tv [untitled] November 17, 2010 11:30am-12:00pm EST
is coming up here in r t but first let's check in on the headlines russian businessman victor boot awaits sentencing for arms trafficking in a new york prison after his extradition from thailand which moscow says was the legal. u.s. secretary of state hillary clinton has urged the senate to ratify a landmark nuclear deal with russia republicans have dealt a blow to the obama administration by tolling its programs. and eurozone finance ministers brainstorm of banking recovery after the e.u.
president warned the single currency is facing a fight for survival. now nato is poised for a crucial summit in lisbon this weekend to map out missile defense its strategy in afghanistan and the entire role of the alliance joined peter the veil now in cross talk for a debate on the future of the organization. hungry for the full story we've got it for. the biggest issues get a human voice face to face with the news makers. keep . following welcome to cross talk i'm peter lavelle with or at nato as members of the north atlantic treaty organization meet in lisbon this military alliance is in search of a mission can nato remain relevant facing twenty first century security threats.
to discuss the role of nato today i'm joined by hugo lucas in boston he's a professor of international relations at boston university in london we have martin mccauley he's an author and senior lecturer at the university of london and in paris we cross to john laughlin from the institute of democracy and cooperation and another member of our crosstalk team you know in the hunger all right gentlemen crosstalk rules and effective means you can jump in anytime you want to react to what else has been said on the panel if i can go to you first in boston the alliance is going to be meeting soon in lisbon so just how relevant is the north atlantic treaty organization today a child of the cold war and they say they're going to have a new strategic concept i think a lot of us know what the basic parts are going to be what is its relevance today ok in and i can't help but think afghanistan at the same time go ahead.
well it's obviously a very complicated question. if you're asking me whether there are crises around the walt where nato could play a significant perhaps central decisive role then obviously the answer is yes like have you had like afghanistan on figure like like afghanistan. well well certainly afghanistan is one example but of course it depends on what perspective you take if you take perspective from the nato headquarters then everything seems fine nato is doing its job but if you look at the from if you if you look at it from the perspective of a number of really serious analysts in the united states well you will hear an entirely different story the story is the united states is essentially on its own why do we have to have a budget that basically and mounts to the combined defense budgets of the rest of the wall isn't that really this time for the united states to give notice to its
allies including the west europeans saying look you know intent here is not right now but in ten years you're going to be on your own so nato certainly is in a very precarious situation there are many missions that it could undertake there are many pressing causes that cry out for action but it's not entirely sure what nato can really do and whether the united states will be still in nato ten years hence when you think about that martin in london ok i mean you can just kind of put it very flat out there i mean what is the use of it i mean irrespective of your opinion about the war in afghanistan the american led war i mean nato is in a shambles i mean it is absolutely in a shambles and it's going to say it has a new vision for for the for its existence of reason to exist beyond article five of self defense what is its relevance that. it has it has relevance and it is most
relevance for those countries in eastern europe in the baltic states which are formally in the warsaw pact they see nato as a shield against possible russian aggression but that said that martin i mean what is what possible threat does russia pose to eastern europe and the baltic states i mean quite seriously expects specially since. russia has been courting them for economic for trade reasons for investment reasons i mean haven't we really taken the military threat off the table now i mean what interest would russia have in terms of a military i on europe any more ideas it doesn't make any logical sense especially when both europe the european union and russia have doing very their very best to mend fences ok go ahead that is correct but one has that you may look at from britain and france and germany and say russia is not a military threat we don't fear russia but you go to say poland or a stone in latvia and they tell you
a different story so therefore it depends on their history they look back to nine hundred forty is a good long memories. and they want protection they don't have the military they don't have the money to defend themselves so they want an umbrella and that big umbrella is in fact nato and behind that is united states and that makes them more secure now that said all the european states all twenty eight members of nato have to reduce their military budgets nobody can afford their defense expenditure you've seen britain and france going into what is being called the on top through guard because they can't afford to have carriers so you've got to share them and so on and this is if you like the future nato will basically spend less in europe there wind down defense spending and hope that what is called liberal interventionism. going into iraq and afghanistan that will be a thing of the past from the europeans that's basically think of the past we look
