tv [untitled] April 14, 2011 4:00pm-4:30pm EDT
to the be. brics countries gather in china to build a stronger foundation for the global economy and to the political pressure on the west its libyan intervention backed by growing economies and populations of three billion is us how to listen. and from afghanistan to be iraq and now live via western countries to bring so-called democracy to the arab world but is it foolish foreign policy. and alongside military intervention the us seems to believe it can facilitate change abroad with the push of
a button. afternoon it's thursday april fourteenth at four pm here in washington d.c. i'm lauren was during or watching r t now while nato airstrikes continue in libya the largest emerging countries in the world have got together to condemn them brazil russia india china and new member south africa known as brics have gone together for largely an economic summit but where the north african political agenda is a big item on the table our chief correspondent test our sylvia is covering the meeting and has the latest. long range of the international financial model existing right now that will benefit the developing countries more people will serve purposes one of them if they would like to see an alternative because the u.s. economy is certainly hurting their economies as well another issue that they are
really worried about is the proper way for a commodity prices now this is very important for them because the prices of basic food price of fuel oil are all a stable price and all of those are necessary to make sure that their economies have sustainable growth now they feel that from their point of view they feel that the western economies the weak economies there are the across of all the structure way france and therefore they think they should have a greater say in international financial institutions such as the i.m.f. and the world back now they're coming together with a unified voice and they are quick to insist that it's not so much to displace existing organizations but rather to come together to have a stronger voice representing the bellefonte and really what they're watching us on to the international space. bring gaijin efforts to create a multi public institution with new supremacy. wreaks this new organized against any group of countries in fact. ration and governance mechanisms
in line with the twenty first century crisis in libya has been on the table it has been a priority of the toxic they have had a russian president dmitry medvedev certainly putting out wrong words there saying that. he see he feels that there is a dangerous tendency with the west going beyond what their resolution is restless and to what he has to say obviously there is a un resolution must be filled with the russian federation of south africa and statements they must be fulfilled in accordance with the wording and meaning you know not with free interpretations of some states because we think it's for no fly using just the escalation of the conflict so that we can separate the. signs we having now is a military operation it may not be on the ground yet but it's certainly going on. a number of countries were taking part and then nato stepped in but the resolution doesn't say a word about it that's why when i hear the resolution is bad i disagree the
resolution is absolutely fine but it must be the field without exceeding the mandate it's based on interestingly enough this is an economic war but this is a way for them a bit with. that which they had signed today. recall saying how coincidental. that security council in brazil definitely pressing for permanent seats again evidence of they want to have more cooperation and coordination on the political arena as well that was r t correspondent tests are cilia and we will have more on the geopolitical implications of the brics taking that stance on libya an hour later shows now meanwhile as critics blast the u.s. for meddling abroad with military force as you heard the brics countries artie's gantries you can report on how more technological tricks are worked to by the u.s. . the u.s. is providing high tech help with innovations for anti-government activists in
a number of countries throughout the world one of the least of all is the panic button according to the state department the application can be uploaded on activists cell phones should they be detained the software instantly raises the contact book in their phones and sends a warning alert signal to other activities sounds great. and it's all gone probably mungo's thanking the u.s. government for the quick knowledge you are going to be drug dealers and terrorists but american officials of course claim the best the contentious saying the innovation is to protect coding ocracy forces in other countries to help use the technologies more effectively the u.s. has organized training sessions for thousands of activists the one held jews weeks ago in the middle east including anti-government campion's from tunisia egypt syria and lebanon and as the newly trained and equipped activists return home the u.s.
