tv [untitled] December 12, 2013 7:30am-8:01am EST
expression of world one's views and the vision of the freedom of assembly and older than we've seen statements by the government here. referring to the fact that there will be investigations if there have been abuses etc. but but it's a matter of all sides acting responsibly absolutely but i think and i know that you met with the foreign minister of here ukraine and you're stressed that all sides have to respect the law but i think we can also see from some of the european countries and the reaction from them has been that you know the people's right of free assembly has to be respected there is a lot of aphasic on the right a sample freely and i think it's not that simple because strict politics is obviously a very imprecise masher of assessing democratic attitudes and people who are gathered in the center of key if these the stadium of nothing less than the resignation of the government and early elections something that some part of the
electorate may support and some part of the electorate may very strongly oppose but it seems that in their case and many european countries supported that very strongly it's not just about the boy seeing their views it's about demanding nothing less than what they want it's my way or highway they don't care what the rest of the country may want so it seems that you know this interplay between security and democracy is very very tricky here what well of course it is and there's a see this is there's a lively debate in say the organization on this but one should also pay attention not to confuse the internal political dynamics in any country. the basic need to respect some fundamental freedoms and principles. you know to be extent that we see from from perspective in me but i tried to address the. says
institutionally as a as a can when they see the commitment of the government to to uphold the rule of law and to. guarantee fundamental freedoms then in a certain way i'm satisfied to see that there is this command necessary if soon the lead in ukraine have you seen will assume efforts to go in that direction no we have to see now if this investigation takes place and and all that but then there is also a political element in the relation of the relationship between the political actors which is really. in the realm of of the interaction and political interaction among the forces here and that's where the international community doesn't really have much of it all we can overall as. if this is something that is requested by the satyr as mediators and the dialogue is it was really the case because we have all the major players in european politics
now in ukraine they're in negotiations not only with the ukrainian leadership but with the ukrainian opposition there is clearly a very strong push on the part of sound western countries to influence the decision and to intervene in this what you say internal democratic process why hasn't always see condemned those efforts to intervene because this this is something that's good politically it contributes you or. you know making the situation less secure but that's because we don't pass judgment or assessments on. how can i say on political decisions and we don't assess a policy of a certain country its relations with its neighbor and and you know the also the fact that this relationship may have a certain color a certain connotation what we try to assess is whether the. fundamental principles
are expected and that's also what protects us in giving certain neutrality to the fact that we have to read then the of course there is there is a political space within which the various actors operating there all meditative in a present of the government over say a western country comes here and interacts with the government and the opposition and perhaps they. are more in favor of one or the other that's really his choice i mentioned that quote by george w. bush earlier and in a day d.-a that you need to help democratize other countries. as a way of ensuring your own security and i think it's still very popular in the west but and it is certainly i guess part of the always see mission especially since the collapse of the soviet union you've made some progress in that domain i wonder if you indeed agree with george w. bush on that that actively promoting democracy is not just
a matter of your values or your ideology but it is indeed part of the security doctrine i would say that but this is the concept that these agreed by everybody in your city we have institution whose name refers to the promotion of democratic institutions if we have in our societies and in the structures of our countries checks and balances you have immense were. controlling somehow the decisions of the governments governments reporting to the parliaments if you have democratic processes over the actions that the law that make sure that government's duty flecked to the will of the people then it is more difficult for a government to make a decision that can be dramatic but here we're talking about internal institutions internal democratic institutions and i'm asking you about an outside effort bring democracy to any certain country and you mentioned earlier the. everybody agrees on
that model but i would like to mention one example at least where that model has significant that backfired and this is libya and number of the always see here founding member states actively aided bringing democracy to libya and three years down the line that produced and major security implications not only for north africa but for europe itself i mean the issue of migration and the issue of terrorism is that on their agenda do you think that european countries maybe european institutions including the oil see may need to reconsider that approach to spreading democracy and maybe give a bit more thought see you the security implications that that process could have spreading democracy it's not a noisy concept and there are certain countries you mention libya this is really very little to do that you have that. mansion and. libya requested to become a partner and it's still blocked powerfully in relation to the issues that you that
you mentioned too from from dealing to the organization so we're really looking at libya as an external entity from but let's use it as a kind of an academic example and certainly this is something something or we do not doing is exporting democracy as you see what we do we work with governments and it's a long term. always effort to promote a democratic evolution of these situations i personally don't believe in overnight change i don't think we can create democracies overnight this is an effort that always requires a long term a. long term engagement of everybody but there is one principle that is important to us is that we have accepted and this is the ability of the societies in general stability in one country is a contribution to stability to the region in a way and this gives a right to the other countries also to have. see in processes going on in other