after ourselves the main strategic threat. there the decade after this not just take a big decade of that is china so therefore look beyond russia and so on so nato nato is there and it's ok to have it but its role is diminishing and people are willing to spend less and less money and to be willing. to go outside the european theater less and less in the future john larkin if i go to you martin just basically said there's a huge divergence going on here i mean does the united states would love nato to be able to send european troops to fight wars that he feels it's in its strategic interests i mean afghanistan is one of them ok we could see other adventures i mean iran is always on the radar we're told nothing's taken off the table so it's just a sarah good for the united states and its foreign policy objectives and they're basically saying no we don't have the money ok but they want to have the nucular umbrella eccentrics cetera irrespective i think this kind of bogeyman threat to
your eastern europe by russia which i fired personally nonsensical go ahead. like i totally agree i i think one has to recall a few basic facts i think that nato is and always has been an instrument for american foreign policy or i would put it even more strongly an instrument for american domination of western europe it was created during the cold war it was largely an instrument of the creation of the cold war i mean by that that the cold war to a large extent was the creation of the united states of america not as is usually so that the soviet union but now whatever view we take about the events of nine hundred forty five and afterwards there is absolutely no doubt surely that nato remains only an instrument for american foreign policy the very fact that president medvedev is going to the nato. summit in lisbon at the end of this week is itself a result of a reset in russian relations with russia announced by who by the president of the
united states what subjects are they going to discuss there obviously afghanistan which is an american war transferred to nato and the missile shield and american policy transferred to nato so nato is simply an extension of american foreign and military policy and the reason why it's in a crisis is not i beg to differ with yeah go ahead jump in go ahead. yeah i'm going to say that. you know martin first go ahead go ahead i'm going to say neda what it was formed in one thousand nine hundred ninety europe the west europeans wanted nato is a good they did they perceive the threat exact wrong the soviet union and they needed the americans coming because militarily they couldn't defend themselves and they didn't have the money either so therefore they were welcomed in. the problem know is where is the threat from why should we still be spending our money on defense and sending troops here there and everywhere this is the problem for the europeans and the europeans now don't perceive any threat except east europeans in
the baltic states i would say you have to talk to them they polish defense minister the other day made some sharp comments about russia so the language is still there the perception is what i mean when you say that too is that poland wants to be relevant in the european union and in nato and it always has to find a boogie man and russia is their boogie man i lived in poland for twelve years ok i still speak polish better than russian so i know the phobias of the poles ok but the poles want to be at the adult table in the european union and in nato when they're not getting what they want either you're laughing i don't know if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me go ahead. i think you're going to be very bad in boston. well i was just going to say that of course the sirup events of the baltic peoples perceived russia differently and i agree with you that the notion of an actual russian threat is just it's it just is non-existent and we do not
live in the late thirty's nor do we live in the early one nine hundred forty s. at the same time president putin. said some really nasty things about poland and they really threatened poland in two thousand and eight and then the next year he said some pretty outrageous things about the role that poland had allegedly played in the in the breaking old war breaking out a world war two so this sort of ran over a he stood on the no ego he didn't say that he was quoting from archives that were released those were not his now would not be factually correct here ok he there was some archival adults forget also and also remember the reproach moment between the two countries after the tragedy of the death of a president kaczynski i mean don't focus on one thing this is the entire case and that's very important here john john if i can if i go right back to you real quickly here i mean let's talk about nato now in the future i don't want to talk
about the soviet period because that's over ok now one of the interesting things is that i'm brookings institution came out with a very interesting article and it was saying you know if you can find him if i if i can find him here if asked to respond to the question of nato is primary purpose and identity in that in two thousand and ten no two alliance members would offer the same answer that is an alliance in crisis. yeah i totally agree it's in crisis both for that reason which is that as the previous people have said there are different policy priorities among the different member states that's certainly true but above all because nato as an instrument of american foreign and military policy is in crisis because america itself is in crisis we all know that the american economy like much of the western economy is going down the tubes we know that america has amassed debts it can never pay off the dollar is weak the t.-bone market is weak other aspects of the american post cold war system are coming apart at the seams turkey is drifting away from nato and so on it's almost to the list of
problems which america faces in trying to shore up the unilateral vision which george bush tried to put in place george w. bush and so some extent president clinton before and the list of those problems is almost without end and yet nato continues as i say to focus on american foreign policy priority priorities principally now iran the missile shield after all lots of let's not forget is mainly directed calling to the americans is directed against iran so once again we see nato dancing to an american today and it's because the core country of nato is weak that the alliance itself is in trouble aren't going to take a quick break here and after the break we'll continue our discussion on nato stay with are.
