tv Third Rail Al Jazeera September 26, 2015 8:00am-9:01am EDT
growth. fingers crossed. thanks for join us for inside story. see you next time. i'm ray suarez. tonight the united nations was created to put an end to war and establish global peace and security, while laws and conflicts consume the life of millions, the u.n.'s life of millions more, is the united nations a failure. and later - ranking the white house by how much aluminis earn, is that the best which. and wisconsin governor scott
walker wants to evisorate union power, is killing the sign of movement a sign of progress. i'm ali velshi, this is rail". >> i firmly believe that the u.n. achieved more than it set out to do. it will be more critical in the coming decades. >> the international system has not lived up to its promise responsibilities. >> discussions mediated by the united nations failed to stop the bloodshed. >> u.n. has been trying to make up for failures. and watched. >> we couldn't do anything. >> the united nations ultimately has no authority. >> a decision must be made by the few for the many. >> it's democracy at its worse. >> critics do not give credit to what u.n. achieved. >> here all counties are equal. >> it's the only useful way to bring the countries together.
>> the alternative it to do nothing tonight we have ambassador richard butler, former chairman of the u.s. special commission, and chief of iran weapons inspector for the united nations. he served as the australian nations. and jeffrey laurenti, a former director of the united nations association of the united states, who now chairs the new jersey chapter welcome to third rail, ambassador richard butler, jeffrey laurenti, good to have you here. syria, 4.5 years later, the conflict rates, quarter of a million dead, 4 million lef geese, the u.n. couldn't agree on sanctioning syria, iraq. more than half a million dead since the u.n.-led invasion. russia, 7,000 dead in the conflict with ukraine.
yemen going nowhere. estimated 5,000 dead. that's 900,000 killed, more than 15 million displaced in those conflicts. if i dropped in and had to look, i'd say the u.n. is a failure. >> if you were a marchand, you might think it's a failure. depends on what the definition of is is and failure is. if you look at the high hopes of 1945, a world free of war, in which human rights were guaranteed, fundamental freedoms, relentless and progressive raising of living standards worldwide, nirva nirvana. on the other hand we have not had a major power of war in this world since 1945. and, in fact, save for the exception of iraq's invasion of kuwait in 1990, we have had all of these
conflilents pretty much in the dissolution of the old empowers that sought to world. the fact that there has been a global acceptance of the non-admissibility of country's conquest of others, big fish advantage. >> when you look at some of the jen sides we see -- genocides we see in raw wanda, these are what we would have seen as civil wars, not between countries, that's a place the u.n. has not figured out how to deal with. >> in 1845 no one imagined the u.n. would be involved in policing, internal conflict and policing civil wars, that it was created to end interstate wars, countries attacking other country, and over the past half century the u.n. took on the
lead role in attempting to cordon off internal conflicts, prevent outside hours from jumping in, each with their own proxies, and puppets. >> ambassador richard butler, peacekeeping has worked between india and pakistan, two nuclear countries i'll add. sierra leone, others. dirk hammershall, the second secretary-general of the united nations said an organization not created to bring us heaven but save us from hell. and as said, we have not had world war iii. >> he was right. those that think the u.n. is a failure is wrong. the distinction that must be drown between an absolute conflict like failure and the opposition of an organization less than satisfactorily. i would be the first to say that that is the case for the u.n.
today. for the reasons you mentioned. you mustn't invade anyone, settle disputes by peaceful means, aggression is illegitimate, unacceptable and states must cooperate to solve problems like the syrian problem. what happens is a failure to carry out correctly and faithfully the mandate of the organization. the charter, which is perfectly sound, what a decent world needs. the problem is those charged with carrying out the mandate have been doing it imperfectly. >> the boss of u.n. - part of the problem is no country wants the u.n. to be the boss of them. they don't want to subject themselves to too many rules. >> no, no, we know exactly, and this is the point we want to
make, the boss of u.n. is the permanent five members of the security council. united states, russia, china, france and the u.k. they have a special place in the charter. no one else has power, no other country has power that can touch what they have got. they have the ability to see that force is not used against them. they were also given the responsibility to maintain peace and security. the five was never intended to be as powerful. they have abused their power. that's the reason why we didn't go into syria, and do something about it 4.5 years ago. they have the power to behave properly if they choose to. they are not. >> that means, for instance, standing in the way of u.n. sanction of syria, for instance. >> well, the list is enormous.
