Skip to main content

tv   The Day  Deutsche Welle  June 30, 2022 4:02am-4:31am CEST

4:02 am
ah, today, nato formally invited finland and sweden to join nato expansion is not new nato, recognizing russia as its primary adversary. that is new. the hope it made of that one day russia would become an ally. that hope ended with the invasion of ukraine. there was another 1st today at nato, the alliance labeling china as a rival, a threat to the global order. tonight, inside nato's 21st century rethink. i'm broke off in berlin. this is the day ah versa pulses, the most significant and dyadic threats to our security. actual li, if you identified russia as a threat, as your main threats, then you have to fully support it's main targets. bad. me say ny now has
4:03 am
2 additional applicants to join sweden and finland booth and did not succeed. in closing, april store natal store remains open to improve completely wrong. he's getting more natured european countries be looking at increasing that event spending now. yes, yes. yes. also coming up the stunning testimony from the january 6 committee, what former president donald trump knew when he told an angry mob to march on the u . s. capital and what he did when the secret service refused to drive him there. the present reached up towards the front of the vehicle, the crab at the steering wheel. mister angled grabbed his arm, said sir in to take her hand off the steering wheel. we're going back to the west wing. we're not going to the capital to our
4:04 am
viewers watching p b s or the united states into all of you around the world. welcome, we begin the day with nato's 21st century rethink of itself and of the world. when the cold war ended 3 decades ago, the hope was high, that one day nato in russia would become allies. the less remnants of that hope were snuffed out when russian forces invaded ukraine earlier this year. so today, nato made it official. the security situation is no longer what it was, and neither is nato. today, nato officially invited sweden and finland to join the alliance native also for the 1st time named russia as its primary adversary. and today, in another 1st nato mentioned china calling it a challenge to the global order. nato is also beefing up its troop presence all along its eastern flank with russia. now all of these changes, some of them, unprecedented coming as nato redefines itself and the security risks of the 21st
4:05 am
century. we have more now in this report. sweden's prime minister, magdalena anderson, arriving at the nato summit. if all goes to plan a country along with finland, should soon put aside decades of neutrality to become members of the military alliance. and this is the man making it possible. after weeks of wrangling, turkeys president reject type, edwin has dropped his opposition to them joining, giving current mendez something to smile about at the summit of a full eyes. welcome finland and sweet historic application from membership and their decision to move away from neutrality and of traditional neutrality to join. no life is going to make us stronger and more secure, and nato stronger. the summit comes against the background of russia's war in
4:06 am
ukraine, which is force nato, to rethink its mission. we face a radical change or to our security environments. on saturday, competition is rising around the world. so today's leaders have endorsed naples, new strategic concepts. it makes clear about russia's, russia pulses, the most significant and dyadic threat to our security. in the current, consult with faith about the rush ice, a strategic partner, she could drive home the point, ukraine's president vladimir lansky was on video lately to remind nato, what conflict with russia looks like miss olivia m a data says movie narrows. this is not a war being waged by russia against only a crane. this is a war for the right to dictate conditions in europe for what the future will order
4:07 am
will look like a dream of that is why it is absolutely necessary to support ukraine now, along with weapons funds and political sanctions against russia, which will stop it being able to pay for the wall, that absolute non lp nato promised it would not turn its back on cave. present the landscape made clear that ukraine relies on our continued support. and our message to him was equally clear. ukraine can count on us for as long as it takes the u. s. has already said it will increase its now actually present in europe, including a permanent garrison in poland. it seems the russian threads is how to make a tale of the strongest. it has to years my 1st guess tonight is stephen biddle. he is a professor of international and public affairs at columbia university. he has also
4:08 am
written numerous books on military and the power of the military. it's good to have you on the program. mr. biddle, i mean, a lot of people reacting to day that nato was just telling us what we already know that russia is its main adversary. and how important is it? bet, native to day said russia is the enemy. i think it's very important. i think for a long time, for generations, really, these threats have been out there, but they were considered abstract. not particularly concrete in the alliance was not unified in the way it would respond or deal with the alliance has been impressive in the speed with which it's moved. but it's also been impressive. and the degree of consensus with which it's moved in this kind of formal statement, codified that degree of consensus and contributes to the unity of action that's been so important since february in the way it is responded to us. and we know that the united states, as a member of nato,
4:09 am
