tv Cross Talk RT January 2, 2019 11:00pm-11:31pm EST
surely we can risk some discomfort for easiness for. the death toll from the collapse tower block in the russian city of magnet to go surprises thirty seven. still missing. taiwan accuses china of interfering after president cheney warns he will use all necessary means to ensure reunification. complaint save the day and failure to collect rubbish gripe is the u.s. government's partial shutdown and a twelve day the shutdown response when democrats told donald trump campaign pledge to build a wall on the border with mexico. my colleague will be in the studio next hour for full news up say this stay with us because cross talk is straight ahead.
hello and welcome to cross talk were all things are considered i'm peter lavelle u.s. secretary of state mike pompei always declared multi-lateralism in international affairs a failure what is needed according to him is a new liberal order led by the united states such an order calls into question some important issues does this mean the universal is ation of american law and limited sovereignty for the rest of the world. talking pax americana i'm joined by my guest james jatra scene washington is a former u.s. diplomat and former advisor to the us. republican leadership in new york we have
daniel is our he's an author and freelance journalist who writes frequently about the middle east eastern europe and the us constitution and in madrid we cross to manwell lopez norris he is the author of pax americana and he's a university lecturer as well as a contributor at expansion all right jonathan cross talk rules and i think that means you can jump in anytime you want and i always appreciate jim let me go to you first in washington iow i thought we already had pax americana that's why i'm calling this program pax i'm an american a two point zero because it seems like mr pompei you have some interesting ideas presenting it to the. international diplomats at the u.s. marshall fund i thought it was quite interesting their reaction it was clearly quite tepid it was kind of very quiet clapping here it just looks like unilateralism to me and i thought the u.s. created multilateral organizations after the second world war to create
a more stable order it seems now get rid of the un the walk away from the paris climate deal which i don't have a problem with the international court of justice. i could go on and on about all these relationships and agreements how does walking away from all of them and more make it safer for the world including the united states go ahead jim well it doesn't make it safer and i think the problem is less unilateral in unilateralist per se but this defiance for the rule of law not only internationally but even our own constitution i think mr pompei speech was a triumph of mr rection that it was especially old neo conservative wine poured into it america first rhetorical bottle it so it was woodrow wilson masquerading as pat buchanan i think will he or his speechwriter was trying to give the impression this is what mr trump promised in two thousand and sixteen what he's really giving us is what has been to. drawing america in the world for the last thirty years
where we get to be the current over the entire planet and tell everybody else to do but we don't we don't actually look out for our own narrow national interests i mean we can send troops illegally to syria but we can't send them to our own border to defend that good point daniel it's universal is ation of american long because i mean we have this situation with a chinese national that was detained in canada who. are we the chinese company here as we're sitting down here i read that a former canadian diplomat has been detained in china so now the the game begins here i don't understand how you know a lot or lose them makes america stronger it seems to me the new u.s. is isolating itself more and more from the world yeah i gotta agree with that if the paradox is that the pompei o is making a bid for unilateral ism. precisely at the moment when u.s.
