on counting, the cost workers around the world are going on strike, pay is, and keeping up with the cost of living fury grows of a china 0 cobit policy. we explore its impact on the economy. taxi, you may still be able to ride in a flying camp. counting the cost on al jazeera. ah, i got you all in there with me. so robin and joe hall, reminder of all top news stories. the morality police unit that monitors women's clothing in iran is suspended operations. after months of protests, the unrest was sparked by the death of a 22 year old who had been arrested for let the violating address code. joseph jabari has moved into her on now with this latest announcement from the attorney general, it is even more unclear about how this law will be enforce and many here believe that also this latest announcement from digit judiciary is somewhat of an attempt

to try and quell the unrest that's been unfolding care over the past nearly 3 months, but many women feel that i've spoken to at least say that there's gestures much too little and very, very late. at least 2 people have died during an anti government protest in southwestern syria, demonstrators, storms, a government building and sway to and set it on fire. the angry because of rising prices and economic hardship. the respect to some of the people involved in sundays protests and we disguise the voices for their own safety. we just demand all rights to live, give us fuel and waterman, bread we're tired. as for heat and fuel is not available, we are trying to find diesel gas, but we can't find it. it is available in the free market. crazy prices. no more civilians can't afford this. no one answers,

no one listens. we just want to live. we just want to be warm and have enough water and food. we're dying here. crowds, america is capital about have marched against the rising cost of living and what they say is oppression. millions there have been experiencing sewing inflation and rising social discontent and send him a good money. this is the net up the moroccan stage needs to respected obligations and the social economic, political, and civil field. we don't want an end to the term and corruption that the american people have been suffering for years. we want to real democracy, we want freedom. we want an independent judiciary. tens of thousands of key workers in the united kingdom. on strike this month, indians, according to pay rises as $1000000.00 struggle to cope with inflation. 2000 people have fled their homes also on indonesia, java island. after the pseudo volcano erupt, it was sent more than a kilometer into the sky. secretary of state,

anthony blinkin says washington remains opposed to his railey annexations and settlements in the occupied west bank. lincoln says, prime minister elect benjamin netanyahu. the incoming government will be judged by its policies, not personalities. that's an yahoo, a sealed coalition deal with hard rights and pro settler parties after his right when coalition won the november 1st, elections can present. so rela poser is planning to go to the constitutional court to challenge a report that found he may have violated his oath of office. and independent panel investigated from pose after he failed to report the theft of at least half a $1000000.00 from his games on in 2020 it's always best when the match that affects a person personally should be discussed in the option. so that's precisely what has led to my i q to enable members of the national committee to have

a discussion on the report without my presence, without rather me being there so that they are free to express themselves as openly and thoroughly as possible without any form of fear or favor. the family of president and football, thought pele, say he's not in palliative care. he was admitted to hospital on saturday for respiratory infection will be released as soon as his condition improves. the g 2 year old has also been receiving chemotherapy as he battles, colon cancer, and england have reached the quarter finals of the sci fi world continent by kyle soccer, sold one of the goals and a premium victory of african champions synagogue. england will now play from the last state on today. those were headline news and half now with me, like from day hall next it's the bottom line to stay with us here on algebra.

the news? hi, i'm steve clements and i have a question. is the world looking for a whole new order with less america in it? let's get to the bottom line. ah, very soon we're going to be looking at the ukraine more in terms of years and not months, despite losses here and there on the battlefield. the way russia sees it, this is a vital war and it doesn't matter how long at last, the alternative to moscow is much worse. that would be living under the thumb of nato and the united states. and under their rules, chinese power is bursting at the seams as beijing attempts to widen its fear of influence globally. when us present joe biden and chinese presentation being met last month, they said they were looking for ways to coexist. despite their many disagreements. so tensions while they're diminished for now. but are we witnessing a major shift toward a new world order?

