to see were english streaming life all night. you see channel last thousands of our programs award winning documentaries and debt news reports subscribe to you dot com forward slash al jazeera english. ah, i'm kimberly allen. doha, with the top stories on al jazeera demons, warring sides of agreed to a 2 month truce, which can be extend it. the un envoy for yemen says the saudi coalition, and who the rebels will stop all offensive actions inside the country and across its borders. they've also agreed to allow fuel shipments into how they de porter and let commercial flights operate from santa saudi arabia and its allies have been fighting to support the ebony government against the who these since early 2015 the truce, which shares the possibility of renewal coincides with the start of the holy month

of ramadan, it opens the door to addressing germans urgent committee, tarion, and economy needs, and creates a general opportunity to restart yeoman's political process. these truce must be a 1st step to ending yet men's devastating walk. ukraine's deputy prime minister says an agreement has been reached with russia to set up 70 humanitarian corridors on saturday. would allow civilians to leave mary paul and by the answer by private transport in northern city of or pin near key if has been hit hard by russian strikes. and mine, con is nearer pin. i'm in a village just outside of a pin about a kilometer or so away. but even here, the russian shelling has completely destroyed many buildings that used to be a petrol station and a cafe. ah,

now residents are being allowed back in to the village just outside of at a pin. but even in that village, the houses have been destroyed. lives have been ruined. but once you get inside a paint, this kind of damage becomes completely normal. we see so much of this heavy artillery selling also rockets and missiles of landed that now the ukrainian forces on along residence to go back into a pain this still in the city trying to clear of any explosives, any booby traps. indeed, we saw de mining teams who are on the sides of the roads, looking for any explosives that may well have been left behind by russian forces. in fact, one dividing team actually told us that the russians in retreat actually hit explosives in things like laptops and in mobile phones. more than 4000000 ukrainians have fled to other countries with millions more internally displaced. safety dec reports from a facility on the stomach in border around a quarter of

a 1000000 people have come here to the trans carpathian mountain range. every one telling us it's because they feel safe as tear. it is remote, it is close to nato countries and the border. now we're in a center for the internally displaced. these are people who cannot afford to stay anywhere else. why? because the main severe was good is packed, the hotels are packed apartments are pat, and there is no where to stay. so now this center really does tell the story of the entirety of this conflict. people we've been speaking to coming from mario poll, coming from cut, keep coming from the don bass region. who hans done yet is coming from the areas around the capitol like butcher and her pin, which have been heavily attacked by russian forces. now people who don't want to leave, they're waiting to be able to go back home. one lady, we spoke to saying that her tone actually though, had been completely destroyed after 3 weeks of sheltering in a basement shelling. also we talk a lot about these efforts to evacuate to humanitarian corridors. again here we get

a sense of what that is like a another couple telling us that they left under heavy shelling and that they were terrified and other one trying 4 times to leave. and that they only manage to leave at the very last point. it is, ah tragic. what's happening here. and you can see people trying to live their daily lives, getting dressed, they need to shower here. they get a meals 2 times a day, but certainly at the moment has this war is now into it's 6th week. um and negotiations continue, but it certainly doesn't look like any one here is going to be able to go home any time soon. shall anchor is under a state of emergency after hundreds of protest is trying to storm the presidents palace. the order give security forces sweeping, paused arrest to entertain. suspects. weekend curfew has been imposed until monday was the headlines and use continues there on al jazeera and after the bottom line. ah,

i am steve clements. i have a question. is the ukraine war, the beginning of the end of globalization? let's get to the bottom line. ah, after about 70000000 people died in world war 2. the west decided that creating an interconnected world of alliances of global justice courts and trade and financial rules was the best way to prevent future wars and promote economic advancement around the world. but these days that globalization project feels as if it's on the brink of collapse, or maybe just morphing into something very different. the west is waging an open can amik war right now to punish russia. the world's 11th largest economy and a very big energy producer with huge sanctions and boycotts, basically kicking russia out of the global financial system. add to the mix. the

