"Ich glaube, dass die Politik der US-Regierung die Welt zu einem gefährlicheren Ort macht."
Nach dem Gipfeltreffen letzten Samstag, zu dem auch die Teilnehmer des über 1.100 km langen Friedensmarsches aus Maine stießen, und der zentralen Kundgebung am Sonntag, den beiden Hauptveranstaltungen der NO-NATO-YES-PEACE-Proteste, finden weiterhin vielzählige Friedensveranstaltungen verteilt über ganz Washington, D.C. statt. Und rund um den Globus sind Tausende, die die lange Reise nicht antreten konnten, nicht nur gedanklich, sondern auch mittels der vielfältig zur Verfügung gestellten Videos und Liveübertragungen hautnah und mit dem Herzen dabei. Mitten im Trubel Washingtons und trotz eines vollgepackten Zeitplans, nahm sich US-Oberst a.D. Ann Wright, die u.a. auch im NATO-Hauptquartier „Allied Forces Central Europe“ (AFCENT) in der Niederlande tätig war, reichlich Zeit, um mit mir dieses folgende Interview zu führen.
Dieses Interview und viele weitere Videos von Ann Wright hier auf 🕊️ YouTube 🕊️
Die deutsche Transkription ist auch hier auf pressenza und hier im Overton Magazin nachzulesen.
Dear Ann, thank you for taking the time for this interview.
Ann, you served in the US Army/Army Reserves for 29 years and retired as a colonel. You also spent 16 years in the U.S. diplomatic corps, serving in U.S. embassies in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia. In March 2003 you resigned from the US government in protest against the US war against Iraq. Since then you`ve been committed to peace.
This year is NATO's 75th birthday and it`s being celebrated in Washington with high-ranking government and military officials. How do you feel about NATO celebrating its 75th anniversary?
Well, thank you so much, it`s a pleasure to be with you. As you mentioned in your introduction, I served both in the US military 29 years, retired as a colonel, I also - one of my assignments - was with the NATO subcommand called "Allied Forces Central Europe", which is in the Netherlands. So I´ve had exposure to NATO firsthand. And as a US-diplomat I served in countries where there were NATO actions. And after resignation 21 years ago, I am very, very negative about NATO and its 75th anniversary, because NATO, rather than being a force for peace, seems now to be a force for war. And of course, NATO will say: "Well, sometimes you have to have a war in order to get the peace. You have to warhead and kill lots of people in order to stop the killing." And that rational I find very troublesome and repugnant. And therefore, I think to NATO`s 75th anniversary, we have to go back and look what NATO has done - during those 75 years - and see, analyze where really peace was made from this. A peace that should have made really from diplomacy and not from military action, which is the way, NATO goes about doing things.
Yes, thank you. Now, this counter-event was planned by a large alliance, including many veterans, military personnel and historians with relevant military and geostrategic experience. What is your explanation for the fact that these people (including you) are currently so vehemently committed to diplomacy, ceasefires and negotiations, while people with less experience are pushing forward armament and thus escalation and threat scenarios worldwide?
Well, it`s a good question. And really, the answer is in the question. Because it`s the veterans, the people that have actually been in wars, that say: "We don`t wanna do it any more and no one else should. Because the consequences that we have seen from our firsthand are so negative, so horrable, that there`s got to be a better way to resolve international crisis, that shooting people is not the way to resolve crisis. And ultimately everytime that the military has been used, ultimately it`s negotiations and words, diplomacy, that have ultimately resolved the issue. So: Why don`t we just go straight from the crisis to resolving the issue with nonlethal means and leave the military out of it? So, that`s why we had so many military people in that counter summit that were from the militarys.
The peace summit with the core events from May 5th to 7th July began well beforehand with a peace march from Maine to Washington and there are other various events after that. Can you give us something and tell us about your impressions? Were there any personal highlights?
Yes! We were so pleased that Veterans for Peace decided, that the organization would sponsore a walk that went all the way from the Northern tip of the United States, all the way down the Eastern coast, to Washington, D.C. It was a trip, that took 60 days and during those 60 days the marchers stopped every night in a different city and local organizers hosted events in the city about a variety of things. Certainly, NATO was one of the subjects, but it was the increased militarization of our U.S. society and then bring in the broughter context of the whole world. So, the group stopped at cities that have a big military involvement and sometimes it`s actually active dudy military or it may be the mergance of war, the corporations that build the weapons that are used to kill people around the world. So, all the way down from Maine through Connecticut, Massachusetts, from Mainte onto New York, down through New Chersea, Maryland, then finally in Delaware. That`s the home of President Biden, they stopped in Delaware and then on into Washington, D.C. So it was a very robust schedule, there were approximately 500 people that took part in the various stops along the way. They didn`t march like 12 hours a day. It was a symbolic march and usually 3 to 5 and sometimes up to 8 miles per day. But, you know, as the weather got colder - or they started in cold weather - and then got hotter and hotter, because many of the marchers were older, it was the symbolism about marching and then having the events in the local communities. That was most important.