one that's not fully dominated by the united states? and what would that look like? today we're talking with one of america's leading foreign policy thinkers and writers. richard hosp, president of the council on foreign relations, and the former official at the white house, the state department, and the pentagon. richard, it's always an honor to talk to you, but i just want to get some straight talk from one of the smartest people in world affairs. i know, are we at the end of one chapter of american engagement in the world and the beginning of another chapter? what are your thoughts? short answers, yes. in par for reasons that are not directly about america, but simply about the world. there's 2 things that are going on that delineate this moment. steve. one is the re emergence of intense, great power rivalry, many thought that had been put to bed with the end of the cold war. now, the united states science itself, dealing with, with russia, with china, and with 2 hostile, medium powers, north korea, and iran. and then secondly,

we live in an age that before the centuries out, could ultimately come to be defined by these global challenges. we're just at the, hopefully the tail end of infectious disease and that by climate change, obviously it is happening and is going to happen with ever greater effects as this century unfolds. and then thirdly, there are things that are about us. we changed one to many ways as a country, as a society, there is no longer a consensus about american foreign policy. indeed. is that a consensus about anything really anymore in the united states were far more divided than we ever were certainly in modern times. so what i think defines the 0 there's this combination of these 2 global changes geopolitical and. busy global challenges, and then all against the backdrop of the united states, and at the risk of sounding boastful. we're not just any other country. we've

played an outside role in the world. i would like to think for better others. they disagree. but i would say for better, but in any case, we played an outside role outsized role for 3 quarters of the century. and i'm not sure we're prepared to do it with the scale or consistency that we've done it now for 75 years. you know, i was recently at a veteran's day parade in a, in a small town and american for our global viewer is veterans days. a big deal here. you often have that ins who fought in wars in america's wars in the past. and i was looking at those veterans from the korean war for world war 2. and they're not going to be many of them around there, not many around anymore. and it just, when you talk about america being that sculptor of the world and being deeply engaged and there being a sense that our being involved not only helped others, but it helped the united states as well. are we going through a generational phase where there's now no, you know, just not much memory of the benefits of being globally engaged in is that's what

going on that younger generations. just don't understand how vile it is to be engaged in global affairs. to some extent, that's true. i mean, think about it, even though that's something like the war and ukraine is a long ways away. it doesn't affect the daily lives of americans. in some ways, you know, bless, things to affect us in the way of foreign policy directly was 911. that's more than 2 decades ago. and now, and the wars in places like afghanistan and iraq, as costly as they were, were fought by an all volunteer force. so large elements of this society didn't necessarily feel indirectly. and throughout all of this domestic life went on pretty much unchanged. i also add to this, steve, is the reality that we don't teach these issues in schools. you can graduate from the harvard or yells or stanford's, and essentially be, i'll use a harsh word, you're illiterate,

uninformed about much of what goes on in the world. are news media doesn't cover it nearly as thoroughly as it did when you and i were growing up back in the dark ages and you had all the saw. and i think you have a, an american citizen rate, which is less aware of what is going on in the world and less understanding of the, to a connections between how the world affects just in how we insure the world. you've been at the helm of the accounts on foreign relations for 20 years, and perhaps this is an unfair question. but you know, nearly everybody that matters in foreign affairs, not only in the latest generation, but previous ones. and i guess one of the things i've been wondering is, do we have richard holbrooke around? do we have dean after since around do we have, you know, kissinger's and others, you know, that were folks that you knew well and seem to be aware that the institutional global contract that america was making through engagement in the world that we had people that could sculpt that, and i'm just interested in

a candid assessment on whether that kind of crowd still exists, not only in the biden administration, but just generally in the foreign affairs world. modify your question a little bit. people like can reach this journey, not just in there. you know, once every 50 years, launch century kind of individuals quite, quite extraordinary. george marshall might be another one, i think with it's now the less that we, we don't have remarkable individuals, recent perfectly capable individuals, either in government or who could come into government. i'm not sure that the best people are attracted as much to government as they used to be. we denigrated public service. i also think you can, it can be more difficult to mobilize the american people in circles back to the conversation we were just having. i think earlier, people like the atchison's or the kissinger's, they didn't have to rally the american people quite as much around the proposition that the world matters. i think now you've got