it means the repeat use of their privileged position to protect their own interests. whether it was the russians recently vetoing a proposal that the mh17 shoot down should be investigated, or the chinese refusing to allow 20 u.n. police to go to investigators situation in haiti. poor little haiti. why? because haiti had the temerity to have a relationship with taiwan. the veto has been cast 80 times, by russia, formerly the soviet union, and the united states. if you look at the record and i went over it and looked at it. what do you see. in the first 25 years, the russians used the fogs to defend their veto. in the second 25 years. they used it to defeat israel. in both cases that is not why san francisco.
>> we speak of if like the design is a problem. in fact, the major westerly direction powers were not going to be one amongst all countries. you are not going to get the united nations and russia to play on an equal footing. >> let's talk about leadership. it's a term i near about in the united states. and it means to pursue selfish american interests, and defeat your enemies. what about the notion - i am sure the same is true in russia and other places. what about cooperate. >> you share the few that one shouldn't regard the united nations as a failure, despite the numbers of people killed, and i buy the argument we have
not this "three muskateers." what is the best argument about why it has worked. what good has it done. >> let's look at the post colonial countries that collapsed into civil war, liberia, sierra leone, democratic republic of congo. you have had peace restored in conflict-ridden places thanks to pt administration of international impartial presence that puts in peacekeepers in the short term to create an environment in which people trust a political process after years of civil war, and providing the kind of aid and monitoring of human rights that can help the society get back on its feet. there are countless examples leone. >> stories that don't make it
into the news because they are not that broke. >> not into the western news. other places in the middle east, where assist ambassador butler says the americans have a particular ally with particular influence in the american domestic political debate. the russians have their ally, allies, and you find it's more complicated. >> the rules laid out in the charter are sensible, they are moral, decent and potentially extremely effective in preventing war, as it says at the beginning of the charter, in order to prevent the scourge of war, okay. where we had difficulty is when states broke those rules. i'm not saying - naive to sit here and say all we need is human goodness and people obeying the rules. people have trouble with the interpretation of the rules of the charter from time to time.
to the extent to which the u.n. is failing now is almost exactly identical with the extent to which powers are breaking the rules that they support. that's true of major powers such as united states in russia. they think they can get away with it. the truth is they set up circumstances that lead to hell. if the united states had not invaded - which was illegal. and on false premises, weapons of mass destruction, the if. two. >> it's conceded in the arab world, the western world, scholars, people that thought and studied, we wouldn't have what is happening in syria, possibly wouldn't have i.s.i.s., i.s.i.l. >> as we take a break, i'll
remind our viewers of the words from the charter that the quoted from. we, the people's of the united nations, determined to save future generations from the sewerage of war which twice in -- are scourge of war which twice in our lifetime brought sorrow. coming up a look at the scandals and corruption in the united investigator. >> both u.n.i.c.e.f. and the officer of the high commission of the human rights were aware of children being sexually it. >> the real problem with colleges is the price. >> the universities are the hayest cost. they will go out of business until they learn distant large and a reaction by a woman who won mis-japan >> there were tweets saying
>> where we are standing right now will be the panama canal. >> this will be flooded. >> we have upgraded for bigger ships. >> now we go for weeks without water. >> techknow's team of experts show you how the miracles of science... >> this is what innovation looks like. >> can affect and surprise us. >> i feel like we're making an impact. >> awesome! >> techknow - where technology meets humanity.