is planning to significantly increase its presence here in europe, particularly along the military alliance is eastern flank with russia. now that's a big, that's a serious military commitment that the u. s. is making. but what about the challenge coming from china? well, me to think these challenges aren't entirely unrelated. one of the central constraints on the west ability to course russia into standing down in ukraine has been the russians ability to have outlets other than the west for it's raw materials. and china has been one of the central opportunities of enjoyment score. so the idea that russia policy and china policy are completely independent to one another is and sound more over the larger issue of, especially from the standpoint of the united states of the degree to which responds
4:10 am
to a rising. china can be a unified action of a group of allied countries. depends in part on the way unified action by an allied group of countries toward ukraine and russia works. these 2 parts of the world are not wholly independent of each other, and it's appropriate for nato, which has stakes in both in russia, ukraine and it's immediate doorstep in europe, but also in asia. organize a, some sort of coherent, orchestrated response. so i think it's appropriate, i think it makes sense. and again, i think it's impressive that the alliances coming together this quickly, do you see nato as now a key part of the united states pivot to asia or the united states developing a strategy for dealing with an emerging chinese superpower and its influence over asia. i think it's increasingly important. the new native strategic
4:11 am
concept doesn't go all the way to creating an anti china alliance in the pacific involved. but it's leaning in that direction. and i think an effective policy towards either russia or china obviously depends on a unified front part of the problem with sanctions against russia. we don't have the unified front. the chinese, the indians who provided outlets for russian exports that have kept russia floating economically. that the more unified the front, the more effective policies. what about sweden and finland, being invited to join and also the push for all native members to increase their spending on defense. do you see coming out of this? maybe in a post, russia, nato. if there is going to be one, a, independent, if you will, european security apparatus being created. i think certainly that's
4:12 am
powerful in the europeans interest. it's clear already that a greater degree of european effort is going to be needed just to deal with the problem of russia. even if you have american policies, you see them now under by the administration. american policies may not be forever . what you see now under, by the administration, american politics are conditional, tremendous flux. if a republican administration is elected in the next presidential election cycle, you can get a radical change in the u. s. orientation towards russia towards ukraine, towards europe. i think if i were living in germany right now, i would want a degree of ability to respond to these threats and these challenges that is not exclusively at the behest of the united states. the can work with united states if we're cooperative and as we are now. and as i hope we may not, i think it's only st. sounds sensible policy for europe to develop the ability to
4:13 am
defend itself if it has to industry before we run out of time this, this new strategy paper coming out from nato, is it being written by a nato that now has no choice but to view the united states as a less reliable partner, but it has been in the past. i don't see how nato could do otherwise. i'll meet you. european government should certainly hope the american policy remains. this is land assist as it is now. i would like us an american that to be the case, but it may not there, none of us can guarantee the u. s. foreign policy is going to remain internationalists and atlanta assist if and given the simple realities of american domestic politics right now, it would be irresponsible for europe not to take steps to enable it to defend itself. columbia university professor stephen biddle. professor, we appreciate your time in your insights to night. thank you. thanks for having
4:14 am
ah. in washington d. c, a former white house aid has given dramatic testimony about what former us president donald trump allegedly did in the moments before. a mob of his supporters stormed the u. s. capital building. it is devastating testimony for trump. a picture of a president ready to accept violence in order to stay in power and and raise her right hand. having previously sought for fall close dog depositions with former white house aide was about to throw political grenade into the select committee investigating donald trump's role in the storming of the u. s. capital may be seated. cassidy hutchinson told the hearing white house officials had been warned about potential violence and that donald trump was a wet riots as were armed when they arrived in washington,
4:15 am
d. c is hutchinson. is it your understanding that mister or nato told the president about weapons at the rally on the morning of january 6? as of this or not related to me? what followed was an excoriating account of an enraged president on the day of the capital siege. the president says in effect of unlocking president, taking up the capital now the present reached up towards the front of the vehicle to crab. at the steering wheel, mister engel grabbed his arm, said sir, and to take your hand off the steering wheel. we're going back to the west way. we're not going to the capital. mister trenton used his free hand to lunch towards bobby angle and missed it when the sonata had recounted a story to me in motion towards his clavicles. he's probably the remote, he rings to follow in the coming weeks,
