tv [untitled] December 20, 2013 4:30am-5:01am EST
how did during the nafta debate and telling the canadians not to sign so i think the ukrainian should make this decision themselves you know there are talks about sanctions to us could use against ukrainian government what are they is that action warranted i don't begin to action against ukraine is warranted no matter what decision it may and this is a decision again for the ukrainian government and the ukrainian people it has nothing to do with the vital interests of the united states and i would be opposed to my own government my own country imposing sanctions on the ukrainian government in people for decision which is their sovereign right so and i don't think the congress of the united states would would go along with sanctions i find that hard to believe you know like you said this is a choice that ukrainian people should make themselves and there is no one opinion on what path the crane should choose in your opinion what do you think can help
them figure things out at this point. well i think the ukrainian joy to decide what really is in their own best interest i know a bit about the ukraine i was there and back in nineteen way back in the nixon administration before richard nixon in one nine hundred seventy one and i know that the eastern ukraine for example is very much oriented toward russia and the western ukraine is somewhat oriented toward the old hapsburg empire so it's a country that is really it is really a mixture but again this is a decision a democratic country ought to make for itself and it is not the business of the united states to determine which way they should orienteer economy well what do you think about the money thrown at promoting democracy around the world which also includes support and funding of colorado aleutians is it money well spent i mean some would argue that democracy actually happened in those countries that
revolutionists place and what do you think. well my view is that many of the the national endowment for democracy and its assorted and associated agencies these were cold war institutions they were created in the reagan administration i was in the white house and we were trying to orient countries more toward the west as the soviet union was trying to reorient them toward its camp in the cold war but with the cold war over in my judgment i think these are counterproductive i mean interfering in the internal affairs of foreign countries to reorient their foreign policy or their government toward the united states i don't think is justified unless there is some imminent threat to our own country and i don't see that and i've argued basically for the abolition of these kinds of agencies that interfere in the internal affairs of foreign nations i think it's counterproductive i think
we create more enemies than we do friends when we involve ourselves in the so-called color coded revolutions many of them have been overturned since c. since the united states was sub rosa engaged in them and so again i would i would say that if the common turn has been shut down then they ought to shut down some of these agencies in the united states but i'm not in i'm not in office anymore and i'm not advising presidents anymore oh what a pity that you're not invited you're not advising presidents anymore and says where start talking about ukraine would you classify the u.s. actions in ukraine right now as interference in internal affairs of us foreign country and do you generally find that washington has a real understanding of places it interferes in. well i don't know that you can say washington is interfering per se the but that i don't think the u.s. government to the undersecretary of state should have gone there and gotten into
a rally in the middle of kiev i don't think senator mccain should have gone there and been around in the middle of kiev and then accused russia of interfering in the internal affairs of ukraine when he himself is doing exactly that so i don't think that is helpful again this is an issue that really does not involve the united states of america i can understand the european union going to the ukraine and arguing their case i can understand mr putin you know inviting the president of ukraine to russia to argue his case i just don't know what america's vital interests are america's interest is in this decision which belongs to the ukrainian people and ukrainian government and again i'm sure some people welcome senator mccain but i think doing this really enhances them and underscores the reputation unfortunate of the united states for interfering in people's affairs all over the world when there is no necessity or no right to do so but at the same time if
people are out in the streets demanding and corruption war transparency respect for human rights i mean surely the united states is helpful to them no. well i think they're all to do that. i mean they have a perfect right to demonstrate their preferred perfect right to demonstrate against their government they have a perfect right to say we don't want to orient toward russia we would like to be part of the european union that's the right of the ukrainian people and we would certainly from the outside support that ride but the question is not whether we support that right which we do but whether we ought to get in the middle of the argument and that's what i'm saying is it isn't our quarrel it isn't our argument but do the people of ukraine what i love to see them have a right to have peaceful demonstrations whether they're for or against the russian customs union that's fine but also you know a lot of people are thinking i mean the u.s. has enough troubles inside its borders as an it i mean can it really afford at this