a much stronger sense that or whatever it is we do in the war, comes at the expense of what we ought to be doing here at home. i don't think, i don't think a lot of people. busy into it that national security is really a 2 sided coin with things international and things to the best. so i think the challenge of leading has become more difficult and i think that goes beyond the character traits or the challenge of this or that individual. you know, we're now seeing after the mid term elections, the united states, things are rubbing up for the 2020 for presidential election. we know president trump has thrown his hat back in the ring or a lot of other republicans it look like they're going to potentially challenge him for that. but i think the big question is, is whether or not your gut feeling tells you that one of the lit mis tests is going to be whether isolationism is on the ticket again. and i don't, i'm try not to be crude about the word isolation and it's very hard for the united states to withdraw from all the trappings of engagement. but there is a kind of drift where you stop caring about the world as much and you start making

decisions. well, we've got to help something on our locality as opposed to key of because of trade off there. and i'm just interested in whether or not you fear a creeping isolationism in american politics. well, i see, and i see them both parties are you see it with the progressives on the left. you see it with us. the extreme right of the, of the republican party. it's not clear to me though that in either party, people of that philosophy or orientation i hold the preponderance of power. so it's quite possible. busy 2024. we're going to have people who are more representative of the moderate more ordered the spectrum representing more continuity and change. look, i can't say doubt with a 100 percent confidence. one of the lessons i've learned of the over the last few years. i can't say anything with a 100 percent confidence anymore, but i wouldn't assume any time soon that the neo isolationists are people who have

what you might call a narrower, pinched view of america's relationship with the world. i don't think there yet. got there yet dominant in our politics. you know, one of the big questions going on right now is the ukraine war am. and obviously i've read your use and ukraine also read them on afghanistan in which you know the hope in washington dc. anyway, was it afghan forces would be resilient and would hold longer, turned out not to be the case. the general assessment of presidents alliance given in ukraine as it would fall fast. and i guess part of this is, you know, whether or not we're reading that the terrain quickly and, and how for our viewers, what is ukraine mean for the united states in for western powers right now, is this a defining challenge, or is it something that can you know that we could walk away from i don't see us walking away from it. i do think it's defining. i think it's been the defining foreign policy challenge of the by present j. i would add that i think the

president by that his team of met it quite well. most of what they've done, i think deserves flawed. it deserves applause. and i don't see us walking away from it. there's a majority in both parties that will support this. the standing up late russian aggression and brutality that's possible down the road there can and will be some differences over the scale of american health or over this or that piece proposal. but the lion's share of all those americans who are focused on this war, i think, are very much behind the direction of this president, which is an alliance 1st leaning forward approach that wasn't the case of dennis than i would just say there wasn't so supportive of what we did, and i would say, i actually think we might have been more resilient by the united states. been willing to stay even a relatively small numbers. the president decided otherwise we left. but i think

for your viewers it's, it's wrong to read into afghanistan a somehow a model we're templates through all american foreign policy. this president and several people around them had very strong views. that f danesh, that was not a place for the united states to continue investing. but i think he's made it clear that he is willing to invest in ukraine. and he is willing to invest in taiwan and pushing back against china. richard, you once had a job that i've told people would be my favorite job in government if it were to be offered. it never has been folks, which is the policy planning director at the state department, which, you know, the, you know, very well known. george kennan was held. he wrote famous article on what mr. x would do under the name mister x, about soviet containment. you wrote very bo, with papers bold ideas from, from that seat. and i'm just sort of interested that if you were to kind of take

your council on foreign relations, half off, go back into thinking in big ways of state department memos, et cetera. what would be some of the ideas that you think would be worth considering about kind of keeping america in the game or some of the tradeoffs perhaps with china. i'm interested in that kind of mr. x article today is applied to today, and what ought to be on the radar screens of people who do care about, you know, the stability and course of american engagement in the world. with russia and china, we can't do whatever it is we want to do unilaterally. so i would have an alliance . first approach that we deal with diplomacy would deal with military contingency planning. also economic contingency planning, i think we need to put into place potential sanctions against china. not that i want to trigger them, but i was trying to know than any use of force against taiwan would be extraordinarily costly for it. i think we need to build coalition to what i would