is one state department official put it counts on the ripple effect for an interference doesn't have to be a military invasion a bombing campaign or you know some kind of special operation on the ground in that country it can also be the training and funding and political support given to individuals who don't promote this for an interest and that's one of the newer strategies that the u.s. government has successfully been executing in different countries around the world it doesn't consider subordinate to their agenda and it's a way to do it subtly that it's harder to detect it's harder to denounce it and it can often be more effective the u.s. perceives the internet and social networking platforms as needed pools for spreading democracy and comes millions of dollars into developing systems to help pull in the middle east and china get around internet blocking far walls but at the same time american companies provide bahrain. saudi arabia and kuwait with the technology to effectively block websites when the us government purports to be
spreading democracy it's simply a sham it's a pretense it's a lie a goal of us foreign policy is to put people in public office and in foreign countries the us military has recently launched an online management program which enables it to generate multiple fake identities on social networks the false persona sort designed to contribute to the flow of conversations on facebook twitter and other websites people are using social media for cyber warfare i mean that's what we're going to see more more and more of i think from from whether it's governments or non-state actors they're going to try to find ways to use the internet and social media to gain an advantage in their own battle the recent turmoil in libya it's just orchestration of twitter with fake users only around five percent of libyans have access to the internet and the number of twitter users
there is so small that analysts couldn't even calculate it yet in february this year a surge of libyan twitter accounts appeared reporting in english and virtually all begging for intervention we know that. since the beginning of the war but libyans still going to back to this but. people don't check this essential fact they take all this information coming here at face value which is the role of purpose repeated trained activists provided with panic buttons and other technologies scores of false identities on the internet spreading certain ideas the u.s. says it's all about promoting democracy but who these the cleric in tankers justify direct interference in other countries the mastic affairs i'm going to check our reporting from washington our team. and joining me now to talk more about this is
our key contributor wayne madsen now i mean i know you couldn't i think you heard part of that story now i think her question and and i do the math is that the u.s. if you think panic buttons for activists training activists sensually does that undermine the sovereignty of other countries well one could argue. there's cyberspace recognize international boundaries and then meet many people would say no so this is an issue but this is something although we see this concept of cyber war information warfare playing out with sock puppets and fake twitter accounts this is something the cia has used since its creation using the media the popular media at that time to push out its propaganda in one thousand nine hundred sixty they had radio salonen under an island of swine island in the caribbean it was used to pump out propaganda for the bay of pigs invasion now we're seeing twitter being
used obviously the foment the rebellion and pollute libya so is this a lot of hope lou over nothing is this just the next generation of psychological operations that's exactly what it isn't and you know you look back at the history of the cia manipulating the media at the time radio free europe radio liberty what's interesting is george soros took over a lot of the radio free europe radio liberty functions and radio free asia he obviously has been involved with many of these n.g.o.s that have been responsible for some of these activities in these countries where we've seen rebellions not that the rebellions themselves were wrong but people like soros and the cia who works closely with them try to co-opt these rebellions soft landings dorothea a well they're very they're very connected because soros took over the radio free europe radio liberty archives in prague radio free europe radio liberty were cia fronts funded by the cia so we see that all. these connections between the central
intelligence agency us the id national endowment for democracy and george soros is open society institute and foundation well just because there are you know you connect connect the dots like this and people of own the same enterprise it doesn't mean that they're working if they have the same goals the goals are to make sure that whatever government comes in libya increasingly that's looking like and sort cozy had his fingerprints on this libyan rebellion even before it started it from all reports they want to make sure that the government of comes in is one that's sort of beholden to their friends the world bank the i.m.f. . the international corporations and just how to me because they want to reform the i.m.f. and the world bank you know by that you know i don't buy it well he wants if you want to reform it's not any interest of the him or of the people around the world it's any interest of the venture capitalists and what i call the vulture capitalism that we're seeing in fortune go in other countries these are rebellions to what
