tv Up Front Al Jazeera May 2, 2022 2:30am-2:55am AST
national workers day like this, but make no mistake. there's very little for the average salary worker in this country to celebrate right now. because this countries with more speaker nomic depression to get to stream for inflation and unleash the largest exodus of cubans since 1980 a thing on the cm dot line. but i saw sally that the, the communist party continues to say that the state controlled sector will say, the economy. and it's not true. the young people all want to leave a blast all hope by like, i'm better than other cubans or ethan and doing these hard times. this march clearly aim to send a message to domestic and foreign opponents. the cuban government is still able to mobilize large numbers of its people who see a newman, al jazeera, havana. ah,
your child is there with me. sill rovner, reminder of our top stories, the un and read crawls of completed the 1st phase of evacuating civilians from the other stalls still planned. in mario poll, more than a 100 civilians had had to ukrainian control territory and to areas held by russian forces in eastern ukraine. miss mitchell managed to day finally, we managed to start the evacuation of the people from as up style. after many weeks of negotiations and many different name, his father's dictatorship could frontrunner ferdinand marco's junior take the tops of al jazeera investigative program. full blind for time, with a special theories on abuse in the boy scouts of america, lebanon goes to the polls, but will political change helped the country find its way out of its crippling economic crisis and study and covering years of official lies about u. s. military involvement in the vietnam war, the leak documents known as the pentagon papers were instrumental in exposing the
scope and strategy behind the u. s. war in the region. and many at the time believed that they could change how the world viewed war. decades later as conflicts rage on and ukraine, yemen and ethiopia, just making conflict incredibly profitable results. so benefits from war and who are the biggest players behind the war machine and up front special. but daniel ellsberg, daniel ellsberg, thank you so much for joining me on up front. what was kept us from having any real effect on reducing the danger routed war all these years. i'm over was quite effective in helping stock a above ground fishing and early even the underground testing was actually. but in other respects i, it really hasn't been very of interest and so forth. that it came very little attention to the role of companies like allowing lockheed ratio, general dynamics and joe t, as if far they really weren't
a factor. it's like talking about climate without talking about the exxon corker and people around the world in talk about the threat of nuclear war in this abyss that we're headed toward that certainly a piece of another piece of it is war in armed conflict that's taking place right now is plaguing multiple countries. you can see that ukraine, you got yemen, you got some malia, you got the ethiopian list, goes on. but behind wars like that are, isn't of ukraine intensifies the stock prices of general dynamics like he martin, as you mentioned, northrop grumman, r raytheon, they recently hit their 5 year highs. so as we talk about war, we also have several who benefits from war. can you help me unpack that a little bit? who's really benefited? is the old earth latins silken coolly, bono, who benefits are going all the way back when you can name was just going the last century world war one. the loans by j. p. morgan to the british for arms,
for the british, it had to deal or even had lost the war to some extent, j. p. morgan would have gone bankrupt and wilson, our president, could not allow that to happen. that would have been a financial disaster. and that goes on from there on, in particular, whoa, whoa, who benefited from vietnam going on as long as it did? or if kind of stand right now, the war that we're supporting in yemen through arms to saudi arabia and the way keeping it, truly genocidal war going on are enormous massacre. and i think with very little benefit except to the arms manufacturers. people ask, why don't we learn from our failures in vietnam and afghanistan and elsewhere? and the answer is, who has a listen to learn?
those wars were very profitable for the people you name for lockheed raytheon knows will come in and the others are. they have anything to learn. i'm afraid that right now, there's 2 major purposes that will keep the war that can keep the war and you crank going, as long as the war in afghanistan, not in the way that is being waged now. but by a kind of guerrilla, we're that we're supporting that we support, as we did against the soviets in afghanistan for 10 years. and the f ukrainian people would be ground to bits in the course of that as the afghans were. and yet it's very comfortable for people who are supplying those weapons and keep going. there is one other major motives that affects these things in particular in europe . and that is that r u. s. role in europe who are not after all, a european nation. and we have no particular rule in a european union, but in nato, that's as the mafia says,
cosa nostra our thing. we control natal pretty much. and nato gives us an excuse and a reason to sell enormous amounts of arms to now to the formerly warsaw pact, nations which had only 2nd raid or obviously. so the weapons altogether from the moment that the berlin wall came down, lockheed representatives were in warsaw showing them on a need for f, 20 tunes. and for other weapons right there. against who, as the russians are reasonably asked, actually, russia is an indispensable enemy in europe. and nothing else can rancho. it's the same noble enemy that if that's that fascinating language, break that down for me, the, an indispensable. and what does that mean? it means that you can't really justify new trident submarines or i, she be m's that northrop grumman is making a whole new life she be up against ian,
or isis, or i, al, kato, ah, nature's don't cutters. as rationale for multi 1000000000 now dollar arms budget. only russia has the targets, any sophisticated arms to fight against. you don't need advance 5th generation fighters against people who don't have any aircraft or fighters of their own, or sophisticated ones. but russia and now china. and for the future in particular, to offer noxious arrival or a competitor, but shown who could be painted as an enemy against whom you have to defend. and of course, put now in the last shoe once has just been a bonanza for the armed people. because last you've made a russia look an offensive i enemy of some kind who has to be defended against, with the latest weapons, with new weapons. and of course,
