send, bye. thank you. and that is where we live and use our for now this weekend to join me again. it's 30 from worst stories effecting your world today. this is, are to interest the, [000:00:00;00] the action or times the welcome back to going underground broadcasting around the world from the u. a in a week. that's all the most famous john list in the world. julian hassan is given

a reprieve from defacto death in the usa instead of the 3 weeks. at least of torture in london is described by former you and special replica niels meltzer. on this program there is being another un, special rubber to report the replica francesca albanese in. and that's a be of a genocide called for an immediate arms embargo of israel and reparations to be paid to gaza. the designation of genocide enabled by the usa u. k. and you, nations came up to view and security council, except for the usa budget for a rama, done ceasefire and gaza, up to tens of thousands. mostly women and children have been sort of accompanied by nature, a nation on age of facilitated aerial bombardment of human iraq and syria. syria, of course, was one area in nature. nations incubated ices lamed exclusively by nature for last week's massacre at the quote because of the constable in moscow and atrocity back by nature back to ukraine authorities. one scala who has back to sondra, posed us forever, was and refused to cool the proxy. war and ukraine unprovoked is perhaps the stephen wall, the author of origin, software alliances,

and the israel lobby. and the u. s. foreign policy co authored with professor john much i'm a he is the robinson renee bill. so a professor of international affairs at the harvard kennedy school and joins me now from brook line massachusetts. thank you so much, i hope of as well for coming on before we get to the genocide the us have given this 3 weeks. i know the case itself. uh, the documents a library in time. uh no one really seems to understand it and talk to seas. now casey's in britain have told me they've never seen anything like why have you supported julia? this sounds as well because i don't believe julian assigns committed a s b in the us. he was operating much as journalists do, he received classified information that was linked to him by people in the us government. but that's no, no different than people leading information to the new york types of. so to single him out as a particularly egregious case and to accuse him of espionage, it seems to me inappropriate. i might add that governments around the world,

including the us government leak information when they want to, to journalists, when they're trying to advance a particular policy. and they're trying to spend a story in a particular way. and given that assigned to us in my judgement, acting much in the same way the journal and all journalists do, i'll be in a different platform to have singles him out in this way and threatened him with long prison sentence. you know, possibly a life sentence strikes me is to stand appropriate and if he were extradited and subsequently convicted in the united states, i think you will have a chilling effect on press freedom here in the united states. which would be unfortunate because one of the things we expect the pressed to do forces inform us about secrets that the government is trying to keep from us. and in particular, when those policies are going or why the public needs to be informed about them. that, of course, most journalists understand that, but if they can be thrown in jail for reporting information that is linked to them

by people inside of the government, then i think it will have a chilling effect on the rest of the media. i know the papers of record that i do suppose him have written articles in favor of him, but surprised by how little attention is being given to the assigned case in the united states and what it means for press freedom in the u. s. given that it means any conviction would open the doors to the jailing of the editor of the new york times and the washington post and who knows who else? i think part of the problem here, of course, is this case is taking a long time and it's been, you know, he's been incarcerated on various grounds. he was a unit. uh, you know, heidi out in the ecuadorian embassy for many years. and in some respects, i think attention the short attention span of modern society has been such that his case has not gotten as much attention. he's been off the headlines, i believe if he is expedited. if the case goes through when he comes to the united states and he stands trial, then the case is going to get an enormous amount of attention. precisely because

media organizations are going to be very worried about the implications because it could make it some of those journalists favor, vide, and in november, and it's a by and justice department, but in the, by the ministration we've seen the i'm a leading chanel from the state department and now the state department official who has resigned over the side in the gaza assange, you know, we have the u. n's was a rapids over in georgia saying is being tortured by british authorities. this week we see a you in special out the door in palestine, alban, daisy cooling out of the war and gaza as genocide. what is it done to the reputation with the united states all around the world? the just that loading the hand from the you in the us are invested to view and then it's almost greenfield at the united nations security council. i think this is an enormous negative effect on the american image, and it's exposed to the inconsistency or the hypocrisy with which we talk about a, a rules based order, in a sense what we're seeing now. here's what america calls the rules based order