video. an r.s.s. feed now with the palm of you want. to. welcome back to. remind you we're talking about meters mission today. keep. the phone with see what russians think about rip on small with the alliance a new type of relations and the nato summit in lisbon many asking if russia will soon have a new kind of engagement with the atlantic alliance relations between russia and nato have never been easy but in this changing world it is this
a new security architecture for europe is needed according to a recent live out of sun a poll though russians a split in their opinion over this crush mall thirty three percent of the respondents said this meets russia's national interests and another thirty seven percent believe the opposite however the russian foreign minister says. a lover of has already said the lisbon summit well marked the end of the poles cold war period that relates. ok martin i'd like to go to you and i'd actually like to quote the foreign minister of finland and his description of what's going on we have to remember that this is not a nato member here so he got he says the u.s. is starting to flirt with other partners then europeans the e.u. is not as sexy as it once was we were like a grumpy old couple we've been together for sixty years we nag at each other we might have the same values but america is starting to look elsewhere and martin i
read that because i think it's very interesting is that you know a lot of people would say that you know the europeans they stay could band you know the the americans want to have a platform and you know they have armies in the year in europe and the nato countries can go abroad and fight america's wars but it is certain point it's very expensive and we've pointed out on this program here and the united states isn't particularly interested in europe anymore if we have europeans are going to fight america's wars in afghanistan they're going to have other partners ok and so i mean do you think the finnish foreign minister has a point there i mean the americans don't see the utility in the alliance as much as it used to be especially because of afghanistan and the europeans themselves are not so jazzed about it anymore i mean is this an amicable slow parting of the two and then they can remain a political organization doesn't have to be such a military one as it is now do you think mark yes i think the finish college is absolutely right because president obama has recently been india and the next great partnership. in fact with india the military if you like because of nuclear weapons
and the giving of nuclear power and so on and then the great power to contain is china so therefore from washington's point of view. the focus is no longer in europe because previously until one thousand nine hundred one europe was dominant because of the soviet union because moscow. is in europe now they're looking to india and they're looking to china and southeast asia vietnam for instance which is a communist state wants the u.s. fleet to be in its waters to basically protect it against china and therefore the americans can't do everything so therefore they will see europe if you like as a staging post as a place to gather intelligence as a place of people who can advise them and so on but not many troops will be stationed in europe because you don't need them you love people in europe but gradually they will come around to the view that india is their friend and india
would like to see china contained so therefore south east south asia and south east asian east asia those are the areas of the future if you look ten years ahead. europe will perhaps be of minor importance but again as a staging post as a place we gather intelligence but no longer a great military significance or strategic importance to the united states ok eager and pretty much know where you stand on things does nato need russia more than russia needs nato because we see a reproach mark going on right now in a lot of it has to do with afghanistan anti-terrorism are piracy things like that i think everything everyone here would agree with are good things to these two entities do work together i mean russia suffers terribly because of the the poppy trade to coast through this country into europe i mean so i'll ask my question again who needs the who more russian needs nato more does nato need russia because i think it's the latter. well i think that they really need each other ok
everybody likes cooperation everybody likes smooth relations nobody wants north korea suddenly dropping a bomb nobody wants iran firing and misao in the middle east nobody really wants that everybody understands that nato needs russia and russia needs nato i don't really know whether one can mathematically split it as fifty fifty but i think it is appalling that on on which many reasonable people would agree that that it's in our interest whether it involves north korea or iran or whether it going involves drugs that that that come from from the former soviet republics or even farther in that case they really need to each other at the same time i think that if russia keeps developing and possibly even deploying in the future they controversial may solve the our as twenty four which many people believe is in