point to send under-secretaries and senators to foreign countries to support them for whatever reason rather i think the senators went on his own and i think they probably pay their own way but i agree with you that the i don't think the undersecretary of state should be in demonstrations or should be vocal inside foreign countries about decisions a move which don't affect our national security and merely. a choice which as i say belongs to the ukraine alone now you advocate curtailing u.s. interventions around the globe but aren't they about security for washington is it better to sponsor or fight a small scale war far away than let things play out on their own and face a big problem on your doorstep later. my view is with regard to the cold war is over my view is the united states ought not to use its military force
unless it's authorized by the congress of the united states unless the vital interest of the united states are imperiled in some way or other and unless the american people are united over this intervention as you may know i was against the iraq war when president george w. bush took us to the iraq war while i favored the intervention in afghanistan after the massacre of nine eleven i did not believe the united states should stay in afghanistan and try to reform and remake that country according to our ideas and our ideals i thought that was a bridge too far for the united states i've opposed intervention in syria because i'm not an admirer of the regime there but no vital interest of the united states was threatened in that civil war so in each of those cases and frankly since the
cold war ended i have been against a most of the american interventions because i didn't see them as directly related to the vital interest of my country nothing in my country was threatened our people were not threatened and so i did in i don't think we ought to be out trying to remake the world in our image it's an impossibility as a great scholar said once the constitution of the united states is not for export but you also say that united states and the west will collapse in the same way rogue is from uncontrolled multiculturalism do you not believe in a positive effects of globalization. listen to there's no doubt that globalization has some tremendously positive. aspects to it and consequences from it i think that the fact that the chinese people for example. where i visited china with richard nixon it is opening to china i was part of that delegation. it was
a deeply repressed country poverty was pandemic it was a dreary as dreary a places i've ever seen and i think globalization is in large part responsible for the enormous build up of china the fact that there's widespread wealth in china there's enormous production it is grown it ten percent twelve percent eight percent a year for twenty twenty five years that's a good thing my concern about globalization is the american economy america was the most productive nation in the world a tremendous manufacturing power when i ran for president in one thousand nine hundred two i said if we go into these trade treaties and free trade policies the united states will lose its manufacturing base it will disappear it will be exported and that's exactly what's happened in the first decade of the twenty first century. fifty thousand american factories disappeared and six
million manufacturing jobs disappeared one in every three we had so i think when you had an economy as advanced as the united states put american workers in direct competition with chinese workers who were then making one dollar an hour or two dollars an hour was deeply damaging to our country even if it was beneficial to the people's republic of china all right we'll be back with former u.s. presidential advisor patrick cannon to talk about the syrian puzzle and the american involvement stay with us.
e.g. . a longer covert team of journalists trying to release wiki leaks documents about how the united states is trying to. make local media more pro-american they encounter peer. pressure. country blocks the way to information freedom. wealthy british. writers. market. find out what's really happening to the. economy
with max conjure up for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into kinds a report on our. right to see. the first strike. and not a gripping picture. on our reporters twitter. and instagram. today and. on law. the fact that. they were going to do its job did you know the price is the only industry specifically mentioned in the constitution and. that's because a free and open process is critical to our democracy track numbers. in fact the single biggest threat facing our nation today is the corporate takeover of
our government and i trust semi-colon's we've been hijacked trying handful of transnational corporations that will profit by destroying what our founding fathers wanted all just my job market and on this show we reveal the big picture of what's actually going on in the world if we go beyond identifying the problem you're trying to fix a rational debate and a real discussion that critical issues facing america have done your job ready to join the movement then welcome to the big picture. please. please.
