>> From WXXI news.

This is Connections.

I'm Evan Dawson.

Our connection this hour is made in the backyard of the United States.

That's the phrase that Trump administration officials keep using when they talk about Venezuela.

Vice President JD Vance said that the United States has a responsibility to guard against threats from its backyard.

Stephen Miller says it's time for the United States to act like the superpower it is, particularly in its own backyard.

In reality, Venezuela is 2500 miles from even the largest, southernmost cities in the United States, like Miami or Houston.

It's hardly a next door neighbor.

So why do we keep hearing that Venezuela constitutes our backyard?

The answer might be found in the growing worldview of some in the Trump administration, who see world powers like China and Russia asserting control over their own spheres of influence.

And so if China controls Asia and Russia gets Europe, the United States gets the Western Hemisphere.

That's the idea here.

The capture of Nicolas Maduro has inspired President Trump to talk about forcing leadership changes in a number of other places in our ostensible backyard Colombia, Cuba, for starters.

And he's talking of taking Greenland by force.

This is a dramatic turn away from what President Trump campaigned on, saying that the United States is not the world's policeman and should end its foreign entanglements, not create more of them.

This hour, we talk about what this means for the world order with a guest focused on issues related to the spread of democracy.

Dr.

Valery Perry is a senior associate for the Democratization Policy Council in Sarajevo and joins us once again.

Valerie, welcome back to the program.

>> Hi, Evan, and happy New Year.

>> So is Venezuela in our backyard.

Can we start with that?

>> I guess it's how you define backyard.

you're you're right in noting that there's increasing talk of wanting to go back to really like, a 19th century approach to the global order in terms of spheres of influence and seeing the national security strategy that came out a couple of weeks ago was concerning enough in terms of the way it articulated.

some of these purported foreign policy goals.

but then seeing what happened in Venezuela was really the first indication of the operationalization of that national security strategy and of seeing the world divided into geographic parts, which not only would presume that the United States, for some reason, would get, you know, Venezuela would get, you know, Latin and South America, et cetera., but it also presumes that it's stepping away and giving up on its role on the global stage.

So in many ways, you can look at it as a significant downgrading of American influence, values and power.

>> I want to talk to you a little bit about what you see in Venezuela.

And then we're going to broaden the lens on what this kind of portends internationally.

And I want to start by saying that earlier this week, when we had a couple of Venezuelan guests joining us, I was very moved by their testimony the way that they talked about the desperation that the people in Venezuela feel, the reasons that they chose not to go back to Venezuela after first coming to the United States.

Their desire to be able to go back, if they so choose, their desire for their kids or grandkids to be able to grow up in a country free of the oppression that is there.

I mean, it was a powerful conversation.

It was a powerful hour.

And their view is not that they're fans of President Trump or this administration, but that they're desperate for any solution.

And so I'm moved by that, while at the same time wondering what this portends when you can go in and capture a leader in the middle of the night, even if that leader is viewed by some as illegitimate?

what your motivations are and what our rivals around the world make of this and what that means for them.

So I know it's complex.

I want you to take me through what you are seeing with Maduro and the capture of Maduro.

>> Well, first of all, I really enjoyed listening to those guests that you had on Tuesday.

I thought that they did a really good job of explaining their perspective as people from Venezuela who, for whatever reason, left and felt that they couldn't go back.

who have obviously seen that country hit rock bottom after years and decades of really mismanagement, et cetera.

and and having the sense that anything could be better than what their families and friends back home had been experiencing for so long.

so to be honest, it's not really surprising that they would think that any change would be beneficial.

I think we're already though seeing and I think we'll start to hear from more and more people, including Venezuelan diaspora, as we move forward.

the fact that the uncertainty in Venezuela has only increased there's already reports of more oppression.

your second guest that day aptly described this not as regime change, but regime de decapitation.

And so getting out Maduro and his wife is one thing, but the entire structure and apparatus whether you're looking at the vice president and other ministers around the vice president or the security services are still in place.

And so the gamble that the Trump administration is taking is that they can strong arm either the vice president or subsequent puppets into doing what they want.

And you know, this is not really I mean, again, the United States has gone into countries before.

I mean, we can look at Panama, we can look at Iraq, et cetera.

But what we're seeing now in terms of the the extraction of Maduro and then the rationales given for it, it is something is something new.

And the lack I think what really worries me as well is the lack of a plan moving forward.

the frustration and the hubris we heard from Trump and also from Secretary of state and multiple other positions.

Marco Rubio, when being asked about, well, what next?

How is this going to play out, really sort of demonstrated that there's no plan other than making sure that a certain number of a number of handpicked Trump appointees will be involved in some way, and that oil companies will be able to go in to purportedly get what they feel they're owed in some different ways.

but we weren't really hearing very much about the people of Venezuela, were we?

We weren't really hearing much about hearing what they want.

We weren't really hearing much about, you know, the opposition candidate who you know, won the Nobel Prize but is still not being really welcomed by those in DC who claim to want to see a different vision for Venezuela.