fact that folks in most parts of the world, including united states, are kind of ambivalent about things like the global project and the benefits of trade. the whole world is becoming more and more me 1st. so is this how globalization ends? why are some us politicians try to kick rush out of the world trade organization after washington spent 1900 years trying to get it in? and what is all this mean for ordinary people? just trying to get by today we're talking with a new monarch, a trade policy fellow at the council on foreign relations, who focuses on the world trade organization. and bruce stokes, a visiting senior fellow at the german marshall funding, former director of global economic attitudes at the pew research center, bruce and mino, thank you so much for joining me. they brought me ask you 1st. i sit and kind of look at the lingo and the terms we throw around to me. there are the whole issue a by american, which we heard in president biden's, recent state of the union address sound a lot like america 1st. and i'm just wondering what you think about that, what is the world hearing when we're talking about bio american today? well, you're right, the world, here's a protectionism. they fear this and they say,

what's the difference between the trump administration or previous administrations emphasizing by america? i think so that we have to understand that it may end up being a different thing, even though the rhetoric is the same. and that is because we are moving into an era where people are more and more worried about secure and reliable supply chains. and that will mean that we bring production closer to us, both in the united states and in europe, and in japan. ah, and not only is there a political resilience to that idea that we bring some of the production home as facia, not many jobs are going to be crated in the process. but rather that we can do more find more dependable supplies. and that will be what, by america, i think ends up meaning in reality. but even when i, when i think about this, what do we need to get right? by way of not sort of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, making sure that,

that some element of the benefits of global trade are still in place. you know, i think one of the things that people often forget is that during the pandemic supply chains were incredibly resilient, in fact, it wasn't for globalization. we would not have had the vaccines that have saved so many lives and continued to make people's lives come back to normal. this is a success story of globalization and international cooperation on, on trade and intellectual property. so i think that there is a lot of positives there that, that people are missing. and one of the things i'm talking about re shoring bringing jobs back to america. the thing is that a lot of the jobs that left, they're not coming back and a lot of them cannot come back because u. s. manufacturing is still very robust, but we're doing more with less people. we have lots of automation, so we don't really need as many people in manufacturing to get the same amount of output anymore. and so when we talk about, you know, bringing things back and making more things and america, i think in many ways we have to be careful. i don't think there's a big difference between this and the america 1st policies of president trump. in

fact, it seems like we're trying to out compete china by trying to be more like china and send as of investing a lot more in gum spending and choosing the winners and losers in our economy. and i don't think we should do that. we should trust in the things that make america great, which is openness and the competitiveness that we can thrive on. i did i quit and grew into more. i think that one of the lessons from the pandemic era was that it was the international cooperation, especially between european manufacturers and you're an american manufacturers of the vaccine. those who invented it and basically did the research and development that we should build upon. we need closer technological cooperation across borders because of the challenges we face and how difficult they are. and she's also right that are in my home town, there's a steel mill. it had 4500 workers. when i was in high school, it has 1500 workers and produces more steel. to the extent that any of that steel production is coming back to the us,

it's not going to create jobs. and that's what people here when they hear by america. when you look at joe biden, joe biden has not come back and has not been the guy to make trade great again. when you kind of look at the trump policies on tear of steel, aluminum chinese import shoes, lumber ah, blocked appointments in the w t o appellate body. joe biden hasn't changed the game on any of these yard. i would venture and that's yeah, i mean, they basically it took a year, so we don't want to give him too much credit. but they've reduced the tariffs on steel and aluminum with european selected out with a japanese right. and tried to tailor them so that they will favor low carbon steel, which is in line with the climate policies that are needed. right? ah, but i agree with you that, that some of the major shortcomings. and i, you know, i think that addresses even more directly, i remember talking to biden people before the, you know, your issue. and they said their, their w t o priority, their tre priority was to fix the w t. o. it's been more than

a year. there's no evidence of that whatsoever. and the w cio is as broken now as it was under trump. i with that bringing when you think about the focus that button had on the campaign trail where he said we are going to move away from the trump error trade policy. we are going to find a way to revitalize america's place in the global trading system. and more so internationally, and we haven't really seen that, you know, we've seen sort of inching towards things, the lack of critical appointments to certain positions. we just got a w 2 and basset or a week ago. so it doesn't really tell me that they're very serious about making this a top priority. and i wonder how we're going to get back to a point where the west can lead again in that institution. and other one, i mean, my guess is we won't in this, the 1st term of, of, if there are to term by administration. and if there's not him to term by an illustration, maybe not at all because remember, obama did not want to touch trade with a 10 foot pole in his 1st administration. it was only in the 2nd administration,