foreign policy is falling apart. the us foreign policy is in disarray and afghanistan syria saudi arabia where the us has a real disaster on its hands with mohamed bin salomon and the ukraine where where sensually put in has smartly. wrapped america's knuckles over the current strait so america is actually doing very poorly but as its performance declines the rhetoric seems to soar so now it's his talking about imposing american decked out on the entire world. makes no sense it's actually quite laughable you know men will be looking at home pay and speech the purse thing that came to my mind is well what happens if other countries disagree with this unilateralism what happens when china says no russia says no. rand says no
even you says no i mean pompei i didn't seem to really address that just assuming that everyone is going to agree to american unilateralists and i thought it was a very bizarre speech go ahead and madrid. well i don't think that he was speaking in absolute terms so if you need a law to release him back to you know a lot of those whom he i think he tried to calm european allies. down here he tried to calm us here because obviously the new all poli sci from a us president is different from the rest at least since world war two so basically instead of having the liberal wardour there in place as usual which has been in my opinion and journal times widely beneficial for the wall in general terms even though we can find exceptions charges we have into instead of following the same procedure so the other precedents. i was trying to say is that yes we have a person who has to shawnee and tradition who is. forget about their walled on the
work is very much interested in who's going to be very rough but calm down the warrior all his talk about nato it's because we're going to try to keep in place these legal war there we're going to keep in place pax americana but we're just going to try to come vine combine it with america first and i think that combination i agree with in the end up part which i also think it's impossible or very difficult to mix and that's the reason why. europeans here in germany just basically were not very enthusiastic about. your question was going to happen well they pull out on they go back to unilateralism well i think the rest of the country the rest of the already see that so. we're just getting into a more say don't usual because we'll go back to before world war two were and we had unilateralism bilateral deals retreat from america from the world and also basically going. instead of multilateralism on collective security concepts well
going back to yeah we're going to that's ok if we're going back to before the first second world war well what how what brought about the second world war i think you know history tells us a lot of things there jim it seems to me that you know pompei a wants to live in a world where the united states determines the geopolitical interests of just about everyone and to determine what countries what kind of friendships other countries can have with other countries ok for example the relationship that. iran has with syria that's boden in the pompei o world but i mean there are two sovereign countries they decide to cooperate i mean that's how we settle see international law i worry that international law itself is going to be dispensed with and you'll just have an american you universalize dictate of what what it's legal and what isn't legal and of course it'll be legal to the advantage of one country go ahead jim. well i would agree with everything you said except for the
very last part of the advantage of one country i don't think it's to the advantage of the i if it's at all ok the present us i don't i agree cletus the perception that it would be to their advantage go ahead good point going to challenge him that's right the worst of the quest for global domination and that's what really amounts to. this will ended war peter this is this is something that is extremely dangerous a one part of mr pompei oestrus speech really struck me when he talked about sovereignty for ourselves and for our friend france but that means i guess we have the unilateral right to say what other countries sovereignty should be a bridge not because they have violated any internationally agreed upon or binding rule but because we say so towards we we have a situation where we're not only one of the players on the international stage we also get to be the referee of the umpire and if need be the executioner and this cannot end well peter that we cannot continue to divide the world into satellites
and vassals on the one side and enemies on the other side especially when we're lining up with not only iran but but but russia and china as potential enemies remember there was a recent report by a congressionally mandated commission saying that not only might there be a war with russia or china we could lose that war this the unthinkable for thirty years forty years during the old cold war has now become thinkable because of this mindset you know daniel going back to my pump a i mean and looking what he's been on the size of it on the job that i guess nine months he's been on the job right now he's probably the most undepressed matic secretary of state the united states has ever had i mean he did he never talks about diplomacy and he says he hates awkward questions that it is at odds with his vision which i'm i'm not particularly sure i understand it completely because it doesn't make any sense logically but i mean diplomacy is a. the secretary of state's strong card is it not not
a law i mean the this administration thoroughly rejects diplomacy in any shape shape form or whatsoever but the important thing is that the u.s. foreign policy is doing very poorly. the u.s. is struggling on multiple fronts it's just overstretched. these of the china and. russia no it's completely isolated on the red except for saudi arabia and israel no one's lining up behind the u.s. policy there so america is proclaiming its. global sovereignty at a time when its power is increasingly in trouble i mean well speaking as a european do you think that washington should dictate european security energy security policy like demanding that europeans not buy russian natural gas.
well i think those comments some time ago we. were very inappropriate because always really we. kind of think of a law that the u.s. president would get into those kind of issues. that kind of thing was not a problem to any other former u.s. presidents but said that it is so think it will show as strange for him to say that . it seems to me that it could be a little bit of politics here on there he's always on campaign he has these russian collusion thing behind on there might be something obviously there's a lot of information out there so he might be plain a little bit now that he's been tough rougher than ever. yeah but i think it's it's also he wants the europeans to by american natural gas through l.n.g. are you gentlemen i'm going to jump in here we're going to go to a short break and after that short break we'll continue our discussion on pax americana state with art.