Wow, very nice, beautiful! Unfortunately, this hasn`t been reported in our media so far, although the media is full of reports about the NATO summit. The thousands of people of peace are still being categorically ignored. In Germany, media reporting changed significantly and was restricted almost suddenly on February 24, 2022. It largely said goodbye to serious, i.e. factual, critical (i.e. illuminating all aspects) and fact-based reports in favor of emotional and one-sided partisan reporting. Many essential aspects are also excluded that do not fit the simplified black and white narrative. What do you think is the cause of this one-sidedness and how do you assess the media coverage of the leading media in the USA - on your summit and on the Ukraine and Israel wars in general?
Well, the media in the United States - and internationally, really - are in a totally one-sided toward the propaganda that the governments put out. Here in the United States it was impossible for us to get any national media coverage for our very important counter summit. We did have some independent journalists who came and ultimately will be reporting on it, but none of the major TV stations, websites reported at all on it. We were not shocked, because the U.S. media does not cover that. It is a media that tragically is bought by the U.S. government and it reports what the U.S. government feels is important, not what the public should be knowing about. So, we do rely a lot on international coverage - you know, for various issues, like Aljazeera covering the war, the Israeli genocide of Gaza. We do have some independent groups like Mondoweiss or Palestine Eye and things like that. But they are very, very small in the media coverage scene. So, on the one level, sometimes we may get more international coverage. We had more international reporters that actually came to our rally at the White House on Sunday, than we had - we had absolutely zero U.S. media coverage at the rally at the White House from the United States. But we did have two TV stations from Slovakia and one from Finland. So, that was the only media coverage, that we got on that day.
So, it`s just like the same how in Germany it goes.
Last year we met at the Vienna Peace Summit and I talked to you about the peace negotiation process. You referred to the UN`s already existing guidelines for ceasefire agreements, with emphasis on two different phases of negotiations: the first - and anything but trivial - for a stable ceasefire as a basis for the second for a lasting peace. Since the first phase is consistently excluded, you explicitly pointed it out again in an article and explained the steps in detail.
Now, there are current events that suggest that the first phase of negotiations for a ceasefire may have begun: e.g. Putin's offer to negotiate a ceasefire and just the day before yesterday Russia's peace plan with the proposal to jointly administer Crimea, Orban's trip to Kiev and Moscow with the main concern of a ceasefire, Glavchev's offer to propose Bulgaria as a mediator for peace talks at the NATO summit or Zelensky's rhetorical departure from the maximum demand, the restoration of the 1991 borders. How do you classify these processes? Are they a sign that we are moving into the first phase, or are they just another flash in the pan?
Well, we certainly hope, that they are an indicator that we`ll be moving forward on this. But, as stuck, as the U.S. is on apparently seeing Ukraine fight to the last person, I am not really too positive that this very important initiative by the russian federation is going to go anywhere. Jeffrey Sachs has written an excellent article that talks about the numbers of times that the russian federation has made proposals for peace talks, for negotiations. And they have been rebowed by the United States and therefore then rebowed by Ukraine, each time. So, even though this is a very detailed proposal and it could happen very easily with all of the main actors here in Washington, I am not positive at all, that the United States will take up this proposal. President Zelensky is here in Washington and there will be side meetings of the United States with him, but I´m not positive at all, that the United States will move forward with this. Tragically! Because that means more and more people are going to get killed in Ukraine and in Russia. And it`s a terrible indicator of how warlike the United States continues to be.
Oh, that`s so sad. I had hope you had better news.
The message that came out of the NATO summit in Vilnius was: “NATO first, Ukraine later”. Ukraine should only become a member when it can no longer become an alliance case for NATO - so never. Zelensky was visibly upset and called it “unprecedented and absurd”. The assession would weaken NATO, so there was a conflict of objectives and NATO decided to strengthen itself. Article 1 of the final declaration states: “This summit marks a milestone in strengthening our alliance.” So that’s what it’s all about.
So today the crucial question is: Is it still about Ukraine or just about NATO? What interests does NATO (or the US, which dominates it) primarily pursue and is there a new geostrategic alignment?
