Skip to main content

tv   Inside Story  Al Jazeera  June 3, 2022 10:30am-11:01am AST

10:30 am
every one is struggling with my husband has told my mom clean houses and they get their own clothes and i bring those clothes here. i have a 4 year old daughter so i cannot book this i cant afford and i didnt. tina's government spends millions on projects to assist the poor, but people like a lot of unknown to say, it's not enough. because she worked with an inflation rate of around 5 or 6 percent . most of the cash transfers is made by the state value. argentina has a strong state presence around 30 percent of the population already received assistance. aside from the pensions argentina trying to jumpstart the economy and generate quality jobs. but it has not been easy. fears like this one had become a crucial lifeline for many in times of economic distress. betty said, well, i'll just feed her when aside, if ah,
10:31 am
hello again. the headlines on al jazeera us president joe biden has delivered an impassioned address to the nation on gun control after a series of mass shootings. he's called on congress to restore limits on the sale of assault weapons and raise the minimum age to buy guns. us media says president joe biden will visit saudi arabia later this month. it comes off to react, agreed to increase all production on thursday, and extended a truce and war batteries, yemen, $100.00 days into the invasion of ukraine president lensky estimates. russia occupies 20 percent of the country, the battle rages in the east with fierce fighting and the euro. don yeske, while the u. s. was announced and around the sanctions against russian oligarchy. and at least el salvador is extend its state of emergency for a 3rd month as part of its crack down on gang violence. but amnesty international has accused the country of human rights abuses,
10:32 am
including torture and arbitrary detention that headlines on i'll just 0 inside story is next. ah, what. what do we need to know that on this, which i don't need to be here with you to look at it to me. i just need to i need you to whom and ya today. and we're going to give you what we said as well. they didn't put me in. i'm a lot of them at the book if you're the one i know. i mean,
10:33 am
i mean i shooting them off and just one day i might be covering politics to reminisce. i might hear of i crossing from serbia to hungry to what's most important to me is talking to people understanding what they're going through so that i can convey the headlines in the most human way possible. hear it as is it. we believe every one has a story worth hearing. seeing neutral in the face of conflict. many countries decided against taking sides in the russia ukraine war. but what does neutrality mean? and can a nation truly avoid siding with either? this is inside story. ah.
10:34 am
hello and welcome to the program. i'm mammograms room. many countries have decided to avoid taking sides and rushes invasion of ukraine. 35 nations abstained from voting on a un resolution condemning the conflict and russia's president demanded ukraine be declared neutral as a condition to ending the war. but the concept of neutrality is under question. the invasion led to finland and sweden that had long been militarily neutral, applying to join the nato alliance. india is officially not aligned with either russia, ukraine, but it has faced criticism for doubling its imports of russian oil. even switzerland, known worldwide for neutrality, is debating its meaning. media report say the government, veto german and danish requests to supply swiss made armored vehicles to ukraine as that would violate switzerland's neutrality. but the country followed much of the
10:35 am
west by imposing sanctions and freezing russian assets in february. the swiss president said neutrality doesn't mean being indifferent to aggression. boom, hobbins you saw in sheet. why did we take this decision? will kathy and other democracies must be able to rely on switzerland, states that stanford international law, you must be able to rely on switzerland and states had uphold human rights, must be able to rely on switzerland. stoughton. the federal council examined the question of neutrality under the slight playing into the hands of an aggressor is not neutral, it wound is not. all right, let's take a look at what neutrality means. it broadly means not taking sides. an armed conflict between war and countries and abstaining from providing military assistance, countries interpret neutrality differently. for example, finland and sweden are more relaxed about their status and describe themselves as non aligned. whereas neutral countries in europe are bound by the policies of the
10:36 am
european union. most countries declare their neutrality, while some are permanently neutral by either constitutional decree or as part of a previous treaty. during hostilities, a neutral state may repeal change or modify its position. ah, all right, let's bring in our guess. joining us on the line from new delhi, happy mon jacob, associate professor of diplomacy at your how long their role university and founder of the council for strategic and defense research in zurich, mark far author and adjunct professor of sociology at the university of zurich. and in oslo, glen decent professor of international relations at the university of se, norway, a warm welcome to you all and thanks so much for joining us on the program today. mark, let me start with you today. um, there seems to be some confusion out there when it comes to the concept of neutrality. so i want to take a step back for a moment and ask you about the difference between the law of neutrality versus the
