towers are the future of new york, and a select few will see it. but for everyone else, this new form of engineering only serves to elevate the rich even farther above the rest. jacob ward al jazera new york >> it's doves versus hawks in the republican party. thinks foreign policy is the weakness in the presidential race but republicans themselves are split on u.s. muscle-flexing. will misreading the national mood cost the gop the national election? greece and russia both countries are facing an economic catastrophe. and cold war with the west. we'll look at china's latest challenge to the global economy. being ali velshi is on

assignment and i'm david schuster, this is "real money". 18 months until the 2016 presidential election and already foreign policy debates as old as the debate itself. six declared candidates from carly fiorina, to ted cruz to marco rubio have formally entered the republican presidential race. but lindsay graham and chris christie have not declared their intention is yet but are expected to join the fray. u.s. foreign policy under president obama is dangerously out of whak, they can

whack, they can agree. >> everybody but rand paul can do better. >> they are the lap dogs for president obama and they are sensitive to that. >> rand paul thinks america should isolate itself from foreign conflicts and cut off all aid to boot. ted cruz would think more forcefully around the world, so force thafl he would order the united ful that he would order theunited states to bomb iran. jeb bush insists he is his own man on foreign policy, different enough from the controversial policies of his brother george w. bush. speaking of president 43, first time since leaving office in 2009 he lashed out. bl lindsay graham who's ready to announce his own candidacy soon,

pulling out in 2011 a strategic blunder. obama's critics from the left are cuchg nothing but a continuation of president bush's foreign policy especially in the middle east. republicans of course call this absurd. lawrence korb is a senior fellow at the inner center for american politics, speaking on national security, the foreign policy under president obama is the continuation of republican presidents before him and we asked him is that just absurd that gop candidates state? >> it's not absurd, he's acting like every potato world war ii american president except bush 43. you know, when i worked for reagan and he sat down with gorbachev he said something to the effect, i bet you the right

wingers or hard liners on both sides are bleeding about this. when he met gorbachev he said we're not going to change your social system, we recognize you as osuper-power, is that any worse than what obama has done with iran? because after all the soviet union was an exist tension existential threat. >> that policy has not worked. >> it has been effective. he got the iranians to offer up a whole bunch of concessions. you can argue, we'll get the final edit dl by june. but to cut their centrifuges by a third, this is unbelievable in terms of what could you get another country to do. and the president not only put the sanctions, but he got the international community to work with us. russia and china for example to

put those sanctions on iran. >> that's true, the international community is working with the united states to put the sanctions on but senator ted cruz for example said iran simply could not be tested, than it at least at the end of the summer there's proof that iran will not live up tot agreement and all the united states has done is lost time. >> well, again the soviet union lived up to the disagreement that the first president bush did, they're a much closer society than iran is. we're going to allow that the restrictions are much more intrusive against the soviet union. first president bush had it right, trust but verify. that's what we'll do. even though you don't get everything you want on the ground you'll be ail to find out what's happening.

>> never mind the way the republicans want to compare their policies with president obama, what about lindsay graham's views and senator rand paul thinks the united states should pull back the money it's spending around the world and be more circumspect? >> it's interesting i met with rand paul a couple of years ago, he asked to see me. he said i'm an eisenhower republican, eisenhower didn't go to vietnam even though lindsay grahams of the day said you had to go in and save the french. when the soviet union went into poland and hungary to crush the rebell yons, there were a lot of hard lines that said no have to roll back soviet union, castro in cuba they wanted to invade, and eisenhower knew not only wasn't true but he complained

about the military industrial congressional complex that was trying to raise defense spending and not do things at home. what was eisenhower's main accomplishment at home? the interstate highway and that's what we need at home infrastructure. >> when rand paul suggests we need to focus more on domestic spending and less on foreign aid right? >> again foreign aid is not the same as military involvement. think we need to spend -- we don't spend that much on foreign aid. we spend 40 to $50 billion, you know, and right now defense budget right now is almost $600 billion. and eisenhower recognizes you can't be strong in the world unless you're strong at home. and that's what we need to focus on, as well as you know dealing with threats around the world. but everybody talks about, you know, obama not spending enough

on defense. we spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined. and so when you take a look at it and you say well we got to spend more, what $600billion is not enough? >> isn't the public war weary and that could be crucial on both sides, when you say you know what we're tired of all these foreign wars that don't seem to be going the united states way, isn't that something it might be dangerous strategically but something very valuable politically here at home william. >> well,home? >> well i think if you frame it correctly, and saying we're not going to be involved, for example we had the big debate about the drone strikes, the drone strikes play to america's strength. we are technologically sophisticated and we can go after those threaten us without endangering

american lives. if you send hundreds of thousands of troops like president bush did, you see how that turned out. it would feed into the i.s.i.s. narrative and that's the way that you have to do. yeah you got to use your power but you got ouse it smartly and you got rks you got to use it smartly and you have got to make sure you dot create more problems than you solve. by getting rid of saddam we empowered iran and everybody before that war who really followed foreign policy said that's what's going to happen. but no we were going to remake the whole middle east. and the idea of bush you know saying things like obama messed up iraq, he signed the agreement that said we had to get out and the iraqi parliament would not improve an extension. >> lawrence korb. up next greece and russia have a lot in common these days, they

both face financial ruin and are angry with the u.n, will that allow a sufficient wedge between