Well, President Zelensky was upset a year ago and he`s still upset. The number of NATO countries that continue to do arms transfers to Ukraine is still large. But he can see - and the world can see - that NATO is shifting, shifting from Europe on to Asia and the Pacific. I live in Hawaii, and right now the realm of the Pacific Naval exercises, the largest naval war practise in the world, is going on. And there are 29 countries participating, 8 of them are from NATO. So, NATO is moving into the Pacific. And their partnerships, that they`ve had with Columbia - now they have them with South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand. It shows that NATO is not just a European or North American organization, it definitely is now, what we call: Global NATO. And that is a very worrysome development for all of us. This military alliance is now thinking that it is an alliance for any crisis anywhere in the world.
So, that`s the topic for my next question, so, you almost answered it. But I`ll read it:
Hardly noticed in Europe, whose attention is absorbed by the wars in Ukraine and in Israel, the situation in East Asia is more tense than ever before. A slow geopolitical revolution is taking place - NATO, which was once focused on the Atlantic, is turning to the Pacific.
The North Korean news agency KNCA wrote: “NATO’s “chariot” is racing towards the Asia-Pacific.“ And Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said: “We have seen what NATO has done in Europe. It must not now attempt to sow chaos here in the Asia-Pacific region or anywhere else in the world.” China's Defense Ministry has accused NATO of being a warmonger. Wu Qian said: "It's fair to say NATO is like a walking war machine, wherever it goes, there`ll be instability."
As NATO celebrates its 75th anniversary, what do you think of the move to expand NATO's sphere of influence into the Indo-Pacific? How should the world's ongoing multipolarity be organized?
Well, as I mentioned, we`re certain in saying that NATO is very well becoming a global military alliance. I will add to what I mentioned previously, that we should have great concern about of what NATO countries are doing on the Israely genocide on Gaza, the weapons transfers of many NATO countries to Israel. It`s not just the United States that is providing weapons to Israel, although we are providing a great number of them, but Germany is providing weapons. And in fact, the German government has been sued by the Nicaraguan government for its complicity in the genocide, that the Israelis are conducting in Gaza. It is very, very troubling, that the NATO countries - whether it`s under the name of the alliance or because they`re all allied anyway, and particulary, when the U.S. gives an order - we need to support. We need to support Ukraine, we need to support Israel, that all of the sudden, all of these countries, do the bidding of the United States and sending these weapons to further conflict.
I was called in November to be an expert witness at the UN Security Council on the issue of weapons transfers.
And that is the sum of what I spoke about, it was: as long as countries headed by the United States keep transferring weapons into these conflicts, then the conflicts will continue.
The only one way to induce an ultimately end of the conflicts is to stop transferring these weapons.
And the UN Security Council wanted information about transfers into Ukraine.
I took the liberaty of talking about the weapons transfers that the United States and other countries were making into Israel, which was prolonging and still prolongs nine months later the Israel genocide of Gaza.
The NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997 had the primary aim of creating a relationship of mutual trust in a common security and stability area by means of confidence-building measures and disarmament. For example, no militarily substantial NATO combat troops should be stationed in the new alliance states, and others should not be stationed permanently and nuclear weapons should be avoided. Today, thousands of – alone - Bundeswehr soldiers are permanently stationed in Lithuania. And President Andrzej Duda recently declared that Poland was ready to deploy NATO nuclear weapons. I have 2 questions about it:
1. Under these circumstances: Do you see any opportunity to break out of the escalation spiral and return to the original, comprehensively defined concept of security? And if so, what would be necessary and what realpolitical steps would have to be taken?
It`s horrible what`s happening in terms of the expansion of U.S. and NATO forces, in Poland, in Romania. The largest U.S. military base in Europe now is not in Germany, where it was for decades, but now in Poland. So, the expansion of U.S. militarism in Europe is proceeding in a rapid pace. And the number of military war practices, ground practices, are increasing. The largest defender exercises every other year are being held in Europe, the numbers of U.S. military and NATO military that are practicing right on the border of the Russian federation is definitely worries to President Putin, as it should be worries to all of us. Because if NATO is doing its war practice right on that border, then the only logical thing that the Russian federation can do is to protect itself from potentually an invasion, even though NATO and U.S. would say: "Oh, we`re not talking at all about an invasion, we`re just practicing." But what are you listening for? But then when the Russian federation takes steps to protect itself then it`s: "Oh, the Russians are getting ready to invade everybody else." And that`s used by the Baltic states to say: "We are the first ones that will be invaded and therefore, we have to increase our military and allow NATO to have all sorts of wargames in our countries." So, the whole concept from 40 years ago has been thrown out the window. It`s not a cold war anymore, it`s a hot war, that`s going on. It`s a hot situation, that could very easily with miscalculation mistake turn into a full fledged military war.
