tv [untitled] June 7, 2012 1:30am-2:00am EDT
welcome back you're watching our tears over the top stories massacre danger of losing syria government forces find dozens of women and children butchered in a homeless style slaughter once again coinciding with a high profile appearance of kofi annan. touching sore points global political attention shifted eastward as president would leave there were any and now again leaders in beijing revving up his chinese tour. plus the political revolution death fail to bring a cultural one and women in egypt fear their fight for equality is doomed as long as some rides from the ashes of the uprising. as we outlined here in our team
coming out next stanford university professor william perry shares his views about president obama's foreign policy record and america's challenges and the middle east stay tuned for the latest spotlight. low. technology innovation all the moves developments around russia we've got the future covered. however welcome to the spotlight the interview show on r t i would know one thing my guest is william perry. as the presidential campaign in the united states is in full swing it's affecting life not only in the u.s. but in other countries as well what guarantees all the americans are ready to give
the russians concerning the a.b.m. system in europe or what's cooking in washington concerning the arab countries pakistan. iran sample well these questions are very serious and they are affecting global diplomacy and these questions today are being discussed on some national conference in berlin and we'll be asking these questions to the former u.s. defense secretary and professor at stanford university william perry. for any us administration and russia has always been one of the main concerns in terms of foreign policy the two countries have seen different periods of both standoffs and tossing tension and know the future is uncertain again as americans are preparing for their presidential election since the very beginning barack obama has been eager to get through it with russia rather than confronted steel there's been some issues like the u.s. missile shield in eastern europe for example which threaten to stimulate parity any
list jest if the democrats take it will be more likely for the dialogue to go on but if the republicans win another cooling is expected as they've already used and to rush rhetoric during the election campaign. but that's a very welcome to the show and i think there must be going to be with this is my place to which the president well some people today it seemed that one of the. the big problems. is sort of an intolerance maybe it's because the politicians mean the leaders have to come here and this intolerance makes it harder to reach to the standing do you agree is a veteran politician i think there's some i think that is correct and it's. it's too bad because the world while people are coming less tolerant the world is becoming more interdependent so it's all the more important for cut nations to work
together and to work together they have to develop the tolerance to accept other people's differences well anyway we were talking. in terms of relations we were talking reset relations for yes in the years that. the family republican rival mitt romney said he would give about the poor after great for his foreign policy what you yourself about as well as i think is an effort right this is no not at all and i don't think mr romney really believes that it's a political statement he thinks. i think i'm very pleased with the foreign policy that obama's position on it is not has been every case successful. but i give him very high marks on things he has tried to do he started off right in the beginning announcing of his intention to reset within a month after that he made his famous speech at prague which he said i state
clearly and with conviction the commitment of the united states to seek the peace in the world. without nuclear weapons so he made a commitment very early in his administration to move towards the end do a nuclear weapon and he followed that up a very substantial actions one of the most important was that with the us russian treaty the new start treaty which not only made a reduction i must say a modest reduction in the numbers of nuclear weapons but they had us and russia getting back together on a dialogue on this issue and conducting. transparent transparent verifiable measures so i think that was a major step forward i also think that the nuclear summit which was held the first one of which was held in washington and the last one held its sole. leaders of more than fifty nations got together and. to promote actions to reduce the danger of nuclear fissile material around the world all of those i think very positive steps
there just a few of the steps he's taken to i would give president obama very high marks he had not hoped to do which is get are out of vacation at the comprehensive test ban treaty because the conditions in the senate were such that he didn't they couldn't get it out of it but he has to be elected that would be a major objective first next term you giving him time mourning but it's for good intention. the good intention did they pave the way to elevate it don't think now i'm talking not about intentions about actually of the new start treaty is an action but don't you agree that the u.s. reset program did this so this so idea that looks like it's running out of you as in the u.s. russia relations got off the first few years in a very positive direction i think we had a big bump in the road and that. i don't think it's a bump that cannot be smoothed out and resolved but it is there and it has not been