>> you know that olds sayings that politics makes for strange bed fellows. well, a financial crisis does also. as we've been reporting this week the clock is running outs for greece as its desperately seeks an extension often its debt. alexis tsipras is trying to secure more aid, one of those stops was in russia. one of the fears was that greece was negotiatesing on sanctions against russia. greece left russia empty hand he but as john siropolous reports

greece and russia share a strange situation. >> it was the greeks who created the slavs to you christianity. greece needs friends. russia wants to prevent eu sanction he from being renewed in june. sanctions which prompted it to ban european agricultural products. >> offering various deals in the energy sector and perhaps a unilateral suspension of the counter-embargo or counter-sanctions on greek agricultural products. but whether they can make a very tempting offer, offer in 30, 40 billion euros in the least which is the amount greece is going to need in the immediate future. >> a direct loan to greece isn't

its only option, because greece spends ten times that amount buying russian gas, russia could lower the price. it could also bid for infrastructure greece is privatizing such as port authorities and hellenic rail. there is an overarching priority. greece wants to remind europe of its strategic value and demonstrate that it has friends wrels. but is this enough for it to break wrarchtion europe? just before he became foreign minister nikos ko jrvegeks suggested. >> translator: if i was a negotiator for greek debt the first thing i would do is a package negotiation, i would put other issues important to my partners on the issue of debt. can you not negotiate on the issue where you are weakest.

you have to have an issue where you have relevant relative strength. >> suggested how the you european union would deal with the greeks should they attempt to default. the question is whether the russian coast buy a greek veto in june and break the uniting front. john siropolous, al jazeera athens. >> concerns are adding new fuel to the new cold war simmering between russia and the west. last week ali velshi sat down with general wesley clark at the milkennessmilken conference in new york. pitting the pro-russian government against the rebels. ali asked the general had a kind of support the united states

should be giving to the ukrainian government. here is what clark had to say. >> they have got to be able to control the provocateurs in ukraine. night vision goggles and sniper rhythmsrifles and that sort of thing. infiltrators. it is a very sophisticated political military media operation. and if you're going to deal with that you have to have the right tools. so you need intelligence. actually ukrainians are getting a lot of on the ground intelligence because a lot of people in russia don't agree with putin. they are telling their friends in ukraine what's happening. but they need the night vision goggles the flak jackets and all the other things. all the regular tools ukraine

has plane plenty of. >> you have familiarity with that theater what if you putin is going to send troops in what then are the west's options? we are then dealing with a nuclear armed country. there is only a point to which can you go. >> you can go as far as you think you can go . i'm not advocating i would not advocate we go to war with russia on this but i would advocate that we provide ukraine the nonlethal means id needs to augment its defenses to be able to deter a russian attack. should defenses, rearm much of europe you're going to end up redeploying more u.s. forces. that will be the end of the defense cuts by the way. we'll need those army troops back ton ground, despite the fact we'll say there's going to be no more ground wars, you've got to reassure these other

countries but it will be an expensive process. it will be a lot less expensive for united states to act now to deter putin. sanctions may work. there's no one who can say sanctions won't work. but putin wants ukraine real bad. and he's been working for it for along time. and from his standpoint he might rationalize it as, okay i'm going to pay a price for it in the short term but we'll recover from that. in the future when ukraine is stable as part of new russia then the west will trade with us anyway because they have to have our energy. >> he must be thinking of 2008 when they went into georgia and the west didn't react all that strenuously. he might be betding on the fact had the u.s. and europe are not going to come together, not going to impose the sanctions

like banking sanction he that are imposed on iran that really did hurt. should we be fully exhausting that avenue first? >> i think you have to do a variety of things. but i think that in this case, sanctions applied early will have more effect than sanction he provided sprovided later. because the whole value of sanctions is not just in the sanction itself but it's in the demonstration of the political will to apply the sanction knowing that it hurts you as well. >> right. >> so if you're that concerned about it as onation, if you are willing to hurt yourself to hurt him, be careful, those sanctions could stay and they could be followed by something even more arduous. that's important to bring the allies on board with this. so what's happening is, the smrgs apparentlyadministration is apparently working behind the scenes, and

every democracy is -- it's what churchill said about democratic allies. he says the trouble with democratic allies is they each have their own opinions and if you want democracies and you want them as allies, you 92 need to give them time and you have to provide them the information and they have to make up their minds. >> we'll tell you about china's challenge to the world financial order coming up.

