the truth and reconciliation commission says guzman is responsible for most of the killing. thousands of her died in the hands of the army and police authority say the location of his ashes will remain a secret, as thousands of peruvians continue to cope with a painful part. but in the center, so just see that lima beatles. ah, it's good to have you with us. hello, adrian. so they get here in the headlines and i was a syrup. the us military has admitted a drone strike. and i've got stones capitol last month, mistakenly killed civilians instead of ice will phases. 10 people including 7 children, died of the attack in cobble top us commander, has apologized for what he called a tragic mistake. i am now convinced that as many as 10 civilians, including up to 7 children, were tragically killed in that strike. moreover,

we now assess that it is unlikely that the vehicle and those who died were associated with k or were a direct threat to us forces. i offer my profound condolences to the family and friends of those who were killed. this strike was taken in the earnest belief that it would prevent an imminent threat to our forces and the evacuees at the airport. but it was a mistake, and i offer my sincere apology as the combatant commander. i am fully responsible for the strike in his tragic outcome. frances recalling its ambassadors from the u . s. and a straight line off to what it called a stab in the back. frances angry, our trust really cancelled a multi 1000000000 dollar submarine contract to enter a military alliance with the u. s. u. k. under the new in the pacific deal, estradiol by nuclear power submarines from the us. china has flown its military jets across high ones as space on the same day a us battleship,

sailed through the taiwan strait for the 9th time this year. china called the booth provocative the rest media report say the by the ministration is planning the mass deportation of thousands of haitian migrants from watertown and texas. most of the migrants. let's take it a make shift camp on the bridge in del rio, an expert panel in the u. s. has rejected government plans to roll out cobit 19 booster shots to all americans age 16 and older. but it endorsed extra 5 bio in tech shops for people above the age of $65.00. of those at high risk of severe disease vote is not binding though. at all jerry, as longest service setting president dental as his beautifully cup aside the age of 4. 84, he stepped down more than 2 years ago, following mass protests. of those, the headlines one you see here, and i was here after inside story. next. how many nukes is too many new america has in many ways driven the arms race parties are much more like the

british parties. there are fewer regulation to own a tiger than their our own a dog. how can this be happening? we can take on us politics and, and that's the bottom line. the us this strategy and the u. k. have announced a major defense agreement in the asia pacific. many said as an attempt by the west to contain china's influence in the region that will it work and exists in echo of the cold war. this is inside story. ah, ah, ah. hello and welcome to the program. i'm emily anglin. it's a new military or lines that got reaction from around the world. china has strongly criticize the us astray alia and the u. k. after they nouns to new deal that we'll see, camera get nuclear powered submarines,

but the alliance is pushing back against badging. the us secretary of state and defense, have met a strongly and officials and accused china of making expansive and illegal maritime claims. many see the new alliance and the asia pacific as another attempt to contain china's influence in the region. by jane has accused the 3 powers of having a cold war mentality as dryly will become the 7th nation in the world to operate nuclear power submarines will bring it out. guess in a moment, but 1st rosalind jordan fall. this report from washington. the u. s. u. k and australia reportedly agreed to form a new defense alliance on the sidelines of this year's g. 7 summit in england, washington and london will help it by a fleet of nuclear powered submarines. the main reason for the alliance containing china, we spoke in detail about china as the stabilizing activities in beijing efforts to

course and intimidate other countries. contrary to establish rules and norms, we will remain clear eyed in our view, a beijing's efforts to undermine the established international order. we discussed the competition of china at a number of levels that requires us to respond and to increase resilience. this does not mean that there are not constructive areas for engagement with china straight. it continues to sake dialogue with china without pre conditions. not surprisingly, beijing condemned both the alliance and the submarine deals may war. war. we are, the leon cut her turn to the export of highly sensitive nuclear power. sibling technology by the united states and britain to australia once again proves that they are using nuclear exports as a tool of geopolitical games on adopting double standards, which is extremely irresponsible which entities in washington journalists pummeled

the ministers with questions about the security pack. is check in china's efforts worth offending it or offending long standing partners. this is about enhancing our, our cooperation, our work together, ultimately about enhancing security stability in the pacific. it is not aimed at any country. it's certainly not aimed at holding anyone back. the announcement of this new alliance could signal that the u. s. president joe biden is actively reshaping american foreign policy, bolstering new ties to deal with new threats. while telling old partners that change is not a diplomatic death knell. rosalyn jordan, for inside story. the. let's bring it out. guess now in los angeles, we have paid a matthews,