10:37 am
politics of neutrality. how those 2 things differ. as a tough one. well, i can speak my switch perspective because switzerland is obviously known as maybe the 1st are still the only state. maybe the world hasn't tried and tried and it's very constitution. and that goes back actually a long time there was a battle in 1516, but in yano, where the switches were trying to over extend themselves and warriors still had a vatican guard today, member mercenaries. and after that kind of bitter defeat that they had there, they came to the conclusion that that neutrality will be a better option. this is only enshrined really after the counsellor vienna 815, counseled paris. and then later, as you probably know, know the convention den haag 97 and so on. but it is something that comes naturally to switzerland because it's a country kind of approached here,
10:38 am
middle of europe, between testing hours, you know, taking sides of the costly affair that i'm the wrong. horace. or if you're caught in that sort of cross hairs of these contending powers, and that's also why it's what some of them became, of course, the center in the world for diplomacy and neutrality. then it's into really linked to the piece that we found. switzerland, prosperity and other countries then look to switzerland as a paradigm. but today with this new conflict of course, is all in danger and question. but the legacy of it is basic to keep out of these conflicts, to preserve one on stability and to act as a platform for the congress, the and peaceful conference each. glenn was the concept of neutrality, interpreted differently in the past, say, during the cold war era or during world war 2, was it interpreted differently in the past than it is today. well,
10:39 am
my colleagues suggest it is interpreted in different ways, i guess during the cold war, it was mostly it was very much defined as being part of the blogs in order to reduce the attention of this blog, all taste. and that's why we saw in europe during the cold war. we have some neutral states as inland sweden, austria, switzerland, which kind of creates a buffer zone and making germany is only from plan. so i think it will link to more to membership in military lines. as of course, neutrality also comes us not taking sides in any conflicts such as providing weapons to one side during the war. but i think if some of the ideas about the child was obscured after the cold war, it's common to, to argue now that the child is only on the us 3 months began to come up,
10:40 am
but it began to collapse as soon they're out there after the cold war because well, there was an absence of security architecture, so we saw that and nathan began to take on the role of representing europe. so nato expansion is matrangela became the main force for what they referred to as european integration. so neutrality, effectively, the men to be marginalized from the only security architecture there was on the continent. so the whole idea of neutrality has changed a lot during the cold war era, which is why we also see that there's been collapsing over the past 30 years. mark, i saw you nodding along to some of what glen was saying there, and it looked like you might have wanted to jump in. so go ahead. well, just footnote over, i think we all agree, but it is the debate in switzerland right now because definitionally no trial, the manx non military intervention and other steve was sanchez, is, is that
10:41 am
a military intervention or not? or does that violate the law and trinity, which is the trying to, this was constitution, this was constitution, not explicit on this military intervention is, is the red line definitely. and so, delivering weapons to a conflict zone has traditionally been seen as, as something prohibited bytes was us was, well, mark, let me follow up with you on that point. because, you know, as you mentioned, i mean is which will and essentially is having its neutrality tested somewhat publicly. right now, you know, there is this debate over with neutrality. it's been intensifying due to the war in ukraine. the fact that swiss government signed up to the sanctions on russia, you know, as you mentioned, some viewed that as a sign that switzerland is abandon it's neutrality. is this debate is richland, going to grow? are we going to see more lawmakers bringing it up a talking about it? is it how, how much is the public involved in this debate right now? while that's a very good point, because all these decisions were made top down with our recourse in the public and which was the only direct democracy in the world sentence with constitution,
10:42 am