call steve the light minded. we're never going to deal with global problems effectively if we think of multilateralism as resembling the un general assembly. we just had the 27th failure of global attempts to deal with with climate change. it's not going to change with the 28th or 29th or 30th. what we need to do is get smaller groupings of countries that are prepared to work together, perhaps with companies, perhaps with other organizations to, to deal with these global challenges. i would also spend more time speaking to americans, going back to our conversation about why the world matters. why what it is we spend an invest in the world is not a form of philanthropy, but it's a form of self interest. i think we have to draw those connections. so there's lots i would do, i'd say one other thing. i would also introduce a degree of modesty. i don't think the purpose of american foreign policy can or should be to transform the world. don't get me wrong. i would love to see more

people around the world in russia, in china, in north korea, in iran, living in democracy. maybe they will get there. but if they get there, they're going to get there largely on through their own devices, on their own feet. it's not going to be because the united states, as a foreign policy or promoting democratic transformations using force as we did in iraq and afghanistan. so i think we need to have a degree of modesty. the principal focus of our foreign policy should be on the foreign policies of others. that's where i think we can have the greatest the back . we can stand up and should stand up for greater freedom in places like around and we should help those people where and how we can with what tools are, are relevant. but again, the 1st order of american bar policy needs to be, to shape the external behavior of other countries around the world. how do you do? you just mentioned iran, but also china and right now we see in china, you know, considering so we almost see no domestic upheaval, but significant protests against the government. over covert policy. we've see

protest calling for an end to one party rule. it's hard to scale whether these are large or small, they're just different than what we've seen. and we see, i see a lot of american commentators saying, hey, with be with the protesters. you know, they want to be like america, and i'm like, wait, i don't see it that way. i just be interested in what council you have when you see protests in a place like china and you're sitting in washington, d. c is a policy maker. where, what are the limits of our enthusiasms or involvement in that kind of domestic situation inside china? i think we have to observe the hippocratic principle at 1st doing no har. these protests did not begin because of american foreign policy. they, they initiated because it failed chinese cobra policy because of the slowing chinese economy. cause of large scale unemployment. it's a long list and a leadership in china that

a show consolidated power. can't blame anybody else. why don't think we ought to give them targets to blame? we're not going to be able to fund the mentally all to the course. so there are largely or oper restraint where we can get information and as information is shut down, that would be helpful. i think we need to speak about our respect the defense of human rights, but ultimately the chinese are going to have to shape their own future. and we've also got to deal with them on other issues. we've got to deal with china on ukraine, on north korea and so forth. so we have to understand that we still have the obligation to conduct foreign policy, even against this backdrop. do you think that president binding teaching pings, meeting in bali on the, on the edge of the recent meeting with a constructive one? it seemed to me that tensions diminished a bit. i think so. i think both sides had a certain staking that the chinese in particular, are they needed to lower the temperature?

i think they were quite taken aback by how robust the american response was with its partners in europe to, to ukraine and to russia. i think they're, they've noticed some of the new alignments. we have in the endo, again, that the base they took, the teacher noticed they're the new export controls we. we've introduced, i think the chinese wanted to calm things out. and i think the fact that we re introduced a degree of the pharmacy we've institutionalized, some meetings, i think it is healthy, unrealistic, in my expectations. this isn't, we're not talking breakthroughs. we're not talking a new euro, but sometimes it's foreign policy. you content yourself. not so much with what you can achieve with what you can avoid. and i think the priority has to be to avoid direct chinese help or russia and ukraine and even more to avoid a war we're trying or overtime you want to tell our audience, richard hoss has authored many, many books,

and i think i read every word of all of those books, you know, along the way and they're really like conversations with people. they're not weighty in a sense that you lose your folks. you're having a conversation about the importance of foreign policy. and i think one of the themes which we were getting out a little bit in our earlier discussion, but it was also part of the national security strategy that was issued by the biden white house was that you know, the inside of america. what's going on here, the economic health of the country, the way a certain group of people are feeling demeaned by circumstances matter is because it makes it very hard to be engaged in affairs that are outside. and i'm just interested in your insights, you know, both running the council on foreign relations, but in your book tours, what resonates with americans that may not already be inclined to be globally engaged. what are the kinds of things you think that we all should be looking at in terms of, you know, changing that equation for many people who, who, who look at this is irrelevant to their lives. i think you have to connect the dots

