tv Third Rail Al Jazeera November 8, 2015 5:30pm-6:01pm EST
bringing young people from around the world together in the way of technology is a winning formula and more on the website, the address on the screen now aljazeera.com. you can see the top stories there, the historic election in myanmar. myanmar. tonight a fight over oil could break up iraq. i ask a governor if his allegiance lies with his country or a kurdish state should teenage girls be forced to share a bathroom with a transgender girl if it makes them uncomfortable. and how the keystone xl pipeline
brought out the worst in all. >> i'm ali velshi, this is "third rail". >> we have run special ops. really, this is an extension of what we were continuing to do president obama insisting a raid by u.s. forces and fighters will not lead to american ground troops fighting i.s.i.l., known as d.a.e.s.h. what sort of iraq are they fighting for? >> iraqi only holds together what is inclusive. if the interests of sunni shi and kurd are respected. >> reporter: to many iraqi kurds it's more. a chance to have a kurdish region, even a nation of their own. with the oil-rich province of kirkuk as a crowning jewel. the other ethnic groups say it's not fair to theme. them. >> state institutions should be observed joining me is the governor
of kirkuk. thank you for joining us. an american soldiers was killed when u.s. troops backed up fighters in a raid to free prisoners. the pentagon said combining forces was a unique circumstance, should it be, shut the u.s. and kurdish fighters be working together? >> well, good to be with you again. i believe that the cooperation between these forces and the kurdish forces has been very effective in iraqi kurdistan in the klg in syria, air strikes alone cannot do the job, unless you have people that defeat d.a.e.s.h. on the ground, and control and secure the areas. that's what the peshmerga forces and the y.p.g. forces have been able to do in both iraqi kurdistan, and in syria.
>> people like you and other experts, particularly military experts say that i.s.i.s. can be defeated with a coordinated effort and the right number of fighters on the ground, and the right equipment. the issue is what happens after that, you have said that iraq can only survive if it becomes a federal country with autonomous regions, including a kurdish region, does this mean destroying iraq as we know it in order to save it. >> iraq, as we know it has not been successful or kind to its people. for decades it was dominated by a minority. the kurds were subjected to chemical attacks. so iraq, as we knew it before 2003 was that iraq. they are right, it needs to stay too. it must be an iraq believing in federalism. in delegating power to the
provinces not just to the kurdish region, but the people of basra. they want their own region, the central government as not been fair, and the minister rip is ineffective -- ministry has been ineffective in carrying out duties, and where the functions have been performed by the locals, like we have, it has been successful and proven and people have approved of it you mention that it's not been a successful state. what makes you think an organized federal state can work. how do you ensure that that sort of system works, and it doesn't devolve into the factionalism and sectarianism that we have seen happen in iraq? >> actually, there are many examples in the world that federalism has worked. the united states where we are now is the best example. you have country like canada, where you have a province that is french, that has been given
the rites to prevent its specificity as far as the state is concerned. we know the other system has not worked. it led to disasters, general war, war with neighbours, invasion of other countries, and if you look at the problem now, most of it is because the people in those provinces, particularly in the soouni held areas feel that they don't have a say in running their own affairs, the police are strangers, the police chief comes from another place. their cities are occupied by military who are strangers to the population. i think federalism will ensure that these things will not happen, your police force will be from local people. erb needs a military, the country needs a military. it's a defense of the boarder not to be in the city.
it has been happening in the past several years in different cities of iraq. >> this week "the washington post" columnist wrote that kurdish political leaders in syria and iran tell him that they see a day when a greater kurdistan includes the kurdish part of syria and iran, as well as turkey and iraq. that goes beyond the economy that you are talking about. there's chaos in the region, in 2.5 of those countries, iraq and syria. turkey has uncertainty going on. will that give the kurds the best shot. >> when 22 arab countries were created after world war i, no one called it a chaos. when the soviet union broke apart, it wasn't a chaos. what the kurds want, and
everyone has the dream of having independent kurdistan. 40 million people is injustice. if you deny the people rights to study in their language, to have their own say in running their own affairs, you will have people who are unhappy about that, and this will result in wars, in resistance in different forms. so i think everybody has to think right, and think about delegating authority, and in your own family if you beat up your children they'll rebel. they'll not accept your orders. >> kurds know what kurdistan looks like. to the rest of the world that hasn't seen it on a map, let's discuss it for a second. kirkuk, your province has a fifth of iraq's oil. you told al jazeera that independence for kurdistan is unthinkable and that kirkuk is
kurdish land. tell me, is kirkuk part of iraq or a future kurdistan? >> kirkuk is part of iraq, so is kurdistan region part of iraq. right now it is and kirkuk is a kurdistani city, a kurdistany land with people other than kurds in it - turkman, arabs, christians - it has different checks. and kurdish means only kurds live in it, that's not the case. >> a number of others say it was their home. iraqi kurds were suppressed by hussain, but after he fled, many were displaced and some arabs say they were displacing access by kurds. some denied access to homes, and other arabs insist they are not
welcome. the kurds were victimized. are they victimizing fellow iraqis? >> i believe, and i have said this publicly and in private, we are totally against any oppression of a single person or group of persons. i have not seen the report of human rights watch. i wish if they had written their report they could come to me. if there is atrocity, i will join them in condemning it with them. sometimes you get reports probably depending on conversation in one way or another. they are not happy with the situation. like i said. we have more than 500,000 i.d.p.s internally displaced people in kirkuk. and i am sure among these you can find someone that is not happy with the situation.