a professor of political science and international relations at cyprus college in cambra, michael, she bridge the director of the defense strategy and national security program at the strategy and strategic policy institute. and in beijing we have an italian, a china, political and economic affairs, common type, specializing in by jing gentleman, thank you so much for joining us. i'm going to start with you paid. as we heard in rosalind package, the us secretary of state says this move is an aimed at any particular country. but clearly this is in response to beijing and it's moves in the south trying to say in issues with taiwan. what's your reaction to those comments by the secretary of stage? everyone knows that there's been a tension about the south trying to see. see would be to be states in beijing, and the country's neighboring area. and this term to get australian law with nuclear power. it certainly is the 1st time is a very serious attempt to push back and balance power. so balance of power principle, the us felt that the chinese were going to far and taking care of the islands and

expanding summer in trying to control that area. and they wanted to make sure the ceiling will be left open and it's a very important seminal action. so i think we have major impact in the whole region also globally. it's going back to the balance of our principal. basically, i know from a chinese perspective, this partnership is a why to counter beijing's grow and influence in the asia pacific region a is this orcus likely to change beijing behavior at all? this is just going back to the colonial area era gunboat diploma with a little cold war for era. soviet type of sauce put on top of it. you know, the real issue here is, i wonder how, you know, the people in different countries. there are viewing this earlier and your, your piece, you talked about the u. s. representative said the china was violating the international norms and posing as well. and people, you know,

it's kind of ironic is the us and great britain talking about this after what's happened and i've got a son and in the middle east, i think as far as beijing concern that age of hypocrisy, self righteous hypocrisy. and it's not going to change the behavior, they're going to continue to do what they do and it's going to be more in trade or less in tribes in terms of trying to match up with this kind of war games mentality . i do want to get to the timing of the, of this pat shortly. but michael, what's your reaction to what i said, and does this pack make strategic sense for a strongly well, i think a lot of what we heard, it's really distraction. that's like now magic is all about nist directions. aging has been the master is saying it's everybody else's actions, not house that are causing the environment, but it's quite clear that asians coercive uses span retrain it's maritime militia.

and it's growing military power has led to this reaction and this powerful response that's creating incredible deterrents. so let's get away from distractions about is this some kind of blender makes those other soviet approach and imperialism and say it is a real hard power response to beijing use of hot power. that's what this is about and it does reset the military balance, not in beijing's favor. and i think that's why we're hearing these strange, angry reactions from beijing come on. i mean us has suddenly to nuclear power attack submarines trying to has 6 there now and listening australia at the tune of about $3400000000.00 a piece for virginia tax submarine with goodies. and that doesn't even begin to

clued what it's going to cost, and by the end of 10 years are planning to get more than a few of them. given that your military budget is about $35000000000.00 a year, you're going to be committing a tremendous amount into that. you know, this, this, this thing that somehow it's all self righteous. nonsense. i mean, what it, why would trying to close down the ceilings, get 80 percent of their oil, 40 percent. it goes through the ceilings. how would that actually work be pure suicide? so all this stuff about balancing and marbles in your mouth about, you know, this isn't, you know, this is a credible and their church is nonsense. this is an economic war. australia doesn't have a foreign policy of its own and is just relying on the u. s. which is only concur concert with being king of the hill, making sure that it has the jeremy and keeping china away. ironically, china is an interest in that a german power that everyone says that it once paid out. i'll bring you in here,

your reaction to ana. let's keep in mind that china has been very successful economically and growing this economy and reaching out to the belt road program to other countries. and this is concerning the u. s which i don't think it really should because the us should be working with china that helped develop other economy and focusing on the civilian development of human beings as opposed to just escalating a possible new cold war as well. there is a danger there still is and don't forget the us trying to have about $700000000000.00 and trade, which could be enhanced if they would. so as long as present bite and does it makes it clear. this is not just an offense. position is strictly defense, but it appears to china now the country that could be seen offensively, it's nuclear power submarines for the 1st time. in the case of australia, you'll have a country that used to do that as britain us in britain have nuclear power join submarine activity. but this is really serious answers on the situation. i think with me very careful that we don't start new cold war,

which china and make purely defensive situation. i think both sides, both the germans, the people talking a minute ago. it had both really good points from different perspectives. of course, michael, how important is it for a strongly to clarify its national interest in all of this? well, i think that's pretty clear right now, as we speak, sharing is actively by central policy direction. coercing is strategy as through tried around $20000000000.00 of annual trade as direct coercive decision making profession. and the other big problem the aging has a whilst trust globally as collapsing is this enormous gap between its words and actions. so we hear why on earth, the beijing want to constrain maritime passage through the south china sea. right at the time when the china has empowered it's heavily on coast guard to use lethal

force. where every claims jurisdiction, which is a great expense of the south china sea, and where it's now requesting information from vessels transiting us from regions that on it's so this would action gap has led to this collapse and trust. and really this strengthening of military to terrance in the region is welcomed quietly . i'm much of the region at no, i base. i know how likely is china going to use this alliance to justify expanding its own military? well i, i don't see that china is going to be putting more effort than it already is into its military budget. there could be call for me. yes, i can. i, there might be calls from the war ox to try and have budget happen. 800 juncture chance, not in return to this, but recently that is going to try to draw join the a former t p p. so i think china's response is going to be economic in terms of australia,

