Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 14, 2011 8:00pm-8:30pm EDT

8:00 pm
brics countries gather in china to build a stronger foundation for the global economy and to put political pressure on the west and its libyan intervention backed by growing economies and populations of three billion does the u.s. have to listen to them. and from afghanistan to iraq now libya western countries fight to bring so-called democracy to the arab world but is it foolish foreign policy. alongside military intervention the u.s. seems to believe it can facilitate change abroad with the push of
8:01 pm
a button. it's thursday april fourteenth eight pm here in washington d.c. i'm lauren lyster you're watching r.t. now while nato air strikes continue in libya the largest emerging countries in the world have gone together to condemn them brazil russia india china and you member south africa they're known as brics they've got together for what's largely an economic summit but where the north african political agenda is a big item on the table are two correspondents has are silly is covering a meeting and has the developments on both fronts. they want to see change in the international financial model existing right now that will benefit the developing countries market will serve her and she is one of the yes if they would like to see an alternative which has the u.s. economy is certainly hurting their economies as well another issue that they are really worried about is the lottery for
8:02 pm
a commodity prices now this is very important for them because the prices of basic food prices raw materials 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 a calls of all the structure away 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 really 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 these developed countries and bring what they're actually yes on to the international stage using bring gaijin aphids to create an institutional order with a new supremacy. is not organized against any group of countries in fact work for corporations and governance mechanisms in line with the twenty
8:03 pm
first century crisis in libya has been on the table it has been a priority talks of pay and has a russian president dmitry medvedev certainly putting out words there saying that. he see he feels that there is a dangerous tendency with us going beyond what their resolution has mandated us listen to what he has to say obviously. the u.n. resolution must be fulfilled when the russians voted for each of the south african teams and statements they must be fulfilled in accordance with the wording and meaning with free interpretations of some states because we voted for no fly using just the escalation of the conflict so that we can see. separate the two sides that we having now is a military operations it may not be on the ground yet but it's certainly going on up with a number of countries who are taking part and then nato setting but the resolution doesn't say a word of it that's why when i hear the resolution is dad's i disagree the
quote
8:04 pm
resolution is absolutely fine but it must be stilled without exceeding the mandate it's based on interesting re enough this is an economic war but the situation of they did it in that way for which they had five insist on a more political slate who incidentally are members of security council india brazil definitely proceed for permanent seats again evidence of they want to have more cooperation and coordination on the political arena as well now as r.t. correspondent to our syria. the growing economy is in a total population of nearly three billion people do the u.s. and its western allies have to listen to what those countries just said at their summit joining me now to try to answer that is robert naiman policy director of just foreign policy so robert first i want to address you know this is an economic summit but as our correspondent pointed out they've chosen to take a stand on libya a very public one why do you think that this. well i think the two issues are
8:05 pm
related in the sense that they both have to do with the leadership of the world's economy the trend of the last decades and i remember before there was the g. twenty we had a g. seven and so there's been pressure on the handful of countries that have decided that they leave the so-called international community see this phrase you know tried but you know national community in libya that these five countries represent forty more than forty percent of the world population and two seats to permanent seats on the security council are on the security council now there are a fifth of the global autonomy so you can say that you're representing international community if you're excluding the five countries so then taking that stance is that largely symbolic showing hey we are the largest emerging countries and we don't agree with what's going on we have a different approach or is that really going to mean anything for the western
8:06 pm
intervention in libya. well there remains to be seen part of this intimate is that there is a need to spew even among the nato countries and the leaders of the nato countries with for example the britain and france were the big killers for this is this military intervention germany and turkey were totally opposed to it remain very critical of it the us was apparently somewhat reluctant participant. and has now pulled that somewhat from its own military involvement allegedly didn't print to go it certainly is it certainly present and in the the pretense that is not involved throws course towards thoughts were never needed was fighting us already and if we made a budget nato u.s. planes are still conducting your strike so the pentagon doesn't call them airstrikes because their defense of the us is militarily involved with the greatest of the french have been complaining this week that the us isn't doing as much that
8:07 pm