. people in america where they have lives, they have families. and i think there is a preference of foreign policy is something that others handle. americans get most interested in foreign policy. unfortunately, one way or, and what americans are paying a price, human price for that war or economic price for that war. but i think there's many other issues they would understand. they supported the cold war even though remain called. i think there, there's obviously support to deal with terrorism abroad. i think we've got to do a better job of making the argument for, for confronting climate change. i don't think the administration did, for example, a very good job of showing the importance of vaccinating much of the world against coven 19. again, not simply because it was a good or right thing to do for them. but also because it was a smart thing to do for ourselves. again, i come back to this idea that you've got to constantly connect and not assume that

people see the payoff. she how, what happens over there doesn't stay there one way or another. it will get on the highway of globalization and come here and affect us, and i wouldn't assume that people see those connections. one other thing we should constantly point out is the cost of doing this is not prohibitive. what we now spend on defense as large as a dish is, was roughly half the level as a percentage of our gross domestic product that we spent during the cold war. and during the cold war, we showed we could succeed a foreign policy and succeed a nation building here at home. and i think we have to be prepared to make the same argument today. thank you interest real quick. finally, richard, i'm interested in the middle east as well. and one of the measures of whether america is perceived to be strong or weak is not by looking just at the rivals, but also looking at the allies. and there was a saudi opec decision, essentially to cut production. and if you go to the middle east today and ask people honestly they see russia is more ascended than the united states. what do we

have to do to turn that around? well, good luck and turning to russia, if iran gets even close to the nuclear weapons, good luck and turning to russia. if you want to see peace broken elsewhere in the middle east, russia has its hands full with this war of choice. it started in ukraine, its own society is turning against its government. it's in many ways a failed state with oil them with missiles. i don't think russia holds out much of a path or hope for the middle east. again, i'm not saying where perfect, but i still think the united states is in a unique position. the offer security and economic development, as well as the hope a greater political opportunity to the countries in peoples of the middle east. i don't think russia's a serious alternative. i also for that matter, don't think china serious alternative it to has its hansel with its own domestic inbox. one last quick one,

what would you say looking back in hindsight may have been america's biggest mistake that it made that had it taken a different course, a with russia and nato or something of that sort. we might not be in the situation we are today. i'm not sure anyone can answer that with confidence. we don't know how much of this was not reactor. what was simply mr. newton waking up and assessing this was something he could accomplish and minimal cause, given the way he viewed the united states europe. ukraine give it his assessment of his own military. so we can argue as much as anybody wants that we could have handled nato enlargement differently. but actually think this was a war of choice, invented by platinum here, based on his own rational, but in the end, flawed assessments. so i'm not sure this war could have been avoided. well, we will have to leave it there. richard hoss president of the council on foreign relations, author of many books on foreign affairs that you should all read. thank you so much for being with us today. i pleasure sleep. so what's the bottom line?

my guest today is worried about how domestic politics can undo americas global standing. it's become a lot harder for the us to have a strategic vision for the world because of extreme polarization. one party comes in and reverse is almost everything the other party just did. and countries just aren't sure how to deal with that kind of washington. on top of that, half of the american people are asking why their country is engage in the world, the 1st place when they'd rather be focusing on problems at home than abroad. so politicians continue to win votes by exploiting threats whether real or imagined and push policies that can harm america's interest. ambassador hoss worries that u. s. foreign policy can be torn down from within an he is right. and that's the bottom line. ah, the city to teams only 16 remain, asked the faithful will cup. and now as we approach the knockout round,

who has water take the battle through to the full, the final cost of 2022 on al jazeera, a has been at the forefront a progressive change in latin america. put them aside to remain high as does violence against gender and sexual minority. i come to when i read to you, young women were taken different routes to establish greater freedom inequality. welcome to generation change a global theories. the attempt understand, i'm telling you ideas that mobilize you around the world. generation change on al jazeera. oh, a

ah. ah, you want y'all just bear with me. so robin, don't remind to have all top news stories. the morality, please see that knowledge is women's clothing in the wrong, of suspended operations. after months of protests, the unrest was sparked by the death of a 22 year old to be the rest of the electrodes for violating a dress code. jewels such a bar how small from to her. now, with this latest announcement from the attorney general, it is even more unclear about how this law will be enforced and many here believe that also this latest announcement from.