So I think that on the one hand, like you said, it's very complex that people will have mixed emotions seeing what's happening back in their birth country.

but there are so many questions that remain and the lack of either a strategy or a plan and even more the lack of a rationale that's really grounded in what's will benefit the people of Venezuela and ensure that they can live a life of dignity leaves a lot of space for concern.

>> Yeah.

And so this is where I want to talk to you about maybe the broader implications of the United States taking on a role of kind of a I mean, even if it would be self-described as a benevolent strongman.

So as far as I can tell, the way the Trump administration is talking about what happens next in Venezuela comes down to if we don't like what people are doing, we will go in with force again and again and again.

So the President Trump has said if the Vice President Rodriguez becomes a problem, then they will do to her what they did to Maduro or worse.

He talked about going into Colombia, though.

Now, as NPR news reports, Gustavo Petro from Colombia is apparently going to The White House and maybe the president thinks he can get him in line with threats of force.

So there are those who support this administration saying, look, we are powerful.

Stephen Miller is right.

We should act like the superpower and we should use that power in ways that benefit us and protect people.

even if it looks a little pushy, even if it looks a little bullying at times, it's bullying for benevolence.

What?

What do you see there, Dr.

Perry?

>> I mean, I would have a bit more hope in the notion of any sort of benevolence if there had been any language coming from President Trump in his remarks that had anything at all to do with values such as rights citizens rights public participation, anti-corruption, transparency, et cetera.

all the language that we're used to hearing in terms of either regime change or democratic transition support was completely missing.

it to be honest, some might say it was refreshing that Trump made it so clear that it was really just about the oil.

now, some people would say, well, Valerie, look what the most important thing to do for people in Venezuela to be able to have a life of dignity moving forward is to fix the economy and make more opportunities for the people themselves.

But the notion that you could even do that without having the voice and the voices of people in Venezuela participating in a meaningful way, is simply naive, if not craven.

what you're describing and what Stephen Miller put out in full force in his recent remarks is really an articulation of the politics of shakedown of basically, you know, throwing your weight around and saying, if you don't do what we want you to do, you're out.

I can't help but notice as well that the fact that Trump upped the threats and upped the menace of his comments related to the vice president who's now and acting as president.

I can't miss the fact that she's a female.

Trump typically has specific ire and animus towards women.

we see that with Mexico as well, and we've seen it in other places around the world.

And so it's hard to sort of see how any leader in that position will be able to continually bow to an outside force, such as an aggressive and assertive United States, while also maintaining support back home.

while we've seen that the leader of Colombia has already been in touch with Trump and is quickly reacting to the threats being made against his country we can also see that people are already out on the streets in Colombia.

I mean, basically saying, you know, out with the Yanks and claiming and reminding that Latin America is not the America's backyard.

Now, you could say that perhaps some of these people have been organized by, that government, but it's not crazy to say that people in Colombia seeing and hearing these threats are going to basically be thinking, well, who are you to be saying this about us?

no.

Yes.

Colombia has been a key player in narco trafficking in in different associated criminal enterprises, as have other players in many different worlds and middlemen that we see everywhere, including in the United States.

but people will only let them be themselves, be pushed around by a bully for so long before there's consequences against the bully as well.

So.

And the notion that, oh, I'm sorry.

>> Oh, no.

But before I, before I really kind of jump to what you think how this might be playing for autocrats and aspiring autocrats, even in Europe and Eastern Europe, in Asia.

I want to know what what you think from the perspective of of the Democratization Policy Council, because it was a year and a half ago that Venezuela had elections and Nicolas Maduro did not win that election.

I mean, that is very well documented by international observers.

So what is the Democratization Policy Council think should happen in a country where someone clearly doesn't win, refuses to give up power, and entrenches themselves?

>> I mean, a DPC consistently advocates for accountable Democratic support and action and support for Democratic actors.

within the framework of the rules based order that had been established in the wake of World War II.

there are different mechanisms.

There are different organizations, there are different sanctions that can be used.

there's different forms of soft pressure.

There's different ways of supporting people who are opposed who are opposed to Maduro's election, who knew that it had been a fraudulent election and that the opposition had won?

The irony of all of this is so much of that work to support these democratic forces was summarily unplugged when Elon Musk came in and killed foreign aid.

I mean that in one fell swoop shut down Independent news and media voices around the world, shut down the roles of citizens around the world trying to advocate on their behalf, and created a lot of space, either for domestic dictators and autocrats or for other countries, such as China and Russia, to step in and fill the void.

now have these rules based order structures, whether through the United Nations or different bodies and organizations, world Bank, et cetera., have all of these different allies and relationships always function well?

No, of course not.

Nothing ever, always functions well.

But at least it was a predictable and and really a predictable and consistent approach and a set of rules that one could predict.

The problem with this kind of coming in and the Wild West as a bully and doing what you want is it's unpredictable.

No one knows what the rules are, either in this case or in others.

And this creates space to wonder what is the status of the United States in terms of its own commitment to democracy at home and abroad?

And it also certainly does put ideas into other countries that this is a good time to basically try to pursue unfulfilled agendas and to sate their appetites.