being juxtaposed against existing international law. so the united states have stay in cyber security council resolution. and before the ink is even dried, the american and pastor says, well, it's really not a binding resolution. what does that mean? and perhaps a spokesman, what, what i don't know be for your neck, no idea how the candidate has. oh no, but i, i don't know why she said that because i don't think that has any basis in the internet still lots. all right. un resolutions, particularly those that use the kind of language that this resolution, obvious security, kind of that yeah, at the security council saying that they demand that immediate cease fire cetera. these are binding how, how you enforce them is a separate question, but they are considered binding and the parties involved they're supposed to adhere to the. so for the united states to abstain for to let it go through a small shift in american policy. and then basically to refer to it as non binding is a way of diluting what we had just done. essentially walking it back a little bit, a little bit more. and the problem, of course,

is around the world that makes us look deeply hypocritical, that this rules based order we like to talk about is basically our making up the rules. and when we don't like an existing set of rules, we either ignore them or we expect them to be changed. and that's just not a very appealing image of. so i think the combination of the way the united states has responded to the tragedy in gaza. and the way in which it is now talking about it has under cut the american image in all sorts of places. i understand that the chapter 7 resolution with authorized military force in back in a un security council resolution. what does that mean then that this week we've witnessed be the end of the united states participation in the u. n. project towards united, $45.00. and i mean, what, i know it is a binary reservation that you and themselves said, you know, it's international that resolution to $7.00 to $8.00 for sale. so i, i don't that i think that test taking it too far. the united states, of course,

will continue to use the united nations to try and advances of interest the same way other countries to the problem is that when you are agreed just lead inconsistent. this is going to undermine the sort of political capital that the united states has in many parts of the world. doesn't make it impossible for the united states to elicit other countries. cooperation is just going to make it more difficult going forward. and i think we're already seeing that in a variety of different places. the fact, for example, that south africa, what independently decided to bring its application to the international court of justice regarding a possible genocide and cause that is a show of independence on the part of south africa that you might not have expected in earlier years. and i think it reflects unhappiness without the united states and some other countries are responding not only to this crisis crisis in general, but also to the basic state of the present world. or, well, i referred to that resignation of the state department to the on to the blinking understands what you were just saying there. because the last guy,

so it was still talking about the fact saudi arabia would make a deal with israel. now i believe that the secretary blinking is stuck in a and outdated view of what's happening in the middle east. and also i think feels caught as the rest of the administration does between a sort of a rock and a hard place. they are in a terrible bind of what they're doing. they understand it's doing damage to the american image abroad. they understand it might be causing sufficient unhappiness in parts of the united states. and with the progressives in the united states that threatens biden's re election. but they also understand that if they do the right thing and say, cut off, americans support or threatened to cut off, americans support israel. they'll face a backlash from pro israel forces in the united states. so in a sense they understand or in a very difficult situation, my feeling is if you are going to be damned, if you do damned if you're doubt, you ought to do the right thing both morally,

but also in terms of advancing basic american interest. and that would be to be putting enormous pressure on israel to stop what it's doing, agreed with ceasefire, get the hostages released and then move forward to trying to adjust solution in the middle east. because i know you're being a 5 and critic of the leading opposition contend in your country in november, donald trump adult trump speaking writing or in an interview in a newspaper owned by sheldon adelson, hire newspaper. and israel said israel is lot, lot losing lots and lots of support is made a very big mistake. it'll capitalize anti semitism. i mean, that's the kind of woods that the, i don't know i'd expect from a steven wall to us. cool. yeah. in this case, donald trump is right, i don't think that qualifies him to be our next president, but he's called that one correctly. but how do you detect the difference that given

that he's so dependent on pro israel pro netanyahu pro design is in a cabin a well, i'm not sure that's true. or a the most political parties collect donations from pro israel forces and pro israel individuals. trump is also got lots of other bases of support, and i think he, because he's running is going to be running against bite and is looking for ways to distinguish himself from the biden administration. and if he can do that, he's likely to win some support from people who are unhappy without vitamins handled this particular crisis. and you believe that the public postering that is being given out since a $100000.00 voters in the michigan primary wanted to know and as opposed to fighting in november, which is what you're saying is worrying the democrats. do you believe the fostering that there's this big difference between vitamin that's in the o is that for the public and for the voting base, why the continues to send munitions back,