accountability. accountable. >> accountable. >> the organization benefits nowhere. >> joining us now is peter gallo, a former investigators for the office of internal oversight service, left the position in march and plied for whistleblower, because he said he was defamed and accused of crimes after accusing his supervisor of misconduct. you heard the conversation in which the two gentlemen said to me that it would be incorrect to deem the u.n. a failure by virtue of what is going on in the world. assuming you think the united nations is a worthy organization, you have found things about it that prevent it from executing its mission. >> i would say it's correct. it's a case of the efficiency of
which it carries out the humanitarian purposes. those are the questions which have to be addressed. there's no denying that the organization does some good, and there's valuable humanitarian purpose in doing so. however, what is seen recently, particularly in the areas of the failure to address the sexual offenses by u.n. personal shows that there are areas with accountability has to be enforced? >> talk to me about this. what are you referring to? >> most high profile cases, the case in the central african republic, where u.n.i.c.e.f. and the office of the high commission were aware of children being sexually abused, but did nothing about it. contrarily, when the report was sent to vienna, the man that acted with moral react attitude in passing the -- react attitude
by facing the information, the u.n. tried to make him responsible and have him fired. >> you said the internal oversight service lacks the independence required required for proper scrutiny and is riddled with cronyism and corruption. i don't doubt you see it true. >> nepotism, cronyism are clearly an issue. they are not addressed. they are not investigated. the failure has been demonstrated in that in the case, o i.s. took a ral. >> that is, by the way. services. played an active part in prosecuting mr compass for passing the information on. no action was taken to investigate the failure to protect the children, or against anyone that sat on the report,
or action on anyone in the legal department for booking the french investigation. >> ambassador richard butler. this is rick, an indictment against the united nations, that it's bureaucratic, complicated and works at the lowest common denominator of those corrupt countries involved. your response to that. >> the social and humanitarian work of the united nations is indispensable. look at the world of refugees, poverty, children in distress and so on. there's never been a period in modern history, where that part of the u.n.'s action is more desperately required. and they are doing as well as resources. >> the main thing they need is more money and support.
what peter said has some merit. there's too many humanitarian agencies, there's 45. they trip over each other. fundamental motivations, sometimes, is protecting their own turf in a way that is typical of bureaucratic cultures. by the way, let's not we too holier than thou about the u.n. a are -- as if to say no other country is without nepotism, favouritism or so on. of course they exist. i think they need to be addressed. one of the reasons why they exist, and this is where they connect to the political is the role that is played by the dominant countries. the political role played by the big five in particular. >> which spreads throughout the organization. even through the social humanitarian agencies. >> what we need to do is improve
- i don't think you'd disagree. the way in which it's delivered? >> if you have a situation as we understand exists, where 80% of the budget is simply disappearing into a black hole and being embezzled or lost, we need to increase the efficiency with which the money is spent. that's stating the obvious. there's no doubt the purpose for which it is required. the organization needs to do that work. because millions depend on it. >> let me arriving you a question a different way. the united nations, the human rights council, includes members, such as saudi arabia, which is beheading people at record rates at the moment. china, cuba, coming into political descension. they sit on a commission at the united nations with the title human rights. >> human rights council. >> the fact is that we have a smaller number of reprehensibly
oppressive regimes on the human rights council. now after the reforms of 2005. face. >> we have, on the human rights commission, that proceeded it, the americans, got all upset when the human rights council or general assembly adopts resolutions calling for a moratorium on the death penalty. most of the muslim countries get upset when the americans, europeans and latin americans push through a resolution calling for an end to discrimination against people who are gay. expanding the range of human rights is something that is a gradual process for which there is unless the country got itself subject to security council intervention because of a bloody conflict, is not enforced by the u.n. it's job boning.