this idea that australia is being constrained. actually it's, it's a monetary account is better than ever due to iron or exports to china. there are other areas that have been back. and, and will gentlemen, do you have any response to what he said, this should not ask into a total new cold war or even a shooting match, which would be devastating in that part of the world if there is any kind of attempts with will taiwan, where china has already established sovereignty over territories around those areas, and they work out with hong kong, for example. then if the us intervened, militarily, australia will be obligated to get involved material because of this deal nuclear submarines. so we could get to a dangerous position. i think all 5 should keep cool. had this emily work, things had to come out as much as possible. i think the res, real room to clarify the understanding that we have a bache other because there is a tendency talking past each other here. and some of that can be

improved by a little more self reflection, i think, certainly of bashing. notice it's breaking world trade organization rules with it's towards if i can only if you are against a failure. and we've heard the motivations and things like the fact the destroyer would like to know our global panoramic started so that we can prevent future ones . so this is all public knowledge directly tries back to beijing statements and actions. and a little bit of acknowledgment of the gap between words and actions would be a starting point to dialogue. ok, let's put the politics to aside. now i want to talk to gentlemen about the nuclear power submarines themselves. and specifically, michael, i want to talk to you about some of the concerns around that. scott morrison, the prime minister said a stroller is not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons or establish a civil nuclear capability. i mean,

how dangerous is this going forward and what are some of the ramifications of establishing nuclear powered submarines way this is going to be done in partnership with the us and u. k. ensures that the us in your cable keep making their obligations around not proliferating a nuclear weapons. and it's certainly not as fairly as intent as a prime minister said to nuclear weapons. nuclear powered submarines, an extremely powerful military technology. and they do add to the deterrent power in the, in the pacific, which is a positive regional security. the safety and environmental aspects of having nuclear submarines will be carefully managed, building on his trailers capacity to have visits of nuclear war ships and

submarines already. and with the close technical corporation with us and u. k. partners. so i think the nuclear power aspects of these are entirely manageable within the framework of international obligations and will be really made effective by the powerful partnership the u. k. and us and i noticed you were shaking your head there, the chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said that to export highly sensitive nuclear powered submarine technology to a strata is extremely irresponsible, double standards. do you agree? well, i have a slightly different take. i mean, fishing is saying that they don't like this. obviously it's going to take 10 years to deliver the one of the subs. they're going to have a leader could take more. and quite frankly, during that time, i think drones will proliferate and become more sophisticated. so for the price,

so what did i say? $3400000000.00 per se. you could probably create a fleet for a couple 100000 submersible drones. i could literally wait outside harbor. she identify any passing submarine and it's not cling to them. it would be, it would be laughable. and in 10 years, quite frankly, from a technology perspective to have these behemoths wandering around the virtual dinosaurs. but the issue for china's perspective beijing perspective is a see this as a entree into a cold war as a kind of world war one scenario where the u. s. is creating packs and all the obliging itself to get it built. and the danger of yours that you said $11.00 tinder sets off a world war 3, which is what nobody wants. and i would agree with my other counterpart on that and he'd be talk, but you can't talk about saying, oh don't, we're not starting

a cold war when obviously you are peter, what's your take on what i said? and also i just want your thoughts on the fact that, you know, the, you can, you, us have previously only shed stories about their nuclear defense technology with each other. and now there's the shift. how significant is that? this is a huge step. you can say because now for the 1st time a 3rd country, australia has been sharing it to change technology. and it is, it can be seen certainly by china as being something that's dangerous for them. because china is not a strong on nuclear or anti submarine. nuclear submarine technology and in a nuclear submarine oriented will be a real problem for china. and i think this is where i think the person said that it's important to turn the tone down the rhetoric and to have not talk past each other. both sides but said talk to each other about this and then restrain themselves. you don't want to new arms rates like we had within the us and the soviet union which had to be brought under control with

a lot of effort. you don't want to have that again here, and also forget wars can start to miscalculation while war one is barbara tuchman said the story, and we start to miscalculation mis judgement. and this can happen as a tinderbox situation could arise here. so i do believe that it's important that we to make sure that both sides and the leadership and the diplomats work hard on this to ensure that this does not get out of control or spark something that we would never be able to bring back to control on that, michael, is there an expectation that if there is some sort of major conflict over taiwan or the south china say that these units would be deployed in the midst of that think does any douse really? if paging, acted to use force to try and change the status of taiwan, that america and partners and allies, including his trailer, you would become involved. and that's a matter of national interest and regional security. and i hope that's understood