the people are the sovereign. so at the end, if there's a referendum they can overturn any decision made by the federal council. but the federal cow unilaterally decided to, in its essence, violate towards you, won the neutrality of switzerland. i would just add a footnote to the cold war. it's not true that was entirely neutral, even before the, during the call. it always was the siding, you know, with, with the u. s. incense, and also you remember, 991, switzerland participated in the sanctions against iraq. so people forget that maybe a little bit. so there is a precedent there that has been, has been said by my colleague, certainly after the cold war. certainly a soft thing of this whole thing. and which one has a partnership with piece, with nato. so even though it's not a member of nato defacto kind of is, so you know, all the use another example, switzerland decided the people decided to vote against membership and you, but the federal council opened all kinds of doors to the you that defacto. what's
10:43 am
the house became a member of the and the same now the sanctions here. now the quite you're right there is probably this continues. if the federal council say, or tomorrow, decided to deliver, you know munitions, to germany and then to the crane the mark. then i think there will be a national referendum or initiative. now how that will turn out is another question . there are some people that are for and against, but i think it will come to that eventually because neutrality is something sacred to a lot of service. we're not all, maybe not even to majority, but to a lot. this was one of the happy my, let me ask you, india is not officially aligned with either russia or ukraine. i want to look for a moment if the difference between neutrality and non alignment, how is one different from the other? thank you moment for asking that, chris, and i think this is all fun. be sent by a lot of people globally as to what is in the stands when it comes to some of these
10:44 am
issues. as you know, historically, be able to get defensive. i did 47, it has claimed to be known as follow internationally. each has not aligned with either the soviet. busy or the us into, for what, except when of course it was a sense of security. so for example, doing the $971.00 wall between india and pockets on a lot of bonds. a dark corner of diamond signed a piece of furniture pensive with you're not that big us us up, but watch part of the house that it is that don't align. now you ask me the difference between no, and i thought it will be in india. you try to mean that you don't take a position on any extended warranties issue. you know, lots of, i think you can do stuff. i think you have no opinion on that. you don't take
10:45 am
a decision on that. you don't to act on act on a donor line, but it will be that even gender, you are not aligned. countries not aligned to either of the 2 blogs. but if you will continue to have an opinion on what is happening, it will continue to take a position or take an action. it's on national interest. we can, if you have not heard the country off, it's obedient. what you have done basic, be in gender, be another line to any, to any of the 2 quotes or any of the, any of the folks out there. but we will take a decision on a particular issue based on the paid it off the circumstances off it. but i think that is a very significant it sticks to do understand because it is not a you can follow it. be out, you know, getting job. you know, to pick it up, don't know who radius otherwise, i think, but we actually want to go see talking about somebody called and i said no update
10:46 am
or the, or the, or the effects of the cold water exercise with an active power at the same time it wasn't none of my and so it was not a huge quality, always hoping in a book for the solution. be the at that in the korea and what is the korean water for example? so he doesn't have to follow, not neutral, non line to act. people that are happy ones, let me also ask you, i mean india has come under a lot of pressure by countries like the u. s. and other western countries to try to change its stance when it comes to russia and ukraine. do you think that there's any scenario by which india would actually take a stance against russia's invasion of ukraine? i can be thinking in bailey, was that when the water begun by the actions and we imagined that this was going to be quick. why? i think most of the classic america believe that to be the case. like for example, be that back like i could happened in 2014 so that the assumption that have
10:47 am
turned out to be completely erroneous. so if this was this for a very long time, if this is going to lead to a monetary tragedy in your grade, i believe you're probably going to look at a lot more pressure on and off internally and externally to change its opinion on what's going on. let me, let me grab my argument by saying that there has not really support or there actually in war for example, 2014 that, that both sites have made interest media has not made that made that argument in 22 and 22. if you look at the explanations of what the cause of the and the about the general assembly in there has made the argument that it is important to warner, masha also want to be safe guarding. so it is important. the extra, i guess is not a good idea. yes. made all the correct argument vision in its explanation. and yet
10:48 am