resolved one of them asked to do of course with the ballistic missile defense deployment in new york that's an area of major contention between the united states and russia that in my opinion this is a problem which is resolvable and i think we ought to get together resolve and i have high hopes that will be the next it has not been resolved so far though you the former u.s. secretary of defense defense based mainly on the possession of the us today you are very active in preventing a new national convention are proof ration of nuclear weapons so are many other former defense secretaries so isn't it that you tried it you guys tried to make make up for what you did when you were younger but what we did we were younger was in a quite a different era it was during the cold war and we believe the danger to the security danger to the united states and to other countries are very great and we should. nuclear weapons as a way of preventing that danger but when the cold war was over here we in the
soviet union steward with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons now the weapons which we consider to be for our security when our danger to our security the danger of the united states a curious danger to russia's security and so we banded together to find a way of reducing those the year i was secretary of defense for example we and russia together dismantled almost ten thousand nuclear weapons because we saw those nuclear weapons as a danger to the world that effort has stalled though and we need to get it back in high gear again but it's a different era with the nuclear weapons are not needed for our security they are in fact a danger to our security well he said you said you believe that you will do to little russians believes in that too but today there is not a belief something americans. who can literally in the compound titian's they believe really believe that this a.b.m. this missile shield that can save america can be can be. a real
protection from from you know do you think they're right in believing that the ship is believed. to say yeah i'm going to stay here. i neither. share the view of our government politike missile defense is necessary in europe as it is an essential feature for our security nor do i believe the russian government a few that are ballistic missile deployment is the threat to russian security i think both countries are wrong and because we're both wrong we've got to find a way of getting together and get it getting that issue resolved you've been talking about this with your colleagues on the expert level the level as i call it and x. is an expert. on this sort of understanding. i think the experts that i did speak with at least would agree that any ballistic missile defense system is subjected to decoys and therefore one can question the effectiveness of any any blistered the
missile defense system to being deployed today. so that from the point of view of the american who are deploying this system. that's a real concern because we can the effectiveness of the system and we can the value of doing it from aboard your the russians. to say is very little threat very little threat to the earth the russian system so i don't really quite understand fully either government's point of view on this either the americans view that it's so important for security or the russians view this as a threat to their security i don't think either is true when the last meeting president abandoned president medvedev we journalists got the impression that they did find some sort of understanding so do you think that if a batsman gets reelected you think you'll have a free hand to sign since sort of the sudden assessment so so that the americans and the russians can start with each again that maybe join control of the system is
something this is awesome because i believe there's a technical solution to the problem as a technical solution of cooperation which could remove the russians concerns about the danger of them i believe that exists i think we will find out what you do take political will on that the underside of both countries in that political will a solution can be found so political will is not is technically under ten yeah it's not a technically difficult problem i think the political will. russia's political has to be on both sides and put them both down trees well that put this in effect this this presidential campaign that we're. seeing the united states is not questions of matters of foreign policy for the first other really important in this campaign and. they will probably not be important in the campaign. because i believe that president obama's record on foreign policy has been very strong and therefore i do not think. candidate romney would choose to challenge him much on
that he will instead be going after him on the basis of economy. if. whoever is president whichever selected are going to be a different foreign policy as a consequence of whether it's president obama or president romney we should really still. be russia during this campaign as the u.s. top political foe this it really reflects the republican party i can't believe that i mean i know very very many senior republicans including george schultz and looting have your kids at you who's of you cannot believe that it is so we should say so and i don't it's just an election rhetoric or what. i don't quite understand and i know that and they. take an analogy they were russian to better understand they're doing the putin's presidential campaign he seemed to be posing united states as a threat to russia which i don't believe and i'm not there and. so i don't know