>> So I'm going to try to steelman what the Trump administration may say in response to this.

And then I want to talk to you about why spheres of influence, driven by Major Hegemons you think is a bad idea, because I don't think the Trump administration, certainly not Stephen Miller.

They would not say that they are acting as bullies.

They would say that they are acting with appropriate power.

Given our status as a power and given the realities of our hemisphere, and that we are going to protect our interests first, we are going to when we can protect the interests and the democratic ideals in for citizens in other countries.

But that's not our first priority and that we are not a bully.

We are acting appropriately with power that we can't control the rest of the world, that this is not 1990, that we are not a unipolar power, and that if Russia exerts influence elsewhere, Ukraine, but in other parts of Europe, that's that is not necessarily our business.

If China exerts influence elsewhere, that is not necessarily our business, although we're a competitor with them, but we're going to exert our sphere of influence and we are going to be strategic and smart about that.

Why do you see that as a bad idea?

Why are spheres of influence driven by major Hegemons a bad idea?

>> Well, first of all, looking at the Western Hemisphere, it's hard to sort of see why what the Trump administration did in Venezuela.

definitely serves the interests of the American people.

it was sexy watching it on television.

a lot of people are really happy.

It was interesting to see some of the polls showing that around, I think a day ago or so, about 50% of the American public, including a lot of people, don't support Trump.

I think this was a good idea.

And this is typical of the first days of any sort of dramatic action like this, when people haven't really seen the medium and long term consequence of these actions.

it's difficult to see that American interests would be served by really Operation Southern Sphere, I think it's being called, which would call for up to 15,000 troops in Venezuela.

And estimates are saying it could cost around 600 600.

I think it was million dollars, really, to sort of move forward.

and again, while Venezuela's domestic politics have been destroying that country for years, and while the number of people have left Venezuela, including to come to the United States, has been substantial it's difficult to really see that that is a huge security threat to a country like the United States.

When you look at the size of the military security apparatus, et cetera.

this in many ways, you can look at this being either a good case because it plugs into the years long fear mongering related to migrants, migrant caravans, Venezuela in general.

It plugs into narratives we've heard from the Republican media ecosystem over many years.

So therefore it really does sort of fit neatly into those narratives and makes it easy for people to say, huh, okay, well, this is a good thing, this how can things go wrong?

but it avoids all of the big questions further down the road.

You can also look at this and saying, and I mean, and Trump, when he was on Air Force One, was quite clear in this that perhaps this is just a test case or a model of what we could see in other areas, whether it would be Colombia or Cuba.

and Cuba is certainly top in the mind of many in the administration not least Marco Rubio.

the the problem, though, again, with the notion of spheres of influence, is that again, like I mentioned, it immediately downgrades the United States to dealing really just in the Western Hemisphere.

And derogating its role globally to allow Russia and China in particular, then to basically claim what they claim is theirs.

but the problem with this approach, and again, it really is like looking at a game of risk on a game board.

Is that it's never this simple.

You know, when when we look at Russia and the way Russia would like to go back to a sphere of influence, and not coincidentally, I think it's really interesting that people are remembering the testimony from the 2019, the first impeachment trial, where apparently there had been some talk that Russia wanted to sort of make a deal and say, well, hey, you stay out of Ukraine and we'll get out of Venezuela to start making a deal like that.

And that's quite interesting to see.

And again, how some of these ideas have been in the Kremlin for quite some time.

and it's easy to look at the case of Russia and think about how it can destabilize Europe.

But Russia also has significant interests in Central Asia, in Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, et cetera., whether related to energy or security or other other interests.

China also has interests in Central Asia, as we have seen and has been really fortified through the Belt and Road Initiative.

What happens then, when those two hegemons basically both are disputing who gets what in that area?

And then what happens when the United States actually has various energy or other interests in a place like that?

How do you start to deal with that when you've got some of these conflicting areas?

similarly.

Similarly, let's just look at the Western Hemisphere again.

What about Canada?

I mean, do the American people really want to live in a world where Canada is either seen as an enemy or a supplicant to the United States?

I mean, it's really quite unthinkable.

And not to mention this whole obsession now with Greenland, which which is probably another question or discussion in this or some other conversation.

But but the problem is, is again, when you look at the idea of spheres of influence, it becomes a zero sum game because you've got certain places that either have to belong to you or have to belong to me.

I mentioned Central Asia, but what about some of the different democratic countries like Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Australia?

Are they basically ceded or left to themselves in a in a China ruled Asia?

and basically across the board?

And do we really think that American interests in the long term are going to be best served by a global policy that is ruled less by an understood set of rules of the game, by rules that everybody agrees on, as opposed to by the whims of whoever is in power in any one of the major capitals.

>> So let me get a couple of emails related to some of what we just talked about.

Dallas says China buys land around our military bases here at home.

They ran the Panama Canal.

They were in a beneficial relationship with Venezuela, and we are pushing them out.

What do you say to that, Valerie?