russia has its military industrial complex to maintenance fast. they remind me of the black arts poet, gills got herons that everybody loves peace. the problem is you can't make no money off of it. you know, in the past few months, more than 5600000000 dollars has been poured into ukraine in the form of military aid from the u. s. from the u. k. and from the e. u. we seen similar situations in the past when u. s. arms were used by libyan in syrian opposition groups. but what happens when those conflicts are over or seemingly over? oh, where does the weapons go? iraq church, it's a long time before these contracts are over. as you know, in afghan, as santa went on for 20 years, and it could good much longer. in libya, what we did was supply a lot of weapons to people who in turn. so some 2 other insurgencies of the m terrors groups and others throughout africa. and elsewhere, and of course, our efforts in afghanistan armed in effect against the soviets isis,
or i'll should say al cater and then later isis. so he things have low back effects . ah, heaping in mine. he didn't have these amps industry. so it would be wrong to say they didn't invade ukraine. cooking did that. however, they, in their people, they were influencing and the government were willing to risk a war like this coming from their policies, which were in fact provocative. in terms of making it likely that the russians, any russian leader would eventually react against it. however, illegally crushed as we reacted when christoph put missiles in cuba, jewish retires, and those missiles did not, in fact threaten our security. and i say that as someone who was looking at precisely a problem in the pentagon, at that time working for his mcnamara said, hey, it's not a security problem, missiles into what?
it's a political problem. critical, good. i want to nick, this is somewhat at this stage, foreseeable, right? i mean after thing, what happens in syria would thing, what happens in libby or we, as you've done, we could go back decade prior. the weapons end up in the hands of folk who as physically we wouldn't want to have them. and yet we continue either to fund them directly or by proxy. so i guess the question for me is, why do we allow it to happen in ultimately? what happens to these weapons? what kind of considerations given to what happens to these weapon? well, it comes down to who the we is that we're talking about. i, it's not just, it's not a century, the taxpayers or the citizens who are, by the way, regrettably willing to, she had deaths of others who don't look like us. ukraine is getting much concern about the casualties in the war crimes because it is not a brown muslims that are being victimized here by the russians in this case. but
it's white christians and that they're like us and to see them in such anguish and terror that creates a public pressure that i wasn't here before. but in all of these other cases. and so should, oh, what's the problem? we hear that matters. the ones that provide the large campaign contributions and provide the personnel at higher levels and these ranks benefit fine from them. there's no problem. i may not be very successful, but he failing war is just as profitable as it when one in fact in someplace better cause it goes on forever. as you see, the winning is over tree with when you say the libby is, is the prime example. i where and you could say to some extent, afghanistan, where the women's fanned out to other people that provided opponents to an
adversaries. but is that bad? multiple adversaries are also good for the military industrial complex, not only in our country and in europe as well. it's not only americans who sold these weapons, though it is mainly these oversee the french, the others. and the russians have big arms markets in the world. according to the institute for policy studies last year, the average american taxpayer gave about $2000.00 to the military with over $900.00 going to corporate military contractors. in contrast, the average taxpayer contributed about $27.00 to the centers for disease control and prevention, and barely $5.00 to renewable energy. how do you advocate for peace when so much taxpayer money is going to will call it the 5th. republicans intro. anything that in any way seems to compete with private industry
. the one thing you can get republicans to bunch of money for is allegedly national security. even though almost none of these weapons actually add or even relevant to our national security. but they are relevant to making threats against russian. you need russia later, china will be billed enough militarily to serve the purpose of the necessary, the indispensable enemy. but now it was hard to keep the cold war going fully at full speed with russia as an enemy in the ninety's was not unwelcome to our military industry. if they didn't actually wanted, i'm sure they could even count on russia actually invading another country. but to have russia objecting and complaining and posing and threatening to invade,
as he did a whole year ago with, with, with troops on the edge of ukraine and embarrass all that was good for business. and it doesn't, by the way, it doesn't justify putin's aggression at all. he's did to have reason to feel in the longer run, threatened russian security in terms of weapons so close to their borders, like the weapons in cuba that we objected to. kennedy had no rigid increase in sugar threatening to adventure on that. and russia has had no legitimate reason, really for invading crane. unless we've pursued a policy that was warned against going back to the mid nineties by troop canon and others, the founder of the cold war in 1st place. who said it is an indescribable error blender mistake. and to make an enemy out of russia by moving
especially into ukraine. some of the u. s. as top spies and military generals with ties the defense contractors end up as intelligence analysts on various news channels when they retire. for example, former c, i a director john brennan became in b, c's, senior national security and intelligence analyst, se, se, connecticut with what you're going to say. and former c i a director michael hayden became a national security analyst for c and n a. how much does this compromise what the public is told about war? what else? what that stake? well, it depends which shoots it could purpose the functions that really is in times of war, in our military society. their function pretty much is to show the public on a need from war weapons and the need to intervene in this country are media is ultimately controlled by major corporations like general electric. ah, for a long time. and joe, many other conglomerates basically who better to do it in the military