countries this is what obviously is creating sometimes but it's a principle that is recognised in the o.c.a. well i wonder if you are a country man then are on the lot island of lampedusa do really see what happened in libya as a hiccup because i think you know the flow of migrants from libya and increasingly from syria demonstrates that you know this is a ride that some countries in believe they have in. you know taking care about affairs in other states certainly. backfired and that produce very very negative consequences the number of migrants in europe has significantly increased as a result of some of the european policies against some of the policies of the young member states and as a consequence we only suffer because of that should should there be some codified responsibility for your actions even such normal actions as spreading democracy
you're putting various things in the same basket if you look for instance the issue of the migrants you wouldn't relate this necessarily only to one factor i think we're looking at the larger phenomenon that we need to assess. things may have in the specifics may have made the issue worse in a way and fully fully accept that and as an italian more than is the secular general the sea. but but there is a trend the it is a larger trend and the reasons are many goes back to economic development to. societal developments to. the what we used to call the arab spring i'm not sure how to call it now little but countries that are really supported and aided the arab spring and promised all those people all those things that you just mentioned and as a result they intervened in their societies but they. humans fail to mix and we are
sorry but these are movements and also take place within the societies and we see also the debating side the outer world we see also the contradictions inside the arab world and you know you're bringing me a lot outside now the u.s. syria but back to the issue of the point where we're starting as they say their knees nor polisi on. how can i say exported. really what we're doing we're working with each of the countries of the organization to help them develop their own institutions in their own way if some companies within the u.s. see. have policies that. can i say a more global or that's really their issue and they would be accountable for that and there would be and this is part of this question that we have inside the organization and as you know it's a lively there's a lively debate well unfortunately it's tough at the level of debate rather than
you know fully accepted responsibility just as and here we have to take a very short break now but one of the comeback democracy has long been considered an area of rastan expertise by the size making phenolic and social change and shake the very foundation of many societies isn't it time to review some of the all teachings that's coming up on all the parts in just a few moments. this is the magic of a bill to connote. freedom particularly in american pop culture the automobile has always been the icon of freedom i see that ford motor company is going to market a mustang for the globe so that they can export america's idea of the open road and freedom to places like china where the air pollution is so thick it's wafting
was created as an organization to facilitate the dialogue between east and west during the cold war and to some extent this divide ideological divide still remains and some may even argue that it has exacerbated in recent years in fact this recent toggle for between russia and the european union over ukrainian future may be seen as one example of that what do you think are we witnessing the formation of this new divide between istana west and europe because there's talk about. and what we see is that the relations between the keep players a group of players in the us see space not necessarily become any easier in recent times. and the process of the is the neighborhood and the development than in the run up to the ability of some meat has been as we have seen a. phase of. how can i say development
of relationship between russia and the european union was not let ideal so they're simply witnessing something that is happening in the us the space and what we're. asking ourselves is how can the us see contribute to. helping everybody move beyond this and to try to to to to work. on eliminating the any impression the new division emerging in many western media this choice that ukraine faces at the moment has been prepared in terms of you know a bribe democratic future offered by the european union and the dark authoritarian past threatened by russia and i can understand why some europeans may run away with this sort of cold war framing but i think russia certainly doesn't see itself as.
as an a talk or see or as a dictatorship in fact it sees itself as a democracy and it wants to develop as a democracy but on its own terms rather than terms hunted down from some of the old established european democracies and i wonder if you think as an observer that some of the european countries would be ready to discuss democracy in this russia with other poissy members on equal terms not as teachers and students but rather as equal partners and talking about what democracy. really nice and what is the best way to achieve or improve it they have every opportunity to do so in the us c.n. we have discussions all the time around these issues what we're finding is that there is still at the bottom of everything a lack of truly conciliation. and perhaps following the end of the cold war there are still issues on which we can and should work and we are for supposedly examples
from germany and from sir paul and the russia presenting some good models of the worst that forward so i think the first thing to do is really to do that to try to get a better environment for this discussion to take place and then on the agenda of the u.s.c. we also have a project and the project is the creation of a security community where everybody has its space so this is what we're working on and the more we manage to make progress and russia has quite a number of interesting proposals some of them more acceptable to others some of leds some of them less and and this is a negotiation that is starting now effect but if we manage and the further we manage to go in the direction of creating a security community the more we create good conditions for this kind of debate that could take place you're being very politically correct here but i think there is a still
a sense in europe. both in the east and in the west of here of that the old europe is in an established democracy it and the rest has to sort of grow up a little bit and my question was more about who determines what democracy really is because there are a number of social issues now in europe that are very challenging and you don't really understand whether they're democratic and not for example they can pay for al-tikriti rights in europe which is a very. general issue very broad issue on the one hand it includes you know fair treatment nondiscriminatory treatment of individuals which everybody supports but on the other hand it may also include. total of rejuvenation of the poor social institution which is marriage and many people strongly oppose that but then europe many governments took the route of you know pushing for these legislative changes from top down and for many here in the new europe that's not democratic that's
plain authoritarian many in established democracies would still insist on that i wonder how we can really come to a place when everybody's opinion the would with content equally rather than some having more entitle them to democracy than others. still a think the us c. is based on a. principle which is very very strongly held in the organization which is the principle consensus so we do not agree on anything unless and until everybody feels comfortable with it so the issue you mention of the bt well there is a general recognition that there should be no discrimination of minorities of any kind that i think everybody agrees to that when it comes to more active policies etc there is no agreement because there are countries and i wouldn't. single out