>> Well, the first thing I'm pretty certain I read at some point that when Trump was talking about the fact that they were ready to bring in American companies to get the oil in Venezuela, that they would continue, continue to sell oil to China.

So the notion that China is going to be completely out of the picture is different, and the leverage would really just change in that way.

the issue about China buying up, U.S.

bases anywhere, whether we're looking I mean, this has been happening in Europe and elsewhere, where they've been very strategic in terms of setting up ports, et cetera., around the world.

And, yeah, I mean, I think one thing that we've really seen is that China was able to demonstrate that they were better at playing the game of global capitalism and a bit more ruthless than many others.

I know that in the case of the Western Balkans, where I am, it's been frustrating to many for some time that some infrastructure projects, for example, in Croatia, where a bridge on the seaside was built, even though it was being paid for with European Union money, the open tendering process actually went to a Chinese company, and this was seen as basically capitalism and free tenders.

So and am I saying that there's never space for a certain amount of self-interest in terms of how you run these things?

No.

and certainly some mistakes have been made before, but basically trying to beat China or play with China at this level is not really going to make anyone wealthier or more secure.

>> And John emails to say and I don't think I heard a direct answer from your guest to your question about what we should be telling the people of Venezuela who had an election in 2024.

So John just wants to revisit that.

So the message to them, to people in Venezuela who say, hey, we had this election, we can't get rid of this guy.

There's nothing else we can do.

What are we going to do?

John says, can you revisit that?

>> Well, I guess if we were going back in time to 2024 and before what we're seeing now, and I'm assuming he I'm not sure if he must be thinking about the end stage of the Biden administration, then, if he's thinking about that.

I mean, again, the Biden administration also did not support the Maduro administration and was trying to work with some of its partners to try to create pressure against it, et cetera.

And again, it was imperfect.

but I think what your caller or the writer and also needs to remember is that right now, again, the regime is still in place.

Maduro.

Maduro is gone, but the regime is in place.

And this is something that again your guests on Tuesday are also cautiously looking at because on the one hand, there's a glee that Maduro, as a person, is gone.

But but the problem is, and this is something that the American foreign policy machine has really struggled with over time is that when we invest too much importance in just one individual, we can very easily lose sight of the broader dynamics going on within a security system, within a governing system.

And that can lead us to make some really bad choices.

I mean, Afghanistan comes to mind for this, where we put all of our hope in Hamid Karzai, and that ended up basically failing to move that state building process forward.

and I'm sure that your, your caller is unsatisfied with this answer.

which which is fine.

and I understand because there are no simple answers.

regime change is never easy.

support for regime change takes time.

And one could look back and see what kind of grassroots efforts had been done and what kind of efforts had been done with allies in South America, Latin America, and more broadly to try to increase and heighten pressure and to try to create space where it would have been impossible for that that head of state to continue in that position.

>> John, thank you.

And here's Christopher, who writes the following.

I'm going to pull this back up.

Christopher says, could Miss Perry respond to the following?

Ignoring the self-serving remarks of various Trump administration officials.

What is going on in Venezuela and Greenland?

Cuba and Colombia is a naked assertion of might makes right?

If we really care about liberty and justice for all, we should support the people of Venezuela's right to self-governance.

That should mean we bring a coalition of countries together to support rapid elections and other supports, to enable Venezuela to choose its own path.

I know the ideal would have been to take time to do this in a steadily ratcheting up of pressure on the oppressive Venezuelan government, but now we should be supporting Venezuelan self-determination as soon as possible and hands off their oil.

That's from Christopher.

What do you think, Valerie?

>> I agree with Christopher, and I think he should send that email to Stephen Miller and some others in the administration.

I think that everybody would agree that there needs to be a rapid transfer of power.

But the question is, how is how is this done now in basically what's become almost like a hostage situation in terms of the relationship between the Trump administration and the government.

That is indeed still there.

the security services under Maduro and still and still now, even though he's sitting in Brooklyn are still a threat.

How do you demobilize them?

How do you, even if you have an election, even if the opposition leader, the Nobel Prize winner, did win again and was confirmed as the president, what kind of support do we provide to try to support her own administration and try to move things forward?

And these are not easy questions.

I mean, we saw this in Iraq when the decision was made to debate the government and created a huge security vacuum and a lot of unemployed and angry men who were then able to join terrorists and extremist groups.

and so, again, there's no quick fix in how you do this.

You support these processes by supporting a process, trying to create space 12 months, 18 months, 24 months to build things up from the grassroots up, and also by supporting from the top down a more transparent, more accountable security structure that accountable to the people and unable to basically do extralegal activities.

What's really difficult is, again, this is not the first time that the United States has acted in a hypocritical way, but it would be even harder now to go in and basically be talking about issues such as democratic policing service, democratic security service transparent participation in the election process when we've basically been willing to push all of that aside and didn't even mention any of those elemental issues.

in the first remarks following the the extraction of Maduro.

>> All right.

let me squeeze in one more email before we break, and then we're going to touch on a wide range of issues in our second half hour.

Dallas followed up with a question that I don't fully understand, but it turns attention to Iran.