welcome back to cross talk we're all things considered i'm peter lavelle to remind you we're discussing pax america and. let me go back to jimmy in washington jim you said in a previous comment that that it was the u.s. would pursue its own interest and its the american allies that were aligned with american interests but as i mentioned at the end of the first part of the program the energy policy there's beginning to be a big divergence and if the europeans don't fall in line they're going to be punished ok when you look at the sanction. warnings about buying and rainy and
energy a lot of they were a lot of countries that got dispensations but not really the europeans i mean donald trump because i'm for the complete break up of nato and a new security architecture for europe i think it's way overdue but you know donald trump with this rhetoric coming from his secretary of state well that's hastening it just bringing it closer to fruition which i'm actually quite happy about go ahead jim. well let me let me throw a little curveball here peter is that the suggestion has been made that donald trump is really playing four dimensional chess here by putting all these these neo cons in his administration he is deliberately breaking down all of the things that bind us to these other countries breaking down the liberal international order of by pretending to uphold it but then failing and doing that i don't buy any of this i must say but some people have this theory look when the president across a friend said oh we want to have our own european army which is a silly idea because europe really doesn't have any external security threats you
think of america first president say hey great little macro that's great you have your army will get out and they get to see around you have fun over there instead he threaten its stead he threatens him now maybe you know some people look at the pulling out of the i.m.f. agreement this this as you say printing them over energy security maybe at some point the europeans grow a pair and say we've had enough and breakaway and would accomplish just what you would you were talking about i don't see that happening there i think one of the problems is is the european leaders are so weak so worthless so willing to be dictated to that there's no limit to how much they will actually crawl one washington barks you know daniel it doesn't in a way the more that the trumpet administration bullies and i think it's an appropriate word bullies its european allies the more that and the more instability. that we see thinking of france right now this is the usual two two
years of nonsense called brags that i mean this should give a lot of europeans ponce about maybe trying to read to go their own way much more so i mean the united states it's either our way or the highway maybe they will start reconsidering some of their policies and i'm obviously thinking about russia at this point we of course have these machinations going on in ukraine which unfortunately the trumpet ministration is continues to support go ahead daniel. well i think that james though is correct and i think the the europeans are in such disarray as well these days they're just too weak to to oppose trump trump is weak also but the europeans for the moment seem to be even weaker so it's a kind of a battle of the weak and it's very hard to establish any kind of broader leadership in this increasingly. chaotic environment we find ourselves but you
know but that said there is no trouble is breaking out all over the place and especially the iranian situation and then syria and israel and saudi arabia is increasingly dangerous. but also the u.s. seems intent on pouring oil on the fire you know men well you know rand was just mentioned right here. in new britain a book about pax americana i mean i can i understood the post cold war i'm sorry post world war two order that was created by the united states i understand the intent behind it in the context of the cold war but after the cold war and the rise of this kind of neal. neo con ideology i mean a sane person wouldn't say focus all of american foreign policy on iran i mean there are that's obviously politics going on there and also if you look at some of the issues that the the u.s.
is intruding upon it on the korean peninsula i mean the koreans are actually making some progress moving towards peace there but the u.s. is dragging its feet and it is planning it seemingly so planning a war against iran how is that possibly in the interest of anyone including americans. well it's very difficult to understand that's why something say that the only explanation possible is that some people in the administration are very much. influenced by people to have. an outlook which is very far away from the western outlook which is very dualistic money and it comes from say a very dualistic view of the world which has some apocalyptic connotations some of the advice from some even might compare himself he's thinking that if things go to war it's ok because in the middle east there's going to something is going to happen called armor gate arm and everything is going to be fine off the so if we
mess that whole thing up and nothing is going to happen i from going to explain that you're quite plausible because otherwise you wouldn't understand what happened with bush on iraq in two thousand and three and some other pressure and i mean i mean it's a total opposite to what barker obama or even bill clinton and even george howell what walker bush who died recently how to do with i mean it's a. it's open to the western values and to the western outlook and it has absolute nonsense but the theme use in order to understanding i think you have to put yourself in his shoes and his feet and understand that they have a very different outlook that has to do with we have to do with prophecies in the future and it's very interesting you know jim it seems to me daniel is already mentioned on this program is that on on so many different levels and dimensions american foreign policy is very chaotic right now there's no rhyme or reason to it that i can see but one thing i think pompei o in his elk are responding to is the you know polar moment is either already over or it's rapidly coming to an end and i