thoughts and weapon rate and that's in yeah, yeah, i think that there are growing differences so many of just about every american presenter just had to deal with that in yahoo. it's down to him difficult to deal with and for the vice and administrative sion to have been so supportive of what israel is doing, support a bit of material sense. but also, as we've talked about, protecting and in the security council, and then to be treated with essentially contempt by the men yahoo ministration basically saying, well thank you for your support. and we're going to do what you want is bound to annoy people who have a previous presidents have said no to is riley bram. yes. have you on i might have to remind the awesome as well, there's a number of cases when israel heading data is less than on in the regular administration. eventually reagan called up and knocking vague and basically told him to stop in the israel east. stop the seas and pay route at that point. so there have been

a few moments where american presidents have been able to and i think bush as well as why doesn't by and do that. i don't know, i to be perfectly honest. i, as i've said a number of times before, i think president biden and secretary blinking are stuck with a sort of old image of israel. i do think they're also worried about the political ramifications here. but as i said before, they're going to be hurt either way. they're concerned by the way, with, as not so much that you know, public opinion will shift, although it is shifting a i think now the majority of americans in poles are unhappy with how israel is treating this by hit. the big worry for biden's is not only error of american voters in a few key states, but also the left wing of the democratic party. is it going to vote for trump, but they may stay home? they'll simply not turn out in the numbers that bite and it's going to need. they're not going to help the campaign and the numbers that bite and would like to

see. i think their hope is that you'll eventually get a cease fire before the election. you can start trying to essentially spin this as a tragedy, but we're now moving forward and it won't be front and center in the minds of many voters. i hope they are right and have, i'd like to see a ceasefire immediately. but whether or not that actually happens, i'd be permitted to be seen, and i'm not actually all that optimistic as this even walter, i'll stop you. the more from the harvard kennedy school divisor of engine natural affairs. after this break, the, the, the renters are doing this, but it's a bit of

a cover letter such a little, but that to me and i know to even look me up at all, hope all of the more school. good news, that's a good i know where you liked it. that was the issue and then i'm leave her or to bridge the simple data slice to be able to do it for us to be on the right in and go into the best of choices the welcome back to going on the right. i'm still here with professor of international affairs at the harvard kennedy schools, steven weld professor at the end of 51. we were talking about, i buy them. i went to spend the genocide. i don't know when all the women and children have been killed. but one thing is for sure, russia and china, it'd be in lock step at the un security council opposing the united states and

britain and france policy on in the middle east. and of course, roger and china have been working together on the proxy war in ukraine. why have you insisted on calling it provokes, in a sense, in your work on ukraine rather than unprovoked, which is a loudly shouted out almost by john lists on so called mainstream media in your country and the nato countries as it gets. so i think very much that the testing of what you mean by provoked when i say the war was provoked. i mean, that the united states and nato took actions, which drove russia to ultimately decide to invade, beginning 1st in 2014. of course, the seizure of crimea den full scale war in $22022.00. to say that the united states took action as the health cause that does not justify what russian did, what russia has done is illegal. it's a violation of international the same thing about the cost of a,

presumably in the i think it's the 25th anniversary of you just about is destruct construction. that's right. and do night states invading iraq in 2003. it was a violation of internet for the law, so i'm not defending rest his actions. i'm trying to explain russia's actions, and they regarded the american attempt along with nato to gradually incorporate ukraine into the western security order. ultimately, leading to nato membership as an ex essential threat, we can argue about whether or not they should have seen it that way. but the point is they did, and they made that clear from 2008 ford. and we continued on this path, even when they threatened to do something about it militarily, we did not take those threats sufficiently seriously. and that again, does not justify what good is done. it certainly does not justified the way the weight's, the war. the attacks on civilians of what have probably war crimes. eventually none of that is justified by the fact that american policy helped bring this about. and