He says, how bad do the riots in Iran need to get for it to start being in the news?

It is in the news.

Iran.

That's a big news story.

I'm seeing it all over the news.

I'm not really sure what he's talking about there, but let's let's take the question of how serious that situation is and unfortunately for the Iranian people we've seen before, and there are various attempts at either revolution, regime change, democratization that is not an easy battle to fight.

What are you seeing now?

How serious do you think the chances are that this will lead to substantive change?

And what does the international community.

Oh, the Iranian people, they're.

>> Now, I think the timing of what's going on right now is really bad in terms of the people who are taking to the streets at great risk in Iran because the world is so distracted and preoccupied with so many different things, it's hard to focus attention.

And so even though it's been good that it's been being covered I mean, I know when I was recently in Rochester, I, it was hard to sort of find that within in the newspaper, for example, or in the evening news with everything else that's going on.

and so when we go into really like the history of what's been happening in Iran in the past generation, a huge opportunity was missed when some of the overtures that the Obama administration had made to try to begin to normalize relationships with Iran and bring them back into the world community, were basically had the plug pulled out of them during the first Trump administration.

And we've seen now really a lot of regression, in spite of the fact that people really want more.

What I think is important to remember, the people of Iran have been living under this regime since 1979, and they have seen what happens in terms of the inability of a regime like that to deliver for the people, to ensure a life of opportunity and dignity, and to help to move them forward.

They know what it's like to live like this for for two generations now.

And that's why young people are actually out there on the street right now, is they don't want that to continue.

the problem is, is that the international, the global community that should be going in and basically trying to support them by any means possible is right now in such disarray because of what we've been seeing happening especially in the past year.

>> Do you think that it is likely that this will result in the same kind of ending whenever this sort of set of demonstrations?

>> if they do wind down without effective change?

Valerie.

>> it's it's difficult to say.

I mean, I urge you to bring on an Iran expert on this, but but just from my perspective, looking at this, the timing is difficult because the typical actors that might be willing to sort of step in and speak out more on behalf of the people demanding change and demanding opportunity are all focused inwardly right now, whether that's looking at the United States, whether that's looking at the European Union, whether that's looking at different international bodies.

yes.

Just yesterday, the United States withdrew from multiple international, multinational multilateral agencies, including, not coincidentally, the International Atomic Energy Association, which for years had been engaged as well in looking at, different issues related to nuclear proliferation.

So we can't forget about that.

Even though the Trump administration was quite triumphant in terms of going in and bombing sites in Iran.

again, that that doesn't solve the long term problems of what the people want and what their foreign policy posture could be.

if only there was more support for what people on the streets are obviously hungry for.

>> Let's take our only break of the hour.

We're going to come back with Dr.

Valery Perry, senior associate for the Democratization Policy Council in Sarajevo.

Listeners, if you want to join the conversation, you can email the program Connections at WXXI app and you can join us on the chat on YouTube.

If you're watching on the WXXI News YouTube channel, you can call the program toll free.

844295 talk ( 844)295-8255.

We're right back on Connections.

>> I'm Megan Mack coming up in our second hour, we bring back a recent conversation about the good old days when for you, we're the good old days.

Research shows that Americans tend to say the best time to be alive was her teenage years.

Why is that?

We explore it with our guests in our next hour.

Stay with us.

>> Support for your public radio station comes from our members and from Excellus Blue Cross Blue Shield, providing members with options for in-person and virtual care.

Creating ways to connect to care when and where it's needed.

Learn more at Excel SBB.

Com.

>> This is Connections.

I'm Evan Dawson.

I want to ask Dr.

Perry about the very sort of nature of the world order, because, you know, I've been thinking a lot lately about what causes stability and what causes chaos and how it is easy to assume that the status quo will continue as opposed to a breakdown of order.

And, you know, when we look around the world, this is a world that is, you know, ostensibly governed by rules and as, as Valerie would say, a shared approach to a rules based order.

But why?

How did we get there from the kind of Wild West might makes, right?

Take what you can approach that some seem to favor going back to take us through some of why this matters.

To understand the context of this current moment, Dr.

Perry.

>> To lose sight of how we got here.

When I speak with students, I mean, for them, they look at my generation is ancient history.

If I talk about the Soviet Union or different threats like that.

But, I mean, it's important to remember that the rules based order that's actively being dismantled and undercut right now emerged in the wake of World War I and World War II in particular when tens and tens of millions of people were killed, maimed, displaced, et cetera.

in those wars, as well as associated wars related to the other wars of nationalism and imperialism we saw happening around the world, and in particular, as we saw, the business of war becoming increasingly industrial and lethal, and in particular with the the rise of the nuclear.

Of nuclear weapons being held by first, the United States and then other countries.

there was a recognition that such cataclysm should not be allowed to happen again, that there should be a better way for people to live together and move forward and try to mediate conflicts in a way that did not have to end in tens of millions dying, in the sea or in trenches.