that has resulted in 70 years of improvement in human rights standard. we have had in part, with the nudging of the international system, improvement in that. >> is there a mechanism in by real work can get done in an efficient way, with cabinet people. is it fixable? >> most things are fixable, by throwing enough time, effort and money at it. the question is whether there's the political will to do that. administration. >> absolutely. people asked me about the culture shock of joining the organization. i came from the private sector, the far east, it's a different world. oddly enough, no, i knew what i was getting into. the thing that surprised me at every level of the organization is an utter lack of sensibility to solve the problem. u.n. staff members are good at giving you 312 reasons why
something cannot be done. to achieve something for which there's no precedent is not possible. that is a function of the culture of the organization. and its leadership. it's a lack of leadership from the top. >> it speaks to a lack of effect, going back to what richard said at the beginning, where he said don't cast a full brush on the u.n. in the commercial break you were going to tell me something revolutionary, i don't know what huh to say, but what the united states could do to make the u.n. be more efficient. i'm going to guess it may have something to do with the veto. >> yes, it does. i use the concept of leadership at the beginning of the discussion which i think has been fabulous, i thought it worthwhile. true leadership would see - this is my proposal. true leadership would see the
united states and russia, the two biggest ones make a proposal for reform of the security council. in which they would put on the table their willingness to give up the veto. the definition of leadership that says that it defines us rubbish. true leadership, consistent with the terms of the charter, would see big capable states like united states, russia, china, france - you know, the five of them, say we recognise that this world is changed. what we interstately need is a new basis for cooperation, and that has no place in it for these five privileged countries, who can stop anything that anyone else wants to do on the ground, that it offends their national interest.
much better to lead the organization to a new basis for cooperation. is there starry-eyed idealism. >> no, it's hard-nosed realism. if this is not done, and the u.n. is as corruptible as it has begun. and is failing as it is in the list that you lead, there will be a third world war. >> we can have - we can discuss this for longer. we are out of time. ambassador richard butler thank you for sharing the laws, jeffrey laurenti thank you for being here, and peter gallo as well. the third panel is next. >> the erosion of unions resulted in an increase in number and equality. >> unions should not have the finger on the scale to coerce workers to join or not join. >> what do you want american's to understand? >> there's so much injustice.
on the next third rsh, pope francis visits america. we look at how faith and politics is intertwined on a country that prides on a difference between church and state. are both sides behind the times, as in a century behind. >> new york governor andrew como proposed a $15 wage statewide for fast food workers. >> you shouldn't have to choose
between paying the rent and buying food. >> the counter wages are too low. it's not kept up with inflation. >> it's the right thing to do on a federal minimum wage, it's 10 years since congress increased it. >> let's bring in the panel. the co-chair of the super pact carley for america, which backs carly fiorina's 2016 presidential campaign. brian, the author of the book. >> and eric baits, executive editor at first look media and executive for "rolling stones" magazine. thank you for being here. new york governor cuomo, i'm asking you this. we backed a $15 wage. henry ford paid workers $5 a day.
inflation adjusted that's $14.80 an hour. now people are talking about $15 minimum, people are entirely offended by that conversation. some say the at all. is it crazy. >> it's long overdue. >> we have left the minimum wage to the partisan political. every year, year in, year out. we have to have a battle whether the minimum wage goes up. there's full solution. deciding what we thought it ought to be and indexing it. >> that is a simple, straight forward answer. what you like it or not. you decide something and don't have the conversation every 2-4 years. only washington d.c. thinks it's a novel decision. >> if you are not paying someone a wage, the rest of us are picking off the health care. we are doing the public education, taking care of
children because you at that little grocery store or burger king, you are not paying the full wage. >> a study found in july that a minimum wage increase to $15, the federal minimum is 7 and a quarter. it would cause a 4.3% surge in prices. private sector averages $22 an hour. the department of labour says that if you raised it to $22, three times what it is. you'd see 25% surge in prices. are americans prepared to pay more to be a fairer country. are they prepared to pay more if they have more to spend. a reason the minimum wage makes sense is workers are consumers, if you give them more money and disposable number, you elevate the economy. >> that's the henry ford idea.
