democratic goals. Both systems are trying to accomplish this in democratic procedures. The Sandinists overturned the government through an armed struggle, which was not in Venezuela due to the fact that Chavez came to power as a consequence of the election, although he had previously attempted to make a coup in 1994. The Sandinists made a coup but shortly organized the 1984 elections they won. erstwhile they lost in 1990, they gave up power. In both countries, this democratic aspect was important, although the West did not see it. The difference is that the Sandinists came to power as a consequence of the armed struggle, depriving the National Guard, who wanted them back with the support of the CIA, but it failed. Venezuelans did not control troops and police for a long time, which remained part of the old system, which was the origin of many problems. In 2002, we had an effort to turn against Chavez, who for respective days seemed to have a chance of success. Part of the army stood for her. It was possible due to the fact that there were no cleanups in the army. Now it looks different and the armed forces and police are almost completely controlled by Venezuelan authorities. In Nicaragua, uniforms were rapidly cleared of Somoza supporters. Therefore, even erstwhile the Sandinists lost the election in 1990, the military and police remained under their control. So they were inactive in the hands of society. The right in 1990 had political power, but did not master the apparatus of repression. The country was ruined economically and many social programs were abandoned, but governments could not repress anyone. This arrangement inactive exists today. Venezuela is only building specified a system, already controlling the military and to a lesser degree besides the police. In conclusion, I believe that the Sandinists managed to consolidate power better, so that they can full implement their programme after they returned to power as a consequence of the 2006 elections. Nicaragua was not as heavy affected by sanctions as Venezuela. The United States has imposed more than a 1000 different restrictions on the latter. It's remarkable, it means economical asphyxiation. Nicaragua did not gotta face sanctions after 1990. besides after 2007, they did not introduce much. This has been changing lately, and since 2018, any US sanctions have emerged. There are discussions in legislature about introducing more. However, so far, sanctions have not had an excessive impact on the economy. The Sandinists so succeeded in implementing a number of social programmes, strengthening the economy, unlike Venezuelans. We'll see what happens in the future.
That's interesting. I hope you can translate and print your book in Poland...
– That'd be great. Thank you for what you've done for me so far.
Yeah, we'd be very curious in that. Let's hope we can do this in the coming months. Let's go to Europe now. You've been to Donbas recently...
- Yeah, I've been there twice since November.
I think you're 1 of the fewer Americans who've been there and could see for themselves what the current conflict looks like. I read your large article about your last visit to Donbas. I noticed that you claim that the war began a small bit before the date recognised in the West on 16 February 2022...
- Yeah. First, the conflict between Donbas and Kiev began even before 2014. In the context of Russia's involvement, I mention to a Swiss intelligence expert who erstwhile advised NATO, Jacques Baud. He says that the real escalation of the conflict occurred on 16 February, erstwhile Kiev's forces attacks on Donbas became the strongest since 2014. This is besides mentioned in the OSCE reports. At the time, its observers reported any 2,000 violations of the existing ceasefire in the week before the Russian intervention of 24 February. That's a 30% increase. According to Baud and many another experts, at the same time Ukraine began to concentrate troops of respective tens of thousands on the border with Donbas. It seemed to be preparing for a major invasion. So I agree that the conflict started on 16 February, with all this. This led to Russian intervention on the side of the Donetsk People's Republic and Lugansk People's Republic, which declared independency as a consequence of the then unrecognized until February 2022, by Russia's 2014 referendums.
Yeah. Let us decision on to Ukraine's military support through the West after February 24, 2022, although we know that equipment supplies began long before that date. Are there any estimates of the amount of support given to the Kiev government by the United States? I mean both weapons and financial assistance.
Victoria Nuland said $5 billion...
But this was about the period before the coup in 2014...
Yes, it was his preparation. And now it was another billion dollars. I don't have any data on that right now. Even before the Russian intervention, these had to be billions in military equipment and financial support.