happened in the arab world started out as rioting against high prices of food high unemployment and obviously there was some interest by outsiders to try to influence the events and we saw that happen but i think in egypt in tunisia it got out of control they could not control the outcome of these rebellions were got a little off topic let's get back to the technology technological aspects of this and i want to ask you of course we just heard in that story that that actual internet access in libya those knowledge is five percent but yet we hear about the role of these twitter you know activists and activists on facebook that are you know can tweet and say we're being killed we're being nothing heard we need help you know those sorts of things is a joke on the u.s. if the death of us is really looking at these as as evidence that intervention needs to be and i think the u.s. is probably behind the the. twitter feeds they don't even know if they came from
libya they could have come from neighboring arab countries where people you know are conversant in arabic or they could have come from outside the region as well it could come easily from langley virginia or a number of military bases where there are side or command activities present to do this type of thing it's their mission and the united states from my understanding of the law isn't allowed to engage in psychological operations that are that are black operations where the source isn't revealed at home like for example with a sock puppets a fake facebook accounts in order to influence the conversation abroad those have to be in another language they campaign in which you can't target americans do you buy that well what happens in this it's called the blowback effect the cia used the plant stories and foreign newspapers that would be picked up by the wire services and put in u.s. papers it was cia decision for that information now maybe it was intentional or maybe unintentional but that is always the effect of pushing out this propaganda
that you can get from blowback effect and it could wind what you place on twitter feed in libya today maybe on n.b.c. news tomorrow being reported as actual news even if they're not a language well be translated into english and we have a lot of people the foreign broadcast information service translates those for the cia and then this is pumped out of the us media and international media as well so i think it's really winning you said cyber tactics then you know someone calling warfare with non-state actors state actors like united states getting in the game who stand to benefit in the us right now and say it's a draw because look at the what's happening on the ground in libya it's basically a stalemate khadafi did not go away as everybody thought he was he's actually in trenching his forces in tripoli so i would say that the the success of the program the proper propaganda program it did not succeed in getting rid of could. i would say that the program so far is is
a failure for the united states and they're saying the u.s. is the loser and that's one thing i want to ask about the story too you know it's kind of pointed out the irony that the united states government helps to remove firewalls to the internet in the middle east and in china and meanwhile u.s. corporations put up those firewalls to do business in countries that censor the internet do you see an irony there i don't i mean corporations aren't are beholden to capitalism never holding to their shareholders i would expect them to just couto to whatever us government policy as well but we see a relationship and we've seen as for squad some time between the u.s. intelligence agencies and google and others obviously they they know who butters their bread and they're going to do the what the agency asked them to do or in the military the pentagon so you can put out the fire walls and take them down it depends on the situation i would say that the u.s. right now would be very interested in creating a firewall on bahrain for example i really want to say more u.s.
corporations already censor the internet and leave the government behind oh absolutely absolutely where we want to support that regime because we have a huge naval base there and want to keep it there same thing with saudi arabia oman and what leads you to believe that there's actually that exact line where the u.s. government can actually influence a corporation when things hit the fan of bahrain to say hey that's it and all of the cooperation between the u.s. government and us take companies is legendary eighty into google it's across the board we see this kind of. situation in the cia even the cia has its own venture capital firm called in-q tel that actually provide seed money for a lot of these high tech firms they come up with some of the sensor ware and then there's the power of corporations that they have over washington which also influences that the other way so it's difficult to see how to think that out thanks very much lane that was investigated very last wayne madsen. well the mainstream narrative would suggest nato forces are now stepping up efforts to protect
civilians in the strategic city of misrata libya that an interrogation of egypt's topos tows new mubarak brings egyptians new hope but in the midst of the so-called arab spring is that democracy and humanitarian aid blossoming or instability us foreign policy follies and anti-american insurgency well my next guest may be able to shed a lot of light i'm joined by former cia intelligence officer officer he's also former chief of the cia's bin laden unit and he's also the author of many books his most recent including or his most recent is osama bin laden michael sure it is our guest joining us now i want to thank you so much for joining us you yeah i want to start with certain kind of the most recent developments we hear from the pentagon that the u.s. is continuing to lead airstrikes in libya after the obama administration has tried had tried to distance itself saying that nato is in charge of this operation should we be surprised or has the u.s. you know obama administration just did a good job of having a p.r.