they may - there may be i.s.i.s. sympathizers among them, and even sleeper cells among them. but i think these organizations, human rights watch. which is reputable. and i am familiar with their work. i think providing a report, they should talk to everybody and check their facts before publishing such reports. >> i invite you to look at that. i hope you and i have more of a discussion about that. thank you for your time. the "third rail" panel is next. >> the thing i have a problem is is acts as if mr bush had a great policy in place. >> president obama had a great policy. >> we are bounded by rules. >> rooelty has a way of hitting you in the face.
welcome back to "third rail", we'll shift the conversation to whether there's a different approach to the white house's national security, and that of president bush. >> i'm running to change course, not continue bush's course. >> he was elected promising to be different. >> domestic, drone strikes, gitmo is open. >> under the disguise of sheep's clothing he's a box. >> kevin powell is a writer and activist, and his book is "education of kevin powell a boys journey to mann hood", and a senior fellow with the heritage foundation, and michael kay a foreign correspondent and former advisor to the u.k. ministry of defense. let me start with you kevin - for all of president obama's
criticism of president bush, he has continued many of bush's national security policies - internet surveillance, military tribunal's, drone strikes and defence at guantanamo, what is the difference between these two? >> i can't defend some of the things he has done. i don't necessarily agree with them myself. he inherited a lot of things. we know that president bush's father put out a book na criticizes some things going on. we need to talk about the fact there are basic differences talking with folks, and, you know, not acting alone, which is something that occurs. >> one distinction is that they crossed a line, the bush administration, as far as we know, didn't cross, ordering a strike that killed a u.s. citizens without process. al-maliki. he might have a pass that george bush will not get.
>> there has been a realisation during the period of the bush administration into the early years of obama administration, that when you deploy conventional sources to a period of conflict, we are bound by the rules of engagement of the geneva convention, i.c.c. and others. the enemy isn't. he had to take a clandestine approach, using the c.i.a. and drone operations to achieve the degrading effect, because the problem is there. >> president obama made a lot of promises in 2008 that he was not able to keep. when he got into office and reality has a way of hitting you in the face. the world was more dangers than he gave it credit for. i think the national security agency. the c.i.a., they were agencies created at a time, in the 1950, where the world was a different place. i don't think we are up to speed as we head to another presidential...
>> when the president makes promises and pronouncements, the security is none of them know. they may have to go through a learning curve, can we trust anyone. >> no, they are presenting the world view, can you say i'll close gitmo and stop the surveillance, when you haven't been there to see what it is picking um. >> when we look at the country, this being the police officer of the world is not working. i'm thinking of nixon, when he took over there was the vietnam war. we have a policy where it's like a thing called the forever war. it never ends, and, yes, we should be concerned about security, but approaches put out there are not working and president obama - a disaster was created by mr bush. i don't defend president obama, but i don't know how any president can get out of what we
were doing from now to 10 years. >> i no longer think that america has the ability to influence. doesn't matter who the next president is. >> i agree. >> it will be a problem in shaping it. >> is a problem that we'll say we'll be tough, and we are not. president obama created an atmosphere where it's unclear whether our friends or enemies, what america may do. i think at the moment they don't fear us. >> what i have a problem with is acting like bush had a great policy in place. he said we were going to war and it would be over. we are talking about this in 2015. so say we are unsure, we have been unsure under both administrations. it's unfair to make it seem like obama is the problem. >> that was an obama problem by itself. we are in long wars. there's evil in the world, it will not go away tomorrow, we
have to be prepared to fight those in a way that was best for our interests. are we in a world where governments have to spy on their own people, their own focus? >> again, it goes back to the perceived threat. if we look at the - terrorism has been around for decades. jobleisation has not. when you but terrorism under the concept of jumping on an aer lane in new york or uploading a video on to youtube and disseminating it, that makes the terrorism piece so difficult to apprehen and therefore you have to have various measures such as surveillance-type programmes in order to counter the terrorism sinn synergiz synergized. and how you do that, and the
machiavellian ways emerging is a problem. >> both agree with that here is something both sides will not agree. transgender rights gain more legal protections, critics say it's happening at the expense of other rights, including young girls. >> federal officials away school district must allow a transgender student full access to a high school girls locker room. >> there's resounding support from parents to protect privacy from students in the locker room. >> instead of we have to protect this. >> what about the person's identity. >> at the risk. of privacy and safety. >> the student identifies as a girl, plays on a girl's sports team. should the rights of transgender students to shower openly, to shower in the girl's locker room trump the rites of other girls who may find in confusing? >> i don't think it should.