And so developing a system including the United Nations, including other international organizations, including different protocols for being able to talk leader to leader to avert possible disaster, was was really seen as a priority.

one of the key things about rules is that, again, it provides consistency and predictability.

And that is good for policy makers.

That's good for politicians and diplomats.

It's also good for business people and markets.

even if you really don't believe in human rights, even if you really don't think that someone sitting in Rochester, New York, should care if a minority group in some country anywhere is being systematically targeted destroyed, repressed, et cetera.?

the might makes right arguments and the development of a system that is based less on policy, law and frameworks instead of on the whims of individual leaders, is, in the long term going to be bad for investment, bad for markets, bad for business?

Because, again, it's just not consistent.

You don't know what's going to happen if a new leader comes into position.

And I think it's important to sort of link together some of these issues with what we're seeing happen in the United States right now.

Steve Bannon Donald Trump and others have been talking about dismantling the so-called administrative state for some time, and they've made some pretty good progress towards this in the past, very destructive year, whether that's in terms of just basically doing away with foreign aid and running fast and breaking things destroying independent agencies and then waiting for the courts to catch up.

All of this is part of trying to get rid of regulations, get rid of laws, and just create really this rules free environment domestically.

And yet again, this is not going to work for the United States in the long term either.

Domestically, just like it won't work internationally.

Having a set of rules that everyone understands and agrees on and can move things forward is important in terms of the day to day business of governance in any country and at the international level, but it also provides for the consistency needed in a society where there's the possibility for the transfer of power.

in a country like the United States, unfortunately, we've gotten to the point where the in particular Congress has become so broken that what we see at the beginning of each administration, if it's from a new party, is a raft of new executive orders either deleting what was done before or instituting what was undone before.

We see flip flopping across the board because we've really moved away from a consistency of policy, and the years when we had that consistency.

I mean, we're really some of the more secure and prosperous decades that the United States has experienced, particularly in the 20th century.

unfortunately, so much of this has been broken down because of the lead up to the 2007 2008 financial crisis and what happened afterwards.

and really, the economic risk and the economic pain that led people to begin to conflate their lack of trust in capitalism and lack of trust in democratic governance.

And it's going to take a long time for us to try to rebuild that.

>> Let's take a couple of phone calls.

This is Jack in Greece.

First up.

Hi, Jack.

Go ahead.

>> Oh, hi, Evan.

I'd be interested to come back and hear your guest speak about.

Greenland and the impact.

Not just give a little background.

Now that we're seeing the rhetoric that this administration's been spewing for the last year about might make, might might makes.

Right.

And we've got to exercise our power and influence and dominate people, get our respect back.

When you add all of that up and we see now what's happened and think about what's going to happen next with the threats, even just the threats that have already been spoken by Stephen Miller on on to Greenland and the impact, in my opinion, that would be catastrophic if we if we see NATO turn away from us and break up for so many years, the United States has shown its strength through its through through the way it's held itself back.

You know, I think now that we've taken action in Venezuela, gone in and kidnaped this guy, we've shown how weak we are that we're so afraid that our influence can't make can't turn things around by working diplomatically behind the scenes with our real partners.

There's I think there's a lot of ways to look at this, and maybe these people, you know, the Europeans didn't do enough to step up themselves.

That's fine.

But work at that.

You know, versus if we see I'm just afraid of what might happen in Europe and NATO and Russia and China.

>> All right, Jack, thank you very much.

What do you think, Valery Perry?

>> No, Jack's right to be worried.

in terms of Greenland, I mean, remember when it used to be a punch line to talk about this a year ago?

but now it's really deadly serious because it's consistent rhetoric.

And even though I can see some in the some in the Republican ecosystem basically saying that this is just trolling, they're not serious.

They just want to get a better deal for the United States.

The U.S.

already has a really good deal in Greenland in terms of being able to be there.

in terms of security, being able to have forces there, being able to engage there.

both due to different treaties, but then also being a member of NATO.

So it's really difficult to see what the U.S.

would want to get by either buying Greenland, as it been suggested, or taking it in some hostile way, since there's already so much scope for doing what they might want to do there.

In terms of security, it's hard for me to not think that it's not just about security at all, but that it's, again, about creating space on a large piece of territory for American companies to go in and do who knows what and extract whatever they want without having to share it or without oversight.

And I also can't help but think that I mean, at his core Donald Trump is a real estate guy agent.

I'm going to say and he sees everything in terms of whether or not one party or the other party owns something.

And I think that especially as he's getting older, as he's moving forward in his second term, that he wants to see a world where there's a map with a greater sea of red that the history books would show for him.

Again, I'm not.

This is armchair psychologizing, but I mean, the fact that the United States is rupturing trust and alliances with Denmark, with the European Union, with other democratic allies over.

This is just it's really it would be absurd if it wasn't so dangerous.

we've been hearing people talk about how if the U.S.

would go in and do something to take Greenland, that that would be the end of NATO.

and I think that is true, but I also I'm already very worried that it's hard for me to see that NATO really exists the way it did a year or more ago.

Now, since trust has been so ruptured, and since it's really hard to have any faith that article five would really be upheld, which is really shameful since article five was upheld when the United States needed it after 9/11.