effort but i think it's mostly a p.r. effort you know what most of the world knows that nato doesn't do anything without us direction and u.s. management and that clearly is the case we're trying i think what we're trying to do is just fool the muslim world that it's the brits and the french and the other europeans who are bombing. but i think the muslim world is much smarter than there may know that the united states is behind the offensive but what do you think is the problem that well the problem is that is our reputation in the muslim world is is attacking muslim countries that have oil and it's certainly the case that libya is a muslim country and a country that has oil so we're making things worse for ourselves indeed we're confirming what osama bin laden has been saying about the united states for the past fifteen years if that's the case you know if we're not fooling the muslim world it's does seem that we may be fooling the media world in the united. states i've watched some of your interviews several of your interviews on mainstream us
media channels and it seems that anchors are very very surprised with the analysis that you give but you're not the only person that is that things like this you know secretary gates and usually said it would be a bad idea to get involved in libya when you talk about the involvement of the u.s. relationship with israel and the arab world i mean that's something that the trade us that general petraeus has spoken about so why do you think these things come to such a come as such a surprise to the media i think part of it is because our education system in the united states is so terrible with the media going to tucker's career square in cairo in interviewed a few dozen well groomed middle class educated muslims who can speak english and talk about democracy and they read the writings of those same people on twitter and on facebook and they extrapolated get small sample to eighty million egyptians in called the democracy on the march well. more than half of egypt is the literate and
they're moving in the direction of islam they're not moving in the direction of secular democracy which is regarded in the muslim world will vary widely as almost a pagan religion why is that bad if everything towards islam it's not because i don't i don't think it's very it's a very useful situation for the united states but ultimately that's up to them where they move but what president obama. circles the prime minister cameron what they're trying to do is to sort of fool their people that somehow we're going to have democracies that are peaceful in the middle east after these tyrannies are gone what do you think is any the case i think we're going to have we could governments first of all we're going to have governments that have not got a lot of use for the united states because people are going to remember that the united states and its allies supported keiran in the middle east for the last fifty years what about the argument some people say that you know for example in libya the united states is there to try and set up a puppet government that is more sympathetic to the us a more sympathetic to us interests like a darfur which you know western leaders would regard as not quite gain so
subordinate although i know he did help in the wind tear it up he was an extremely valuable ally for the united states in terms of our number one enemy which was going to have its allies just like saddam was although we didn't talk to saddam as long as saddam was in favor of the mujahideen were not coming out of south asia in the persian gulf toward the local and so long as the us so quickly turned on him is that oil more important now then i am sure if it spoil i think we have the last four presidents we've had the united states have really seen the world that they want and they want to democratic peaceful humanitarian world which is a great aspiration but they don't have any contact points with reality democratic peaceful world it doesn't seem like that's the goal that the united states is trying to accomplish in libya it's hard to see what we're trying to accomplish in libya because we're supporting. if the if the men who are in the resistance in libya were in afghanistan they would be the taliban. so we're supporting basically
we're providing air cover for people who are may not be al qaeda but are fighting for the same reasons you know in two thousand and nine what are those reasons the reasons are to jump gadhafi and to establish a government that isn't a sovereign government and which will fight against the united states its allies and israel how do you know well the united states government told us in two thousand and nine they published a report widely distributed that music and benghazi were the heart of islam is there to be these in in libya that's where the resistance is those are the second highest number of suicide bombers of any country on earth to iraq for example so it's not rocket science if it was you couldn't come for me well so then why i mean if you have this knowledge and you were you know formerly the voice in the presidency or the secretary of state and says here isn't there someone like you on the inside say nice things to the president oh absolutely but the presidents don't care since ronald reagan each president that i worked for i didn't work for mr
obama but mr the first mr bush mr clinton and the second mr bush they care less and less about what intelligence says they're going to be citizens of the world they're going to bring democracy to people even though those people will fight it to the death so intelligence it can be very good but i'm not since used and respected it's really useless let's talk about more broadly about the arab spring because lang area that you've written about one country great about it's syria yes and that's one nation that's a little bit more similar to libya and its relations to the united states and some u.s. leaders would very well like a more sympathetic government and some members of congress have even called for the use of force in syria but you argue that a different government would lead to more instability and would actually be worse for the united states of course for israel why. it's not going to be as powerful is is assad's government it's going to be more influenced by islamists whether it's the muslim brotherhood in syria. other groups but sod the old man the father tried