Terrible! And absurd, because of NATO article 5.
2. This large-scale rearmament, the militarization of society and also the required “change in mentality” including the recruitment of young people is based on the constantly repeated claim, that Putin had (quote) “clearly said” that after the Ukraine they would attack other European countries.
Would demanding ultimate proof of this claim be a first step toward de-escalation (we are currently trying this in the Bundestag but have less hope) or how do you think we can penetrate with facts?
I`d like to add: There are other unproven allegations or even secrecy, such as the Nord Stream attack. This was an attack on our national security, but our government is turning the tables and saying that information about it affects our national security. Meanwhile, the NATO members Denmark and Sweden have stopped the investigation. That can actually only mean that “friendship” is relative in foreign policy relations or even in the NATO, isn`t it?
Well, there`s certainly a lot of propaganda that each of the countries is putting out. And this whole thing that the Russian federation is ready to invade Europe all the way to the Atlantic Ocean is nonsense. I mean, that`s just pure propaganda. It`s so dangerous for international relations, what some of the governments are putting out, including the United States. I mean, this terrible incidence that have happened, the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipelines have not been formally investigated and publically reported on the results of the investigation. And the written and oral suspicions that governments have, that it wasn`t - I guess the word is, that it was Russia that blew up their own pipelines. How ridiculous is that? And who benefitted from the blowing up of it. It certainly was Russia who was making money out of it. Who ever blew it up, wanted to make sure that the Russian federation did not make any money out of this. And one of their primary means of financial transactions, the selling of gas and oil to European countries, that becomes foremost one of the sanctions on Russia. And to allow that pipeline to continue, in the view of - for certainly the United States - was breaking the sanctions. Now, for other countries that were benefitting from having a cheaper natural gas and oil coming in - we would question: Why would they want to blow up their source of cheaper fuel? So, the indications are not, that Russia blew it up - I mean for us, as Amateur detectives. That doesn`t make a bit of sense. And yet now we have, as you mentioned, that the investigations have been ended, although I would say, they know exactly what happenend. They`re just not making public, who actually did it.
You`ve been working for peace for over 20 years now. Can you tell us something about your everyday peace work? Do you feel a change since the Ukraine escalation and perhaps also after the Middle East escalation and which voices are reaching you, what are their core concerns? Especially now in connection with the peace summit: what is your résumé until now and how do you look to the future?
Well, yes, I`ve now been a part of the peace movement since my resignation in 2003, so that`s 21 years. I resigned over the Iraq War. There was a huge mobilization against the Iraq War and to an extend to the continued war in Afghanistan. And then there`s been kind of a low. But the decision of the Russian federation to invade parts of Ukraine, saying that Ukraine had crossed the red line that they had in the negotiations on accession in the NATO and the treatment of Russian speakers in the Donbass region. I mean, all of those are certainly areas of concern, but it does not justify my opinion at all, the Russian decision to conduct the war on Ukrainians oil. And for us in the U.S., there`s certainly a huge number of U.S. citizens that say: "Of course, Ukraine has to defend itself, the U.S. must come to the aid of Ukraine." And trying to counter that narrative in terms of - I mean, I agree, they do have the right to defend themselves from any invasion - but trying to move toward resolving the issues of accession to NATO, better treatment of the people in the Donbass, things like that. Doing it by nonmilitary means is the way to do it, which actually the Minsk I and Minsk II agreements were all about. That were torpedoed in great measure by the U.S. and the UK. So, the mobilization on the Ukraine war has had a certain effect, although it`s been a devisive one, I would say, in the peace movement in the United States. Because a lot of people on the peace movement say: "Yes, Ukraine must defend itself and yes, there should be negotiations. others say: "Let`s just get the negotiations right now."