was in the wrong they'd save us to do more so there's a dispute there there's dispute about the parameters of the political resolution with the british and the french but so far with us saying essentially and reinterpreting the u.n. security council and what the russian president was referred to say basically you know cease fire now means overthrowing the libyan government right and they say a no dice on that do you think that the brics countries we eat you address kind of issues about this not transfer function and that the nato countries are kind of confused concerned about where to go a lot of people calling it a stalemate do you think that the brics countries see this as an opportunity to get involved politically and score political points on the international stage because one thing that they're doing is backing the african union. ceasefire and that agreement or that at plan for a libyan revolution. well i don't use them to score political points in the
8:08 pm
centimeter is differences understand that if they want to have influence they have to unite with each other and also unite with others so there has been this various you know from the beginning of this there was distance criticism of skepticism from all these countries were to really they were but they were coordinated ok ok we're going so why did they think that is why they didn't why the u.n. resolution was voted on the way they did because you know what comes up for me is why did you know they're talking about leveraging more of their power in the united nations together yet we saw these countries abstained from voting on the u.n. security resolution on libya south africa voted for it so why do you think that decision with me. well i think it was a mistake but i think that they were to some degree blindsided by the fact that you know they didn't coordinate in advance. they were i think somewhat
8:09 pm
surprised by the defection of the libyan diplomatic corps and according to their public statements india. you know they are very skeptical but the the libyan diplomatic corps which is the defected from the government and demanded these un resolutions i think the intervention of the the arab league also made it somewhat awkward see them close they'll have good relations with saudi arabia so there was no dynamics that made them reluctant to oppose forswear what was being towed away with the presentation at the time was very different from what we see today right and one thing i really want after we just have a minute left i want to ask you know with them quit they do coordinate better and work more closely together as a bloc within the u.n. security council how will this change the you when how it is affecting united states and just the geopolitical kind of issues that are that are at the forefront because the brics countries have really different relations with many of the
8:10 pm
countries than the u.s. that's in the last well i think more of the every time you have a battle like this with a big part of what people are fighting about is the next time you have a battle like this so i think if you know if we replace the scene in the future with another country another offense a u.s. british french military mention under the cover you would scratch the council resolution i suspected would get a very different result and you think that when perhaps you think of these countries that work together and achieve the goal that they essentially want to achieve now it is a diplomatic solution a non military intervention and it wouldn't even get to the point where there was a vote. wow ok well that is we're going to have to wait and see what happens after this breaks meeting and the next time that one of these major resolutions comes to the table that was robert naiman was this prediction of how it would turn out director of just foreign policy that the mainstream narrative would suggest nato forces are now stepping up efforts to protect civilians and the strategic city of misrata libya and the so-called arab spring means democracy is blossoming or is it
8:11 pm
really is it bringing instability rather us foreign policy follies and anti-american insurgency well earlier i spoke with former cia intelligence officer and former chief of the cia's bin laden unit and author of many books including his latest book some of bin laden michael scheuer and i asked him if the u.s. claims it's taken a backseat an intervention has been public relations after the pentagon reported it still leading airstrikes in libya. most of the world knows that nato doesn't do anything without us direction in 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 khadafi but i think the muslim world is much smarter than they are and they know that the united states is behind the principle but what do you think is the problem with 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
8:12 pm
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 and if that's the case you know if we're not pulling the muslim world it's the same that we may be fooling the media world in the united states i've got some of your interview 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 a nationally thought it would be a bad idea to get involved in libya when you talk about the involvement of the u.s. the relationship with israel and the arab world i mean not something that betray us general petraeus as spoken about so why do you think these things come to such a state 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
8:13 pm
cairo in the interviewed a few dozen well groomed middle class educated muslims who can speak english and talk about the marker see and they read the writings of those same people on twitter and on facebook and the extrapolated that small sample to eighty million egyptians in call 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 willing in the direction of secular democracy which is regarded in the muslim world will vary widely as almost a pagan religion 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 u.s. interests like a dolphin which you know western leaders would regard as not quite so subordinate although i know he did help in the wind terror if you was an extremely valuable ally for the united states in terms of our number one enemy which was al qaeda and its allies just like saddam was although we didn't talk to saddam as long as saddam