they dove in to t p. p. and to the translating trade and keep hip. so i think that, that we can't expect much on up on a positive agenda on trade from the buy administration because of the political problems that would create in the democratic party and, and with the public at large. you know, i know that you wrote recently and your role at the council formulations you wrote about. we do need to sanction russia for it's bad behavior right now. but we need to be careful that you can go too far and send the signal that if you are pushed out of the club permanently without a way back, that that really not only creates great hardship on those that are victims in russia also trouble. but it sends a signal that, that globalization project is done, that it didn't work, that we didn't, you know, become like each other in that because we were trading in my, getting that right. absolutely. and you know, i think one thing to keep in mind with the sanctions themselves,

why they've been effective. it's because we've had cooperation from our allies. the united states cannot impose these unilaterally and succeed in achieving whatever it wants to do with these sanctions. get competent to do what they want him to do to, to step back from ukraine and when we think about what sanctions didn't work well, so far, we haven't seen them work. he's still fighting crane. i worry about the situation with, with, with sanctions where vladimir putin, city just fine. leaders are always city just fine, but the populations are hit hard and the bitterness that comes out of the hardship, the deaths that come out of this kind of moment. while there's been a lot of economic devastation that we've seen so far in russia that's being felt not just by certain oligarchs in the system, but also by the general population. over $400.00 companies have either left permanently or temporarily. so there's a lot of business that's happening in russia right now. so i think that there can be long term consequences, but we have to be clear about what are the off from. and i think for there to be an

effective sanctions regime, the government needs to explain what the need to do in order to have sanctions are moved. well, we have said in the united states, i think anthony blank and the secretary of state was clear that withdrawal needs to happen and it and it has to be clear evidence of permanent withdraw. but do you think that what anthony blinking is called for is too high a bar? i think there needs to be a clear progressive step down from the escalation of the sanctions. and there has to be a way to give sort of an off ramp to get to negotiating table. and then we can start sort of moving more sanctions off of russia. so i think that there has to be some sort of incentive to get them to talk. and that hasn't really happened yet. it's steve, i think the real the not the only danger, but one of the major future potential dangers of sanctions is if we develop evidence that china is actually helping russia through its troubles. and that

triggers secondary sanctions against the chinese. then the threat of sanctions to go the globalization project, it seems to me grow dramatically because china is not behind. it is not a trivial economy, not a trivial economy. we are deeply, they are deeply engaged in a world economy. the european trade board with the chinese been, we do, and that they would affect our relationship with europe. again, i don't know what we do if the chinese begin to help the russians, which as far as we know, they aren't right now. if we allowed them to do that without any consequences that are set current sections are actually would be even less effective fair to china for the moment. they have said that they do not support the invasion of ukraine and they have problems with that. yes, they have not outright condemned russia, but they've made clear that they, they do do, do not support what russia and they have, you know, they have their own equities to defend right here. i mean,

they would have to retaliate against us if we were, if we began to get post secondary sanctions on them, which would have grave implications for employment in china. because yeah, they can shut down the volkswagen factories or the toyota factories to show us that they are power. but that means chinese workers are out of out of our work. so i, it could get very messy if we end up doing secondary. so, i mean, i am chris smith, thank you and i've been talking for a long, long time about the politics of trade. is this not just the fact that trade creates great wealth in the world? but, you know, over the years you and i have seen both parties, the republican party and the democratic party, and i safe walk away from any ownership on trade. like both one, i mean, the republican party, even during george w bush, you know, his best friends were baseball, franchise owners and old oil guys and trade was not high on the platform as it was during the bill clinton administration, where there was a lot of embrace of trade in what it meant to the multi and i,

and i think the issue will be in, i think clinton was the last president. and maybe even the 1st president who fully embraced globalization and believe the globalization was the future. and remember, he would campaign and say, i can't protect you from this, but i will stand with you and will work out that will work through this together. then that administration did very little to help the people who were inequality roof. exactly. i think that that people felt and your characterization of the, of the republicans than democrats both walking away from this issue. even while the public itself has actually become in principle, more supportive of trade. the poll, every poll shows that, that support for trade as a generalized principle, has grown over the last 20 years in the united states. now if you ask more specific questions, this trade create jobs? no, there's trade lower wages or res wagers oh, at lower wages. does trade lower prices and remember, this is what economists tell us,