if you do, let's say what the against your condom press? yes. so it, so by not condemning that one would make the argument that it be a suck to be for us. yeah. right now it is suddenly bought. i should not because it likes what it's doing. but because of the, you want to think of why, you know, you're looking at it really difficult for me. why my eyes actually you know what the question why i think to answer your question. but i think if this was, i was becomes about to get better, would be lot more pressure on it internally. i think there was somebody at glenn going forward will the countries that maintain their neutrality still play an important diplomatic role in finding political solutions to conflict? or do you think that their influence will wayne well, i think their influence will dig into decline because said there's hardly any more
10:49 am
neutral countries in europe. i think with it's now the sweet man, the finland, especially house argue that they will join nato. i think you will see less and less of this and they will seem to be participants of the conflict. and by taking sides, there's also less on diplomatic role they can have, which is mind with the more of the diplomatic role having been shifted towards turkey. now turkey officers and natal member, but still you see them to having more of an independent foreign policy, an open list, a thing, for example, they're not going to join in on the all of the sanctions. so i think that the, the decline on the child will definitely have an impact on, on the, on, on, on the diplomacy and the ability to motifs knows, have to be said that i think i think that the client and the child is also not just promot preventing diplomacy,
10:50 am
but it's also provoking on conflicts and war and, and i think it's killing my might regret this disposition, because keep in mind what, what's happened to you and i think it's often a common narrative, not that you create, you could have been and nato then there wouldn't have been more, i think in reality, it was the u. s. and natal efforts to and, and ukrainian neutrality that eventually pro russia because we see what the ukranian experience was from it's independence on the present push months. the whole idea was that they should never join nato with project and join with russia, then it would be fine, but without russia frontline against russia, that was undermined them to charlotte. these are the tried to be michel until the color revolution in 2004, when it's also the western back commercial link to nato expansion, and then relations to them, the period until 2010 when you know them. ukraine. again, push the idea that it was a neutral state dot com again. and then we saw the toppling coal which in
10:51 am
2014 with western support. and this is what then again, unraveled the conflict justice, all seem to be another effort by nato. wanted to rob the ukraine of its neutrality, and even the 2015 is agreement that was seen by russia to a large extent, cementing ukraine's neutrality about and unfortunately, it never went anywhere. and so i think that's definitely the decline on the child. you're collapse from the child's in your role. continue to make diplomacy more and more difficult and create more areas of conflicts, mark, you know, following up on, on what glen was saying there. let me ask you about perceptions of neutrality around the world right now at a moment like this. does it seem to you that more people are viewing the concept of neutrality negatively? well, yes, i mean, i think there was in different cases now in miss ukraine war,
10:52 am
russia, which is some way, a sibling war. right. if you think about it, between brothers and the media has of course, stoke the, this paper, the russia for every were kind of stairs being bad. what have you, which is a very uncanny and regrettable i do think neutrality has gotten how to go. right. which is very unfortunate, especially for country switzerland. and that's why it's especially calling to see switzerland, you know, jump into this so, so, so, so precipitously. and i would say there's a broader crisis here, frankly speaking, and you don't, the trial is not something that you can point to united states. think about the founding fathers. they were saying we don't want to go abroad for to search for motus, to destroy. and then over time, america got involved and boiled more and more wars recently we know as well. and it became defect on empire. and speaking someone like, you know, john merce primary chemistry of this war. and again, it's that is a really saying we shouldn't go broad become an empire,
10:53 am
and we have the united states as well. and switzerland now is unfortunately also jumping on the bandwagon to a degree. but i would say both cases in the united states, and it's what's another case, the decisions were made. i repeat talk down, it wasn't really a democratic process. there never was really vote on whether we should go into iraq, going to live in the countries now ukraine and then dropped. a lot of these decisions were taken top down, especially in switzerland. and i think there will be a popular sort of resentment at some point because there's a huge economic price going. we should maybe talk about that too, because all these countries are going to probably suffer more from the sanction than russia. and that's a very important point to i think that breaking this neutrality is yes, it's endangering global piece because diplomacy is no longer on the table in a country like so. it's kind of difficult to act as diplomat, but also economically, i think the consequences are very severe and not necessarily positive for anyone ukrainian or russian european american civilians. so i think that's important.