the russian but there are others that feel less comfortable because. there is a back values in within the societies. religious principles etc so the different levels of the us see shows that now i've heard you mention and many of your previous public appearances that you believe that the always see model of consensus has been very successful and that it could be used as a. as an example to you imitate probably in other parts of the world and i wonder if that somewhat optimistic assessment was a bit premature because if you look at europe there is a rise of ethnic tensions there is a rise of xenophobia the. democracy index for last year noted an erosion of confidence in democracy in a number of european countries a stereo to matters are also having a very judgmental effect i wonder if you see those changes within europe and then
the core of europe as something that is temporary or something that made dramatically change the layout of europe in the long term well this is a phenomena we see weaving societies we europeans are saying is that mental increasing radicalization even even maybe my own country have seen that and they also made this point a bit of vision. i think there are two issues. here one is the relationship between the group we the group and they still remain convinced the consensus is the way to go because concise who protects everybody and i think it's important to say that now looking at the societies and development societies i'm worried as you are and they think we need to include in our policies increasingly to have more attention for these problems and to address the issues within the societies for instance they all theme of tolerance and nondiscrimination i think should become higher more prominent or not in that we need to work with the societies to avoid that these
tendencies become structurally in a way it could be it is increasing now because we see the impact of migration on the. changing nature of the society impact of the financial crisis as well as the fact or two and this is changing relations affected relation affecting also reaction of people so we need to work with the societies and this is something a we do in the u.s. see we are not only intergovernmental but we also we have a good ability to interact with the people and with the civil society etc and i think we should we should continue doing that because the stability of the societies and the openness of the societies to somehow accept the evolution of their own evolution in a way and to be able to come to terms with that is essential for
a future long terms of it well it's a very interesting something and i think it also brings us back to the issue of democracy because. if you look back at history for example the beginning of. last century the middle of last century hitler came to power through a democratic choice of the people and as you mentioned there is a growth of far right movements all around european current continent including in russia it's a major problem here but. when you talk about working with the society what who do you think should be in charge of determining which views are legitimate should it be the people or should it be the governments the un so there is that first of all each of the governments has to play a role in assume its all responsibilities this is not a debate about being right or left and it's not a question of course is often very critical of member states when it when they
don't leave after certain democratic expectations yes but again this is not an issue about right or left it's an issue about about fundamentalism or extremism in it we saw what we need to avoid these to avoid paid speech. to avoid this excessive radicalization that can lead to even to terrorism saw we need to make sure that there are healthy values within our societies and what that's what we try to promote through governments but health first is also very. judgmental term what is healthy here marriage for one person is extremely unhealthy for somebody else saw you know the this is ultimately again a choice between whether you want in a democratic society whether you make the government the ultimate determinant of what is good or bad or the people does not only to working with government but what
we want to do is to have governments that do reflect the will of the people though so that's why and it's a bit of a circular argument but that's why we want to strengthen the democratic city of the institutions to make sure that governments do reflect what people expect and very quickly we have i think just a minute left but. you know that you mentioned that there there have been some disagreements between. members of the oist see between russia and europe maybe growing divide and i wonder if there. warthe called thracian in the title of your organization is still fitting because it seems like there are more disagreements more rivalries than actually you know those countries working together well competition these are the same the metal but also the gold and we want to work through to see more cooperation in future and that this is always be from the
origin in a way from the c.s.c. one of the key the key elements there was no corporation in the beginning but the name was still there so we we are moving and we keep moving in the same direction well mr vanier thank you very much for your time i really appreciate your perspective and chair of yours if you like the show please join us again same place same time here on worlds apart. what defines a country's success. faceless figures of economic growth. or standard of living.
in anytime you want. to. believe. her. face the economic ups and downs in the final. day but the deal sank i and the rest it's going to take it will be every week game elite athlete. i was thinking somehow i had to come back because mom was waiting for me. i just knew that everything would be fine for some reason they were so confident because we were going to get married officially after he came back how could he not come back not have it never crossed my mind. when the militants decided to
try and break through. screaming and they took. his back. and it was all over all should we know that our comrades on our commander won't leave us no matter how tough it gets we're a team. who are both getting was a senior in his military trio. he knew that if he didn't smother that grenade with his body more of his comrades would die he gave his own life to save his friends.
the president's speech of logic to present sounds russia's not seeking to dominate the globe on it is capable of defending itself to protect a finding. all faults the options including sanctions are on the table. washington creates more ways behind antti government purse hester's in ukraine but not everyone is on board. do you think it's the most proceeded revolution it's a nationalistic coup this instigate people to break the law. which talks of the demonstrators that who have fallen out of the focus of western media. also this hour israel and saudi arabia reports have made time team of a common interest in the middle east also forming out.