>> the founder said you have an automobile economy, with bicycle wages. workers wages, consumers have the money to spend, to pump into the economy to make it grow. productivity. that's the artificialitiy. >> productivity has gone up. >> it's an abundance of economic activity, an abundance of jobs available for workers. we have the lowest participation rate in years, as you know, right now. it's under 60%. >> it's a little over. >> it's quite lee. >> that is because of badly magged. badly direct policy endeavouring to intervene in the economy. we can't afford to have houses and anything unless we put
people back to work. >> and not having people with labour. american workers did their bit. they are increasing worse. >> i was planning for my next show, shifting gears for a second. similar topic. plan for a major republican for president. threatens to put answered to union's political power. is that a good thing? >> scott walker is announcing a fight to unions. >> banning unions and institute right to work laws. >> we have a plan to wreak havoc on washington. >> right to work is known for inequality. >> a dollar will buy you more i want to ask you this, brian, as the governor, ththese are the state issues, what the minimum wage should be. a gallop poll showed americans
support unions - hope scott walker is not listening to this - shot up 5% in the past year to 58%, sha the highest level of -- that is the highest level of support since 2008. scott walker is opposed in the debate. a national right to work laup. eliminating the board. i guess is the death of the american union, the relative of the american union a sign of progress that we are making. >> put a fork in scott walker, let's start with that. the only way an individual worker races their hand to management. is if i can take a day off, or do you think you could pay me enough so i can make a car payment at the factory i work making cars. if you don't have an organized matter, you can stand together. the answer to that person is you are fired. like donald trump, you are out, someone else comes in, the only way the people of this country
can band together is if they stand together, and people in america understand what is fair, and that is fair. >> let me ask you this. delta, this month, announced a pay increase, 14.5% to employees. it will boost contribution to 401ks to 6%, and it caved on workers' demands. it merged with north-west. delta didn't, they didn't want the folks to unionize. employees can do well not unionizing, because there's a threat always in the back that they can vote to unionize. >> unions served the function on the floor, elevating the economy, setting a baseline. and the erosion of unions over the next few years, and the ability to organise unions resulted in the increase in income and equality, a reason we have disparity is because of the
erosion of union, as well as all the other benefits and fair work place rules. one study said that 30% of the increase in equality for men is union. >> you don't look like you are this. >> you don't have to be coerced. >> that's an interesting and good p.r. move on the part of antiunion groups. we are going to give you the right to work as we are going to give you the right to bargain and negotiate. there are elections for unions, there's a democratic process in place for unionization. >> union dues, i have friends coerced to join public sector unions, and have not wanted to. because the politics. unions, and the dues they pay go to causes they find abhorrent. why cannot workers choose to be
the. they have a noble history, there's no question that we desperately needed labour connections. >> you think we don't. >> i think unions should not have the finger on the scale to coerce workers to join or not join. bravo delta for doing the right thing by its workers, i took a delta flight. their flight attendants are australian democratsing. >> they did the right thing. however, there's a threat of unionization that hangs on above the decisions. >> perhaps there is. we know the nlrb made decisions that are hurtful to those that want to the start a business. employ labour who want to work freely, and the essence of the american way to have a choice. there's nothing wrong with having a choice. >> thank you. i want the republicans to
continue to be antiunion. also asians, keep it up, and you continue to lose the elections. 35% of members are voting for 15%. >> that's greats. they know republicans represent the right kind of policies to make sure the federal group is not crushing them, which is what is happening now. >> the kitchen table is the most important. those with policies will be burdened by the cadillacs. >> i love where republicans become pro-choice, that is great. if they can extend it to other areas, that would be tremendous. look at it in that way. what the republicans want when it comes to unions is entitle. they want workers who enjoy the benefit to participate in paying for the benefits, that's an so... >> let's put that to you. would you find if a member of
the union had to pay, was about the administration of the union, the staffing that allowed them to bargain collectively, is your . >> that's a big part of the issue. there's a lot of political activity that is funded. activity bit their leadership funded by the dues. if union existed to provide packages of benefits... >> let's take one of 30 workers that will be laid off. they don't have the ability as an individual worker to walk into the new c.e.o. of hp's office saying "i don't think it was fair." them. >> thank god we are better informed as people than we were a century ago. a century ago you could keep workers in the dark. you
can't today. nobody is arguing we need worker protections and consumer protections, we should have an economy in which workers feel free to reject an employer whom they feel is not treating them opportunity. >> part of the reason that that polling shows that people are coming back to the unions, and believing in unions is because we have had such income inequality. the corporate c.e.o.s are making a higher percentage. any time since the gilded age of 1905. and so for these c.e.o.s and these executives to say we don't want you to organise. >> we have a regulatory code that's a complicated and the only ones that can manage under those circumstances are those with wealth and privilege.