>> Robin Rochester points out that, yes, as you said, the United States has wide access to Greenland.

That's what the Prime Minister of Denmark pointed out this week.

Mette Frederiksen pointed out that because of this agreement, the United States can expand its military footprint if it so chose.

Right now, without buying or taking by force the entire territory and controlling its people.

And here's what The New York Times said about this quote.

Under a little known Cold War agreement, the United States already enjoys sweeping military access in Greenland.

Right now, the United States has one base in a very remote corner of the island, but the agreement allows it to construct, install, maintain and operate military bases across Greenland, housed personnel and control landings, takeoffs, anchorages, moorings, movements and operation of ships, aircraft and waterborne craft.

It was signed in 1951 by the United States and Denmark, which colonized Greenland more than 300 years ago and still controls some of its affairs.

End quote.

So,.

If the United States had no access to Greenland at all, perhaps there's a conversation about being, quote, unquote, the superpower of NATO and whether there should be a military base.

But it looks to me like this is a debate over just who gets the real estate, because the United States has a lot of access and control already.

Do you think this actually could be the end of NATO as the as the Danish prime minister says?

Valery, if if the United States tried to to sort of forcefully take control of Greenland.

>> I do, I do because we're already seeing again that NATO has been substantially weakened.

And this would be really like a final blow, demonstrating that the United States was the threat from within the House.

And so therefore, it's going to be very interesting and important to hear what happens this week in conversations that I think Rubio is having with leadership from both Denmark and Greenland.

And I think it's it's right that the European Union has been very concerned about this.

unfortunately, the EU has not been very effective at recognizing the reality that they're now facing and has not always been able to get its own act together to try to respond.

just something you said just now made me also think that again when the United States is talking about security, it wants to be assertive, wants to really be, you know, have this new policy of just a strong man and take what you want.

It's really hard for me to not see this all through the lens of corruption and self-dealing.

Since all of the wheels are off in terms of any oversight, in terms of any conflict of interest, et cetera.

I mean, we're basically seeing a return to a sort of mercantilism policy where the aim is to basically just export as much as you can, seize as many resources as you can, and, really try to have a trade imbalance and keep everyone else on edge in your own narrow interests, which is simply not sustainable and will make everyone more insecure in the long run.

>> Back to the phones we go.

Kevin and Viktor is next.

Hey, Kevin.

Go ahead.

>> hi.

first off, I just wanted to tell you, Evan, that the two guests you had on the other night from Venezuela.

They were probably the best guests I've ever heard on your show.

Heidi, in particular, was just profoundly wise.

Had a really beautiful spirit, a voice that was just redolent with such wisdom.

And.

And the other one was really good, too.

And I agree with them.

They're very hopeful.

And they I think that they believe this is a very positive thing.

Dr.

Valerie, what I find troubling is, as usual, when you're on, your comments are just laced with such jaundice and snark against Trump and against just that whole agenda.

So, you know, it's kind of just undermines, I think, what you're trying to say.

But I think that Trump said a couple of things that should be taken note of.

And one is that he said there's going to be a transition to to a democratic process because you can't do it right now.

Another thing he said is when we get the oil thing going there, there's going to be profits for everyone.

Venezuela is going to profit from it.

They'll be prosperity again.

There'll be food on the table, people will have jobs.

So to say that this is just about us taking the oil, we don't need the oil number one.

But strategically, what Trump is trying to do is he's trying to keep China, Iran and Russia from getting Venezuela's oil, which is just a very wise move.

I think, and also just pertaining to Greenland.

now, you're right.

We don't need to occupy Greenland, but we don't want some other superpower to occupy Greenland.

So that's part of the thinking.

So I think all this is just leverage to give us a better stronghold in Greenland.

And just let me just end by saying, you know, when we bought, when we bought Alaska from Russia, think how better off the people of Alaska are or were.

>> Yeah.

>> Having not been a part of the Soviet Union.

>> So let me ask you something about that last point, Kevin.

I mean, I, I take that point, although if we bought Greenland from Denmark, I'm not sure they'd want to sell it.

Denmark is not the Soviet Union.

and the Greenlanders, by all the polls we've seen and their current leadership say they don't want that.

But regardless, I take your point that it's important for us to have a presence there.

But.

But why not simply say, hey, we've got a 1951 charter agreement that says we can expand our military footprint there.

We're going to do that as opposed to rattling sabers.

That makes no ostensible allies feel like we're dissolving a partnership.

Why do it that way?

>> Well, the sabers aren't directed towards Denmark.

The sabers are directed towards anybody else who has an idea of coming to Denmark, let's say.

I mean, let's face it, we're not going to have a war with Denmark to say that Denmark owns Greenland is like saying, I own the Statue of Liberty.

I mean.

>> But it isn't.

I mean, it isn't the people of Greenland like the agreement.

They want the agreement to stay.

It has hundreds of years of history, and.

>> There's a lot there.

You're right.