to co-opt the islamists and opened enormous numbers of mosques and schools in versity s. and they're now very powerful movement in syria and in terms of us interests our interests are best served by assad being just where he is in fact what we're seeing it in it's a very odd situation is the united states government cheering on the destruction of tyrannies that are necessary to maintain israel's security also to maintain whale. oil resources to transport oil across the region we are seeing the collapse of a thirty year old u.s. strategic policy we depended on tyranny for easy access to regular relatively inexpensive oil we depended on tyrannies to protect the israelis and we depended on theory tyrannies to prosper persecute prosecute incarcerate islamists
what other alternative is there cause i know you've been critical of the united states propping up those tyrannies but it sounds like you're saying that the alternative is worse and that's what the us has you know taken a stand and some of those country what i'm what i would argue is their backing tyranny was wrong from the start but mr obama has a habit of getting off of one horse without another horse to get on to and ultimately the bottom line is how do we protect the united states best how do we well either you support those tyrannies which is probably a bad idea that's what it's continuing to do in bahrain well that's a i think bahrain is a separate a separate issue i think the best thing for the united states is the back away and let the cards fall where they may if israel disappears if palestine disappears who cares it doesn't matter to the united states in terms of. any kind of interests or energy or anything else how does it not matter in terms of oil how does it not matter in terms of what your believe what can your kind of real. area of expertise this which is islamic fundamentalist terrorism with al qaeda how would that not
matter to the us of course it doesn't matter we're going to take care of that ourselves but we've been we've been very childish in our approach to it already we depended on sol in yemen we depended on wilshire or from pakistan none of that's worked out ultimately if we're going to meet the islamists it's going to have to it's going to have to be done by us military power if you know what we're doing hardly if the world thinks that they've seen the amount of power and destruction that could be by the u.s. military there are sadly mistaken but why should they because doesn't operate the kind of anti-american sentiment about u.s. foreign policy that you say it's fueling that nobody likes to get bombed but if you that's all you have to do to use you have to defend your country you know i'm very sure the germans didn't like the fact that we were we were bombing the hell out of them in world war two but ultimately it worked and the best. as long as the united states and its allies are dependent on persian gulf oil we're going to be fighting in that region so until the united states breaks the oil habit we're we're
stuck there and we're going to have to fight and that's not likely to happen you know and that's where the next war is going to come the next we're going to come in bahrain and you think the united states is fighting a proxy war there right now utilizing saudi arabia against iran i think just the opposite really i think what's the i think the obama administration is frightened to death about what's happening in bahrain the saudis and their partners the sunni governments in the gulf cooperation council have decided they're not going to permit a shia government on the peninsula which would which would happen in bahrain if if people were given a choice the saudis in their their partners will kill as many shias as it's as is necessary to maintain the sunni monarchy in bahrain the question will come down to . as though she is are being killed what will the iranians do will they stand back and let that slaughter occur or will they intervene if they intervene in the
involuntary go to war because the saudis although they buy billions and billions of dollars of us arms they can't defend themselves. in the united states depends on saudi oil and it depends on the gulf countries buying our debt so we don't have a choice and to me bahrain is the single most dangerous point the middle east right now should people be of paying more attention to that as opposed to libya are we again displacing our resources in libya when we should be focused on something else when i say we i mean the united states government libya is a nonsense if they're really concerned about humanitarian aid or a humanitarian situation if they if nato had not intervened that war would be over nobody would be even killed at the moment now it's appears to be an endless war but in terms of u.s. interests bahrain is really a dangerous thing it's like august one nine hundred fourteen your army is don't want to work there the saudis don't want to war there the americans don't want to work there but it's has a momentum of its own if the shia keep demonstrating do you think anybody i don't know who still speak to you in the cia in the obama administration is anybody
talking about that on the inside in a way that your i don't know if they have yes i would imagine that they were because it's not rocket science it's there for you to see it's not going to be a surprise when it happens you still talk to people that you know if that's on the radar in the way that you're talking about it i talk to very few people good people if you people that i do talk to it's clearly a very strong concern because we don't have any troops left that's the problem where are the troops going to come from if they come from iraq sectarian violence goes up there if they come from afghanistan we lose even quicker to the taliban we're going to bring them from korea or from germany i don't know but the problem for the united states is we don't have a choice we have to fight there if worst if the worst situation calms and spread even more and more thing and will load in military budget and deficit and debt that's well it would mean conscription it would have you would have to restore the draft in the united states in order to put enough people into the military to eventually fight all these workers but then at least it would get maybe on the radar of american public which seems.