is the reason you trade is it because it lowers prices? american studies believe that so there is a, an issue here with what people perceive as the consequences of trade, even though they accept the idea, the trade is probably good for the country get there. but let me ask you both something that is boggling my mind. if you look at president biden's support right now it is according to an nbc poll, plummeted to about 40 percent. now most when you would kind of consider this award time moment in a way or near board time moment, usually presidential support goes up. it's around 40 percent, according to some people. if you look at this poll onto americans, i have confidence in biden's ability to respond to ukraine war they say those that stink, that he does have a competency to deal with it. a great deal or quite a bit around 20 percent. that that's nothing. i mean there's, you know, there's no bounce from this. this ism of biden's ability. it's, it's 71 percent. if you look at the categories,

if you look at the americans approve of bad gas from russia, they approve 70 percent approved ban and gas from russia. but if you talk to them about rising gas prices in this country, they're against that. you said a lot of, you know, different contradictions in what americans feel right now, but it just raises this interesting point of whether or not biden is making a mistake of just playing along with this game and recognizing, hey, you know, walk it, shouldn't he be the person who comes, we need to make the new case for global trust. we need to take our allies not only and trying them together militarily, we need to restore and build on trade, and we need to show americans that trade can be a positive for them. not a negative, articulate that, build that and deliver that. i in this moment of great doubt and skepticism. i'm just wondering why they don't do that. bruce, my senses and, you know, i'm not advising the president. and if i were, maybe i'd be, you know, be, have a different line. i think that history suggests that the political people

around any president, abram trump, around a bad, that it's very difficult if not impossible, to sell trade as an issue to the american public. now biden did sell the idea that i can bring us together with our allies, our former allies, i can, i can rebuild trust in the united states. and i think that that's what he will try to do without getting very specific about trade. now the reality is, the poll shows that republican sink the trust in the united states has gone down around the world rather than up under biden, which of course, the poll show is actually not the case. pull international poll shows that the international publics are so happy that joe, by his precedence, had anybody but trouble be good. ah, but it's not, it's, he can't even make, he can't even overcome the partisan divisions on this issue within the united states. would you say that even after afghanistan and the withdraw?

i'm sure i wouldn't wanna, i'd have to think about this, but i, i think that afghanistan made that worse. i mean, let's face it at the, the handling of half janice again, crisis was a fiasco. so, you know, one of the reasons i was so excited to have you on the show to day is you are of the next generation from, from, from bruce to myself. you're very thoughtful on trade and economic issues. and i like to ask you the same thing is, hasn't the deterioration and support for globalization gone to such a point that it needs a correction? and that we need a different articulation of what the benefits are, particularly in a world where we are importing shoes and you know, oils and you know, lithium and all of the kinds of stuff that we need. and there's certainly a case that we often talk about, that we're also living in a digital world where a i matters technology matters. what's in people's brains matters. and, and i'm just interested in how you think that case can be made if you believe in it, that we should not be ending, that flow of,

of trade and, and flow of contact and that flow of connectedness. i mean, i think there are many ways to get back to that conversation of us engagement in the global trading system to be a leader in that system. part of it starts here at home though, and i think there's been a really big failure of leadership to articulate what the benefits of trade are and the costs of protectionism. and we really haven't seen that over a success of presidents and even been the worst. well, president trump was, it was quite local, i would say more than any other president, but others have hinted at it, but just put other language on top of it and made a little rows. are there any heroes in trade? in the, in the, in the agenda there, i hate to just call it trade because it's really is really bigger than that. but for this globalization, are there any heroes of globalization on the scene right now? i think we're, we're lacking a lot of heroes and globalization, but president biden could be that hero. i mean, we look back to when he was vice president, he was out there selling the trans pacific partnership agreement with president

trump called the worst deal ever negotiated right. and you had vice president biden saying that this was going to open us markets to asia. it was going to help us counter arising, china, it was gonna make the united states a big global leader on the asia pacific stage. and now we see him sort of backing away from that and not pushing for any new trade deals. in fact, his trade minister basically said that trade agreements are a 20th century tube of her policy. it's not a 21st century tool. so what are we supposed to be doing then? you know, they, they really need to articulate what it is. and i think part of the issue is in his own party. he needs to appeal to the progressives and explain to them my trade is beneficial. in fact, we want to deal with climate change, for example, which i think the democrats really care about. we need trade to deal with climate change as well. you know, there are high tariffs on solar products on wind mobiles, like every thing that we would want to import to make americans, i be able to purchase the goods that make them have a greener life. they can't really do that as so easily right now. so there are