violation of existing treaties then all this cooperation will just puff and disappear into thin air and i'll let you know because a body goes without her go ahead put the shoe on the other foot no i mean the united states treaty if the united states continues with its anti-missile defense plans without consulting russia without cooperating with russia then we have well no that is underway right now with enough money and time a sanction both sides to negotiate ok i mean you always russia you always want to show everybody buys you not only three things one seeds how is a threat nato is a threat ok to russia unless it does the right thing john let's go to you ok i'll ask you ok is it seems to me it seems to me that he knows i'm in history did nato intend to attack russia that's a historical fact ok well can you prove that russia was really it was the soviet union didn't attack western europe ok let's move forward gentlemen john i would say the. nato caved to russia it needs russia more ok if it's going to bail itself out
of this horrific war in afghanistan maybe they'll just you know they won't they won't call it a defeat that's the whole best they can hope for right now is calling it a defeat ok maybe a withdrawal or whatever whatever newspeak they want to use but the war is lost ok and russia might help them get out not stay. yeah yeah i totally agree i mean that's why the whole obama reset was was called into operation because they realized that the americans realize that the confrontation with russia was leading nowhere and on afghanistan and on iran they needed russian help so i completely agree with you i don't agree that russia needs nato at all on the contrary nato is a problem nato is a classic example of institutional drift it's a institution which should not exist it should have been abolished twenty years ago when the cold war ended and it only continues to exist because the american economy is driven by arms manufacturers and because there are plenty of officials in brussels who want to keep their jobs i discovered
a year or two ago that the western european union still exists this was a cold war defense arrangement that i thought had been wound up but no it carries on you know you can never get rid of these institutions and nato i think is the same obviously is much bigger and much more important but it remains a problem for that very reason that russia is trying to deal with it it's trying to obviously realizes it's not going to go away so it's trying to find some sort of modest vivendi with it but would be much better off if it didn't exist at all. american morning going to go anywhere you told great martin go ahead go ahead america mean afghanistan. the u.s. and the international force everyone would like to get out of afghanistan because there's no way they can win militarily so therefore they got to withdraw the only question is when but that will leave a huge problem for russia because the taliban will then take over and come up to the border on the treasury borders a thousand kilometers long and then they will penetrate central asia and then they will penetrate russia and possibly china as well so therefore this will present
russia with a huge security problem. there is the c.s.t. oh the c.i.s. years to zero organization which looks after the security of those states where they didn't do very much where they came to. don't ask for some aid and didn't get it. so therefore if the americans who would dearly like to get out britain would did it like to get out canada has said it's going to get out and saying they're going to get out they just leave a huge security problem for russia and russia with their needs nato needs to come back to nato and say how can we solve this problem ok i always find it really amazing that if if if russia had sent forces to kurdistan then it's invading kurdistan if it doesn't send forces the kurds then it's ignoring kurdistan russia is in a lose lose situation always when it comes to these situations or even if i can go to you what. does the european mean as we go through this this last war in
afghanistan i mean isn't this going to be a wake up call and say and nato can't do these kind of operations anymore and just go back to article five self-defense and just scale it down it's really really expensive and just and do that and maybe humanitarian operations in africa or haiti or something like that would not be better served that way you know more of a police force thing for humanitarian aid because the alliance is just absolutely humiliated itself and it really needed to do something right and it totally did everything wrong what do you think. locus yes well absolutely as far as afghanistan indeed even as far as iraq are concerned i am completely with you those were horrific not practical but strategic mistakes for which the united states and unfortunately also nato will continue paying for years probably decades to come and die i also agree that one should too one could very readily come up with a list of worthy causes in africa where interventions would be called for and
probably much more efficient than in places like iraq or afghanistan but let me very quickly offer a slightly different scenario from what i have heard so far i certainly would not want to see nato does solve it but i would like to see nato becoming a european operation a european response ability with the united states either getting out completely all or staying on on the margin as a kind of a guy around door who would be willing to jump in in time of crisis but for every other purpose it would really take care of its own security there is no reason why the american taxpayer should be subsidizing the national security of countries like norway or denmark which are famously rich while the united states has a temper own nearly ten percent unemployment ok i knew for we talked long enough we
would finally agree on something we've run out of time gentlemen thank you very much many thanks to my guest today in london boston and in paris and thanks to our viewers for watching us here r.t. see you next time and remember across dockery. russia would be so much brighter if you found songs from fans to fresh.