it's the heavy government hand. >> moving on, a white house plan could have an impact on how high school students and parents pick schools. information... with. >> the potential impact is to get rid of schools that are producing kids that are not able to do. >> it's how much the grads are university. >> if you are an engineering student you'll make more than an art student makes. >> i love this topic. i'm not sure i love the idea that the white house was going to make a website that did something about it. i love the topic. the people that fought president obama's idea in 2013 to rank colleges on a return on investment basis were a lot of these selective universities who said we are selling a dream. we are selling harvard, we are selling brown. you can't rang me against a
state college. in fact for most parents and students, the return you are going to get, the mass investment you make in college is an important part of the decision. information. >> that's right, information is good. run on investment is one thing you need to look at when considering a higher vocation, it's a lot more about whether you get rich after you leave school. it's about finding yourself. becoming a better informed citizen of the world. the problem with colleges right now is the price. the price is rising two to three times faster than the rate of inflation. no one is seeing the price. what the government is doing is subsidizing that run away pay whatever the college demand. >> it's a business. they decide to form a college and do nothing but make money. >> that's right. everyone talks about student debt. why is there debt? the price is too high. >> that's right.
>> we need to do price controls in a market that is taxpayer subsidised. that solves the problem. >> does the republican agree with price control? >> price controls bomb the marketplace by sensible consumers, i'll give you an example. you'll like this. a network of colleges, hillsdale, gross city college in pennsylvania, they are respected cools. . stone. >> bravo, he's a server of the people. bravo. they do not participate in federal loan programs. the fees at gross city cloj was $17,500, that is the market price of a college education. most families that i know - i have a student in college - pay upwards of $50,000. >> not one kid - that's a lot of
money, if you have more than one kid you have to consider the return on investment. >> the university precedence at the public and private universities are the most entitled people in america, except for the c.e.o.s, they pay $700,000, 2 million, 4 million, 5 million. higher paid people. and guess who is teaching in the classrooms. i did, as a grad student. they are teaching the classes. >> less than minimum wage or poverty line. >> absolutely. we need more talented people in the classroom. >> these universities will go out of business until they learn distant learning. education is for life. if you are qualified to do a job when you are 24. >> unqualified when you are 27. you'll be re-entering education and those universities for the rest of your life. >> we seem to all have reacted when eric said the government is feeding the addiction.
the idea - how do you transition out of this. does someone stop feeding addiction >> get the baloney out of it. no. >> make sure people no who they are buying and what the return on investment will be. >> i don't know if the white house will put together system. >> they are already rated. >> you can't get the government out of it. the government makes is aforkedable and -- affordable and accessible, even if the price comes down. control. >> the government is a parked in higher education, the market in nursing homes, 80% of nursing home dollars comes from the federal government. >> they do nothing to control the cost. >> it's like a single player health care. >> the government is in the perfect position to say you can
charge what you want. here is what we'll pay for. that's what the government will say. >> that's not good. here is the problem. americans pay more and we were talking about workers that are so hard pressed. adequate for a living wage, and this is true. they are so hard pressed because everything is driven up by government involvement. >> same thing happened in 1965, universal health skyrocketed. housing and mortgages say why. now there's the education complex. governments took over student loans. >> these are unintended consequences of good intentions, sometimes. in the case of public education, the good intention is that the government has money to get an education. how do you fix that. start in the states. we have the state universities. >> while i was governor, i negotiated a deal.