4:16 am
but this is the closest the investigation has come to the inner workings of the white house. on january 6, the day american democracy came close to collapse and my next guest is a former white house insider richard painter, was the chief ethics lawyer for president george w bush. he is a law professor now at the university of minnesota. mr. brainers good to see you again. i'll ask you what i asked you last time we spoke about where we're going with these hearings. the testimony that we heard yesterday from this 26 year old white house aid, who does not have an extra grind. you has everything to lose your test for testimony under oath. is it what is needed for the justice department to serious lee consider charging donald trump with maybe sedition or seditious conspiracy to overthrow the government? well, i would certainly hope so. i was hoping that the department of justice would be
4:17 am
a lot further along by now than they apparently are. we'll see what happens here. but this is yet more evidence that donald trump knew that this crowd was violent. this crowd was heavily armed. he was told they were heavily armed because these people in the crowd were not going to pass through the metal detectors to get close to the white house. even though donald trump got very upset about that, says, of course, let them in with a weapons. they're not here to hurt me. they want them to go right up to the capital with their weapons. he knew they were violent, and we a cheer that he was. so i raised it. he assaulted his own secret service agent in order to try and have himself driven to the capital to purchase them. hey, nan selection. as we came very, very close that i took military clue. i let what donald trump wanted was to get that vice president to declare the election, mullin void, the declare him the winners throughout. and then he would have back that up with
4:18 am
the military. if he'd been able to get away with it, the secret service has said that it is willing to cooperate with the january 6th committee under oath. and, you know, maybe possibly corroborate what was said yesterday in that hearing. but even if we don't see the justice department charging former president donald trump with anything, is it possible to say in your opinion that the testimony we heard yesterday is the nail in the coffin for any political future for donald trump? well, we'd hope so, but we don't know, and that's why he must be prosecuted if he committed a crime, whether it be sedition ah, insurrection assaulting a secret service agent, coercing federal employees, gage and political activity lists of crimes. obstruction of congress on january 6th . and the count of the electoral votes goes on and on. and if he committed
4:19 am
a crime with his evidence committed a crime, the justice department has an obligation to prosecute him. we can't just assume that insurrection us us won't come back a germany of their own experience with insurrection us. in 1923 came back of 1933. this could happen in the united states as well. we cannot tolerate insurrection whether it be the president, the head of a political party, or anyone else will you say the u. s. cannot tolerate this type of behavior. then what does that mean for the party that you used to call your very own the republican party, a bead. should that party have a future in the american political system? considering what we're hearing at this, these hearings and also considering, you know, we haven't heard any republican lawmakers coming out and saying anything about this testimony yesterday whether very few republicans are willing to do that, including liz, china. and it's critically important for the survival of the republican party that
4:20 am
they turned towards. liz cheney and others who are willing to stand up to donald trump. but there are many people. there are a conservative politicians in and i states much more conservative than i ever was when i was a member of the republican body. but there are those who are conservative just like lives. cheney all who are willing to stand up the donald trump, and that is who the republican party must have a sustained admirers. we cannot have insurrections. as i've said, a history has told us that insurrection is want to come back, they are extremely dangerous. these are people do not trust democracy. they do not want to rely on winning at the ballot box. they want to rely on violence and they will want to come back in there could be very dangerous with united states if we do not prosecute them. professor richard painter, helping us understand the testimony that at these hearings on capitol hill as always professor painter. we appreciate your insight and your time to night. thank you. well,
4:21 am
thank you very much. ah question for you. if scotland headed for another referendum on independence, it looks that way. on tuesday, the scottish 1st minister nicholas sturgeon announced plans for a referendum on independence from the united kingdom to be held in october of next year. now that's less than a decade since the scots rejected independence in a referendum in 20. 14 will talk to a member of the scottish national party in just a moment. but 1st, here's a member of the british conservative party reacting to plans for a another vote on scottish independence. she's desperate to think about a 2nd referendum even though all the promises was a referendum is a once in a generation. well, there was a referendum, it was all pretty much on the scottish parliament to decide on everything from his wedding checks to its timing. they had they had the referendum, they lost the referendum. and instead of them saying ok hands up. let's try and see
4:22 am