in beijing. in fact, it's these kinds of scenarios that are leading to the some fortunate made to increase military deterrents. but i wanted to mention one point about the idea that firstly nuclear submarines is somehow going to be guided technology. i think that's a scenario, but there's no real evidence to show that's the case of this partnership. the failure you as you can partnership as near term capability, benefits to including in the under see domain, which is the layer of disadvantage for pricing. so in the interest of not having miscalculations, i wouldn't on aging thinking that near term additions to take a committee on happening under these topics should they will michael just on the discussion around time lines for my prime minister, kevin rod says, and i quote,

a strongly or is being left strategically naked for 20 years because some of suggesting that the submarine program may not be available until until 2040. do you agree with the sentiment that will will be left strategically naked for 20 years? no, i don't. i think the sooner these submarines content data, but as i say there will be a series of other important capability improvements. well before that time prime, including in the under siege on mine, i would be shocked not to say affective on may and under c capability shared between these important atlas. and indeed also i would expect to see them in the, on partnership. an important trial actually like us and one and of course with south korea. so there's a growing range of capabilities, the enter, the deterrent picture. now rachel, and that's well before the 1st,

the sufferings turns up on a china has told the lions to abandon its cold war mentality or risk coming its own interests. is that a direct threat? know it. i mean, they see it is a cold war. ready other, it's going to be a response. it's probably going to be in trade, but i think what it means is that try to pursue its economics more regionally, and that will have in effect, remember it's the largest market out there. australia depends on it. the u. s. needs europe, needs it, great britain needs it or that you think they did, but i mean, politics has played a role here. you know, obviously australia's the prime minister is, is reeling from this was scandal involving one of his ministers and some mysterious money that showed up for his legal funds. boris is re shuffled his cabinets biden is under attack because of the handling of the afghan war. so, and you know,

things, but there's one other aspect that i want to mention here. i mean, pores johnson made this thing about 3 english speaking nations getting together. i don't know that that's going to sit well, not only with china, but with the rest of us the on this idea that somehow english speaking people. i have a, you know, some sort of superiority and should be taking on the world and teaching. everybody smacks of colonialism and racism while we only have one minute to go off the program. so i just wanted to get some final thoughts quickly pay to your response to honor and perhaps a solution going forward. absolutely, we need to avoid that impression and i think was john to statement was not that well taken. and instead, there should be cooperation, diplomacy and a handle on not talking package i mentioned before, but talking with each other,

both sides and to ensure there's no miscalculation. and this is a very serious step forward that went and it has to be brought under control. so i would say look forward to that. well, we appreciate all of your insights in this robust discussion as always, thank you very much to our guests. we have paid matthews, michael shoe bridge and on attacking them. and thank you to for watching. you can see the program again any time by visiting our website al jazeera dot com, and for further discussion, go to our facebook page that facebook dot com forward slash i j. inside story. you can also join the conversation on twitter. handle is a inside story from main, emily angland and the entire change. the last in the people are much more than to the communities they live in. no matter how much it's

a presentation as much as anyone else is going to love the main. it's one of the most polluted part of the niger delta, and now it's people say they want a clean up all that is part of the bottom and with the media lunch. the coverage covers you just when you suffer calamities. i don't think that's right. and that is what i want them to change. i wanted to go further to cover story stuff, impact the lives of people to, to flip the stories that i was really passionate about, the stories with the government club and kick him stories stuff, drop the fixed narrative, and only depend on the reality on the thought is why i became much on this. i'm how much i book is, who's one of the well, my powerful and dangerous criminal enterprises. central to the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people. and behind the death of many more exceptional

access to some of its key players reveals the inner workings of an organization telling the name to many as the blood alliance. inside this, in a la carte house part 2 of a 2 part investigation, people and power on al jazeera. each and every one of us have got a responsibility to change our personal space for them. the we or we could do this experiment, any of us could increase in just a little bit that wouldn't be worth doing. anybody had any idea that it would become a magnet who is incredibly rasping. asking for women to get 50 percent representation in the constituent assembly here and getting this pick up to collect the segregate,

to say that this is extremely important service that they provide to the city. we need to take america to try to bring people together trying to deal with people and left behind me. you know, you can watch or english streaming live on. i do 2 channels plus thousands of our programs award winning documentaries. and you get to choose subscribe. you choose dot com, forward slash al jazeera english l g 0 recounts the shocking story of the assassination of counts full cabana dot. the 1st un envoy trying to bring peace to the middle east. how is negotiations with him? la health, save thousands of jews from nazi concentration camps and how these mediation skills

put him at the vanguard in the quest for peace in the middle east. killing the count on algebra. ah, was a mistake, and i offer my sincere apology. the us admitted killed civilians instead of i still fight this and it's last as striking off chemist on ah hello, i'm a very and this is al 0 live from also coming out. france reacts with anger the scrapping of a submarine deal with a straight.