things that he could do to intervene, and i think he should take that opportunity in like our quarter have you as a, as a member of a different generation. the 2 of us, your generation grew up where globalization was a factor of life. i grew up at a time when trade was a much smaller portion of the, of the overall judy p. the rest of the world was flat on its back in the united states. was world world, economically. do you, do you think that your generation may not be as vocal about globalization? simply because they take it for granted? and i think that's a great question. and globalization has touched our lives from the very beginning. you know, we all grew up with our i phones in the internet and i think that, you know, maybe current politicians have not, i don't remember that. and, and so i think there is that divide. but the same time, you know, my connection is not the one in power right now. they're not the ones that are out

there putting for and protection is rhetoric. i think when you talk to young people, they understand their lives or touched every day by train. and when i taught classes on train, i saw my students explain this to me as well and saying like, you know, i go home and i look and see within my dorm, and i can tell you that there's nothing that's laid in america on the label. and i realize that in order to afford things, i need to be able to buy things from abroad. so i think that people realize it is just that that generation of younger leaders has to. so make their way up and articulate that it will. let me ask you this question. how close are we to collapse of that global, the globalization project? how close are we to, to, with the disregard with, with the taking it for granted with the lack of enthusiasm in both political parties. you know, how close we did this whole thing collapsing, bruce? well, i think the globalization, we anticipated at one point, stay with the creation of the w t. o and what that would all bring in. it's not going to happen. i think we're going to see a world that is more divided between blocks economic blocks. china being one,

you can either block the west, hopefully europe and the united states, together with japan and the other block. because if, if we're separated, that it's, the globalization really has broken apart. but i think the, the challenge will be, how do you maintain some of the benefits of globalization in a world we're going to have probably economic blocks just real quick. do you, do you see us having the competency to do that? i'm very worried about that. i think that i think we don't necessarily have the leadership or the creativity and it's not at all clear that we and the europeans and the japanese can agree enough on what needs to be done. you know, i think that globalization, as we know it is forever changed and that's been changing slowly over the course of the last few decades. i and there really is a lack of enthusiasm to get behind the rebuilding of sort of the fractured

international order. and i think that the thing that we have to be cautious about, particularly with how we're dealing with russia right now in the sanctions regime. i is making sure that we don't do more damage to the entire international system in the process of taking out all our frustration on, on one wines that we need to resolve. but we need to resolve it in many different ways. and so there is talk of removing russia from the world trade organization, for example. and i think that be a really dangerous thing to do at the end of the day because it's saying that we can just kick out a country when we disagree with them over something to deal with national security . but i could see potentially, that being may be used against china at some point for another national security concern may be vaguely defined. so we have to be really cautious here. what are the rules that undergird the system? how do we preserve them? and how do we realize that we can change things that don't work so well, but we need to get back to the negotiating table and figure out what it is we want to fix and go about doing the hard work of fixing up this globalization. our cart work, i think globalization alucard does not work. we need

a rules based training system that everybody abides by a level playing field. and that's what's going to make everyone much more competitive and prosperous. fascinating conversation. i want to thank council council on foreign relations fellow, you know, monarch and german marshal fun fellow, bruce stokes. thank you so much for your candid boss today and joining us. thank you you. so what's the bottom line? free trade was supposed to create well for both sides of the equation, but let's face it while great, well has been created both in poor countries and rich countries. it's been concentrated in the hands of a few. these days the west has sanctions on countless countries and individuals around the world. and the list just gets longer and longer every day at a historic rate and scale. whichever way you look at it, the global trading order is in real big trouble. whether the world trade organization survives or not, if folks around the world really start to feel like winners rather than losers, people might support the global trade game. otherwise, everything that washington set up 80 years ago goes up in smoke. and that's the

bottom line. ah, lou, a a with

wherever you go in the world, warmer line goes to make it for you. exceptional cut. all right, we're going places to pick up a kimberly allen dough. with the top stories on al jazeera demons, war insides of agreed to a 2 month true switch can be extended. un envoy for yemen, says the saudi coalition, and who the rebels will stop. all events of actions inside the country and across its borders. have also agreed to allow fuel shipments in 2 days to port angeles commercial flights to operate from sun up. ukraine's deputy prime minister says an agreement has been reached with russia to set up 70 monetary car doors on saturday . it will allow civilians.