if is a better way to run better the people of scotland experience for the public services sheets just banged on on the same one. and my next gift united steward, jose, he's a member of the british parliament and westminster for the scottish national party . he's also the us in peace, independence, campaigning coordinator. mr. edwards. it's good to have you on the show or your the campaign to coordinate it. talk to talk to me about the timing of this. i mean, why? now, why another referendum so quickly? well, it's not so quick. i mean we've had 3 u. k. general elections in the past 7 years. so a 9 year wait with the circumstances massively changed with the scottish national party of one every single election in the interim period. and we have a clear on denial mandates to hold that referendum. this is absolutely the trying to do out how much of an impetus are you getting from breaks it or how much of your
4:23 am
momentum is coming from a prime minister named boards. johnson, i think there are 3 things actually. firstly, bullish johnson is a disaster. this is a man who is not fit to be in office. secondly, breaks, it did change absolutely. everything. one of the promises which unionism opponents made in 2014 was that we would remain in the european union. and of course, within 2 years they held a referendum drive the whole of the 8 am to europe, including scotland, where there was a massive majority. going to remain in there. but the thing is, i think the more of the starts recognize that small and medium sized countries in europe, comparable to schools, are doing much, much better than the u. k. is a really clear argument, isn't that this is noticed good as
4:24 am
a guess. we need to be in charge of making our own decisions to ensure an economy or system or welfare system is as good as it can be. you know, that london argues that you don't have the power to call a referendum unilaterally. i know that the latest polls said they don't suggest a clear majority in favor of independence. what's your strategy here? well, 1st of all, the most recent pool was back to 5050. but if you recall, back in 20142030, we started the campaign on 23 percent of the vote and ended up 5545. i'm very confident we want to fiber, can't be an awesome company. and we can easily go from the 50 percent over the over the winter, like, i don't think that's a huge problem. and that's for the right to pull the referendum. there is some you buy it out, but that's why the 1st minister announced earlier this week,
4:25 am
very importantly, that we were going to have this motto referred to the u. k. supreme court. so the right to hold a referendum was no longer a matter of political debate or legal opinion. it was a matter of settled legal fact. once we get that, if it turns out to be legal after the referendum. and the key thing about this is in everything we're doing, we must ensure the referendum is legal. so that if we will, it is clear international recognition the following day, mr. let me ask you, let's assume you do when and let's assume then bed. queen elizabeth is still able to come visit if she did this week when she comes to visit scotland. is she still going to be your queen? the position in 2014, it was the queen and her successors would be the hey,
4:26 am
the state. clearly that's where we still are in the fall session. but as with all things in any independent country, that's a model for the people, the site later. the issue at the moment is not with the status issue. the moment is, do we with the right to hold a referendum, will not referendum and fundamentally transfer political decision making, london and about start to improve the economy and a lot of people are stolen. i've got less than a minute, mr. holmes. i'm going to be the devil's advocate now. if you lose this referendum, that's going to be it for a long time, right? i think there's a very clear recognition that we have the ideal opportunity to when i be very, very confident the the people of scotland like all the saw today, i'm not countenance in failure. i think we'll be going the flight to win the
4:27 am
referendum and the toner installed and it to is places an independent nation. now we know why they made you the campaign coordinator, steward, jose, the scottish national party. mr. we appreciate your time and your insights tonight . i'm sure we will be talking again at some point in the future, so thank you. well, the day is almost done, the conversation continues online. you'll find us on twitter, e 3, d, w news. you can follow me on twitter at bring gov tv and remember whatever happens between now and then tomorrow is another day we'll see that ah
4:28 am
ah ah, with the world is facing a food crisis. everything is getting more expensive and harder to come bye. what does that mean with the economy? what environmental problems do we need to consider? and what should consumers be concerned about the development and consequences of the global food supply crisis made in germany on d,
4:29 am
w. c, asia. now now he's got these typing. what can i with and the present? this is a challenge. i'm going to know why. in 60 minutes on d, w o d w on facebook and twitter. up to date and in touch. follow us. i am going to go here in iowa,
4:30 am
sexual assault survivor stem and say the truth her women in asia are bad. i pity is excusable. nothing can stop me that he's taking joe into starts july 6th with with the battle against hunger, quite literally an existential one. there was a time winning that battle seemed within reach as production surpluses could have meant enough food for all. but climate change conflict and
4:31 am
a broken food system have threatened that goal. the global hunger crisis.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on