10:54 am
happy one at a time when dialogue and diplomacy oftentimes aren't achieving their aims. when it comes to trying to find political solutions to conflicts, different parts of the world are institutions like the u. in, in decline. i think there is absolutely no doubt about the fact that the united nation is on a settlement or decline. we hardly hear of the united nation being able to do anything around the world that it's such a big the it indicates the, the one organization that is supposed to save got the security system, which is not the message to give to counselor has become so defined in any case, i just want to find, but yet you want to speak to you and to give the counselor. so i think this argument, that's a lot of us who have been making from the global pudding india,
10:55 am
that the global organizations need a fundamental restructuring. today's message council all global, the various other institutions do not represent the realities. all of the kind of system was set up. i'd be at the, at the end of the 2nd world war to be there's the i'm, they had taken aides, the whole absolutely no. why do you see that we don't have any critical systems or structures in place in order to mediate doing crisis ought to bring about to give it the? so i think, you know, what not withstanding what happens end up is water in your grade, all or in fact, yeah, very serious. anything that is required by the american community on what kind of assistance i required for for keeping peace going for. i think it's something that
10:56 am
has been demanded by the, by the follow the global glenn. there are many countries in europe that may be rethinking their neutrality right now because of the war in ukraine. but what about other countries around the world are a lot of other countries around the world struggling with this as well right now? well, from my perspective, the way i see it, i think it's mainly problems. because we spoke about india. again, it's, it's a, they're, they're trying to adopt a new reality. again, when you have countries, i get to see the rise of china that might be concerned. and therefore, seeking closer partnerships with united states, japan, and other companies in the region. on the other hand, you also see the number line kind of like in the us, they're seeing nothing seem to join an lines the targets china see their foresee ever cautious language is that they want to be in these formations to be probation and chinese, for example, so effectively not going against the chinese so,
10:57 am
so for this reason, i don't think that charles in asia, for example, is falling apart in the form of development of an ation nato. so i think again, a lot of this goes back to the whole the whole, what's very unique about europe, which is that after the cold war, we have this moved 1st that we were going to have a security architecture which wasn't linked to these competing cold, more secure and military boxed and again, i think people, people would appreciate what exactly happened because it was in 1909. at the always the meeting was supposed been like an inclusive security institutions which, which would reduce the role of the military lines. this, we saw that the russians that committed themselves, for example, to withdrawing their interest from baltimore over and ga. however, when they saw that the, you would not be inclusive impartial security lines. because of
10:58 am
nato expansion isn't there. so need replacing them that they came to the conclusion, they couldn't pull out because either they have their troops there or they will join nato. so having troops in this countries became a tool for imposing the child on them. and this is, this has been kind of the experienced over the years in, in europe. all right, well, we are out of time, so we're going to have to leave the discussion there. thanks so much to all of our guests, mark for ha, happy mon jacob and glen decent. and thank you for watching. you can see the program again any time by visiting our website, algebra dot com. and for further discussion, go to our facebook page. that's facebook dot com, forward slash ha, inside story. you can also join the conversation on twitter. our handle is at e. j inside stored for me. mm hm. mm hm. jerome, the whole team here, bye for now. how
10:59 am
do you states control information in china? there's no can go if you tried to search the war tenement, we find it is trying to make the whole country forget how did the narrative improve public opinion? the headline died and that allowed the children to continue to die to how is this is in journalism, we framing the story. i am here to document the war crimes committed by do and his resume. the listening post dissects the media on al jazeera right in the early hours of the morning. these palestinian families are being forced to leave their homes and belongings. these are the military sometimes uses this area in the north of the occupied west bank as a training ground explosions like these often break the piece here. i feel for the children they get scared mom big. i tried to calm them down there, but we're scared to. these really are me told them just either that it takes
11:00 am
measures to protect civilians during back the sizes. what is really, officers previously said that trainings are used to push palestinians out. 48 families once lived in this village called zeek. now, there are only 20 people here, say they have nowhere else to go. so they have to stay out until they're allowed to return to their home. after midnight, the military drill will continue for 3 days, which means they'll have to go through this again twice this week. ah, very one message for all of us do something. just do something. for god's sake do something.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on