8:14 pm
was in favor of the mujahideen were not coming out of south asia in the persian gulf toward the violence so why has the u.s. so quickly turned on him is that oil more important now then i sure if it's 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 go on a credit peaceful humanitarian world which is a great aspiration but not they don't have many points with reality the democratic peaceful world it doesn't seem like that's the goal that the united states is trying to accomplish in libya at it's 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 but are those reasons the reasons are to dumb khadafi and to establish
8:15 pm
a government that is an islamic 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 there and benghazi where the heart of islamist activities in in libya that's where the resistance is those are that they sent the second highest number of schools. bombers of any country on earth to iraq for example so it's not rocket science if it was it couldn't come from me well so then why i mean if you have this knowledge and you were you know formerly the voice and the president's ear the secretary of state defense is there isn't there someone like you on the inside saying he thinks that a president oh absolutely but they the presidents don't care since ronald reagan each president that i worked for and 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
8:16 pm
democracy to people even though those people will fight it to the death so intelligence can be very good but i'm not since used and respected it's really useless is why is 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 war is going to come in bahrain i think the obama administration is frightened to death about what's happening about rain 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 fact rain the question will come down to me as though she is are being killed what will the iranians do police stand back
8:17 pm
and let that slaughter occur or will they intervene if they intervene in the influence or go to war because the saudis although they buy billions and billions of dollars of u.s. 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 to me bahrain is the single most dangerous point the middle east right now should people be paying more attention to that as opposed to libya are we again just placing our resources in libya when we should be focused on something else and i think we i mean the united states government libya is a nonsense if they're really concerned about humanitarian aid hurricane military and 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 the dangerous thing it's like august one nine hundred fourteen your audience don't want to war there the saudis don't want to work there the americans don't want to go over there but it's has
8:18 pm
a momentum of its own if the shia keep demonstrating do you think anybody i don't know who's does need to in the cia and the obama administration is anybody talking about that on the inside in a way that your i don't know if they're 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 don't you know if that's on the radar in the way that you're talking about it i talk to very few people but the people the few people that i do talk to it's clearly a very strong concern because we don't have any troops or 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 comes and spread even more and more thing and we will load it 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
8:19 pm
eventually fight all these wars. big prediction that was former cia intelligence officer michael scheuer now meanwhile sticking to the same region relations between the u.s. and its allies pakistan in the fight against al qaida seem to be on the brink of collapse pervert cia operations drone attacks and civilian deaths have prompted islam of god to rebuke washington and demand it reduces its presence in the country are the correspondent maria krishna reports. here in islamabad officials say the relations between the u.s. and pakistan are today at its worst since nine eleven and there are many reasons behind the material ration a case in point is that of raymond davis a cia spy who shot two pakistanis died in brode daylight earlier this year claiming they were trying to rob him this incident exposed huge concerns over the activity of for us private security firms similar to those operating in afghanistan and iraq
8:20 pm
and others claim that there was real work was on neutralizing the country's nuclear arsenal which is to become the world's largest pakistani officials here in islamabad say they have no idea how many u.s. contractors are currently functioning in pakistan and what their identities are nor their purposes and unacceptable for the u.s. obsession with firing drones into pakistan also threatens to critically destabilize the situation in pakistan targeted militants in the northern part of pakistan near its border with afghanistan march seventeenth drone strike is reported to have killed forty innocent civilians prompting a month long break by the us but despite these casualties and a bloody experience in both afghanistan and iraq and now in pakistan here there seems to be no sign of
8:21 pm
a policy change from nato its part pakistani officials here in islamabad in the capital of pakistan warn that drones are a seriously strengthen not only anti american sentiment but also to military sentiment in this sensitive region making it increasingly hard to justify the continuing war on terror but this trans prime minister in an interview with r t confirm. u.s. drone strikes are causing huge anxiety for pakistan and after eighteen more problems rather than solutions in fighting terror the drone attacks the. militants and against the government and the military the problem. is not in favor of the strategy or political strategy. work difficult despite u.s. immunity undermining the pakistani government's top officials here in the capital