unfortunately we did this and the victims, the primary victims of our diplomatic and strategic mistakes and rushes, legal invasion are ukrainians who are so the, to the last ukrainian as many in the global south of observed. why is it? is this opinion that you're coming out with and of course rush, it denies any will crime does as we went into say, well, the defect a genocide of russians because it needs a new grain. is your opinion and your perspective being a little pervasive now in washington, and then it was say in 2022 as well as is often the case where the war breaks out. it's difficult to have a rational conversation about it. and i think there was, people were so quick to water blame moscow for everything pin is entirely on vladimir putin and rally as much public support video. crazy is as possible to, to even try to point out that western actions played a role in creating the situation. it was very difficult, politically,

i think now because there's so much evidence to support that position that we unwittingly, unintentionally helped create this for now. people are willing to acknowledge it and more over as we're reaching a point where people begin to understand that ukraine is probably not going to win her grow it victory here. and it's almost certainly going to end up losing territory when there is a final piece. agree with the settlement. that's i think encouraging people to go back and ask the question, well, how exactly did we get here? how might we have avoided this? was there a diplomatic solution either before the war broke out, or in the 1st few months of the war that might have avoided all the suffering that has occurred since then it's, it's all come to like it. and so by blinking then, new uh, new to the table, sullivan seemed to be talking more about keynesian militarism. ok to the u. s. electorate. forget about the ukraine. forget about all the mass killing that

needing to have happened. i think about the great money being recycled, that we say is going to ukraine, but we'll improve the lives of ordinary americans. as that surprise you usually proxy was whether it would be central america or latin america. they wouldn't be too. so openly about the fact they would be profitable. yeah. well, you to the former secretary state many years ago, dean acheson once said that advocacy must be clearer than the truth. right. and i think what's happened here is uh the administrators and very much wants to get the $60000000000.00 of additional support for ukraine approved by congress. so they will pull out every conceivable argument they can think of that like, went over some congressional support, maintain public support for it. i don't think they're doing this because they want ukraine to bleed russia forever. you fighting to the last ukranian? i think they also recognize that you credit is not going to be able to liberate all

of its loss territory was military force. i think what they're hoping to do is keep the ukraine in the fight and improve its bargaining position. and if biden is re elected then, and the 2nd term they will actually be getting, pushing much harder for a cease fire, the air and armistice and interventional piece agree. that's not going to be difficult, or that's not gonna be easy for them to do. but i think there's a certain sense of realism as to where this one is headed. they just wanna make sure that ukraine doesn't collapse between now and then to get a worse and worse as it is. and of course, so yeah, donald trump said, uh he would, uh, and it ended tomorrow. what are you making all of the fact that certainly in the global south let alone in moscow, people are drawing links. nothing has been fully established with yet between isis cables and to see which has previously been associated with these us intelligence agencies and ukraine. and the proxy war itself uh,

let alone uh, uh, us policy visa be, is list since syria are in the like. yeah, i tend to be relatively skeptical when people draw a very elaborate connections between a variety of separate phenomena. and i think one can are, you wouldn't have during 911. that was pretty good. the $911.00 was pretty complicated was no, but it wasn't a no, it wasn't a complicated plot in the sense that involves all sorts of mysterious parties. well, it really involved the history of us foreign policy in you get to the how the actually uh the loan uh the majority and, and that kind of stuff. yeah. oh, in any case i think like and have a parsimony is explanation of the terror attack in moscow which planes it on isis k, which has its own reasons for going after moscow given the relationship between moscow and it's muslim population since some of the actions russia is taken in the

past and i don't think one has to drag into ukrainians or necessarily drag in the united states of america as though we had something to do with this. we did in the sense that our actions in the middle east, in past decades created the conditions in which groups like isis k emerge. that in that sense, we have a certain historic responsibility here. but i would need to see some really a convincing evidence before i think the united states was somehow involved in trying to arrange that or even that the ukrainians were involved in trying to arrange it. do you think the $60000000.00 is going to be sent to the landscape? how hard is it going to be for bite? and i mean the supposed to be elections in ukraine in may. you? so that is because band, the church opposition bodies because it means going to ban elections that are due in may. it's gonna be difficult to sell that to the american public. i don't think the american public euro paid that much close attention to be honest. i think they're looking at the very big picture. how is ukraine doing?