and we're back with former heroes presidential advisor pat buchanan great to have you back where do you see rising civilization who will take over the superpower role in your opinion. well i think the the right clearly the rising power and the potential superpower of the world i think is china given the enormous size of the country its extraordinary growth rate its population which is one point four billion people i think and it's tremendous growing power and its assertiveness i think china is the is the rising superpower of the world. but let me ask you this just a world of in need someone to fill the superpower shoes at all are we all about being multi-polar at this point well i don't think it's the choice of us or great
nations that rise up invariably seek a place in the sun that is unique and that is different in that is above all others it is natural and people take to this it is part of human nature and i think the chinese see themselves as the future dominant power of that western pursuit that then of the eurasian sub continent and then of the world but if we talk about the oil producing countries not the superpowers just oil producing countries and they're obviously very strong politically because of their resources while they have a problem with human rights and america does nothing about it like in bahrain or saudi arabia why is the american public ok with that. really. it's the old question in the old boy it is a we're more tolerant of the mistakes and errors of our friends when we are those of our adversaries there's no doubt about it is there something of
a double standard in powers dealing with their friends like the saudis unlike the gulf arabs and the others in how they treat minorities and how they treat women then we are of some other countries like russia for example with which we have something the malvern adversarial relationship there's no doubt your criticism is justified it's exactly right i wouldn't deny it i mean in bahrain the shia are the minority and they rose up peacefully and they were put down by our friends and so what the united states does in cases like that is usually tries quietly to work with these countries rather than gets in their face which we tend to do with adversaries yeah because the second question of course arises if the u.s. can find common ground with absolute monarchs like the saudis aren't about her a nice why couldn't you do the same with strong men like ah side i mean what is the compay in against assad actually all about in your opinion or on our
thoughts. i mean you might recall some of the i believe it was secretary of state clinton and some others. when before the civil war began we're talking about him as quote a reformer and they were trying to get along with them but now that this civil war has broken out and it is an appalling civil war the atrocities the deaths and killing on both sides assad has been completely demonized and the united states so that you cannot associate him but there's no doubt that some of those rebel groups the al nusra front and others are engaged in terrorist atrocities of their own executions and and murders and all the rest and so you know i. but you know but there's no doubt that what's going on in syria now is far more serious than what is going on in bahrain but what how do you see the syrian scenario play out at me and what's your take on that what's going to happen. i think it's.
i don't think it's good i think the islamists are growing stronger the so-called free syrian army. associated with the americans those rebels are growing weak relatively weaker and i see the the islamist elements setting aside parts of syria themselves and eliminating all opposition there i think that it's hard to see how the war ends well in this sense i think assad could could win something of a victory but a charge for me to see him driving out the a slot machine where they're really totally encamped so what i think you could see is a sort of a what's happened in iraq after we went in there you see the kurdish parts breaking away gaining more autonomy and independence and the of slum aside saying setting up their own sanctuaries along that turkish border and in the north and in the south
southwest and over to the coast and i think you could see sort of a de facto partition again like we see right now in iraq tim and i don't think it's going to be good news for anyone well what do you think about obama's handling the iranian issue is it doing the right thing i mean some people are talking about a possible thaw in the relationship right now is he handling it in the right way i think proved. i credit both secretary of state kerry whom i've been a critic growth and president obama criticisms i think they are doing the right thing and you know i don't know i'm not a very hopeful person but i'm inclined to think a deal can be done with the iranians where they not only stop short of an atomic bomb but starts to stop their program is stopped a year or two short of the ability even if they determined to build
a bomb stop to year two short of that ability and i think it can be done because i think. when the ayatollah says we've sworn off nuclear weapons i think the of rainy and must look at that middle east and say you know what do we gain if we build an atom bomb if we get an atom bomb then the israelis will put their nuclear arsenal on a hair trigger the saudis will get atom bombs from the pakistanis the turks won't let us be the only nuclear power in this region they will build a bomb the egyptians might have a bomb the americans will have all their warships some of them armed with nuclear weapons in our neighborhood and if god forbid some atomic weapon went off anywhere in the world everybody would blame us without looking at the evidence and they would attack us so what would an atom bomb for us do look at north korea they may be isolated they're isolated they're sanctioned they are alone they are despised