8:22 pm
it keen to smooth over divisive issues to stress the key point that a stable pakistan is in the interests of. regional t. islamabad pakistan. now as critics blast the u.s. for meddling abroad with military force then deterioration happens with some allies artie's going and she can report on how morkel burt technological tricks are at work to. 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 latest developments is the panic button according to the state department the application can be calculated on activists cell phones should they be detained the software instantly raises the contact between their phones and sends a warning alert signal to other activities sounds great. and it's all gone probably long thanking the u.s. government for the technology are going to be drug dealers and terrorists but
8:23 pm
american officials of course claim the best of intentions saying the innovation is to protect pro-democracy 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 views weeks ago in the middle east including anti-government campion's from the u.k. egypt syria and lebanon and as the newly trained and equipped activists return home the u.s. as one state department official put it counts on the ripple effect for any 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 can also be the training and funding and the political support given to individuals who then promote those foreign interests 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
8:24 pm
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 millions of dollars into developing systems to help pull in the middle east and china get around internet blocking farm laws but at the same time american companies provide for her. 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 the goal of u.s. foreign policy is to put its people in public office in foreign countries the u.s. military has recently launched an online management program which enables it to generate multiple fake identities on social networks the false personas are designed to contribute to the flow of conversations on facebook twitter and other
8:25 pm
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 that libyans still don't have access to this into this but suburb hope people don't check this essential fact and they take all this information coming here
8:26 pm
i think you which is the role of purpose. when you try and activists provide it with panic buttons another technologies scores of false identities on the internet spreading certain ideas the u.s. says it's all about promoting democracy but do these the clerics in tankers justify direct interference in other countries domestic affairs i'm going to check our reporting from washington are today. and earlier i spoke with r.t. contributor and that's to get a journalist going madsen about that very question that reporter posed that it's very possible the information about libya we social media web sites it's coming from somewhere else. they could have come from neighboring arab countries were people you know are conversant in arabic or they could have come from outside the region as well they could come easily from langley virginia or a number of military bases where there are cyber command activities present to do
8:27 pm
this type of thing if their mission 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 but for example with the sock puppets the fake facebook account in order to influence the conversation abroad those have to be in another language they can't be in english you can't target americans do you buy that well what happens and this is it's called a blowback effect if cia used the plant stories and for newspapers that would be picked up by the wire services and put in u.s. papers it was cia deserve for that information now maybe it was intentional maybe unintentional but that is always the effect of pushing out this propaganda you can get the 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 it's another language will be translated into english and we have a lot of people the foreign broadcast information service translate those for the
8:28 pm
cia and then this is pumped out to the u.s. media and international media as well so we think it's really winning in this youth of cyber tactic then you know some would call it warfare with non-state actors state actors like united states getting in the game but that's a benefit and right now i'd 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 easy actually. entrenched in his forces in tripoli so i would say that the the success of the program the prop a propaganda program if they do not succeed in getting rid of gadhafi i would say that the program so far is a failure for the united states and nato they're saying that the u.s. is a loser and that's one thing i want to ask about the story too you know if you 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 meanwhile u.s. corporations put up those firewalls to do business in countries that censor the
8:29 pm
internet do you see an irony there i don't i mean corporations aren't are beholden to capitalism never hold on to their shareholders i would expect them to kowtow to whatever us government policy as well but we see a relationship that we've had seen as first quite some time between the u.s. intelligence agencies and google and others obviously they know who butters their bread and they're going to do what the agency asked them to do or the military the pentagon so you can put up the firewalls and take them down at the times on the situation i would say that the u.s. right now would be very interested in creating a firewall environment for example i really want to say for u.s. corporations already censor the internet and operating only the government behind oh absolutely absolutely we want to support that regime because we have a huge naval base there and want to keep that there i was investigative journalist wayne madsen and that is going to do it for our show for more on the stories we cover go to our t.v. dot com slash usa.

29 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on