i believe, although i can't prove it, i believe that the money will eventually be approved. because at the end of the day, republicans in congress would like to pin what's happening in ukraine on the bite and administration. and they don't want to get blamed if between now and the election. ukraine loses a lot more territory, you credit and begins to collapse militarily, et cetera. they want this all on jo biden's desk because they understand it's not going to be looked like a big success story. and so approving the aid is their way of saying, okay, we're letting you run this and then we're going to attack you for how badly it's going come to fall in the election. and of course, that will be a big part of the drums of pitch as well, but he doesn't want to give by them the obvious counter to say, well, i would have been doing just fine. if the republicans in congress, it just supported this. that's why i think the 8 will go through. i don't think it will alter the, the, you know,

the situation on the battlefield in any kind of decisive way. it will help ukraine didn't the game. it will not allow them to reverse their fortunes. and all the time west, in your opinion, i'll make decline shocks that the 60000000000 isn't being the sense. do you think people are less than your generally get the feeling they being use over this proxy war as a passions for it wayne in the state department and the wife has? yeah, i don't think that they are feeling used about this. i think there are considerable concerns in europe about what the future american commitment to european security is going to be. europeans have been a custom for decades to thinking of the united states as the 1st responder when it came to european security. if there was a problem, washington would take care of it. i think it's in america is long term interest for european countries to take much greater responsibility for their own security. and

we're seeing a molding like from start as a you know, that no, uh, uh, the, uh, uh, even a broken clock is right twice a day. um, yeah, but in any case, um, the, this process of europeans taking on more responsibility should be done in a sort of cop cooperative, gradual way, not under the pressure of an ongoing war. i'll put that in any case. your question was either europeans be feeling use i don't think that's the case. i think your parents may be feeling somewhat uncertain about how they're going to provide for themselves. if the united states is not as focused on european security as it has been for the past 50 years, and the media reports in western european media that russia will then take over poland to evade that in a france my crew. and i just say what, why is it where is this barrier coming from? i think it's coming from an attempt to inflate a set of dangers in order to galvanize

a european public response. and in some cases to persuade americans to, to, to do even more. but this idea that the russian army is going to finish the job in ukraine a rest for a couple of weeks. and then start going after the rest of europe, i think is completely absurd. the, your 1st of all, the russian army has suffered a lot. they've experienced lots of losses in ukraine that will take a long time to rebuild. and 2nd, even with us, sort of 3 to one advantage in manpower and artillery and things like that. they're having a very tough time. i don't think they want to learn fans the bracket ology. it's also like that's also true. so this idea that if pollutant is not stopped in ukraine and doesn't suffer a massive defeat, that he is going to launch some blitzkrieg western europe. i think it's fair that is a fantasy. i just very briefly, i didn't actually in britain this week, they think china is evading, written just very briefly though we shouldn't expect any. i'm actually blacks. one

events has been in the news recently. any use of the intentions were there on, in an election year by the state department of white joe biden. i certainly hope not. i mean, one of the interesting phenomena since the cause of war began, is the fact that both the united states senate, ron have tried to signal to each other in various ways. but they don't want this to turn into a big or middle explore. and they certainly don't want it to lead to a direct clash of arms between iran and the united states. i think that makes very good sense for, from washington's perspective. it also makes very good sense from terrence perspective. and so i'm hopeful that cooler heads will continue to prevail on that front, even if there are problems elsewhere in the region that are deeply troubling, provides us even. well, thank you. nice talking to the, the handouts of the show all continued condolences to those bree by u a. k u. s. u on boeing in palestine and lebanon, yemen,

syria and iraq will be back on monday with professor going finkelstein walter of the holocaust industry and gaza. an inquest into his mazda them until they keep in touch. why will that social media, if it's so expensive, in your country, and i draw a channel going on the ground, cl normal dot com, to its new and old episodes of going underground. see monday, the

the, [000:00:00;00] the 5 people are reportedly killed during an a delivery effort and gals. this coming as the as really pm sands is the top security officials to agents and pets are for negotiations with come us policy indians, their supporters worldwide commemorate so called one day the deadline. 1976 protests against b is really makes ation of how the city and phone calls for a cease fire on an end to the idea of feeling of stability,