or the she a people, if you want, endless war, which in effect, the wish has wanted for this. so what happens right? what happens when citizens are only told the truth about war? after the war's are over, after government information is leaked after information is declassified, it seems like we only get this under extreme and unforeseeable circumstances from the people we're trying to conceal it. so what does it mean for it? well, the kinds of information that we needed a blood vietnam was represented by such as the pentagon papers, which was a study of vietnam decision making from 45 to 6768. i put that out 1st starting in 69, and then through the newspapers in 71. so that was somewhat belated, but not too long. but i put on trial for newton, for his revelations,
essential revelations of criminality. why the national security agency, the universal surveillance, not only in our country but around the world, but where it wasn't so illegal, but definitely against our constitution in america. and so essentially, so many crimes which happened amazingly, almost miraculously to become revealed. toward the end of my trial, i kept me from having to go to prison as he had intended with the others and say either exile or prison. and that just purchase. you mentioned chelsea manning, he of course leaked information from including document. it's both u. s. war crimes in iraq and afghanistan and publishers were integral to the information that you liked about the vietnam war. so i'm curious from your perspective, what happens if that president that you spoke to is said that allows governments to dictate what can and can't be published today with julian,
a sorry ah extradited if he hasn't yet been expedited, but it was expedited and prosecuted, convicted here, we will have had the 1st instance of an actual journalist i hadn't been in prison for putting out the truth. i was the 1st source, former official to give a information like that to jury was and i was put on trial for it. but no journalist is ever been put on trial, thanks to our 1st amendment, freedom of the press and treatment speech, which most countries don't have as a law or a or it will be essentially rescinded if julian charges successfully prosecuted. and we will then approach these take control of information, such as we're seeing in russia today. all of these cases of course, demonstrate the importance of exposing the truth about what's happening when it comes to war in other matters. and of course,
your leaking of the pentagon papers is a prime example of that. ok? but today we have an expansion, arise even of this information and it's hard to decipher what's true, what's not, what's fact, what's fiction? how important is it to have actual transparency when it comes to government actions and government decisions about war? i'm afraid that transparency and war are 2 words don't really go to each other. they don't exist together. in war time, the secrecy that the government carries on all the time about his own crimes and lies in misleading statements in bad predictions and reckless actions. that secrecy suddenly legitimize in war because you have to keep it from an enemy. that's one of the senses in which i said at least, are indispensable, especially as a long term, once in a, in a cold war,
we have to keep things from russians altogether. so you don't, you don't pick transparency. and when people do come out, there's 2 native it, they do get prosecutor, when it's coming out of the sick. part of it, which is very dismaying, is nothing much happens. it may affect public opinion to some extent, good public opinion doesn't try policy or whether a word can be ended or not. i hoped it would. in fact, in my case, nixon was so concerned that i might put out his secrets, which i did have, but i didn't have documents to prove it. but he thought i had documents into shut me up. he did domestic crimes against an american me, which actually figured far more politically in the millions of other people we were killing in vietnam that a crime against an american counted more. unfortunately,
when these things have come out, i have to say not much has changed. so there's a problem with the audience, with the citizenry you could say with our species. and i actually, i do say that our willingness to support unquestioningly a leader, especially when he or occasionally she can point to when he's threatening their security. and she has to set down public information about it in order to people go along with it pretty well. and when they find out that not too many of our own soldiers are getting killed, as in afghanistan, they let it go on indefinitely. as chance them was 20 years ukraine, i think if it, if it devolved down, if the russians came in more didn't get out, which i don't expect them to do wish. and others will be supporting a guerrilla war, which could be his cost true to the ukrainians. as the guerrilla war,
that the movie dean put up that we supplied against the soviets in afghanistan, that costs a 1000000 and a half afghan lives. and i would hate to see that imposed on the ukrainian people when under any circumstances. i've been through a war like that in vietnam. and i saw what we did to in search and in the way of bomb cush, several 1000000 lives that has not yet been the price in afghanistan, no matter what, what we're hearing about or crimes which it will could be so negotiated outcome in which concessions are made on both sides, however, unsatisfactory might look to many people on both sides, could save hundreds of thousands to millions of lives. and i would like to see that happen. i don't think it will go, i don't think it will. wow. and on that sobering note, i want to thank you for your time, daniel ellsberg. thank you for joining us on
country, emerged from his father's dictatorship. could front runner burden at martha's junior. take the box as the philippines thought. join us for a special coverage on al jazeera, how social of social media platforms, if many young uses the isolated, anxious and depressed currently there is a grand national experiment that is taking place upon our kids. why take companies not sufficiently regulated? they don't want people to know what's happening on their platform. and when will society catch up from people that i knew in high school, that may suicide full lines investigates, but toxic feed, social media and teen mental health. on al jazeera whoa and i'm told stories and asia and the pacific amount ah.
ready ready any 100 ukrainian women and children of rescue 12 besieged steelworks plant in the shattered port city of maria pole. they as, as the u. s, how speak a nancy pelosi becomes the highest ranking american official to visit. keith and washington makes new moves against russian ali galks. ah.