people say in campaigns sometimes take extreme statements. but i do not believe that's going to be a big issue in this campaign. i do believe will be a difference in that whether through romney or obama in terms of how u.s. russia relations develop and i'm inclined to believe that it would develop a more positive vein under obama than under romney so what this is very important so you think the russians i mean the kremlin russian diplomats the foreign office should vote for now. you know easier for the ukraine to deal with event then with them if he's if he's elected and i think unlike and in any country their presidents are determined by their own people that i don't like outside advice i don't i don't think there is right across the fingers right but my main concern relative the u.s. russia relations in the future look my main concern with it for me would be elected
as. he has he opposed the ratification of the new start treaty and therefore so quite clear that he would not be supporting a follow on to that treaty and i would very much like to see a follow on to the new start treaty for a story of further reduction in the number of nuclear weapons jointly between the united states and russia spotlight we'll be back shortly to take a break so stay where you are doing it. wealthy british style like. by. market why not. come to. find out what's really happening to the global economy
with mike's concert for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune in to kaiser report on our. news sigrid laboratory to mccurry was able to build on the most sophisticated robot which on fortunately doesn't give a darn about anything turns mission to teach music creation why it should care about humans and world this is why you should care watch only on the dot com. welcome back to spotlight i now do nothing just to remind you that we're a guest on the show today is william perry professor stanford university and former u.s. defense. professor russia's nuclear arsenal is capable to break through the and time miss shield that we see now built in europe at least that's what the
rest nutria saying but as experts say the face for the shield which is expected to be deployed by twenty twenty should be something different and make me pose a threat to the russians that's what the military said i will and that's what i'm quoting with what i read in the press so what i'm worried about is you say your former u.s. defense secretary that this is not a threat to russia. first thing and second thing is that. it's really. is not some real help real protection against against nuclear missiles so my question is why can't the americans give russia some guarantee that this is different because as far as i understand all russians want something in writing that this is not aimed at these missiles and not able at your cities and
well and this is no wife. is it a game. but does that make it very clear statement first of all the us b.m.d. system which i just told you i don't really support it but i do understand understand it. and this person was not designed against russian missiles and secondly it would not have any significant capability against my russian missile so was it a one way to face doing it for so nothing nothing socially having the capability of english like it or its improved system but against russian missiles it would be a stupid system i mean if somebody were asking me to do to evaluate that system as in effect there's a good price to missiles i would give it an f. . that would go to i would give it a nephew so that that is sort of good so given that fact then it seems to me there ought to be a way of our politicians keep coming to an agreement they're going to reassure russians on that point. ok let's move in there that shit's connected with the with
the american it sounds new of course iran do you believe in the in ring threat as far as i know as far as a new russian diplomats are one of the field politicians. engaged in tension give speeches who really think who really continue stating that iran's nuclear program is no immediate threat to the world they're a new nuclear with no immediate threat because they don't have a nuclear weapon yet but they are developing. developing and they have a very extensive program for developing of rich and uranium thousands of centrifuges that work as we speak and which in uranium these centrifuges are capable of enriching at the level to which you could make be used in the nuclear bomb so it's very critical the dish program be contained and not take that stage
about richmond towards a nuke. and the a is the appropriate vehicle for verifying that but we have to first of all get a clear agreement from the rains and i'm going to do that. the u.s. defense secretary has unveiled plans to move more u.s. navy warship to asian waters well mr panetta played down concerns from beijing say the move would actually benefit china so what's this deployment supposed to serve if it's not containing. how can it benefit china well this is one tenth the united states considers itself a nation power we have an asia pacific power should say we have. extensive fleet the pacific fleet base in pearl harbor which covers all of the covers of the western pacific as well as the eastern pacific we have allies in
korea and japan and australia and so and we have extensive trade all through the area particularly with china so we do not consider the navy there as. a threat to china in fact from the chinese point of view. what that navy has been doing through the decades is maintaining stability in the region which allows countries china in particular to engage in peaceful commerce and china's economic growth in the last decade or so has been a directory the result of that stability in the region for which the u.s. naval presence there has been an important aspect so so the increase of the number of ships in circulation in this pacific region so shouldn't mean crease in the full view of mutual trade with china or is it because i think least.