And on the issue of the genocide of Gaza: that has propably brought more people working on trying to get a ceasefire and a settlement of issues. And despite the huge numbers of people worldwide, that have come out to say "There must be a ceasefire, there must be negotiations", the U.S. government continues to support the Zionist Israeli war government and its genocide of the people of Gaza. And we have been in the U.S. congress every day since November. We have had hundreds of people in the U.S. congress. Everyday we had anywhere from 10 to 20 to 50 people, that are going to 15, 20, 30 offices in both the house of Representatives and the Senate to pleed with the Congress people to sign for a ceasefire and do not vote for any more weapons to Israel. And yet, we only have 80, eight zero, members of Congress that have called for a ceasefire out of 535. So, the congress is dugging on support for Israel, because most of the Congresspeople get payments from Zionist related organizations, like AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Community. And they know, that they will suffer during the elections, because millions of Dollars will put into the campaigns to have them thrown out of congress. So, it`s so difficult when you see in your very eyes a genocide occurring and you can`t get your own government, our U.S. government, to stop funding Israel and to threaten the State of Israel to say: "If you don`t stop this, we will put a gate on you, we will put sanctions on you, we will do everything we can do to make you stop killing Palestinians, both in Gaza and in the West Bank. And stop the settlements, that continue to grow on Palestinian lands."
So, while we do the big mobilizations, finally Joe Biden has said: "Yes, there must be a ceasefire and yes, there must be negotiations." But it took him 7 months, before he said that word ceasefire. And in that period of time, over 20.000 Palestinians had been killed. And plus, we know, that Tens of thousands are still under the ruins that no one can get to.
It`s so cruel! And, as you said, it`s all about money, not about lives. - No, it`s about the money. - Cruel!
Then, something perhaps positive, my last question:
You (with all of us) say: NO to NATO, YES to PEACE! If you could dream for a moment: What would a world without NATO look like?
Well, a world without NATO would look like each of the countries setteling NATO would have better Health systems, better Education systems, better benefits for their citizens. Because money that is now being spent on military weapons will now being spent for making life better for their citizens. So, I think it would be a very positive world, if we were able to use the money that goes into NATO and use it for really life-affoning things for people. That would make the world much safer and a more liveable place. And it would make mother Earth feal much better. Because I think, mother Earth is now telling us again and again and again, that all of these wars and all of the environmental effects of wars are something she is not going to put up with. And she will take actions against us, and climate changes, that make this planet unbearable for us humans and get rid of us, if we`re not able to care of her, Mother earth.
Yes, that`s right, beautiful! Thank you very much for the interview and taking the time.
It`s a pleasure to be with you, thank you.
The interview was conducted by Tanja Stopper, technical support by Kristine Karch.
Ann Wright absolvierte die University of Arkansas mit einem Abschluss in Rechtswissenschaft. Danach entschied sie sich für eine Laufbahn in den Streitkräften der Vereinigten Staaten. An der Seekriegsakademie machte sie ihren Master in Äußerer Sicherheit. Von 1982 bis 1984 war sie in Fort Bragg stationiert. Zu einer ihrer ersten Aufgaben gehörte die Planung von Wiederaufbaumaßnahmen nach den Militäraktionen in Grenada und Somalia. In dieser Zeit arbeitete sie auch schon an Notfallplänen im Rahmen von mehreren Kriegsplanungen. Eine davon war die Invasion des Irak.
Im Jahre 1987 trat sie in den United States Foreign Service, einer Abteilung des Außenministeriums der Vereinigten Staaten, ein. In diesem Rahmen war sie Stabschefin der US-Botschaften von Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Mikronesien, Mongolei, Usbekistan, Kirgisistan, Grenada und Nicaragua.
Am 19. März 2003, einen Tag vor dem Beginn des Irakkrieges, trat sie aus Protest gegen den Irakkrieg von ihrem Dienst beim Auswärtigen Dienst und den Streitkräften zurück. In einem Brief an den damaligen Außenminister Colin Powell legte sie ihre Gründe dar. Seitdem nahm sie an vielen Aktionen der Friedensbewegung, wie der Verteidigung von Ehren Watada (2006), Ship to Gaza 2010 oder Blockade der Ramstein Air Base 2017, teil.
Mary Ann Wright wurde im November 2018 mit dem Blue Planet Award der Stiftung ethecon Ethik & Ökonomie ausgezeichnet.
...on the threats to international peace and security with Ann Wright, skynews, live übertragen am 11.12.2023
Watch from the UN headquarters in New York, as world leaders discuss the threats to international peace and security.
"Ich glaube, dass die Politik der US-Regierung die Welt zu einem gefährlicheren Ort macht.
Ich fühle mich moralisch und beruflich verpflichtet, meine tiefen und festen Bedenken hinsichtlich dieser Politik zum Ausdruck zu bringen und aus dem Staatsdienst zurückzutreten, da ich sie nicht verteidigen oder einbringen kann."
Ann Wright
Kommentar hinzufügen
Kommentare