>> you china is flexes its muscles in the global fight with the united states. development bank to rival the investment bank. countries are signing up in the face of american opposition, including u.s. allies france germany and britain. china's goal is to raise $100 billion and raise money for infrastructure projects across asia.

ali velshi recently discussed this with chin an asia fellow at the milken institute. ali asked is the position clear? >> the united states poks is clear, that the united states has chosen not to join the asian infrastructure investment bank because they're not certain yet what sort of standards will be applied on the loans that the bank makes. and i think that's a very fair point, you know. do we want to join a bank that is not going to do great things. missed opportunity by the united states in getting there from the beginning and shaping what this organization could all be about. >> most americans won't know what the aieb is or necessarily not the adb. world bank, from a a development bank perspective what are these organizations meant to did? >> sure. let's focus first on the world bank, international monetary fund, these were organizations

created really at the end of world war ii and part of what they've done is really build or be part of a global economic architecture. so the world bank specifically it really focus he on economic development in countries around the world, helps fight poverty in supporting building infrastructure. asian investment bank came a little bit later in the 60s but its goals were the same. asian didn't have a marshal plan to rebuild asia, adb, with the help of united states and japan to help bring money into asia to build infrastructure. and through building infrastructure and policy changes and things that the banks would support it also meant growing economies and people moving out of poverty. the asian infrastructure investment bank is a little bit different if you are to believe what we know milkily so far which is less about poverty reduction but specifically focused on trying ofill huge

infrastructure began that exists in asia between what the region needs and what money there is available for them. >> in fact there is a shortage an infrastructure funding gap because the needs of the world or even asia are not able to be met 50 current structures that are out there. >> the current gap the asian development bank we just think ever asia, alone, they're estimating $800 billion a year in infrastructure financing needed every year looking out ten years but i also look at it a little bit differently. there is a huge gap in the terms of the money available and the needs. but for me the solution isn't one more bank, these banks have all played an incremental role they produce some prownl projects and projects wherethe environment is protected but if asia is really serious about

filling that infrastructure gap what they need to address is the littling brick, not india or cloin, butchina, this little brick is holding backing infrastructure in asia. partially because of this little brick. if your country is so corrupt i'm not putting all my money here, i'm going to buy u.s. treasury bonds, maybe we'll buy real estate in london and new york and elsewhere around the world. >> the asian investment bank it's chinese funded initially a lot of the money comes from china and there's some sense that it may be there to influence world in terms of -- or at least the region in terms of pro-china policy. now for whatever valid reason, the u.s. decided not to get involved. a number of people including the former treasury secretary lawrence summers,

former secretary of state mad madeleine albright knowledge the u.s. has to be being involved in it do you agree? >> absolutely. we say the rebalance me as we awade this transpacific partnership trade deal i argue that this aiib, the united states joining the board supporting it from early on could have been a great part also of the american pivot to asia. people you know are skeptical on many countries, china, united states, japan, that's understandable, we're going to judge them by the results and in many ways, competition will be greatly for world bank adb, the rush for the bottom. >> let's discuss that. >> absolutely. >> you say the competition is

good, 8th it's . it's like you're in a little town and another bank comes in that's the good part. the criticism is china goes in and loans people money with fewer conditions than west does or the imf does or america will, because it wants the influence the trade, the raw materials in every colonial fashion, is that a fair criticism? is that true? >> i think it would be very fair but i would argue when china does things alone, i'm not here to defend what the chinese are doing -- >> whatever they build an infrastructure -- >> i look the at it from the corporate government viewpoints. the new aiib will have a board of directors, it will not have all the shares. >> there will be members from other countries. >> absolutely. >> if the u.s. or japan which is not involved would get involved they would also have a seat at the table. >> they would have a voice and a seat at the table.

right now with 55 or so countries involved, these countries i can't say to you will have the same share as china, they won't. but they certainly will have an important voice. and the aib is important to show it is a stakeholder, a lot of concerns about china's grerveness, assertiveness, whatever you want to use, pushing civility in the you south china sea, so the aib would be an opportunity for china to show that it actually can engage with the rest of the region in my mind a much more responsible way. >> and that is our show for today. i'm david schuster in for ali velshi. for everybody here at "real money" and at al jazeera america, thanks for watching. >> the new al jazeera america primetime. get the real news you've been looking for. at 7:00, a thorough wrap-up of the day's events. then at 8:00, john seigenthaler digs deeper into the stories of

the day. and at 9:00, get a global perspective on the news. weeknights on al jazeera america. welcome, the strikes the last minute deal, to form a coalition government, and britain's, one of the closest general elections for decades on the rise, why the