the school in this case, and we see it pop up all over the place, in this case, i think we are trying to aecom days, we identify -- accommodate the girl, we call her by the name she wants, she plays in the girl's room. she has not been changed anatomy wise to bep a girl. and to be in a locker room by other girls - we are not talking adults, we are talking kids. why can't the young person shower separately. i don't think it's an imposition on them. you have the rest of the girls in the room basically showering with a guy. regardless of what the person calls themselves. >> it's tricky, the school offered the transgender student an offer to change behind a screen. her attorneys say that's fine, if she wants to do it, she shouldn't be forced to do it. >> i'm an african-american, when
i hear stories like this, i hear stories of segregated people. people have the right to be whoa they are. if the young people are fine with her what she is proposing to do with the sports team and in the same locker room. the children should be a part of the conversation. it's not as big for the young people than it is for the adults. >> it's potentially an issue, this is an age at which young girls have body issues, what if it's your daughter in the class that says it's weird. >> my daughter would be accepting of all people. and i know girls that identify as boys in boy spaces. to me the basic solutions is girls, boys, and a unisex, any students comfortable to be in that space, use it. feel it out. all states and cities and villages are different. all schools are different. cultures are different. why not have a conversation with the particular grade, because, you know, still the - whilst the people are coming out as
transgender, they are a minority group. have an open conversation with the eighth graders. this is what we want to do. are you comfortable with that? >> you guys are right. here is the problem. the federal government under the president obama administration said under title 9, you can't do it. we'll not leave it up to the individual school or district or states, we'll do a one size fits all, if you don't apply by the rules, we'll strip the funds from your school. this there's a little nuance, they said you can't discriminate because you get funding under title nine. i'm not sure it extends to this is how you solve it. i think the policy makers should take the result... >> they said if you make the student use a different facility, and they don't want to - this is not a discussion among the schoolboard or parents or students. that's what they said. >> you spoke about civil rights issues. in this country where every
state and city is different. lots of cities and schoolboards made the wrong decision when it came down to civil rights and admitting black children to schools. do we trust everyone can make the digs or is this something the gral government has to say we need to think about this. >> there's a difference between race and gender identity. you would say we are going to stop state newted racial seg re gags. grayings. -- state racial segregation. they are not told they can't use the bathroom or go to school none of that happens. >> i disagree. >> if you are a child and call yourself a girl, we are not saying you can't do that. >> that's the reality, as strange as it is to us. >> no one is saying they can't do that, can you say i'll have male nudity in front of other
girls, why can't we have report on both sides. >> my family, i'm in south carolina, and spent time in indiana, to say it's not similar, there's laws affecting gay, lesbian people purposely. it sounds like what my mother described in the south. when you say it's not the same, it's not racial - guess what, a lot of people that are transgender have been killed. >> that's wrong. >> it's wrong. part of it is infused into laws that are passed out. i diserg wi -- diserg with that. >> this is where good principles and leadership should be able to moderate and influence both sides, see both sides. implement policy using the policy as a handrail and not a rule. if we don't. then this will not work long term. >> great conversation. thank you to all of you. thank you for your time.
before we go i want to share a final thought. president obama rejected the keystone on friday. i'm okay with that. the crude oil comes from deposits of oil sands in alberta san da, one of the -- canada, one of the dirtiest and we will never know if keystone crude would have polluted our food and water. we know it has polluted our discourse. let's start with transcanada. four days before the president's announcement. the alberta pipeline giant asked him to put off deciding until some time next year, not out of politics, according to transcanada's c.e.o., even though president obama was expected to nix keystone, while the g.o.p. made approving the
pipeline a priority. why did the g.o.p. love keystone - nothing to do with campaign contributions, they said that it would create jobs, tens of thousands of good-paying jobs, according to speaker of the house paul ryan. the state department had different noms, less than 5 -- numbers, less than 5,000 temporary jobs, and 35 permanent jobs once the pipeline was up and running. as for the democrats, keystone triggered an epic flip flop from hillary clinton. as secretary of state she was inclined to approve it in 2010. now that she's the democratic front runner and needs the green vote. mrs. clinton decided america doesn't need keystone, and i cannot leave out the hypocrisy of some environmentalists who feared oil spills from the 1700 miles of pipeline, when the u.s. has more than 67,000 miles of crude oil pipelines.
meanwhile more than 57,000 gallons of crude oil were spilt last year from railcars shipping it. spills that could have been avoided if a pipeline like keystone was in place. none of this, none of this would be necessary if we didn't all consume so much oil. while it's finally time to say goodbye to keystone, the hypocrisy will never go away. being honest about a complex issue, instead of twisting it - that would be "third rail". every day is torture. >> this is our home. >> nobody should have to live like this. >> we made a promise to these heroes... this is one promise americans need to keep.
announcer: this is al jazeera. from al jazeera's headquarters in doha, this is the newshour. with me, elizabeth puranam. coming up in the next 60 minutes, aung san suy kyi's party is expected to win the first seats as votes are counted in the first democratically elections in 25 years. talks between binyamin netanyahu and president barack obama as violence between israelis and palestinians continue a service