and look at china which has come out and engage the world and look how they have done and so i think the if i were out in a rainy and i would say why don't we go to china road rather than the north korea road because we're eighty million people eighty five million we will become the dominant power in the gulf and naturally from natural growth and a peaceful golf i mean what nation is going to grow to be the dominant nation the americans threw out saddam hussein and he was our enemy and now we've got a shia. government in baghdad well since you brought up saddam hussein in iraq iran is much stronger internally a lot more unified than iraq was in case of a conflict it will not be a pushover and everyone understands that when the u.s. talks about a military option there is it really ready for another tough thing gates meant in the region is it even in the country's interest. well i don't think a war with iran would be in the interest of the united states at all. and i hope
and pray there is no conflict between the two countries but i think you're somewhat mistaken when you say that iran is more unified if you take a look at iran the core center of iran is persian but there are baluch baluchistan in the sound system baluchistan there are secessionist movements there there are arabs in the southwest there are kurds up in the north east and there are zero three in the north made at the end of world war two stalin of russia in the red army was in that area and had to be forced out of there in a war between the united states and iran i think would be a disaster for the world a disaster for the world economy but it would certainly be a disaster for iran as well there's no doubt that a country of eighty million destroyed larger three times as large as iraq is did not have any pushover for anyone but i don't think anyone would imagine that the
united states would send an army up to tehran in the event of a conflict again i wouldn't want to see a conflict but in the event of a conflict it would be all air naval and missiles. and i say surveillance is another huge topic and that's not likely to end well i understand that what do you think it is necessary how will people counter it or will they just give up. no i think what's going to happen is out of the court ruled as you know that. you know the court just a court just ruled at the federal level the district level that the that the gathering all the information from telephone calls e-mails and the rest of it on everybody and putting it on file that this was unconstitutional but there's two more courts to rule and i don't think the supreme court will let that stand but i do think this there's probably going to be some reforms made of the n.s.a. and its bugging and it's all the rest of it all the material it gathers and which i
think are basically done for the security the united states i don't think they're sitting around reading my emails i don't know why they'd waste their time or listening to my phone calls and i do think it's done for national security purposes but i do think congress will get in on the act and i do think this if you talk about friendly countries the idea of of listening to their conversations of friendly leaders is a matter of course i don't think it's a very good idea because i don't think first we get anything out of it and secondly how can you call someone your friend when you're listening to his personal phone calls so i think those types of things might be curtailed to a degree but i think basically the program is not going to be when you get that enormous capacity and not enormous ability people almost always use it now mr buchanan you yourself thought to become president of the united states do you believe in such a thing as clean politics as made controlled by corporations now anyway.
no it's mean there's no question about it that the big corporations the giant corporations have tremendous power they've got the lobbying power in washington d.c. and and they have tremendous amounts of money but you know. you know they're not invincible they're enormous power but they are not invincible in national politics and and i don't think the reason i lost was the corporate power mind was the basically the republican party was basically at that point in ninety two and ninety six hostile to my ideas of economic nationalism economic patriotism and anti interventionism and some of those ideas i think my ideas are probably more popular today than they were then but you know i don't think it is inevitable that someone an outsider can come in and win the presidency of the united states i think
certainly barack obama is an example that clearly when you get the democratic nomination you get all of that support and power that the unions and all the rest but i don't think just to say that big corporations are all powerful they are enormously powerful i think half of the biggest economic units in the world are companies not countries but i don't think they're united and i don't think they're invincible mr mccann has been a delight to talk to you thank you very much for this interview you will wish you all the best in the upcoming year two thousand and fourteen and hopefully we'll get . that's all we have for now guys this was happenstance former us presidential advisor and a white house hopeful see you next time here and so. largest
consumer of this season and i see it many in the country is the federal government to simply say probably will the united states government. is the united states somebody listening going public has to realize you can't just buy. your own just throw it away. for instance belongs to the united states environmental protection agency and i found this on a dump site here this is not always followed up by the producers of these little i have to should be able to collect these though i believe my vision responsible for the products from cradle to grave. to mexico department of mental health for up until subtle merge trying to cooperate are all but also belongs to the washington metro area transit authority properties of a dentist aids. and trademarks also.