But I'm just saying, America, I think that what Trump is trying to do is saying nobody else thinks about coming and taking control of Greenland, because we have first dibs on it.

Okay.

That's what he's basically saying.

>> Okay.

All right.

Kevin, thank you as always, Dr.

Perry.

So Kevin is saying look, look at Venezuela.

It's not going to be overnight.

But the people are thrilled.

They're going to have different leadership.

They're going to have more benefits from the oil.

They're going to have a chance to go back to work and have a prosperous society again.

And we all benefit, including keeping our biggest adversaries out.

And he thinks you're downplaying the possibility that that comes to pass.

What do you think?

>> I mean, I hope that if I speak to you in a year that we find out Kevin is right and I was wrong but my reading of the contemporary events and from history suggests that that's not going to happen.

I also I hear what he's saying about wanting to sort of, again, prevent China or Russia or others to sort of, again take Venezuela.

But the problem is, we shouldn't even be allowing this language of taking territory of dibs to be part of what we're talking about.

You know, two decades into the 21st century the period of time where we saw a lot of this imperialism and which led up to World War I and World War II was precisely the time where we saw people taking colonies, taking land, claiming ownership and putting you know, flags in the ground.

And that got us where we got in the early 20th century.

And I'd like to think that we had learned some lessons.

and we also then have to say, I mean, in a vision like this where we are taking Venezuela to make ourselves more secure appropriately, to make ourselves more secure, then how do we feel when China goes and feels that they need to take Taiwan or, or even, you know, take or somehow really constrain Japan so that they say that they're going to feel?

>> Do you think that is more likely now?

>> yes, I think so, definitely.

It seems that right now, I mean, China obviously, this has been on their agenda for quite some time.

And now that they're seeing that the rules based order is crumbling, they're able to take a long term view towards doing this.

And we need to think about this in terms of what this would mean in terms of just really these broader geopolitical and also economic shifts and how this would affect either our current or countries that used to be our allies.

>> All right.

Let me squeeze in one more phone call.

Kevin.

Thank you.

This is Bob.

Next.

Bob.

Got to keep it tight.

Go ahead.

>> Sure.

quick question.

In the event that next, next week, we go into World War III, my my question is because we have been eroding trust and because we've kind of turned on our allies and we've been kind of befriending who we would not term allies.

Who do you think we would be fighting with?

>> Who do I who do we think we'd be fighting with in World War III?

>> If there was World War III, which side would the administration choose to fight with?

>> Dr.

Perry., can.

>> I mean, that's I think that's a conversation that would be fun to talk to Bob with over a beer.

but if I'm thinking about World War III, World War III is going to be nuclear.

Or similarly catastrophic in terms of weapons of mass destruction.

I it's difficult to imagine it playing out with a, with tanks in the old school way, though, that could happen in certain parts of the world.

I think the problem is that while next week I don't anticipate, you know, a one the United States seeking to nuke Copenhagen, et cetera.

in interest of what they want.

I, I like to have enough hope that there's enough checks and balances in place to prevent that.

But I think we need to remember is that the more that these rules are eroded, the more that it's less likely that there are hotlines out there that we can use to make a phone call if something doesn't look right, and the less likely it is that there are the human relationships and expertise in place to to try to prevent a disaster.

And at a time where it seems that technology and A.I.

is being inserted into so many different elements of the American security system and government, et cetera., without oversight, without discussion, without consideration of the security, the transparency, or the effectiveness.

I worry more that there's an opportunity for a mistake to happen that would trigger a catastrophic chain of events, and it's exactly for that reason that we've had all of these different rules and processes and protocols in place for such a long time, and unfortunately, we're tossing them and jettisoning them, jettisoning them without recognizing what the stakes really are.

>> I didn't even have time to get through all the emails that we had come in as well.

So we'll have to save some of this for the next conversation with Dr.

Valery Perry.

Although I should warn listeners that sometime soon we're going to talk to Dr.

Perry about a very different kind of subject.

Dr.

Perry went on a long journey on route 66. what is what is the anniversary of route 66 this year?

What is how many years?

>> It's it's.

>> It's 100 years in 2026 of the mother Road.

So anyone who's been thinking about doing a cross country road trip in the United States, this is the year to do it, because it's an amazing route and it will change your life.

>> What was it, three weeks for you?

Something like that.

>> A little over three weeks.

I took.

>> Will you come back and talk about that sometime?

I'd love that.

>> I'd love to.

It'd be much better than talking about human rights violations and the possibility.

of global destruction.

>> A little bit of a different tone.

Dr.

Perry, we always appreciate it.

Thank you for your time.

>> Thanks so much, Evan, and have a great year.

>> that's Valery Perry senior associate for the Democratization Policy Council in Sarajevo.

More Connections coming up in just a moment.

>> This program is a production of WXXI Public Radio.

The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of this station.

Its staff, management or underwriters.

The broadcast is meant for the private use of our audience.

Any rebroadcast or use in another medium without expressed written consent of WXXI is strictly prohibited.

Connections with Evan Dawson is available as a podcast.

Just click on the link at wxxinews.org.