And what is the attitude of the American public towards specified unequivocal support for Ukraine? Let's start with the left...
– It's an interesting thing. Let's look at this full thing, due to the fact that the results of an interesting poll just came out. Initially, American society clearly supported Ukraine's support after Russian intervention began in February 2022. But that support was falling. And recently, I have seen that little, but yet most Americans are against Ukraine's military support. In a year and a half, therefore, there was a change. And as for the left... Depends on how we specify it. The left in the United States is hard to determine. Interestingly, the polls show that the support for continuing supporting Ukraine is much larger among the Democratic organization voters than among the Republican organization electorate. So conservatives seem more opposed to war than liberals. Of course, speaking of the left, it should be distinguished from the liberals. I'm a leftist, but I don't consider myself a liberal. I don't remember there being any investigation in the left. However, I have the impression that she is closer to a liberal camp, alternatively to supporters of supporting war. Many left-wing people were deceived. They identify with the liberal values of the Democratic organization and agree with what Biden does, though they consider themselves left-wing. Furthermore, in the United States and in the West in general, there is simply a part of the people of the left that recognizes this war as anti-imperialist, akin to planet War I, and different from planet War II, seen as a war against fascism. Those who consider the current conflict to be an anti-imperialist war, or a conflict of Russian imperialism with the West, are more inclined to support Ukraine. There are besides those who see it as a war against Ukrainian fascism, or a war replacing NATO against Russia, and are opposed to supporting Ukraine. In my opinion, this is simply a NATO war against Russia. I believe that Russia does not play the function of imperialist power here, but in self-defense and in defence of the Donbas Republics. That is why I am against NATO's actions in favour of Ukraine. But I would say that the left is, in a sense, divided into camps representing these 2 approaches, there are large discussions about this. I believe that, regardless of the assessment of the current conflict, the left mostly stands against NATO interventionism. This, in my opinion, is simply a reflection of the confusion on the left, which has actually prevailed since the collapse of the russian Union in 1991. The left has not so far risen after this ideological blow.
What about the candidates in the upcoming presidential election? We hear a lot about Robert Kennedy and his view of the war. Are there any candidates in the anti-war position outside?
– I think the most crucial of them is Kennedy. By the way, I support him myself. There's inactive a Green organization candidate, Cornel West, who could be the 3rd power. Kennedy participates in the Democratic Party's primary. His name inactive means a lot and is respected in the United States. West is besides somewhat opposed to the war in Ukraine, although Kennedy’s position on this issue is more unambiguous. These are the 2 most crucial anti-war candidates. The unknown card is Trump. He stated that war was a disaster and that it would lead to its completion within 24 hours. But let us remember that he had already announced the normalization of relations with Russia and it did not happen. In principle, he continued to support Ukraine. His actions do not so necessarily coincide with his declarations. Anyway, he's campaigning for the end of the war in Ukraine. So possibly it can be classified as anti-war candidates. Let us remind that his constituents are clearly opposed to war. Biden's supporters support the war. We so have a clear division between the Democrats and Republicans. Let's see where this ends.
However, let us remember that the Trump administration was the first, inactive in 2017, to hand over offensive weapons to Ukraine. So she was closer to the hawks, although it's not necessarily personal. How would you explain that? Is there, as any say, any structure of a hidden state that makes strategical decisions in the sphere of American abroad policy? Who can stand behind this replacement war with Russia in Ukraine? most likely not Joe Biden...