those universities froze tuition for the longest period in the history of the state of montana, how did we do it? we put money into the yuveredies so we had skin in the game. what is happening is legislatures say we are not going to give money. only 5% of income comes due. i'll pay more and do whatever the hell we want, and the state legislatures shift away. >> local control the better. yt government got into funding higher education because of exclusion. if you want to turn back the clock and look at the composition of universities and colleges in this country. how many women got to attend, how many people of colour attended, how many people of low income, that's what is happening system. it's there to address a need that the market is unwilling to address, it's been successful at
accomplishing it. it has an unintended consequence that it can fix by saying here is what we can pay. we'll pay for something. >> work in montana, and the rest of the country. >> i think we might have agreed on this, i'll leave it there. what a great conversation, thank you all for joining. >> straight ahead - you new misuniverse japan, what does it mean and say for race relations. >> the question how much does japan embrace diversity. >> every saturday night. >> i lived that character. >> go one on one with america's movers and shakers. >> we will be able to see change. >> gripping... inspiring... entertaining. no topic off limits. >> 'cause i'm like, "dad, there are hookers in this house". >> exclusive conversations you won't find anywhere else. >> these are very vivid, human stories. >> if you have an agenda with people, you sometimes don't see the truth. >> "talk to al jazeera".
for the first time a half black, half japanese woman was named misuniverse, japan, hafoo a term for someone that is only half japanese, reaction to her coronation was mixed. many cheered, others wondered if she could represent japan. roxana saberi, who is half japanese went to talk to ariana and learnt what it means to be hafoo in japan. good to see you. it was hard to say the term, is hafoo. >> there's discussion about that.
all the hafoos say they don't feel insulted, they need the term to describe who they are. i heard from parents of kids that are mixed in japan, saying they prefer to call the kids a word coming from double, inside of hafoo that comes from halve. it's an issue of debate. >> they take the seemingly japanese pronunciation of english language and incorporate them into their own. that. >> let's look at your story. >> in the native land, japan, foreigner. >> my appearance is not asian, but i'm japanese on the inside. >> reporter: in japan, she's called an hafoo >> i don't think the equivalent words exist, but in japan you need to to explain who you are.
>> reporter: how much does japan embrace diversity? >> translation: how should i put this, i think we have a long way to go. >> reporter: she may be making the biggest stride for black hafoos, challenging the few that lighter skin is more beautiful. >> translation: in the future i'd like to see japan like america, when mixed race people are more accepted. >> in japan, it's something they immigration. do they culturally have a problem with people of other races? >> i think it depends. we are very open-minded. this subject. miz japan and the question of how diverse japan is, is a japan. >> we have received a couple of comments. racist. >> japan is one of the most whom
only nous countries. 2% of the population is of foreign origin. this is a hot topic, how much should japan let in. the population is defined thing. fertility is one of the lowest in the world. this report does point to some of those issues and some japanese people don't want to hear about it. >> you and i talked when we came back from iran. now that hafoo is not derogatory, i should let the viewers know you are also hafoo. >> yes, and i've been wam in japan, they treated me kindly. you have been to japan, you treatment. >> this trip made be wonder if i was darker skin. talking about the challenges. as there is everywhere in the world. many people are open-minded and welcoming, no matter the colour
and background. >> like you would see in america when there's milestones or breakthroughs, there's a lot of media milestone. >> definitely, there was a lot of support. people tweeted who cares if she's an hafoo. although there were sweets and posts saying she doesn't wept jp swrn. the majority that we read were supportive of her. >> that does it for this week's show, the conversation continues on the website "third rail", facebook and twitter at third