think that that explains this sudden reaction you know with all these posture reports about picking enemies preparing for a conflict and because the you know polar moment was supposed to last forever it was the new radiant future you know it is come to it's coming to a close and the u.s. is lashing out because it feels that it's monic the moment is if. parading before its eyes go ahead jim you mean you mean the thousand year unit polar moment is going to last that long and look i gree with that here and i think part of the problem is that we're not looking at a pre world war two situation we're looking at a pre world war one situation that valid states insists and when i say united states i mean this really bad foreign policy team that mr trump has assembled if they insist on trying to perpetuate a uni polar moment global hegemony that is visibly failing instead of coming to
terms with the other rising powers probably russia and china to maybe some extent with india to come up with a stable concert of powers understood spheres of influence where we don't clash and we stay out of each other's business we stayed out of each other's face unless that happens relatively soon something very very bad is going to happen i think right now the top contender for that is ukraine where mr poroshenko is because of his his dismal reelection bid is is staging the provocations like he did in the current strait he's going after churches and monasteries and ukraine which is going to result in violence and i think russia may have to respond things are going to get very ugly fairly soon we don't know where or how unless somehow we pull back from trying to maintain a a global dominance the simply cannot be continued you know daniel and i look at all of us here on this program here and we're in the same generation ok we were all
brought up you know being aware of the possibility of war the cold war there were we had the cuban missile crisis for example and you know it seems to me that the policymakers now are are not as wary as war is they should be i mean now there's a new a new killer document doctrine where conceiving of making small nukes for a battlefield i remember in the one nine hundred eighty s. that was scoffed at is. total madness and now we've gone back to it it seems like these these people in power don't understand that how close we can come to a complex because you know from living here in russia russia will do everything everything to protect that sovereignty and it's made that clear to everyone but that's that's heard on deaf ears by people like mike pompei o and john bolton go ahead daniel. i agree totally i mean the abrogation of the intermediate range
nuclear forces treaty is very dangerous i mean the u.s. is walking away from some very important. nuclear arms accords that were hammered out in the last years of the of the cold war and now it's just cast them aside this is a this is amazingly irresponsible amazingly reckless but the u.s. is doing it then and it's almost impossible to imagine what the repercussions will be but it's important to bear in mind that the the old the old pax americana one point zero is forming a part trump has no idea what to replace it with because he's just crazy. but there's the oh he's reasserting us. unilateralists i'm at a time when the chaos is increasing in the us actually has diminishing power. and i think it's very important point. what one one country which is pushing these
preparing things to the breaking point and that's israel i mean is real is the major force in washington it's very influential in washington as we all know and it is the country which is pushing for a rupture with the with iran and pushing for action against bashar al assad in syria and essentially. israel is the one country on earth that america can't can't say no to so so israel is kind of calling the shots and israel's confrontation with with iran is deepening and that's that seen that conflict seems to be honest and you know it is a good as any other complicated i could stay with you we only have a few more seconds of you add to that i'm agreeing with you one more layer and the now open alliance that riyadh house would tell of eve and they are like minded in their objectives to. confront iran. yes but that but but the the
riyadh regime is falling apart before our very eyes i mean that that regime is in a in an advanced state of crisis i don't know what or what will replace in the next the next year or so but our m.b.a.'s can't stand power and the al saud are themselves forming a part of what's going to happen saudi arabia the u.s. is relying on saudi arabia but it's the most it's just case where they did a jazz singer very bad allies in the region we've run out of time gentlemen many thanks and i guess and watch it in new york and in madrid and thanks to our viewers for watching us here r.t. see you next time and we never.
welcome to worlds apart it is often said that the united nations is only as good as its member states allow it to be but what happens when those number state deliberately start to act institution itself it's like the synergies it creates. the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. that i'm now joined by the united nations secretary general until this secretary-general first of all let me welcome you here in moscow it's great to see you stranger very much for your time let me start with congratulating you on the victory over. the did you have a chance to watch the game yes i watched the game and let's be clear. we won the
game but we didn't play very well exactly and that's what is your letting me into my next question because according to that game stats the markets were better across the board in terms of the possession of the ball in terms of the shots shots and targets etc but they still lost and i wonder if. you often see this kind of dynamic of the united nations when a country puts up a good game but the final score is still not in its favor oh it happens all the time not only that everywhere i mean i remember in football in the past so we sometimes have very good teams on the we would lose the games and say we won morally i think yesterday we have lost morally but at what's better this is. not in football but in the context of international relations what is essential for countries to be able to come together and to face the global challenges we have today that of the domestic challenges the understanding that we cannot do it alone one of multilateral organizations and we need multilateral governance and you need international.