– Yeah, any people call it a deep state, like my publisher prefers that term. I am a Marxist, and I would say that the replacement war is supported by the ruling class, a layer of the wealthiest, represented by financial sector companies specified as BlackRock. This is besides the arms manufacture that Eisenhower has already talked about and warned against. Speaking of BlackRock, 1 should remember that he besides invests in the arms industry, that he is powerfully active in Ukraine. He promised Zelensk relief in exchange for certain economical benefits, investment opportunities in Ukraine. So the ruling class invested a lot in this war and Ukraine's victory. If you invest quite a few money in a task like Ukraine, you want it to survive. And the arms manufacture earns as long as the war continues. So he wants it to last as long as possible. He likewise supported the war in Afghanistan, which lasted 20 years. They want the same in Ukraine. This is, of course, a very cynical project, due to the fact that more Ukrainians and Russians are dying in it. However, I think that this is the nature of these events, and these were the motives for the Trump administration's support and competition with Russia. He himself was guilty of this, surrounding neoconservatives specified as John Bolton or Michael Pompeo, who were equivalents to Victoria Nuland and Blinken in the Biden administration. Generally, the same people or the same kind of people are scrolling into the composition of all administrations. This is partially due to the fact that the ruling class wants it, and partially due to the fact that they are the only people with any knowledge. And that's why we have more wars.
Thanks to the military-industrial complex, too. We have late heard that any European countries, Denmark, the Netherlands, intend to transfer the F-16 fighters to Ukraine and then replace them with F-35 fighters, making money for this sector. Do you think there are any limits to the support of Ukraine by the Biden administration? Can it view certain actions as besides far-reaching to lead to planet War III or atomic confrontation? Or possibly they don't think about that kind of threat at all?
– There are certain divisions in the administration and among the ruling class. any people are willing to hazard atomic war and others are not. Biden late said that we have never in past been so close to the atomic apocalypse, that is, in those moments erstwhile he has clarity of thought, he understands the risks. Is his administration ready for that kind of risk? I think it might be. unusual things are happening. We had a run in fresh York to teach how to behave in the event of a atomic attack. So I am afraid that there are those who want to take this hazard and even start a atomic war, possibly so limited. A fresh preliminary article by the Liberal portal The Huffington Post considered the benefits of limited usage of atomic weapons that would lead to a cooling of the climate. Therefore, we should not underestimate how crazy our rulers are. They are ready for war to proceed pursuing unlimited profits. I think people in Europe see that. We gotta end this war. To answer the question of the existence of impermeable borders, I am not certain that specified limits exist. Biden repeatedly, even in the case of F-16, spoke of specified boundaries and then crossed them himself.
Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and respective another countries of our region are close to the front line in this war. Do you think that the authors of war scenarios in Washington or London can effort to bring Poland, Lithuania or any another country from this area straight into the conflict?
– I think that the hazard is high, especially erstwhile it comes to Poland. In Ukraine present we see the effects of the United States' readiness to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. It's a very cynical project. I'm afraid they might besides want to fight Russia to the last Pole. I hope that people in Poland, Hungary, another countries realize this. It's not their business. Ukraine, which may cease to be as a state, is besides not gaining from this replacement war. And I don't think the United States cares at all. They only care about weakening Russia. If they could do so by involving Poland, they are able to do so. I think the hazard for countries located not far from the front is high, especially for Poland. Therefore, Poles should be very careful and guided by the bill of conscience on this matter, if they do not want to become the second Ukraine, the second Afghanistan, they do not want to be the battlefield of this terrible war, and that is what they can become.
Not very optimistic, but very realistic. I completely agree with you, seeing these trends among the Polish ruling class. Thank you for this conversation. I hope that we will shortly be able to talk about something more in an global optimistic policy.
– Thank you very much!
Matthew Piskorski spoke
Daniel Kovalik (born 1968 in Louisville) is simply a lawyer, human rights defender, union and anti-war activist. postgraduate of law at Columbia University. He acted as an lawyer for the victims in cases against breaking the law by corporations, including Coca-Cola. He is simply a human rights lecturer at the University of Pittsburgh. He is besides legal advisor to the United Steelworkers trade union. Author of respective books, among others on changes in Latin American countries, Iran, Russia. He publishes, among others, in the left-wing magazine CounterPunch.
Think Poland, No. 39-40 (24.09-110.2023)