possible. threats that can mean can you see the united states is not really increasing the size of its navy it is holding maintaining the level of its navy and in particular the important measure here is the number of carrier task forces and we're holding that number of carry test we're not increasing them at a recent review by the president of the america's security strategy it was proposed to reduce one period task force and the person rejected that reduction on the basis of the importance of maintaining stability in the asia pacific region but it's not an increase the absence of reduction in the comment. about this foreign policy people have been saying that it's. under about in the middle east the arab spring has become the arab winter to share this perception and do you think that that the middle east is becoming a more dangerous place less or less it's
a less stable place i would say for sure that what the arab spring demonstrate to the whole world and certainly there are people where the arab people had the power to speak on their own for what kind of governments they wanted and they spoke in a very loud and forceful way and they were. there on several regimes it's a consequence of this that doesn't necessarily mean that regime to replace them are going to be democratic regimes are going to be good regimes it will be stable regime so i think we're going seeing now it and there have been stability in the middle east but i would hope that what will come out of that era of instability is a stable democratic government which serve the people better than the government that had before experts saying that the houla massacre has been will become truly point in the serious or in the european union how should the international community behave in response to what's going on i think the
actions that the government is taking in syria against its own people are outrageous and i think their national security should condemn them and they should take all actions short of military actions to try to put pressure on the syrian government to to to stop this killing or stone people i think economic and financial sanctions are the most appropriate vehicle but we have to be have the nation the world working together for that to happen. because government has been criticized to be too soft on us as compared to the case of libya and that's so how probable do you think it is that that the united states that has made may take more or. more serious action more. may intervene it's as if i don't myself see the circumstances under which the united states within the intervening military force in syria. but i do see the importance of.
applying not just diplomacy because of diplomacy to try to bring that's. killing to an end. but the course of diplomacy i think. should not be based militarily should be based on economic and financial sanctions but professor you should understand that pressure on syria may be part of isolating iran will that diplomatically it would be it would be pretty wise thing to do it for them for that would be a reason for the pressure is not related to iran a consequence of the pressure would be india and i further isolation grand how probable is this just a question of the russian press this is asking turkey every day how probable is is a strike i think u.s. or israeli strike on iran and you really need nuclear options i think is some my own personal view is that some likely that united states government would authorize
a military strike against iran i know that the president has said he's not ruling anything out he's not anything off the table but my own personal view is i don't think it's likely the united states would make military strike against iran i cannot speak for the government of israel they believe that iranian nuclear weapon is a nexus of existential threat to their country therefore they take it very seriously so all that said that we should be focusing our attention on a diplomatic action to. keep iran from developing nuclear weapons but if the hawks in the us foreign office the state department. to provoke the israelis to to act against iran then maybe a possibility this is. i do not believe so i do not i agree with you that there hawks in the united states just as there hawks in russia yeah parks in every country those heart but that's not controlling u.s. government policy and u.s.
government policy i believe my view would not lead either to the u.s. conducting military action or or the u.s. trying to encourage israel to take military action because whatever the direct results of that action would be there are a whole host of indirect results unintended consequences of a military strike against iran and those are all those that i can think of a bad so we should be putting our focus. on diplomatic approaches and trying to find ways of making diplomacy more effective than has been mostly that requires closer cooperation with russia close cooperation china and we've got and i think good cooperation from russia in the last year or so but we have to still have a long way to go with china. and last question to assisting with the american action in libya how would you assess the do you think do you think it's made.
libya and the middle east a more a safer place than it within it was before the gadhafi regime was overthrown. libya we're going through a period of instability now and there's hard to say it's safer because of that but i think it was and what it is it's moving them in the direction of a better government and a more representative government and i think that is what the ultimate outcome will be what the outcome will be a month from now or six months very hard to say but i think they're headed towards a better government for the people of libya thank you thank you professor in just a reminder that my guest on the show today was william perry professor at stanford university and former u.s. defense secretary and that's it from there from all of us here spotlight will be back with more comments on what's going on in and outside russia until then stay on r.t. and take care. thank you.